ID: 1985-04.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Aslam Khan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 12, 1985 Mr. Aslam Khan Mutual Trading Corporation 222 West Adams Chicago, Il 60606 Dear Mr. Khan: This responds to your letter to this agency, asking how our regulations affect the importation and sale of tires in the United States. There are several applicable requirements set forth in our standards and regulations, which are discussed below. All tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. I have enclosed copies of both of these standards for your information. You will see that the standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements which must be satisfied by each tire sold in the United States. With respect to these performance requirements, you stated that the tires' manufacturers "have our approval for the DOT markings." The United States does not give "approval" for certification markings. For the purposes of our safety standards, a tire manufacturer must itself certify that its tires comply with all the requirements of the applicable safety standard. Once a tire manufacturer determines that its tires satisfy the applicable requirements, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire. For purposes of enforcement of the safety standards, this agency conducts spot checks of tires after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing the tires in accordance with the applicable standard. If the tires pass the test, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Your company would be considered the manufacturer of the tires, because you are the brand name owner and the importer. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires that fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either: (1) repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or (2) replace the tire with an identical or reasonably equivalent tire that does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy. It is a simple matter to check the tires to see that the marking requirements of the respective standards are satisfied. With respect to the tire and rim matching information, this information, together with the loading schedules for the tire size (the loading schedules show the maximum load the tire can carry at designated inflation pressures) must either be set forth in a current standardization organization publication or be furnished by the manufacturer to each of its dealers and in duplicate to this agency. You may wish to obtain a copy of the most current publication by the American standardization organization to see if your company can use the loading schedules and tire and rim matching information published therein for the particular tire sizes you wish to sell in the United States. That publication may be ordered by sending $8.50 plus postage costs to: The Tire and Rim Association, 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. If the tire sizes and corresponding rims listed in that publication for your tire sizes are satisfactory, you need take no further steps to comply with this requirement. However, if your sizes are not listed or your company believes different values should be assigned, you may consult the publications of other standardization organizations or may elect to furnish the appropriate information to this agency and to each of your dealers. I am enclosing a copy of another regulation that applies to the tires you seek to import, 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Section 574.7 of this regulation requires your company, as the brand name owner of new tires, to furnish an adequate supply of tire registration forms to dealers selling your tires. These forms are used to record the name and address of the first purchaser of each tire. The completed forms will be returned to you, or some party designated by your company. Your company is required to maintain the information on the tire registration forms for a period of not less than three years from the date on which you or some designee receive the information. Further, Part 574 requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see 574.5), including the identification mark assigned to the manufacturer. To get an identification mark, the actual manufacturer of the tires must provide the information specified in 574.6 of the regulation. A different identification mark will be assigned to each of the manufacturer's different plants. Please note that an identification mark will be assigned only to the actual manufacturer of the tires, and not to your company which only imports the tire. This is because S574.5 requires that this identification mark be molded into or onto all new tires. The only party that can mold the mark into or onto the tire is the actual manufacturer. An identification mark is normally assigned within two weeks after the receipt of such a request. However, the identification mark will not be assigned until this agency has received a valid designation of agent from the tire manufacturer, as required by 49 CFR Part 551 (copy enclosed). This regulation requires all manufacturers located outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Part 551 requires that the designation of agent contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the foreign tire manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of that manufacturer's tires that do not bear the name of the company; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign tire manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign tire manufacturer, and the agent may be an individual or a U.S. firm or corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. If you need any further information or a clarification of any of the information set forth in this letter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-04.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Daniel J. Wacek

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel J. Wacek Quality Control Supervisor Viracon, Inc. 800 Park Drive Owatonna, MN 55060

Dear Mr. Wacek:

Thank you for your letter of September 30, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the application of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, to a street sweeper.

As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 205 applies only to vehicles classified as motor vehicles by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

There are some vehicles which are excepted from this classification despite their use on the highway. Vehicles such as highway lane strippers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles which have a low maximum speed capability and whose unusual configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. Enclosed is a copy of an information sheet prepared by the agency which discusses additional factors we consider in determining whether a vehicle meets the statutory definition of "motor vehicle." In your phone conversation of October 25, 1985, with Mr. Oesch you explained that you currently do not have definite information on the configuration, speed capability and other design characteristics of the street sweeper. We cannot provide you with an answer about whether we would consider the sweeper to be a motor vehicle without that information.

I hope this background information is of assistance to you. We would be glad to provide you with a specific interpretation concerning your vehicle after we receive more information about its design characteristics. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 30, 1985 Mr. Steve Oesch Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. Southwest Washington, D C 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

We have come up with some questions recently regarding the application of safety glazing standards for motor vehicles. We are a glass fabricator and would like to know what criteria are used to determine whether ANSI Z26.1 is applicable. Specifically this came up regarding an unlicensed street sweeper.

I am looking forward to your reply.

Respectfully, Daniel J. Wacek Q.C. Supervisor DJW:si

ID: 1985-04.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas C. Bielinski, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas C. Bielinski, Esq. 33 N. Dearborn Street Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60602

Re: Bartlett v. Wards

The National Transportation Safety Board has forwarded to us for reply your letter of August 29, 1985, asking for information on standards and other regulations regarding the design and manufacture of mopeds.

This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, issues the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which all motor vehicles must meet upon manufacture and initial sale. "Moped" is not a defined vehicle category under the safety standards but the defined category of "motorcycle" covers all two-wheeled vehicles such as mopeds. These standards will be found at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571 and the applicability section of each standard (either paragraph S2 or S3) will tell you whether it applies to "motorcycles". Standards have been adopted for motorcycle brake hoses, (571.106), lighting, (571.108), mirrors (571.111), vehicle identification number (571.115 and Part 565), brake fluids (571.116), tires (571.119), rims (571.120), braking systems (571.122), controls and displays (571.123) and glazing (571.205). Manufacturers must certify compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Part 567).

You will find that sections of some of these standards impose a lesser degree of performance upon "motor-driven cycles". These are motorcycles producing 5 horsepower or less, and thus include most mopeds of which we are aware.

The individual States are not preempted from having their own standards for area of performance not covered by Federal standards (for covered areas, however, State standards must be identical), and you may also wish to examine the laws of the jurisdiction in which the moped in your case was licensed or being operated.

A manufacturer is required to file an information statement with the agency within 30 days of commencing production (Part 566). If a vehicle fails to conform to a safety standard or contains a safety related defect, its manufacturer must notify the agency, owners, and dealers, and remedy the problem (Part 573 and 577).

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 29, 1985

National Transportation Safety Board 2300 E. Devon Des Plaines, Illinois

RE: Bartlett vs. Wards

To Whom It May Concern:

Could You Please provide the undersigned with any rules, standards, or regulations concerning the design and manufacture of mopeds.

Please bill me for any costs involved.

Thanking you for your cooperation, I remain,

Very truly yours,

Thomas C. Bielinski

TCB/dm

ID: 1985-04.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Scottie Brown Jones -- comfit Designs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Ms. Jones: Thank you for your letter dated July 29, 1985 inquiring about Federal requirements applicable to children's car seat covers which you manufacture for sale as accessories to child restraint systems.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq. (the Act). Under the Act, the agency has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Paragraph S5.7 of that standard requires each material used in a child restraint system to conform to the requirements of S4 of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR Section 571.302). These flammability resistance requirements apply to new child restraint systems used in motor vehicles or aircraft. The flammability resistance requirements in Standard No. 302 must be met by aftermarket seat covers for child restraint systems only if such seat covers are installed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install a seat cover for a child restraint system which does not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

However, aftermarket seat covers which are sold to and installed by child restraint owners need not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, the agency urges all manufacturers of such seat covers to comply voluntarily with our safety standards.

A copy of Standard No. 302 is enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Scottie Brown Jones July 29, 1985 Comfit Designs 1721 S. La Rosa Dr. Tempe, AZ 85281

Mr. Steve Oesch NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC, 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Please advise as to the Federal requirements an/or regulations in regard to children's car seat covers (removable cloth covers sold in children's departments as an accessory to a car seat). I have been in contact with Shirley Barton at NHTSA (202/425-9294) who was unable to supply me with this information over the phone and suggested that I direct my inquiry in writing to you.

I have a small cottage industry. I have designed a children's car seat cover using 9 oz. terry cloth (86% cotton, 14% polyester) and gingham (35% cotton, 65% polyester) which I intend to market. This cover was originally intended to protect a child in the summer from the extremely hot plastic and vinyl used in many car seats. It fits any size toddler or infant car seat, is removable and would be purchased as a car seat accessory. Unlike covers already on the market, my design dose not use a fill and is, therefore, exempt from a bedding lisence. Other than that, it uses materials not unlike those already on the market (terry cloth and gingham). The major difference is that it covers more of the car seat than any other product presently available.

I appreciate your quick response to this inquiry. If you should have any further questions. I would be glad to answer them. I can be reached before 10:30 a.m. EDT at 602/967-1547. after that time please call 602/965-6163. Sincerely, Scottie Jones cc. Mr. Radovich

ID: 1985-04.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/85

FROM: TAKESHI TANUMA -- CHIEF OPERATING OFFICE; NISSAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: W-139-H

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/21/86 TO TAKESHI TANUMA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29 (3), PART 543

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, Nissan Research & Development, Inc., herewith requests interpretation of the term "standard equipment" with respect to the vehicle theft prevention provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information & Cost-Savings Act. Our request follows:

Sections 2025 (a) (1) & 2025 (a) (3) of the Motor Vehicle Information & Cost-Savings Act read as follows:

"(a) (1) Any manufacturer may petition the Secretary for an exemption from the application of any of the requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard under Section 2022 of this title for any line or lines of passenger motor vehicles which are equipped as standard equipment with an antitheft device which the Secretary determines is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the requirements of such standard." (Emphasis added)

"(a) (3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term 'standard equipment' means equipment which is installed in a vehicle at the time it is delivered from the manufacturer and which is not an accessory or other item which the first purchaser customarily has the option to have installed." (Emphasis added)

In consideration of these two citations, would the antitheft device be considered "standard equipment" in the following example?

Example -

99.9% of "A" model vehicles are equipped with an antitheft device, and this same rate is projected for the 1987 model year. Of all of "A" model sales, only rental cars destined for Hawaii, Guam and Saipan are not equipped with an antitheft device. Sales figures from October, 1984 through September, 1985 for the "A" model are shown in the table below.$ MO3,18,15,16 With or Without Sales Sales Volume Antitheft Device Destination (10/84 - 9/85) Without Hawaii, Guam 96 & Saipan (Rental cars only) With U.S. -- 101,758 EXCEPT Ren- tal cars in islands above TOTAL 101,854 Thus the non-equipped rate of model "A" is less than 0.1%: (96/101,854) x 100 = 0.094%

We at Nissan thank you for your cooperation and we look forward to your response at your earliest possible convenience. If you have questions or if you require further information, please contact Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi in our Washington, D.C. office at (202) 466-5284.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-04.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C. A. France -- President, Converto Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. A. France President Converto Manufacturing P.O. Box 287 Cambridge City, Indiana 47327

This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Converto produces the "Leav-A-Tainer." As you describe it this is "a truck mounted, hydraulically operated hoisting mechanism designed to handle detachable containers" The hoisting mechanism is mounted on top of regular truck or trailer frame rails. Converto has placed the rear lamps "as near the end of the...frame rails as practicable," but law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania and Minnesota state that the lamps must be placed at the extreme end of the hoisting mechanism. You believe that is not feasible because the lamps will be destroyed when the hoist is In the dump position, and have asked for our opinion.

The basic location requirements established by Standard No. 108 for most truck or trailer rear lamps is, first, that they be "on the rear" and, second, that they be "as far apart as practicable." In these positions they afford the visual and signalling cues associated with their respective functions. Among those cues are the location of the rear end of the vehicle and indications of its width. However, there are configurations of commercial vehicles where literal compliance with the requirements so as to provide both of those cues is a physical impossibility, calling for a compromise. In those instances, it may be possible to locate the lights at the rear of the vehicle, but not to provide any indication of the vehicle's width or any lateral separation between the left and right sets of lights. Alternatively, it may be possible to place the lights so that they indicate the vehicle's width and are laterally separated, but at a location forward of the rear of the vehicle. In the case of your vehicle, there is the additional complication that locating the lights at the rear of the vehicle would appear to result in their being damaged or destroyed during the operation of the work performing equipment. You have interpreted Standard No. 108 as permitting mounting at the end of the frame rails, although the work-performing structure extends as much as 32 inches beyond the frame rails. The lamps, as you have located them, are "as far apart as practicable." The two States, as we understand it, are insisting that the lamps be mounted at the end of the work-performing structure where they would be "on the rear"; in that location, the lamps would appear to have to be bunched together because of the narrow width of the work-performing structure, and therefore would not be "as far apart as practicable" in the sense that Standard No. 108 intends. That is, there would be essentially no lateral separation between the sets of lights and no indication of the width of the vehicle.

We have concluded that the primary location requirement that the lamps be on the rear is more important than the secondary requirement of width location in the event of a conflict. In their present location, we question whether the lamps meet the requirement that they be visible throughout an angle from 45 degrees to the right to 45 degrees to the left. Further, with a container in place providing the 32-inch overhang, there may be certain angles of approach in which the lights become obscured and cannot be seen by a driver following too closely. Under paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, if motor vehicle equipment such as the hoist prevents compliance with the visibility requirements of the standard, an auxiliary lamp meeting the visibility requirements may be provided. We suggest that you examine the possibility of installing lamps on the side of the hoist, close enough to the rear that they are not damaged when the hoist is in operation.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 18, 1985 Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel - N.H.T.S.A. Room 5219 #400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

SUBJECT: Request for ruling for the location of lighting devices for truck mounted and semi-trailer "roll-off" tilt frame hoists under FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller:

Converto Mfg. Co., Inc. manufactures roll-off tilt frame hoisting mechanisms commonly referred to as "roll-off tilt frame hoists"" under the trade name of "Leav-A-Tainer" This is a truck mounted, hydraulically operated hoisting mechanism designed to handle detachable containers of varying sizes and types. This system utilizes a frame that tilts hydraulically and a reeving cable system to power the container on and off the frame.

This hoisting system is either mounted on an existing truck chassis frame or is manufactured as a semi-trailer unit. In either event, the hoisting mechanism itself is mounted on top of the regular truck or trailer frame rails.

Converto has always believed it was complying with Federal lighting standards by placing the rear lights as near the rear end of the truck or trailer frame rails as practicable. However, several of our cutomers have encountered problems with local law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. These agencies state the lights must be placed at the extreme rear end of the hoisting mechanism rather than at the end of the truck or trailer frame. This would seem to be impracticable to us since the design of the equipment is such that is necessary to extend the hoisting mechanism beyond the end of the truck or trailer main frame. When the hoist is in its fullest raised position to either discharge or to take the container aboard, the hoist must pivot at the rear of the truck so that the rear end of the hoist positions itself on the ground for both stability and control of the container. To attempt to locate lights on that part of the hoist would result in destroying the lights when the hoist was in the drmp position. For this reason, we presently locate the lights approximately 32" inward from the end of the hoisting mechanism itself.

Photographs of actual hoist showing this product in both the extended and retracted positions are included for your information. Several pieces of product literature are also enclosed to help you better understand the product, how it operates, and to depict what our problem is.

We certainly hope you will be able to give us a ruling for this application so that we may assist our customers with the problems they have encountered.

Should you have questions or need additional information or clarification of any point, please contact me.

Sincerely, C.A. France President CAF/bc

Enclosures 85-97

ID: 1985-04.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Susan B. House -- House Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Susan B. House House Enterprises 1450 Woodscliff Drive Anderson, IN 46011

Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1985, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to two solar glare shading products you have developed. You described the first product as an 8" diameter acrylic dish which is of optical quality and tinted. The second products is a 4" x 4" sheet of opaque plastic. You explained that both products are designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected ny section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Charles Pekow -- Editor, Day Care Information Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles Pekow Editor, Day Care Information Service 4550 Montgomery Ave., Suite 700 N Bethesda, Maryland 20814

This responds to your July 23, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking several questions about our school bus regulations and their applicability to the buses used by Head Start centers. In our previous letter to you of August 1, 1985, we explained that a Head Start facility is considered a "school" for purposes of determining the applicability of our school bus safety standards. Keep in mind, therefore, that the following discussion of "school buses" includes buses used by Head Start centers.

Your first question asked, "What Federal regulations apply to the sale, operation and maintenance of buses in Head Start?"

NHTSA has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses used by Head Start centers. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and other types of motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct NHTSA to issue safety standards on various aspects of school bus performance, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The safety standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to all school buses manufactured on or after that date.

Federal law requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with all applicable safety standards. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (including the driver) and sold for transporting students to and from school or related events. If any new school bus does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties.

Federal regulations pertaining to the operation and maintenance of school vehicles are found in the highway safety program standards NHTSA issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These standards provide guidelines to the States for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), provides recommended procedures for a State's pupil transportation program (covering areas such as school bus operation, maintenance, and identification). Individual States have chosen to adopt same or all of our guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs for pupil transportation. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with Program Standard No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. The requirements for school bus operation and maintenance, therefore, are matters left to the individual States to determine.

Your second question asked, "Must Head Start buses meet the same regulations required of public schools?"

Since a Head Start facility is considered a "school" for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act, persons selling new buses to such schools are required to sell buses that comply with our school bus safety standards. This requirement is imposed on sellers regardless of whether the purchasing facility is a Head Start center or a strictly public or private school.

Your third question asked, "To what extent has the Department of Transportation researched these questions?"

NHTSA conducted substantial research into school bus safety issues. When NHTSA developed the school bus safety standards, the agency evaluated the performance characteristics of various types of vehicles to determine the necessary requirements that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Among our conclusions was that the larger school buses weighing over 10,000 pounds should be constructed to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of those school buses include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and improved seat spacing and performance.

Since smaller buses, such as 10-passenger vans, experience different crash forces than larger buses and differ substantially in design, our safety standards were developed to specify particular requirements appropriate for the smaller type of vehicle. For instance, based on our assessment of the crashworthiness of those vehicles, the agency determined that school buses weighing 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped with safety belts.

There are lengthy engineering reports discussing school bus safety that you might be interested in which are available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). I have included a bibliography of those reports for your information. You can contact the NTIS at the following address:

The National Technical Information Service Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703) 557-4600

Your fourth question asked, "If any regulations apply, what types of enforcement efforts has the department made?"

In the years since the issuance of the school bus safety standards, NHTSA's Enforcement Office has contacted a number of dealers when it became known that they were supplying improper vehicles to schools. In most cases, the problems were remedied without the need for extensive enforcement actions Moreover, NHTSA will take necessary steps, including directing vehicle recalls and imposing fines, to enforce the Vehicle Safety Act provisions against the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles.

Your last question asked, "Are many grantees out of compliance to the best of your knowledge?"

Since the parties subject to the Federal school bus regulations are the manufacturers and sellers of new school buses, and not the schools using the buses, the regulations applicable to Head Start centers would be those established by State law on school bus operation. State officials should be able to provide you with information concerning the compliance of Head Start school bus programs with State requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure July 23, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, chief counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Rm. 5219 400 7th St. NW Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Miller:

One of your staffers today suggested I write requesting information for a study I'm making regarding safety of buses used to transport children to Head Start centers.

I would like answers to the following questions: What federal regulations apply to sale, operation and maintenance of buses in Head Start?

Must Head Start buses meet the same regulations required of public schools?

To what extent has the Dept. of Transportation researched these questions?

If any regulations apply, what types of enforcement efforts has the department made?

Are many grantees out of compliance to the best of your knowledge?

My research has indicated that many children are being bused to Head Start programs in buses lacking careful maintenance and safety features. I am planning to publish an article on the topic in the Day Care Information Service newsletter soon and would appreciate a swift reply.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon, I remain,

Sincerely yours, Charles Pekow editor Day Care Information Service

ID: 1985-04.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/23/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Isis Imports

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports, Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 U.S. Custom House San Francisco, CA 9412

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt. Your company, Isis Imports, is an importer of Morgan passenger cars, and has heretofore imported pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iii). Upon advice of your attorney you have concluded that you may instead import them pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix), and wish to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of that fact.

More specifically, under 12.80(b)(1)(iii) an importer declares that his vehicle was not manufactured in conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but that it has been, or will be, brought into conformity: he also is required to furnish a bond for the production of a /conformity statement. Under 12.80(b)(1)(ix), the importer simply declares that the vehicle is an "incomplete vehicle" as defined by 49 CFR Part 568; no bond is required as it is assumed that the vehicle will be completed to conform to the Federal safety standards and bear the certification of its final-stage manufacturer. Because the Morgans are received from Morgan Motor Company without "major components of the fuel system; no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc.," you believe that they are (incomplete vehicles," which are defined by S568.3 as "an assemblage consisting as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations...to become a completed vehicle."

We disagree with your conclusion. The rulemaking history of Part 568 clearly shows that the intent of the regulation is to cover vehicles whose manufacture has customarily been shared. As the agency commented in 1970, "A large number of heavy vehicles of all types, of recreational vehicles, and of special purpose vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages, of which the first is an incomplete vehicle such as a stripped chassis, chassis cowl, or chassis cab to which one or more subsequent manufacturers add components to produce a completed vehicle." (35 FR 4639) The Morgan, on the other hand, is a passenger car ordinarily manufactured in a single stage, and in this instance is nonetheless virtually complete when it arrives in the United States. It is therefore a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), and the agency will not accept any HS-7 forms evidencing attempts to enter the vehicles pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix).

I enclose copies of a couple of rulemaking proposals on Part 568 so that you might have a better understanding of its thrust. Were we to accept your interpretation, S568.4(a) would require Morgan Motor Company to furnish a document with each vehicle advising Isis how compliance with each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard might be affected by its final manufacturing operations. Given the decision of Peter Morgan over the years not to conform his vehicles for the American market, we question whether he would furnish a document attesting that his product complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except 301, Fuel System Integrity.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

November 22, 1985 Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I write on the advice of counsel to inform NHTSA and your office of a change in our response to Form HS 7. As you may recall, Isis Imports Ltd. is the U.S. outlet for the Morgan motorcar of England. We sell fewer than twenty-five cars a year, and we complete the manufacture of these cars here in San Francisco. (For your reference, I enclose a copy of our earlier correspondence, a brochure and a magazine article.)

We have until now checked Box 3 on Form HS 7. A review by our attorney of our final manufacture of these cars in the context of the applicable regulations, tells us that only a response checking Box 9 is appropriate to our business.

The Morgan chassis, body and engine is received from the Morgan Motor Company less major components of the fuel system; no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc. These vehicles are, therefore, according to our attorney, "incomplete vehicles as per 49CFR Part 568.3:

"Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

To: Frank Berndt, Esq.

Since the Morgan cars we sell in the United States operate on a propane fuel system, which is of domestic origin, the addition to the vehicle of this fuel system, as well as implementation of required safety systems, necessitates "further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components" as per 49CFR Part 568.3.

The addition of the fuel tank, in particular, is a fairly detailed manufacturing procedure and without the entire fuel system we add, the car is not a complete vehicle, since it could not be operated. We are aware, of course, of the requirements for "Final Stage manufacturers" as stated in 49 CFR 566 and 49 CFR 568 and are forwarding to the Administrator our identification as a "Final Stage Manufacturer."

Please let us know if your office or your agency require any further information from us. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

W. R. Fink President

WRF:jb

File

CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports, Ltd. P. 0. Box 2290 US Custom House San Francisco, CA 94126

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1983 requesting confidential treatment for information which was submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with statements of compliance and which pertained to vehicles imported by Isis Imports, Ltd. into the United States.

In telephone conversations with Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, you indicated that you had no objection to the release of HS Forms 189. You requested, however, that submitted drawings, diagrams, specifications and photographs showing the methods and extent of modifications made to Morgan vehicles be treated confidentially by this agency. After carefully reviewing the submitted materials and your justifications I have decided to grant your request in part and deny it in part.

All submitted materials will be afforded confidential treatment with the exception of the photographs. NHTSA does not believe that their release will cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. In order to determine whether release of information will cause such harm, courts consider "how valuable the information will be to the requesting competitors and how much this gain will damage the submitter." Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle. 662 F. 2d 45, 51 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

You indicate that a presumption has been established by 49 CFR Part 512 with respect to blueprints and engineering drawings containing process of production data where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints or engineering drawings except after significant reverse engineering. This class determination, however, pertains only to blueprints and engineering drawings; it cannot be interpreted to apply to photographs. Additionally, release of the photographs will not be very valuable to the requesting competitor, and will therefore not cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. Since accompanying diagrams, text and other information will remain confidential, significant reverse engineering will still be required to determine the methods and extent of modifications necessary to bring Morgan vehicles into compliance with Federal standards.

If you wish to submit additional justification explaining why Isis is entitled to confidential treatment for the photographs you must do so within 10 days of your receipt of this letter. At the end of that period, they will be made publicly available. I will notify appropriate agency personnel of this decision, and they will treat your submissions accordingly. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Warren H. Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 31, 1985 Mr. Warren H. Cox Haynesville Correction Unit #17 Haynesville, VA 22472 Dear Mr. Cox: This is to follow-up on the letter of October 11, 1985, sent to you concerning the effect of our regulations on modifications made to used vehicles. Unfortunately, there was a typographical error in the third sentence of the third paragraph, The sentence should have read "However, in making modifications to a used vehicle, commercial businesses do not have to comply with the safety standards that would apply if the modifications are made before the vehicle is first sold." We regret the error. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel