ID: aiam5010

"Dear Mr. Murphy: This responds to your letter of April 30. 1992 requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked 'whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation' of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108. Specifically, you have enclosed 'Figure 1' which 'shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps.' Accordingly you have concluded 'that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp.' NHTSA adopted a definition of 'effective projected luminous lens area' on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean 'that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . .' No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute 'significantly' to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that 'the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose', and that 'lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design' but instead 'take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area.' In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2440

Dear Mr. Hartman: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1976, in which you as several questions concerning Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, and Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; Your first question asks whether a California regulation requirin 20-inch minimum seat spacing in school buses would be preempted by the requirement for 20-inch maximum seat spacing in Standard No. 222.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) provides i Section 103(d) that any state or local law or regulation on an aspect of motor vehicle performance covered by a Federal standard must be identical to that Federal standard. Although the NHTSA requirement is phrased in terms of maximum spacing while the California standard concerns minimum spacing, the aspect of performance in question is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that a California standard on seat spacing regulates the same aspect of performance and to the degree it is not identical to the Federal standard it would be preempted.; Your second question asks whether the seating reference point, a specified in relation to the H' Point used in SAE Standard J826b, varies with the size of different individuals. The seating reference point, as defined by the NHTSA in Part 571.3 allows the manufacturer some discretion in selecting a point that approximates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh. While the NHTSA definition does refer to the SAE procedures for H' point location that includes the specific measurements you cite, the manufacturer retains discretion to vary this point slightly as long as he can show that the point selected continues to simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh of the passengers for whom the seat is designed.; Finally, you note in your letter that compliance with the seat spacin required in Standard No. 222 might entail relocation of the side emergency exit, because Standard No. 217 requires that [a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door.' The seat spacing requirement arguably could occasion the realignment of the side emergency door, but this does not have to be the case. The manufacturer is free to adjust seat spacing to be properly aligned with the emergency exit. The NHTSA's intent in this requirement is to provide an emergency exit opening extending at least 2 feet rearward of a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back. The agency would not prohibit the use of doors wider than 2 feet as long as a minimum 2-foot opening is provided rearward of the reference plane and the latch mechanism is operated by a device located within the required 2-foot opening.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2625

Dear Mr. Verrill: This responds to your April 20, 1977, petition to amend Standard No 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. In your petition, you request that the National Highway traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permit the use of tires that have a maximum load rating of not less than 95% of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and not less than 95% of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Your petition is denied.; The problem addressed by your petition concerns a revision in the 197 Tire and Rim Manual that alters the load rating of tires. In effect, this revision will result in lower load ratings for certain tires. According to the facts you submit, the change in tire load rating will be implemented by tire manufacturers throughout the next few months which may not provide vehicle manufacturers sufficient time to correspondingly alter the GAWRs of their vehicles in accordance with the new tire load ratings. Therefore, for a short period of time, you allege that it will be impossible to obtain tires that correspond to the GAWR indicated on the vehicle.; To alleviate the above problem, you recommend rulemaking that woul permit vehicle manufacturers to install on their vehicles tires with load ratings slightly less than the GAWR of each axle. The NHTSA cannot permit the relief you request even for the limited time you propose. The intent of our tire standards is to provide minimum requirements for tires to ensure adequate safety. One of these minimum requirements mandates that the tire load rating be at least equal to the GAWR. Your request would have us reduce this minimum requirement. Since the matching of tires on a vehicle with the GAWR of each axle is such a basic principle of safety, the agency concludes that it would not be in the interest of safety to grant your request. Further, such an amendment might violate Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 *et seq*.), which requires that motor vehicles be equipped 'with tires which meet the maximum permissible load standards when such vehicle is fully loaded...'; As you may know, the label requirements of Standard No. 120 whic become effective in September permit you to list suitable tire and rim combinations on the vehicle. You need not equip a vehicle, however, with the tires indicated on the label. In this case, you may equip a trailer with any trailer tire that has a load rating equal to or greater than the GAWR of its associated axle. This may help resolve part of your problem with respect to a short term problem with matching tires on the vehicle with those indicated on the vehicle label.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam5090

"Dear Mr. Kouchi: This responds to your letter of October 8, 1992, wit respect to photometric test methods for a center high-mounted stop lamp using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources. Your letter presents certain procedures and asks for associated revisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. After review, we have come to the conclusion that your method of proposed testing is allowable under Standard No. 108, but more stringent than what the standard requires. In the section of your letter called 'BACKGROUND', you state that you usually follow the technical guidance of SAE J1889 as a standard practice for LED lighting devices. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 or in any of the SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 that requires you to follow the test methodology of J1889. Thus, when you say that you 'must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense', you are placing a burden upon yourself that does exist under J1889, but one which is not necessary for designing for compliance with Standard No. 108. You have proposed a solution for the problem you have created by following J1889, and you provide three specific reasons in support. The third reason is based upon your interpretation of SAE J575's warpage test, under which you test operating cycles of 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off. However, you reference a version of J575 which does not apply to center high-mounted stop lamps. Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that J575e, August 1970, applies to high-mounted stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J186a. SAE J575, August 1970, simply specifies that the device is to be operated in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service, far different than the cycle method you employ. Thus, you have requested that we revise Standard No. 108 by adding a new provision that center high-mounted stop lamps shall be energized for a minimum of 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minima. We note that nothing prohibits you from testing in such a manner, but we believe that an amendment of this nature is not required because the present allowable method of testing does not call for it. You have asked for our comments on four steps of photometric measurement, and our permission to follow them. There is no reason you may not follow them, if you wish, but they are unnecessary to design for compliance under Standard No. 108. I hope that this is responsive to your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5176

"Dear Sir or Madam: We have received your 'Dear Mr. Van Orden' lette of May 4, 1993, which was addressed to me. You wish to import 3- and 4-wheeled vehicles from Europe 'for research and exploration', and have asked several questions relating to U.S. laws and D.O.T. requirements. Your first question is: 'Are there any safety standards and regulations for the above mentioned automobiles?' The answer is yes. All 3-wheeled motor vehicles are considered 'motorcycles' for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Depending upon their configuration, but not upon their weight, 4-wheeled vehicles are either 'passenger cars', 'multipurpose passenger vehicles', 'trucks', or 'buses' for purposes of the safety standards. However, motor vehicles intended solely for purposes of research may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the safety standards under the terms and conditions that the agency has set out in 49 CFR Part 591. Your second and third questions are whether there is a minimum speed standard regulation or weight limitations for the vehicles you wish to import. The answer is no. However, a motorcycle with 5-horsepower or less is considered a 'motor-driven cycle', and some of the motorcycle standards impose lesser requirements for motor-driven cycles, and motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in l mile is 30 mph or less. Your fourth question relates to the conversions required to meet U.S. specifications and standards. As indicated previously, no conversion is required when the importation is solely for the purpose of research. If you wish to import vehicles that have been originally manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, the manufacturer will find those standards at 49 CFR Parts 571, 581, and 541, respectively. If you wish to import nonconforming vehicles for conversion after importation, then the agency must determine that the vehicles are eligible for entry pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593, and importation and conversion accomplished through a Registered Importer pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. Your final question is whether the vehicles will be permitted on highways. This is a question that is not answerable under Federal law. Each State determines the criteria for licensing motor vehicles for use on the roads under its jurisdiction. If a State does not license a vehicle for on-road use (all terrain vehicles, minibikes, golf carts are examples), a basis exists for a manufacturer to determine that its vehicles are not 'motor vehicles.' If a vehicle is not a motor vehicle, i.e. one manufactured primarily for on-road use, then no Federal safety standards apply to it. If you have any further questions about the importation process, you should refer them to Mr. Van Orden at our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Enforcement. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4923

"Dear Mr. Lushan: This responds to your letter concerning the use o tinted flexible plastic glazing in certain jeep-type vehicles. You explained that a customer has asked you to manufacture a bronze-tinted clear plastic flexible window for installation in the rear side and rear windows of its vehicles. You indicated that this glazing material would not satisfy the minimum light transmittance requirement of Standard No. 205 and requested confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits the use of such glazing for rear and side windows in these vehicles. Further, during two telephone conversations on October 29, 1991 and October 30, 1991, you informed Elizabeth Barbour of my staff that your question specifically refers to the use of this glazing on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and the two-door Geo Tracker. You also confirmed to Ms. Barbour that the glazing materials to which your letter refers would be installed as original equipment, but added that your company is also involved with after-market products. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called 'items'), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference 'ANSI Z26,' the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Among Standard No. 205's requirements are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance, measured by Test 2 in ANSI Z26. A minimum of 70% light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying sections S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111) and thus, subject to the minimum light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Thus, Standard No. 205 permits the use of tinted glazing materials (i.e. items of glazing that are not subject to Test 2) for windows to the rear of the driver in such vehicles when they are equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars. As stated above, you described the product you wish to manufacture as tinted flexible plastic, Item 7 glazing, which would be installed in the rear side and rear windows of the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker. According to the agency's information about these vehicles, the rear side and rear windows are part of a removable soft-top. Standard No. 205 permits glazing used for readily removable windows in these locations to be manufactured out of flexible plastic glazing (Items 6, 7 and 13), among other types of glazing. Thus, since these specific window locations on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker are not subject to the light transmittance requirement, and since Standard No. 205 permits use of flexible plastic glazing for readily removable windows, the Standard would permit you to manufacture the bronze-tinted flexible plastic glazing for the use your customer requested. You also stated that your company is involved with after-market glazing materials. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. According to this provision, your company, for example, could install the Item 7 glazing in the rear side and rear windows of a Suzuki Sidekick or Geo Tracker after that vehicle is first sold to a consumer. This provision would, however, prohibit the after-market installation of tinted flexible plastic glazing in the front side windows of that vehicle because such installation would cause the glazing of the front side windows to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. The 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners themselves. No section of the Safety Act prevents vehicle owners themselves from installing any product on their vehicles, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. The actions of individual vehicle owners may be regulated or precluded by individual States, which have the authority to regulate owner modifications and the operational use of vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 77-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRANK W. ALLEN -- ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, General Motors Corp.

TITLE: N40-30[TWH]

TEXT: Dear Mr Allen:

General Motors Corporation advised the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in a March 16, 1976, letter that it disagrees with the agency's construction of the phrase "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance" as it is found in @ 102(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 (2)). The construction appeared in the preamble to an amendment of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, (41 FR 2392, January 16, 1976) and stated:

"Minimum" performance standards do not equate with "minimal" performance standards, as implied by General Motors and Wagner. The word "minimum" in the statutory definition of motor vehicle safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1391(2)), does not refer to the substantive content of the standards but rather to their legal status -- that the products covered must not fall short of them.

Your letter stated that GM disagrees and believes that the word "minimum" in the definition of "motor vehicle safety standards" refers solely to the substantive content of the safety standards and not to their legal effect.

As the term "minimum" concerns this discussion, it is found in two places in the Act. "Motor vehicle safety standards" are defined in @ 102(2) to mean (in relevant part) "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance." Section 103(i)(1) (A) directs the proposal of school bus standards that "include minimum standards" for enumerated aspects of performance. While the adjective "minimum" has both of the meanings that our constructions would give it, it cannot, in the agency's opinion, be used in the sense of "least possible" or "minimal," given the context of the Act's provisions and their legislative history.

2

Your argument that the "minimum" performance standards contemplated by the Act should be the "least possible" levels of performance that accomplish a stated safety goal is not logically supportable because of the nature of the stated goal. That goal, meeting the need for motor vehicle safety, is not unitary or otherwise bounded in such a way that certain actions (or a level of action) can accomplish the goal. Rather, "meeting the need" is a goal that admits of a virtually infinite number of actions that meet the need in part but don't accomplish the need in its entirety. Thus, in the agency's view, no "minimum" standard is conceptually able to constitute the "least possible" requirement or level of performance that carries out the purposes of the Act.

Beyond this logical difficulty, it is our opinion that various aspects of the Act and its legislative history make clear that "minimum standards" were conceived of as legal thresholds that a manufacturer would be required to meet or exceed. This view also conforms to the general approach to consumer safety regulation utilized in the United States.

The hearings on motor vehicle and tire safety that preceded enactment of the Safety Act demonstrate that witnesses and legislators generally viewed "minimum standards for performance" as thresholds of performance to be met or exceeded by the manufacturers. Senator Nelson and Federal Trade Commission Chaiman Paul Rand Dixon discussed the "proper interpretation of minimum safety" contemplated for tires and appeared to that no absoulute safety level could be required for each safety need but that a threshold should be established, permitting competition in premium tires for greater levels of safety (Hearings on S. 1643 Before the Committee on Commerce, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. Ser. 89-37, at 27, 28 (1965)) (hereinafter referred to as Hearing 1643).

On page 31 of Hearing 1643, the National Bureau of Standards representative discussed "certain minimum specifications which are substantially more stringent than, for example, [industry] specifications for tires." In this context, "minimal" or "least possible" cannot logically be substituted for "minimum" as your construction would require. The General Services Administration (from which many NHTSA initial standards derive) used the term "minimum" in the sense of "least allowable" in describing its requirements for tires with a "minimum tread life" (page 51 of Hearing 1643). These examples are not intended to imply that no other construction can be put on other references to "minimum" in the hearings. The majority of references, however, support the agency's construction.

3

In other hearings, Senator Magnuson discussed two-stage implementation of "interim minimum safety standards" that must be upgraded within two years (Hearings on S. 3005 Before the Committee on Commerce, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., ser 89-49, at 1, 2. (1965) (hereinafter referred to as Hearing 3005)). It is clear that use of the term "minimum standards" for the second series of requirements contemplated a level of requirement greater than "minimal" or "least possible". Society of Automotive Engineers standards, in contrast, were described by the Department of Commerce as "minimal in nature" (Hearing 3005, at 64).

The Secretary of Commerce, then contemplated as the person who would administer the Act, expressed the view that the vehicle "meets or exceeds the established safety performance standards." (Hearing 3005, at 67). The Secretary, in discussing economic practicability, noted the definition of standards as "minimum standards" and stated "I would think that it would be impracticable for the Secretary to determine upon a minimum standard that would up the price of the total automobile to such an amount that most Americans wouldn't be able to afford to buy it". This consideration of a stringent and expensive "minimum standard" can only mean that more than minimal changes were considered possible.

The Automobile Manufacturers Association (the AMA, and now the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association) accepted the view that improvement in safety performance evolves continually, with the implication that minimal standards were not contemplated. For example, the Chairman of the AMA's safety administrative committee testified: "While the safety standards of American automobiles have improved significantly over the years, the present traffic accident problem requires that the pace of achievement be further accelerated." (Hearing 3005, at 384). This AMA representative noted that "The aim of title I [of the Act] is to get safety performance standards that guarantee an optimum safety in the vehicles . . . ." (Hearing 3005, at 411).

The Senate and House Reports confirm the agency's view that "minimum" standards refer to "least allowable" performance levels. In the Senate Report, the statement is made that, while American cars were among the world's safest and demonstrated marked improvement over earlier models, further improvement would be needed (S. Rep. No. 1301, 89th Cong. 2nd Sess., at 2-5 (1966). Your construction of the term "minimum standard" as the "least possible" level of safety performance that meets a safety

need is not consistent with the Senate finding. On page 5 of the House Report is a description of the two-stage statutory provision for the imposition of "interim" standards followed by "new and revised" standards as "safety research and development mature." This statement is followed by the building code analogy cited in your letter:

. . . . Such standards will be analogous to a building code which specifies the minimum load-carrying characteristics of the structural members of a building wall, but leaves the building free to choose his own materials and design.

Our conclusion is that the analogy is directed to the concept of minimum standards as a "threshold" specifying a level of performance to be met or exceeded. It is apparent from the quoted material that the minimum "thresholds" of performance were considered as a means to avoid stifling design.

The House report also emphasises the concept of initial standards that would be followed by "new and revised" standards at a later date (H.R. Rep. No. 1776, 89th Cong, 2nd Sess., at 19 (1966)). Finally, of course, @ 103 (h) of the Act mandates issuance of interim standards to be followed by upgraded standards.

It is also meaningful that the criteria for a "minimum standard" set forth in @ 103 (a) do not include the concept of their being the "minimal" or "least possible" level that meets a safety need. Sections 103(d) and 103(f) dealing with Federal preemption of State and other regulations both discuss a "higher standard of performance" that implies the "threshold" or "least possible" meaning for minimum standards. A similar construction can be put on the grounds for statutory exemption in @ 123 of the Act that refer to a higher "overall level of safety performance" as grounds for exemption.

While it is arguable that a "minimal" standard can also convey logically the idea of a "threshold" that can be exceeded, the agency finds it difficult to accept that the word "minimum" was intended by Congress to carry both meanings simultaneously. If it is assumed that "minimum" only carries the concept of "least possible", one would then have to accept that the standards are stated as exact "minimal" values. While this line of reasoning is possible, its logical conclusion is that a vehicles only "complies" in the sense of @ 108(a)(1)(A) if it conform exactly to the performance values stated, and that it

5 neither falls short of nor exceeds them. This construction runs counter to the general statutory opinions and interpretations rendered by the NHTSA and accepted by the manufacturers since the Act went into effect. Moreover, making a certification (as required by @ 114 of the Act) that each vehicle complies exactly with the stated requirements would be a physical impossibility, given material, assembly, test condition, and instrumentation variations.

The NHTSA concludes, therefore, that a reasonable construction of the various provisions of the Act does not support the construction put forward by General Motors in your March 16, 1976, letter.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam1032

Dear Mr. Herr: This is in reply to your letter of January 19, 1973, concerning th Federal requirements governing safety belt length.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Cras Protection, regulates the length of safety belts installed in cars made after January 1, 1972. There are two safety belt length requirements of this Standard that may enter into the case enclosed with your letter. The first requires that the manufacturers provide, as a minimum, sufficient safety belt length to fit at least a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any (i.e., all) adjusted positions. A 95th percentile adult male weighs 215 pounds and has a 42.5 inch waist with 47.2 inch hips (sitting dimensions).; The second requirement concerns the length of the inboard end of th safety belt. In this case, the Standard requires that the intersection of the shoulder belt with the lap belt shall be at least 6 inches from the front vertical centerline of the average-size occupant, with the seat in the rearmost adjusted position. While this may result in an inboard belt length that may be somewhat more difficult to fasten than in some previous model cars, it significantly reduces the possibility that the shoulder belt could pull the lap belt up off the pelvis into the abdomen in a crash, possibly causing abdominal injuries.; With regard to the particular case at hand, our experience has bee that the vehicle manufacturers are usually willing to provide longer belts to fit very large new car buyers. With respect to inboard belt length, our experience has been that belts which approach the permissible 6 inch dimension mentioned above are usually satisfactory in terms of convenience. However, shorter inboard belt lengths, exceeding the minimum safety requirements of the standard, are permissible. In these cases, the customers may want to seek adjustment by the dealer or vehicle manufacturer.; In regard to the allegation made in the case that the belts cannot b changed, there is no Federal law or regulation that would prevent the dealer from modifying the safety belts. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act grants us the authority to regulate the safety of new motor vehicles. Although a dealer may not sell a new vehicle that does not conform to the standards, once the vehicle is sold and delivered the customer may have it modified by the dealer. In such a case, the dealer would not violate Federal law.; The dealer in question may well have had reasons for declining t modify the safety belts. He may be unsure of his ability to do a proper job and may fear incurring civil liability to the customer if someone should be injured as a result of his work. We would not encourage modification of a vehicle's mandatory safety features unless it is done with expert advice, or according to the manufacturer's recommendations.; Please contact this office if you desire any further discussion of thi matter.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3390

Dear Mr. Rechlicz: This responds to your December 18, 1980, letter asking severa questions about the application of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, to school buses.; First, you refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.1 and questio which paragraph establishes the minimum safety level. Since paragraph (a) was first proposed and subsequently modified by the addition of paragraph (b), you believe that paragraph (a) defines the minimum level of safety while paragraph (b) meets or exceeds that level of safety. This reading of the standard is not completely accurate. Paragraph (a) of that section was the first part of the section to be proposed. Before the rule became effective, however, the proposal was amended to include paragraph (b). Accordingly, both paragraphs must be read together as defining the minimum mandatory safety performance requirement.; Second, you ask for our opinion of the preemption clause in th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). You state that your interpretation is that no State or local government may adopt a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. An exception exists for standards applicable to vehicles purchased for the State's or the local government's own use. This is an accurate reading of the preemption clause, however, a major area of contention frequently arises around what constitutes the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard.; Third, you ask whether the Federal government, through Standard No 217, has preempted States from regulating unobstructed openings for purposes of emergency exits. As you are aware, the standard states that the emergency exit opening must be of a certain size. Further, the standard specifies the location of one of the seats at the forwardmost side of the emergency exit. These are the agency's only requirements relating to the unobstructed emergency exit opening. With respect to whether a State could regulate further in this area, it would depend upon the type of regulation the State adopted. For example, a regulation that governed the size of the opening or the location of the forwardmost seat would probably be preempted. However, a regulation that required an aisle leading to the side emergency door would not likely be preempted, since the Federal government does not regulate aisles in buses.; Your fourth question asks us to comment on whether a Wisconsin statut requires aisles in school buses. The agency does not issue interpretations of State statutes. You should contact appropriate State officials for this information.; Finally, you recite a Wisconsin definition of emergency door zone whic states that it is 'the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit...' You then ask whether there are any such zones on buses constructed with side emergency exits. The agency, as stated above, requires an unobstructed opening at each exit (S5.2.3.1). If Wisconsin defines this as a zone, then such a zone exists in buses for purposes of the Wisconsin statute.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald H. Giberson -- Assistant Director, State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety State of New Jersey 26 South Montgomery Street Trenton, NJ 08666

This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You asked whether vehicles equipped with "Mini-Max" brakes, produced by International Transquip Industries, Inc., comply with the standard. You stated that since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. Your question is responded to below. We note that Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40 is administered by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) rather than by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We have sent a copy of this correspondence to BMCS in order that they may respond to that part of your request.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part:

The parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified in either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing). . . .

The single diaphragm used in the Mini-Max brake is common to both the service and parking brake systems. As part of the service brake system, it is part of a brake system "other" than the parking brake system. Therefore, since the diaphragm is not a component of a brake chamber housing, section S5.6.3 requires that a vehicle must be able to achieve the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure.

We do not have sufficient data to determine whether particular vehicles equipped with Mini-Max brakes would meet the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure. The answer to that question could depend on the nature of the particular vehicle. It is possible, of course, that a vehicle could be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 as a result of the braking force provided by the other parking brakes whose diaphragms have not failed.

We note that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised this issue and other issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and an interpretation letter to International Transquip. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2768).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel Office of Rule Making U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Recently I have received several inquiries regarding the legality of the Mini-Max air actuated mechanically held air brake system judging from the technical data supplied by the manufacturer, International Transquip Industries Inc., the Mini-Max brake chambers do not contain the heavy. Since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used in the Mini-Max, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. In view of the foregoing , it is questionable as to whether the Min-Max complies with FMVSS-121 and Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40. I would be appreciative if you could clarify this matter.

Sincerely,

Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director

DHG/WH/rc

Enclosure Omitted.