ID: aiam4337

Dear Senator Stevens: Thank you for your April 23, 1987, letter on behalf of you constituent, Ms. Nadra L. Angerman of Wrangell, who is concerned that there is no Federal requirement for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.; I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Ms. Angerman's concerns. A explained below, NHTSA does not require large school buses to have safety belts for passengers because we require those buses to provide an alternate form of passenger crash protection. Our safety standards are directed at improving the interior of large school buses so that passengers will be provided adequate crash protection even if safety belts are not used.; I would like to begin with some background information on our schoo bus regulations. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.* Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization refers to designing the interior of large buses so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fastened a safety belt. The key features include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance.; Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus drive since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses.; However, because large school buses already offer substantia protection to passengers, we believe a Federal requirement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary. Large school buses are very safe vehicles not only because they meet Federal school bus safety standards, but also because of their size and weight, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. TSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large school buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own preferences regarding pupil transportation.; A June 1985 NHTSA publication entitled, 'Safety Belts in School Buses, discusses many of the issues relating to safety belts in large school buses. I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.; I hope you have found this information to be helpful. If you or you constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3558

Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff requesting an interpretation concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR S 571.120). Specifically, you noted that your company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goodyear, wants to import rims from Lemmerz, a West German manufacturer, and mark those rims with the Goodyear name and trademark. This would be similar to the tires sold, for example, with Sears or Montgomery Ward labels and trademarks on the sidewalls. Your question concerns the requirement in section S5.2(d) of Standard No. 120, which specifies that each rim be marked with 'a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol.' You correctly recognized that Lemmerz would have to be identified as the actual manufacturer, and asked if the block letter 'L' would be a sufficient identification. Imprinting an 'L' on the rims manufactured for Goodyear by Lemmerz would satisfy the requirement of Standard No. 120.; In the notice initially establishing Standard No. 120 (41 FR 3478 January 23, 1976), this agency stated, 'The rim manufacturer is free to use his name, trademark, or a symbol of his choice.' The only limitation on this freedom is that the information cannot be presented in a deceptive or confusing manner. In the circumstances you have described, a consumer with a complaint or problem with the rims would know to contact Goodyear about the rims, and Goodyear would know that the block letter 'L' indicated that the rim had been manufactured for them by Lemmerz. This would not be confusing or deceptive. Hence, the purpose of the labeling requirement is fulfilled, so Goodyear is free to use the letter 'L' as the indicator that the rim was actually manufactured by Lemmerz.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1565

Dear Mr. Hansing: This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1974, regarding Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. You requested that we reconsider our opinion of June 11, 1974, that a bus emergency release mechanism which you describe must meet the requirements for emergency exit release in S5.3.2 of the standard after as well as before the retention test required by S5.1, when the glass breaks during the retention test.; Paragraph S5.3.2 requires that the release requirements be met bot before and after the retention test. We do not find sufficient justification to relax this requirement in the situation you described. First, it is not clear that it is as easy as you represent to eliminate by hand all of the glazing material left in the frame. More importantly, however, we still question whether most persons are sufficiently cognizant of the qualities of tempered glass to attempt to remove the remaining fragments in an emergency situation. Finally, glazing with completely different breakage characteristics may be used to replace the original tempered glass at some time during the life of the bus. For these reasons, our conclusion of June 11 remains the same.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4767

"Dear Ms. Dittemore: Thank you for your letter regarding a bil introduced in the Iowa Senate that, among other features, would establish light transmittance limits for 'sunscreening devices' that may be applied to the windows of motor vehicles operated in Iowa. I apologize for the delay in this response. You requested our office's interpretation about whether provisions of this bill would violate or be preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). As you are aware, this agency is authorized by section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, or sell any vehicle in the United States unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a notor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' In the case of windows on a passenger car, this provision of Federal law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, because such action would 'render inoperative' the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 205. This same provision of Federal law prohibits a service station from permanently removing safety belts or permanently disconnecting brake lines on motor vehicles. Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles. The individual States, however, have the authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles and to establish requirements for vehicles operated or registered in that State. The Iowa Senate bill enclosed with your letter appears to be an attempted exercise of this inherent authority. You asked for comments on whether this bill, if adopted as law in Iowa, would be preempted by Standard No. 205. I assume you were referring to the provision in this Iowa bill that would prohibit the operation of motor vehicles required to be registered in the State of Iowa if the vehicle has a 'sunscreening device' on the front side windows with light transmittance of less than 35 percent or on the rear window and side windows behind the driver with light transmittance of less than 20 percent. Since the original glazing on the vehicle could have had light transmittance of as little as 70 percent, this provision would permit overall light transmittance levels of as low as 25 percent for the front side windows and 14 percent for the rear windows. This provision in the Iowa bill, and similar provisions in statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent on any window of a passenger car would have violated the 'render inoperative' provision in Federal law, even if Iowa had in place a statute that would permit persons to operate and register vehicles whose windows had light transmittance that was far lower. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Iowa from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Iowa. Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and this Iowa bill, and Iowa would be free to enforce the provisions of this bill if it is enacted into law. We would, however, urge the State of Iowa to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that would result from enacting this bill into law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety. Your letter indicated that Iowa had also adopted this 70 percent light transmittance minimum as a State requirement for new vehicles. It is not clear why the State of Iowa would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance in new vehicles is satisfied by allowing light transmittance levels as low as 25 and 14 percent in vehicles to be operated in the State. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0724

Dear Mr. Fechner:#This is in reply to your letter of May 25 inquirin about compliance of your planned motorhome with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 101 and 104.#Standard No. 101 requires certain controls to be illuminated. We interpret this to mean sufficiently illuminated that the control identification, if verbal, can be read, or if pictorial, can be understood. Therefore, illumination from any course is satisfactory as long as the basic requirement of comprehension is met.#Standard No. 104 does not describe the type of windshield wiping system that must be used to meet its requirements. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to insure, whatever system is used and whatever configuration of windshield is employed, that the wiped and washed area requirements are met.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: 1984-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cepcor; Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Carl Tolf President Cepcor, Inc. P.O. Box 988 St. Charles IL 60174

Dear Mr. Tolf:

This responds to your letter of July 18, 1984, asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a type of load carrier you are considering manufacturing, called "BakPak." Materials provided with your letter indicate that the device is a container which is attached to a vehicle by means of a tow bar. When attached to a vehicle, the device becomes an integral part of the vehicle in the sense that there are no road wheels, and thus it is not a trailer.

By way of background information, the agency does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter and accompanying materials.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to a device such as "BakPak." However, the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act are applicable even in the absence of an applicable safety standard. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are responsible generally that vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or by yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under Sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify owners and provide a remedy free of charge. I would also recommend that you check whether there are any State laws applicab1e to your device.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Wednesday 18 July 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt 202-426-2832 Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Enclosed are copies of literature describing the "BakPak", a unique concept in load carriers, which is being successfully manufactured and distributed in the United Kingdom.

Ms. Gayla Barker of your Homewood, Illinois office is sending me copies of Federal Standards 108 and 109.

Mr. Bob Eppes, Motor Vehicle Specialist, of your Kansas City office has been very helpful in advising individuals and/or organizations we should contact before manufacturing the "BakPak" in the United States.

Please advise any Motor Vehicle Compliance Standards that pertain to this product and what steps we should take to insure that our product is in compliance.

Carl Tolf President Enclosures: CT/ct Copy: M. H. Weaver

ID: 1984-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelle S. Benjamin -- Siegel; Mandell & Davidson; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Michelle S. Benjamin, Esq. Siegel, Mandell & Davidson, P.C. One Whitehall Street New York, N.Y. 10004

This is in reply to your letter of July 13, 1984, seeking an interpretation that certain chassis manufactured abroad may be imported into the United States by your client providing that they will be exported upon their completion. This interpretation is sought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5) and 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iv).

You have informed us that your client wishes to import "various chassis" which "will not conform to Federal motor vehicle safety requirements, and they will be labelled or tagged to indicate that they are intended for export." These chassis "will be sold to various special equipment motor vehicle manufacturers in this country who will use the chassis for production of dump trucks, fire engines, and other special purpose vehicles:..(which) will not be manufactured in conformity with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as the vehicles are to be exported by the American manufacturers or their customers, and we have been advised that at no time will they be sold for use on the roads or highways of the United States." You have enclosed a chart with your letter depicting the products your client wishes to import. They appear to be "incomplete motor vehicles" as defined in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

The fact situation that you present has not arisen before, and is not directly covered by the importation regulations. Two provisions of those regulations, however, appear relevant to your client's problem. Subparagraph (iv) of 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(1) permits the temporary importation of noncomplying motor vehicles and equipment items pursuant to the declaration of the importer that "the vehicle or equipment item is intended solely for export, and the vehicle or equipment item, and the outside of the container of the equipment item, if any, bears a label or tag to that effect." Subparagraph (ix) would permit permanent importation pursuant to the declaration that "the vehicle is an 'incomplete vehicle ' as defined in 49 CFR Part 568."

Subparagraph (iv) is not squarely on point as the chassis are not imported "solely" for export, but for sale to final-stage manufacturers for completion of manufacturing operations before export. Subparagraph (ix) is on point, but is intended to cover incomplete vehicles that will be completed for sale in the United States. Accordingly, these vehicles must be labelled as required by 49 CFR 567.5( a) and supplied with the document required by 49 CFR 568.4. These requirements are not relevant for vehicles that will not be operated in the United States, and may be viewed as burdensome to your client. Further, the agency requires compliance of equipment items on imported incomplete vehicles that are themselves the subject of Federal motor vehicle safety standards for equipment, such as tires, glazing, lighting, and brake fluid. Under subparagraph (iv) your client could be considered in violation of the importation regulations if, by chance, a noncomplying vehicle were not exported after its completion. Under subparagraph (ix), however, your client's responsibilities would end at importation (assuming the requirements outlined above were met), and the final-stage manufacturer could affix the label for export as specified in 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5) upon completion. Alternatively, if circumstances changed, he could complete the vehicle in a conforming manner, certify it, and sell it in the United States.

Although not squarely on point, the agency would have no objection to importation pursuant to subparagraph (iv) if each declaration (Form HS-7) also contains the notation that the vehicle is being imported solely for completion for export purposes, and provides the name and address of the final-stage manufacturer to whom it will be sold. Alternatively, your client may import the incomplete vehicles pursuant to subparagraph (ix) if it chooses to meet the requirements outlined above.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 13, 1984

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Re: Importation of Chassis Which Do Not Conform To Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Requirements

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are writing at the suggestion of Mr. Vinson, of your office, who we spoke with approximately three weeks ago concerning our client's contemplated importation into the United States of certain chassis and proper completion of the Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's HS Form 7. We believe that the facts and pertinent law discussed below require that our client affirm paragraph 4 of the HS Form 7, which provides that a motor vehicle or equipment item offered for importation under 19 CFR S12.80 "is intended solely for export and such merchandise and the outside of its container, if any, are so labeled". HS Form 7, 14, citing 19 CFR S12.80(b)(1)(iv).

By this letter, we hereby request that a binding ruling be issued as to whether paragraph 4 of the HS Form 7 is applicable under the circumstances set forth below.

F A C T S

Our client will purchase and import various chassis from a related company, beginning in August or September, 1984. In their condition as imported, the chassis will not conform to federal motor vehicle safety requirements, and they will be labeled or tagged to indicate that they are intended for export.

The imported chassis will be sold to various special equipment motor vehicle manufacturers in this country who will use the chassis for production of dump trucks, fire engines and other special purpose vehicles, some of which are more specifically outlined in the attached chart. *1 These vehicles will not be manufactured in conformity with federal motor vehicle safety standards, as the vehicles are to be exported by the American manufacturers or their customers, and we have been advised that at no time will they be sold for use on the roads or high-ways of the United States.

A R G U M E N T

THE NON-CONFORMING CHASSIS MAY BE IMPORTED BY VIRTUE OF 15 USC S1397(b)(5), AND THE IMPORTER MAY PROPERLY AFFIRM PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE HS FORM 7 IN SEEKING TO OBTAIN ENTRY OF THE CHASSIS INTO THE UNITED STATES.

As the chassis will be labeled accordingly, are intended to be exported from the United States and, after being sold and manufactured into complete, non-conforming vehicles, the finished vehicles will in fact be exported, it is our opinion that paragraph 4 of the HS Form 7 is the appropriate paragraph to be completed when making the declaration upon entry of the chassis into this country. As demonstrated below, this interpretation is supported by 15 USC S1397, the statute under which the HS

* We have been advised that the attached chart is a representative sampling of the types of vehicles which will be manufactured. Our client has further advised that manufacture of the buses depicted on the chart is not contemplated.

Form 7 is required to be filed to obtain entry of imported nonconforming vehicles or equipment items into the United States.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, P.L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (Sept. 9, 1966), codified at 15 USC S1397 (1982), provides in pertinent part:

(a)(1) No person shall

(A) manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor Vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section;....

(b)(5) Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply in the case of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported. Id.

Construed together, these provisions establish that by virtue of S1397(b)(5), importation of non-conforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment which are intended for export and appropriately labeled or tagged to that effect fall squarely outside the general prohibition against manufacture, sale, importation, etc., of non-conforming motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment set forth in S1397(a)(1)(A). This is because the statute, designed to "provide for a coordinated national safety program and establishment of safety standards for motor vehicles in interstate commerce", (1966 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2709 (emphasis supplied)) was not intended to have any regulatory effect over the manufacture, sale, importation, etc., of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment intended to be exported for use on the roads or highways of other nations.

The domestic orientation of the statute makes clear that the statute was not intended to have extraterritorial effects, but to provide a legislative response to the soaring casualty and injury levels caused by accidents occurring on our nation's highways. See id. at 2709-10. In this connection, it is important to note that prohibition of the manufacture, sale, importation, etc., of non-conforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment which are intended to be exported for use on the roads of other countries would adversely affect the United States auto industry's ability to design and manufacture vehicles to the specifications of companies doing business in such countries having their own laws and vehicle standards. This, in turn, would hamper commercial relations with other nations, and simultaneously deprive a segment of our already declining motor vehicle manufacturing industry of the opportunity to remain productive and competitive in the marketplace. Clearly, the statute does not reasonably admit of such an interpretation which would give rise to results injurious to both our domestic and international interests.

Moreover, the legislative history plainly reveals that the statute was not meant to provide the administrating authorities with the power to usurp the design and manufacturing functions of private industry, which is made clear in the following statement:

The Committee ... recognizes that the broad powers conferred upon the Secretary, while essential to achieve improved traffic safety, could be abused in such a manner as to have serious adverse effects on the automotive manufacturing industry. The Committee is not empowering the Secretary to take over the design and manufacturing functions of private industry. Id. at 2712.

Certainly, were S1397 construed to prohibit the importation of non-conforming vehicles or equipment intended for export as completed non-conforming vehicles, then the government will have achieved the very take-over it sought to avoid, by requiring that all vehicles and equipment imported into the United States and subjected to manufacturing operations in this country must conform to federal motor vehicle safety standards even if the vehicles are never intended to be sold for use in the United States.

In view of the foregoing, it is clear that S1397(b)(5) was intended to lift the prohibition against manufacture, importation, sale, etc., of non-conforming vehicles or motor vehicle equipment intended for export, which are appropriately tagged to that effect, and in fact, exported. Any other interpretation would harm a United States industry already beset with the problems of grave unemployment and declining productivity, and run afoul of the statute's underlying scope and purposes.

C O N C L U S I O N

For these reasons, it is claimed that importation of non-conforming chassis which are: 1) intended to be exported after being manufactured into complete non-conforming vehicles; 2) labeled or tagged to that effect; and 3) in fact, exported, is permitted by virtue of S1397(b)(5). Accordingly, we request that a binding ruling be issued confirming that the importer seeking entry of non-conforming chassis into the United States under the circumstances described in this application may properly affirm paragraph 4 on the Department of Transportation's HS Form 7, indicating that the imported non-conforming merchandise is intended solely for export and such merchandise and the outside of its container, if any, are so labeled.

We would appreciate your acting on the enclosed request for a binding ruling at your earliest opportunity. Naturally, should you require any additional information prior to reaching a decision, kindly contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours, SIEGEL, MANDELL & DAVIDSON, P.C.

Michelle S. Benjamin MSB:ek

ID: 1984-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, Seating Systems, FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

According to your letter, your company manufactures parcel delivery vans, step vans, and cargo trailers. One of your customers requested the installation of side-facing seats in the cargo area of the vehicle, and you asked whether FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210 apply to these seats. As explained below, Standard No. 207 specifies no requirements for side-facing seats unless they have a hinged or folding back. Standard No. 210 does apply to these seats.

Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat back.

You asked whether side-facing seats in the cargo area are required to meet Standard No. 210. Standard No. 210 exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

You asked what kind of testing is required for side-facing seats to determine compliance with FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210. As discussed above, side-facing seats are excluded from the performance requirements of Standard No. 207. Regarding the testing of the seats to FMVSS No. 210, a manufacturer is permitted to use whatever test procedures or method of evaluation he chooses to assure its vehicles are in compliance with this and all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The legal requirement under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq.) is that the manufacturer exercise due care to determine that his vehicles will be in compliance with all applicable standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the test procedures specified in those standards. Whether a manufacturer has in fact exercised due care cannot be determined by the agency in advance of the actual events leading to the certification of compliance.

Your last question concerned FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You stated that Virginia requires additional side marker lights than that required by Standard No. 108, and requested the agency to advise you on whether a state can specify more requirements than the standard. We assume that Virginia's requirement is a general one which applies to vehicles other than those procured for the state's own use.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. . . Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, had been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.

You indicated in the attachment to your letter that the vehicles for which Virginia is requiring the additional side marker lamps are less than 30 feet in overall length. Section S4.1.1.3 of Standard No. 108 specifies that "Intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length." Since the State standard prescribes mounting of side marking lights other than that required by the Federal standard, the State standard is preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Your final question asked whether there are any States other than Virginia that have different requirements than FMVSS No. 108. In general, under Section 103(d) of the Safety Act States are prohibited from imposing safety standards applicable to the same aspect of performance governed by FMVSS No. 108. The limited exception in @103(d) allows States to promulgate requirements applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for the State's own use which impose a higher standard of performance than the Federal standard. States may also regulate aspects of performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are not governed by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. For example, there is no preemption of a State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment, such as foglamps, not currently included in Standard No. 108.

UTILIMASTER

June 29, 1984

Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt: Utilimaster is a commercial truck manufacturer of parcel delivery vans, step vans, and cargo trailers and we have some questions for you.

We have an application where the customer would like to have side-facing seats in the cargo area. Do we need to meet FMVSS 207 or 210 and what kind of testing of these seats is required?

Also, we have a question on FMVSS 108. I had a call from a Virginia dealer stating they require additional side marker lights. Can a State require more lighting and does any other State have different standards than FMVSS 108?

Dan Pugh Product Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Homer S. Meyers -- President, Easco, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1984, requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering. You described the product as a cross-bed seat for use in pickup trucks. The seat would be made of plastic and be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing the rear. The following discussion explains the application of our regulations to your potential product.

Since your potential product would be used as a seating position in a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the seat would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No.208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, and 210. However, we strongly recommend that you provide properly-anchored seat belts at each seating position.

Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

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

August 2, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

This company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pick-up truck accessories.

A potential new product which we are considering is a cross-bed seat for such trucks. A sketch is enclosed. This seat would be formed from plastic sheet of sufficient thickness to provide the necessary strength. It would be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing to the rear. It would be supported by the flange around the top, resting on the lip at the front and sides of the bed, and also by an aluminum leg in the middle of the front edge of the seat.

The seat would be held in place by sheet metal screws going into the lip of the bed. Slots would be cut in the rear of the seat to allow passage of seat belts to fastenings on the floor or front wall of the bed. Alternatively, the belts might be fastened to the seat itself with appropriate back-up strengthening plates.

I would apprediate having your opinion as to the safety standard regulations that would apply to such product.

Homer S. Myers

President

EASCO, Inc.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/84

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kenneth Guthrie -- Guthrie Trailer Sales Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION trailers; PART 565; S565.4(d)(1)

TEXT:

Mr. Kenneth Guthrie Guthrie Trailer Sales, Inc. Box 1026 Great Bend, Kansas 67530

Dear Mr. Guthrie:

This is in response to your recent inquiry to Elizabeth Harrison of this office regarding the change of model year designation on Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN's) affixed to trailers manufactured by your company. VIN's are required to be affixed under the authority of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115) and 49 CFR Part 565. The change of model year designation in the VIN can be made by changing the code letter to F for model year 1985, according to the table in 49 CFR Part 565.4(d)(1). No notification to the agency is required for a change of model year designation.

A copy of 49 CFR Part 565 is enclosed.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure