ID: 77-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 25, 1977, letter asking whether two sample certification labels you submitted comply with the requirements of Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The two labels you submitted do not follow the format required by Part 567 for certification labels. Therefore, they do not appear to comply with the requirements. Your method of stating tire and rim sizes differs from that required in Part 567 and Standard No. 120. For example, you state your tire and rim information as follows: "10-20-F-Tires-7.5 Rims at 75 PSI Cold Dual." By the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 as they apply to certification labels, this information should read: "10.00-20(F) tires, 20x7.5 rims, at 75 psi cold dual." Further, the statement after GAWR "maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below" should be deleted from the certification label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 for your information.

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

May 25, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. U.S. Department of Transportation

We would appreciate an opinion on the following proposed certification plates for compliance with FMVSS-120. Effective September 1, 1977.

PLATE "B" - This plate would service 98% of our production, in that 10:00-20 "F" tires are the lowest capacity-rated standard tires installed-the other option, i.e. 11-22.5, 10:00-22, 11-24.5 "F" tires are all capacity rated above the 19,040 lbs. GAWR that we certify on the plate. The 10:00-20 "R" tires are included because the psi rating changes, we still rate the "R" tires at the same 19,040 lbs. which is consistant with the GVWR shown on the plate.

PLATE "C" - This plate would be used in the other 2% of our production. The tire selection in these cases is always of a lower capacity-rated tire than the 19,040 lbs. GAWR for the 10:00-20 "F" tire shown on Plate "b". The GAWR used on this plate would be according to the tire manufacture's rating and the GVWR would be decreased accordingly.

We feel that Plate "B" meets the full intent of FMVSS-120, in that it states the maximum GAWR for the smallest standard tire used in the majority of our production. Even though the trailer is equipped with a higher capacity-rated tire we do not increase the GAWR above the 19,040 lb. figure The use of the term "All Axles" readily identifies, and would be much clearer to the end user.

With a 45 day leadtime on procurement of certification plates, your timely response will be appreciated so that compliance requirements may be achieved by the September 1 deadline.

Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering

American trailers, inc. OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

ID: 77-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking who must mark a rim in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, in those cases where the rim is manufactured by one manufacturer and then supplied to a wheel manufacturer who welds the rim to a disc making a completed wheel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that the rim marking must be undertaken by the rim manufacturer. The rim manufacturer is best able to supply the required rim information and undertake the certification required by S5.2 of the standard. The subsequent addition of the disc to the rim should not alter the information marked on the rim.

SINCERELY,

JUNE 7, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: FMVSS 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars

We are writing to request an interpretation of the rim marking requirement of FMVSS 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle other than Passenger Cars.

We are interested in the case where a rim manufacturer supplies rims to a wheel manufacturer who then welds these rims to discs thus producing wheels. In such a situation, is the rim manufacturer or the wheel manufacturer responsible for the markings required by FMVSS 120?

Your prompt reply to this inquiry would be appreciated.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE

NAME OF AGENCY:

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. PRECEDENCE Action P (Illegible Word) DATE PREPARED: 8/16/77

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

TYPE OF (Illegible Word): [x] (Illegible Word) [] BOOK [] MULTIPLE-ADDRESS

NAME: Fred Koch PHONE NUMBER: 202-426-2800

THIS SPACE FOR USE OF COMMUNICATION UNIT: #26417

TO: ROBERT STEVENSON TECHNICAL SALES MANAGER, WHEEL DIVISION GKN SANKEY, LIMITED

PURSUANT TO YOUR TELEPHONE CALL OF AUGUST 15, 1977, TO FRED KOCH REGARDING FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 120, OUR ANSWERS TO YOUR TWO QUESTIONS FOLLOW.

1. REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF MOLDED LETTERING ON RIM SURFACES IDENTIFYING MILL SOURCE OF MATERIAL NOT SPECIFIED IN THE STANDARD, THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO SUCH MARKING APPEARING ON THE FINISHED RIM PROVIDED IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH UNDERSTANDING AND CLARITY OF SEPARATE MARKINGS REQUIRED BY THE STANDARD.

2. REGARDING THE SPACING OF NUMBERS ON THE RIM REPRESENTING DATE OF MANUFACTURER, THE INTENT IS TO MINIMIZE AREA OCCUPIED AND TO AVOID IRREGULAR OR INCONSISTENT SPACING AND OPENINGS IN WHICH INFORMATION MIGHT BE LOST OR UNDETECTED. HOWEVER, THE USE OF VERY SHORT SPACING BETWEEN MONTH, DAY, AND YEAR IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE STANDARD.

E. T. DRIVER, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CRASH AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS NMV-30 PAGE NO.: 2 NO. OF PGS.: 2

ID: nht87-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1986, with reference to the distance between a front turn signal lamp and a lower beam headlamp.

In brief, SAE Standard J588e, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 requires a minimum separation distance of 4 inches between the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lo wer bean headlamp. You have pointed out that a replaceable bulb headlamp does not have a retaining ring, and you have presented two possible substitutes as a measuring point. The first (your Item A) is the outer edge of the headlamp, and the second (your Item B) is the end of the effective area of the reflector. You believe that Item B is the more appropriate.

We concur with your interpretation. Of the two options, the distance to the edge of the effective area of the reflector is the one most similar to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lower beam headlamp. The basis for this interpretation is the assumption that the headlamp lens between the outer edge of the headlamp and the edge of the effective area of the reflector is not used for production of the lamp's bean, has mo significant luminance, and therefore will not mask the turn signal.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 21, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

Re : Distance between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp)

In Motor Vehicle Safety Standard N0.108, Paragraph 4.3.1.7, the following is prescribed:

S4.3.1.7 The requirement that there be not less than 4 inches between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp, specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970, shall not apply if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamps Measured at the test point within each group listed in Figure 1c is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps.

According to the SAE Standard J588e, the distance is defined as from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam. This definition applies only to a standardized headlamp. What definition is appropriate for a replaceable bulb headlamp, in other words, an unstandardized headlamp? We think B in the following definition is appropriate.

A : From the filament center of the front turn signal lamp to the outer edge of a low beam headlamp

B : From the filament center of the front turn signal lamp to the end of the effective area of the reflector of a low beam headlamp

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

ID: nht81-1.40

DATE: 03/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Zemaitis; NHTSA

TO: Poly Dyne Engineering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Date: March 16 1981 NO9-00

Subject: Poly Dyne Engineering P.O. Box 3517 Scottsdale, Arizona 85257

From: Motor Vehicle Program Director, Region IX

To: Office of Chief Counsel NOA-30

Enclosed is a letter dated March 6, 1981, and an attached brochure illustrating a reflective device.

We would appreciate your response to the subject.

Joseph Zemaitis

Enclosure

Poly Dyne Engineering Box 3517 Scottsdale, Arizona 85257

March 6, 1981

Joseph F. Zemaitis National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94111 Dear Mr. Zemaitis:

Recently, we have requested copies of regulations pertaining to standards and usage of triangle type flares of warning signals as related to overland trucks. Your office has been helpful in supplying us with copies of current DOT regulations along with procedures to follow for possible amendments.

The purpose of this letter and prior inquiries was to initiate some action that would allow the use of our new patented triangle signal either in addition to or in place of the type that now is carried by truckers to be set on the ground in proper orientation to disabled or parked trucks.

Our product, photos and literature enclosed, has been designed for either rear or side mount on trucks, RVs or any other vehicle and is automatically deployed into its triangular configuration upon withdrawal from the case. Not only is the signal weather tight, but it is permanently mounted on a vehicle and can be rapidly deployed in a matter of seconds or re-encased in the same amount of time. Naturally, the product has been designed to meet DOT specifications for size, reflective surface area, reflectivity and environmental requirements. We have found that a signal of this type mounted a minimum of 3 to 5 feet above the road surface becomes highly visible to approaching traffic from far greater distances than those sitting on the ground. Additionally, they are not subject to the effects of high winds, theft, or the all too common breakage from passing traffic and, by the ease with which they can be deployed, would encourage their use by truckers as well as by RV owners, truck and trailer rental companies, delivery services, etc...We believe that more extensive use of this type of warning device would add significantly to traffic safety.

Needless to say, we are enthused about our new warning signal and have received unusually enthusiastic response from truckers and fleet owners who have seen this device and would like to see it used in place of those now required for road surface display.

We would appreciate your review of the enclosed information as well as your opinion of its benefits and your estimate of the amount of time and effort that may be involved in obtaining DOT approval for its use.

O. Vandewege, Pres. PolyDyne Engineering

OVbb

ID: nht80-1.33

DATE: 03/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

COPYEE: JEROME N. SONOSKY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter forwarded to us by Mr. Jerry Sonosky, requesting an interpretation of the term "overall width" as used in Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You ask questions: (1) whether overall width means the design width of a vehicle, or whether it means the maximum possible width allowed by design tolerances, and (2) whether overall width includes plastic, splash molding attached to the vehicle body with screws and nuts.

In answer to your first question, overall width means the maximum design width of the vehicle including tolerances.

Safety Standard No. 104 defines "overall width" as the maximum overall body width dimension "W116," as defined in section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aero-space-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. The "W116" standard specifies that overall width is measured across the body, excluding hardware and applied moldings, but including fenders when integral with the body. Therefore, the overall width of a vehicle would not include splash molding on the sides of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

HOGAN & HARTSON

February 14, 1980

Hugh Oates Office of the General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Hugh:

Enclosed is a request for interpretation of Standard 104 which our client, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. asked us to forward directly to you.

Best wishes.

Jerome N. Sonosky

ENC.

CC: PROF. DR. W. REIDELBACH; CRAIG JONES

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

November 16, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Office of Chief Counsel

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems; Request for Interpretation

Dear Madam or Sir:

Your interpretation is requested on the definition "Overall width" as used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. Section S 3. of that standard defines "Overall width" as being the maximum overall body width dimension "W116", as defined in section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. This second standard contains the statement that "Overall width" is measured across body, excluding hardware and applied moldings, but including fenders when integral with body.

Your interpretation of this definition is requested as follows:

1. Does overall width mean the design width of a vehicle, or does it mean the maximum (or minimum) possible width allowed by design tolerances?

2. Does overall width include plastic, splash molding attached to the vehicle body with screws and nuts. You will note in the attached drawing that this splash trim (cross-hatched) is the widest portion of the vehicle. However it is only an applied molding as shown both in the cross-section view as well as the vehicle photograph.

Should you require additional information on this request do not hesitate to contact Mr. G. M. Hespeler of our Safety Engineering Department - 201-573 2616.

HEINZ W. GERTH

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-7.50

DATE: December 20, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef, Esq. -- General Motors Corporation, Legal Staff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-2-91 from Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6728)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). Specifically, you asked if General Motors Corporation (GM) could include the term "dynamically-tested" in the label required by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that GM may do so.

Prior to September 1, 1992, S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires a dynamically tested manual belt to be labeled with the following statement: "This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., front right) in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)). However, a November 4, 1991 final rule, published at 56 FR 56323, amended S4.6(b) by deleting the term "dynamically-tested" from the required label, effective September 1, 1992. GM would like to continue to include the term "dynamically-tested" on its labels.

NHTSA has often addressed the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on the product in the context of our safety standards that apply to tires. NHTSA has consistently stated that additional information may be included on tires, provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose." See, e.g., our May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. This is the same test we would apply in any of our safety standards for additional information that is provided along with required labeling information.

Applying this test to the situation at hand, the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209 is to minimize the likelihood of improper installations of dynamically-tested manual belts, by specifying the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed. GM's proposed labels would provide the information about the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed on the label of these belts. The only difference between GM's proposed labels and the exact language specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 would be that GM's proposed labels would describe the belts as "dynamically-tested seat belt assemblies," instead of "seat belt assemblies." We do not see how this additional description of the belts, which is accurate and consistent with the agency's use of the term "dynamically-tested," would obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Therefore, GM's proposed labeling would be permitted under the provisions

of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 that take effect September 1, 1992.

Enclosed with your letter was a petition for reconsideration that you asked be considered if the agency determined that the current language of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 prohibited the additional information to be provided on the GM labels. Since NHTSA has concluded that Standard No. 209 permits the additional information, we are disregarding that petition for reconsideration and will take no action on it.

ID: nht94-2.74

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James Schaub -- Midas Muffler Shop

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/21/93 from James "Bubba" Schaub to John Womack (OCC-9252)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do n ot follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they hav e been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle eq uipment. Standard No. 105, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety A ct does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of de sign installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake system s. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standar ds for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows:

(f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation. We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

ID: nht94-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Schaub, James -- Midas Muffler Shop (Louisiana)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/21/93 Letter From James Schaub To John Womack (OCC 9252)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this rega rd, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle eq uipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake syste ms. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the stan dards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows: (f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation.

We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

ID: nht94-8.13

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Gary D. March -- Director, Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Gary D. March (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the safety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion corresponds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She indicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in- between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be

delivered and perhaps have bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: nht94-8.18

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: March, Gary D. -- Director, Illinois Department Of Transportation, Division Of Traffic Safety

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/01/94 (EST.) Letter From John Womack To Gary D. March (A42; STD. 217; Part 586)

TEXT: On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the safety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion corresponds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She indicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in-between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be delivered and perhaps have bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.