ID: nht80-4.3

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 4, 1980 letter to this office in which you requested confirmation that a certain tire size was listed for use with a particular rim size in a tire publication recognized by this agency for purposes of Standard 110. Page 1-11 of the 1980 Yearbook of the Tire & Rim Association lists a 5 1/2 inch rim as appropriate for use with 185/7OR14 tires. Thus, use of the 5 1/2 inch rims with that size tire would satisfy the requirements of paragraph S4.4.1(a) of Standard 110.

If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, feel free to contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA, INC.

September 4, 1980

Steven R. Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Please confirm that radial tires sized 185/70HR14 are listed in an NHTSA-recognized tire publication for use with a 5 1/2J x 14 wheel rim and that this combination therefore meets the tire and rim matching requirements of FMVSS 110.

Thank you for your assistance.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

Bruce Henderson

ID: nht80-4.4

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Company of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 17, 1980 letter to this office in which you posed six questions concerning Safety Standard 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). The answers are set forth below following the number you assigned to each question in your letter.

(1) No, T&RA design information is not considered part of the T&RA yearbook for purposes of Standard 119. Design information refers to future tire sizes which will soon be produced, but which are not currently on the market. Since the specifications in the design information have not been formally approved by T&RA, as the yearbook entries have, the design information has not been subjected to the same type of examination by T&RA, and is not accepted by this agency.

(2) The Plunger Energy Table (Table II in Standard 119) published November 13, 1973 is the most current table we have published.

(3) The ETRTO petition to which you refer has not been granted by this agency. Shortly after receipt of the petition, we made a telephone contact with ETRTO requesting further information which would justify setting the plunger energy specifications at the requested levels. ETRTO was informed that the petition would not be considered until we had received this additional information, and no further information has been received. Similarly, your company requested the inclusion of additional values for Table II in a letter dated August 9, 1979. Mr. Finkelstein, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, sent a letter to Mr. P. L. Lab of Bridgestone on September 12, 1979 requesting further information and justification for including these values. To date, no further information has been received.

(4) Since there is no plunger energy value specified for tubeless tires with a load range greater than "J" in Table II, there are currently no requirements for plunger energy strength that these tires must meet. It is acceptable if you choose to test these tires at the strength level specified for load range "J" tires, but that level is significantly below what would be expected for higher load range tires.

(5) When your company submits matching information to this agency pursuant to the requirements of S5.1(a) of Standard 119. it is perfectly acceptable to send duplicate copies of the information you have furnished to the dealers, and no separate letter is necessary.

(6) I am aware of only three requests for plunger energy tests for tubeless tires with load ranges greater than "J". The first came from Michelin in 1973, when the Standard was being developed. NHTSA asked Michelin to provide information on the proposed values, and Michelin never raised the issue again. ETRTO submitted the petition you referred to in question 3, and never provided the further information requested. Bridgestone submitted a petition in August 1979 and never provided the further information requested. There have been no other requests for additional plunger energy values.

If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202)426-2992.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BRIDGESTONE TIRE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

July 17, 1980

Ref. No.: HH-80-152

Office of Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

We would appreciate your comments on the following questions relative to FMVSS 119.

1) Is TRA Engineering Design Information regarded as a part of the TRA Yearbook from the approval standpoint of FMVSS 119?

2) The latest table of Plunger Energy in FMVSS 119 that we have in our file is as of November 13, 1973. If this is not the latest one available, what is the most current?

3) We understand ETRTO sent a petition to you on November 2, 1977 regarding the Plunger Energy setting of "L" at 21,000 lbs. and "M" at 23,200 lbs. We would like to know if this has been approved by NHTSA.

4) Since the highest load ranges is "J" in our table, we have been testing our 18R22.5 20PR tire at load range "J" for Plunger Energy. We would like to know if this is appropriate.

5) We understand that we are supposed to submit Matching information to you whenever we come up with a new size tire in FMVSS 119. We do distribute this type of information to our dealers and end-users. Is it satisfactory for us to send a copy of this Matching information to you or should we submit a letter to you for this purpose?

6) We believe that we are not the only one with these questions and we wonder if a similar petition has been submitted from other associations or manufacturers.

Thank you in advance for your time in answering the above questions. We will be looking forward to your reply.

Very truly yours,

Hiromi Hamaya -- Vice President, Engineering Dept.

ID: nht80-4.5

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Elgene Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 15, 1980 letter to this office requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, you were concerned about paragraph S5.1.3, which permits the use of used tires on new vehicles other than passenger cars. The interpretations set forth below follow the same order used in your letter.

(1) New motor vehicles subject to Standard 120, which includes all motor vehicles other than passenger cars, may be equipped with used tires, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard; provided, that the used tires are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser and that they are installed on the vehicle at the request of the purchaser. This means that a vehicle manufacturer may not itself purchase used tires to install on new vehicles, nor may a vehicle purchaser authorize the manufacturer to install used tires not owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle.

(2) There is no limitation as to the axles on which used tires may be used. It would be permissible for a vehicle purchaser to ask a vehicle manufacturer to install the purchaser's used tires on each axle of the vehicle. The only requirement for axles in section S5.1.3 is that each axle must be equipped with tires, new or used, the sum of whose load ratings is at least equal to the gross axle weight rating for that axle.

(3) The used tires installed pursuant to paragraph S5.1.3 must be marked with the DOT number to indicate that the tires were originally manufactured in compliance with Standard 119. The January 1, 1978 date to which you referred means that all vehicles manufactured after that date and equipped with used tires under S5.1.3, must be equipped with used tires that originally complied with Standard 119 and have the DOT marking. The requirement does not mean that the used tires must have been originally manufactured on or after January 1, 1978, as you stated in your letter.

(4) For purposes of this section of Standard 120, used tires have been interpreted to include retreaded tires. To repeat what I stated under answer number "1" above, your statement that the vehicle purchaser may use retreaded tires on his vehicle if he requests the manufacturer to install retreaded tires is not entirely accurate. The retreaded tires may only be used if they are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser.

The penalties for failure to comply with Standard 120 could be up to $ 1,000 for each violation, pursuant to the authority of sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1398). Since Standard 120 applies to vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for any violation. This agency considers each separate use of an unauthorized tire on a vehicle to be a separate violation. For example, if a vehicle had six tires and each failed to comply with the requirements of Standard 120, the vehicle would have six violations, and civil penalties of up to $ 6,000 could be assessed against the vehicle manufacturer.

Enforcement of Standard No. 120 is under the general provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act. There are no special enforcement procedures. The agency has investigators who check vehicles to ensure that they comply with the applicable standards. If there is a noncompliance, the agency has the authority to sue the violator in a Federal court to collect the civil penalties, pursuant to section 105 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394).

If the new vehicles were shipped without tires, as you suggested in the last question in your letter, Standard 120 would not apply to the vehicles. Section S5.1.1 specifies that the requirements of this standard apply to "each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service." Only vehicles so equipped are subject to Standard 120.

You should be aware of the fact that this agency will soon publish a notice proposing changes in the requirements of section S5.1.3 of Standard 120. If you would like a copy of that proposal after it is published, or have any further questions on this matter, please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.

SINCERELY,

August 15, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

In reference to U.S. Department of Transportation 571.120 standard no. 120: Tire Selection for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Section S5.1.3 specifically.

It is my interpretation that:

1. New trailers, trailer/container chassis, trucks and buses, may be equipped with retread tires utilizing salvaged, used, worn tire bodies.

2. These retreads may not be used on steering axles.

3. The worn, used tire bodies (casings) must have been manufactured on and after January 1, 1978, as evidenced by the DOT symbol marked on one sidewall.

4. The purchaser of the equipment may use retread tires on these new vehicles when he requests the chassis manufacturer to install same.

Would you please give me your interpretation of the above. I have great difficulty in competitively securing new chassis O.E.M. retread business with the opposition ignoring the requirements as I interpret them to be. This is a very viable segment of the retread industry since retreads salvage worn tires by consuming far less energy and oil than do new tires.

Are there penalties for non-conforming?

Are there any enforcement procedures?

If the new chassis, trailers, etc. were shipped without tires at all -- would the D.O.T. 120/119 casing (used) tire requirement be applicable?

If further personal discussions are necessary please feel free to call upon me. I urge you to respond quickly.

Gene S. Rosenfeld, President

ID: nht80-4.6

DATE: 10/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Excel Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 3, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. S. A. Spretnjak Excel Industries, Inc. 1120 North Main Street Elkhart, Indiana 46514

Dear Mr. Spretnjak:

This responds to your August 15, 1980, letter asking several questions about your responsibilities for complying with Federal safety standards. You state that you manufacture a sun roof that can be installed by either an original vehicle manufacturer or a subsequent vehicle alterer.

Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to note that Federal safety standards apply to different manufacturers depending upon the standard involved. Equipment standards are the responsibility of equipment manufacturers while vehicle standards fall within the responsibilities of a vehicle manufacturer or alterer. For sun roofs, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, is an equipment standard and might apply to an equipment manufacturer who manufacturers sun roofs if they contain any glazing materials. Some vehicle safety standards might be affected also by the installation of a sun roof. The installer of a sun roof would be entirely responsible for compliance with all of the vehicle safety standards affected by the sun roof installation.

Your first question asks who certifies the sun roof if it is installed as original equipment on a vehicle. The equipment manufacturer who manufacturers the glazing would be responsible for certifying the glazing in accordance with Standard No. 205. The installer of the sun roof, the vehicle manufacturer, would certify the vehicle in compliance with all of the safety standards.

Second, you ask the same question as above with respect to a van conversion or motor home construction. Again, the equipment manufacturer would certify to the glazing standard, and the van converter or motor home builder would certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, Certification.

Third, you ask who must certify if a dealer adds a sun roof before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser. The equipment manufacturer certifies to the glazing standard, and the installer of the device would attach an alterer's label to any vehicle in accordance with Part 567.7.

Your fourth question asks who certifies if a body shop adds the sun roof for a vehicle owner. As always, the sun roof glazing is certified by the equipment manufacturer. Businesses that modify used vehicles are not required to recertify those vehicles in compliance with any of the safety standards. Such businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard.

Fifth, you ask whether as a window manufacturer your only responsibility is to certify to Standards Nos. 205 and 217. As stated earlier, you would have responsibility to certify to Standard No. 205. However, Standard No. 217 is a vehicle standard, and only a vehicle manufacturer or alterer has responsibility for certifying compliance with that standard.

Your final question asks about testing for compliance with the safety standards. Testing is usually conducted by vehicle manufacturers for those standards that apply to vehicles. For standards that apply only to equipment, the testing is usually done by the equipment manufacturer. When a vehicle is altered and the alterer must attach a label indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards, the alterer can certify compliance through any means that, in the exercise of due care, he or she feels is sufficient to assure compliance with the safety standards. Methods available to alterers include: retesting, simulated testing, mathmatical modeling, or any other device appropriate for assesiing continued compliance with the standards.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 15, 1980

Roger Tilton ESQ Attorney Adviser Office of the Chief Council Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Per our telephone conversation on August 12, 1980, this formal request for assistance is forwarded to your attention.

Excel Industries is a manufacturer of aftermarket sunroof products and specialty windows. The product consists of a glass lite, aluminum frame and plastic handle (see attached sketch for more details).

The product would be sold thru and to auto body shops, van converters and aftermarket distribution centers. The installation of the product could be done at facilities of the afore mentioned sales outlets or by the general public. The ultimate end use of the product and type of vehicle installation after sales are not controlled.

Based on the above information the question of product liability with regard to compliance and certification to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards must be addressed.

Your assistance is required to answer the following questions:

ITEM #1 If a sunroof assembly is installed by an original equipment manufacturer (ie. Ford, GMC, Chrysler) on a domestic or Import vehicle, should the installer of the unit certify the product?

ITEM #2 If a sunroof assembly is installed by a motor home builder and/or van converter should the installer certify the product and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #3 If a vehicle is not titled ie. altered by dealer before sale, should the installer certify and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #4 If a body shop installs a sun roof for an individual should the installer certify and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #5 As a window manufacturer is it true that the certifications to FMVSS #205 and possibly FMVSS #217 are only FMVSS specifications that must be certified?

ITEM #6 Most FMVSS require testing on the final and completed vehicle. Does this place the burden of testing and/or certifying compliance on the OEM or final stage finisher? When a vehicle is altered can certification be attained by the following methods?

1) Retesting the entire vehicle 2) Simulate static testing the original vehicle versus the altered vehicle 3) Mathematically models 4) Can the installer by any other process, whereby, with due care provide evidence that the altered vehicle is as applicable to meeting the standard as the original vehicle.

A response prior to October 1, 1980, would be most appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation,

EXCEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

S.A. Spretnjak

Attachment SAS/lmv cc: JEC PJT ALG

ID: nht80-4.7

DATE: 10/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William Blythe

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 3, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. William Blythe 1545 University Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301

Dear Mr. Blythe:

This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 216 Roof Crush Resistance (49 CFR 571.216). Specifically, you are concerned with the proper applications of the test block forces specified in paragraphs S6.3 and S6.2(d) of the standard.

Your first question asks whether paragraph S6.3 allows the force on the test block to be applied "essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block." Paragraph S6.3 specifies that the force required by the standard shall be applied in a downward direction to the lower surface of the test device. Figure 1 of the standard illustrates this procedure and indicates that the force is to be centrally applied to the loading block. This procedure will be followed during tests by the agency to determine the compliance of particular passenger cars with Safety Standard No. 216. Therefore, we would not recommend that you apply the force opposite the initial contact point of the test block with the roof.

Paragraph S6.2(d) of the standard specifies that the initial contact point (with the roof) is on the longitudinal centerline on the lower surface of the test device and 10 inches from the forwardmost point of the centerline. Your second question asks whether this 10-inch dimension should be maintained if this places the leading edge of the test device behind the leading edge of the roof and the A-pillars. You state that this would occur with certain roof configurations which tend to be high in the center (i.e., in which the leading edge of the roof is not the highest point of the roof). A manufacturer should adhere to the 10-inch dimension even if this means the leading edge of the test device will not be forward of the A-pillar and the roof's forward edge. The test procedures specified are standardized procedures which the agency applies to all passenger cars regardless of roof configuration. Thus, the agency would maintain the 10-inch dimension even when testing a roof with a higher center than its leading edge.

I would like to point out, however, that the test procedures specified in the safety standards only document how the agency will conduct its compliance tests. Manufacturers are not required to test vehicles according to the procedures specified. A manufacturer's responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles are in fact in compliance with the standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). If you are convinced that the procedures mentioned in your letter would accurately test the compliance of a particular vehicle with Safety Standard No. 216, you are certainly permitted to use those procedures. It is up to the manufacturer, however, to determine whether it has in fact exercised due care to determine compliance.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 24, 1980

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Streee, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Huyh Oates, Esq.

Reference: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars"

Gentlemen:

This letter is pursuant to my telephone conversation with Mr. Hugh Oates, on August 7, 1980. I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Ed Jettner, NHTSA Project Engineer for MVSS 216, in an attempt to clarify certain aspects of that Standard. My organization is preparing to conduct tests in accordance with MVSS 216, and we perceive certain apparent ambiguities in the Test Procedure (paragraph S.6 of MVSS 216), for which we need clarification. Essentially, we have two questions to which we seek answers.

1. What should be the location of the applied force with respect to the upper surface of the test block?

Paragraph S6.3 reads: "Apply force in a downward direction to the lower (sic) surface of the test device...," but does not specify the location of the force on the surface of the block. Figure 1 seems to imply that the applied force should be centered in the upper surface of the block, but the location of the force is not dimensioned. Clearly, if the applied force could be located directly opposite the point of initial contact of the test block with the roof, the load transmitted to the roof would be unchanged, and at the same time the loading frame needed to maintain the block at its specified angles would be much simpler to construct. Thus the question is, can the applied force on the block be located essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block? This location is much preferred over the control location implied in Figure 1 of the specification because the test frame is thereby greatly simplified and no change results in the loads transmitted to the roof.

2. Should the ten-inch dimension from the leading edge of the loading block to the initial contact point be maintained even if this locates the leading edge of the block aft of the A-pillar (or leading edge of the roof)?

Paragraph S6.2(d) specifies that the "initial contact point ... is ... 10 inches from the forwardmost point..." of the loading block. Also, Figure 1 implies that the forward edge of the block is forward of the leading edge of the roof. For some roof configurations (which tend to be high in the center), holding the ten-inch requirement will move the leading edge of the block to a position aft of the leading edge of the roof. In such a situation, should the ten-inch dimension be maintained, or should the leading edge of the loading block remain forward of the A-pillar, thus increasing the ten-inch dimension? In order to simulate, even approximately, the actual loading which might be encountered in a roll-over, it would seem desirable to keep the leading edge of the loading block forward of the A-pillar so that the A-pillars are loaded directly.

Because of our test program schedule, we would appreciate your response at the earliest possible time.

Very truly yours,

William Blythe, Ph.D.

WB:gh

ID: nht80-4.8

DATE: 10/03/80

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 5, 1980, letter asking why it might not be possible for a manufacturer to certify a vehicle in compliance with the school bus safety standards if that vehicle transports 10 persons or less. You state that you would like the smaller sized vehicles to be constructed with the same safety features as larger school buses.

First, we would like to note that the school bus safety standards were originally applied only to the larger sized vehicles (more than 10 persons) because the larger sized vehicles were not previously required to comply with many of our safety standards. On the other hand, most of our standards apply to vehicles transporting 10 persons or less. Since these small vehicles were extensively regulated it was determined to be unnecessary to apply school bus safety standards to them.

In response to your particular question, a vehicle transporting 10 persons or less is a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), not a bus or a school bus. A manufacturer is required by this agency to certify such a vehicle in compliance with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles. This certification statement must be made on the vehicle's certification label. Therefore, a manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a school bus in compliance with the school bus safety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category (more than 10 persons).

New York should not attempt to issue a regulation that would require multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with all school bus safety standards. Some of those standards might conflict with other Federal safety standards applicable to MPV's and would, therefore, be preempted. For example, the school bus seating standard could not be applied to MPV's because their seating is regulated by other Federal safety because their seating is regulated by other Federal safety standards. However, since MPV's are not presently regulated in the areas of emergency exists, joint strength, or roof crush, New York could have a regulation requiring MPV's used to transport children to comply with these performance standards now applicable only to school buses. The vehicles would still be required to be certified only to the safety standards applicable to MPV's however.

ID: nht80-4.9

DATE: 10/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. C. Rodney Kuhns

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 10, 1980, in which you ask whether your proposed urban transport vehicle would be classified as an automoble or a motorcycle.

The agency's definition of "motorcycle" is given in 49 CFR @ 571.3, which reads in part:

"Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

Based on our understanding of your drawings, your proposed vehicle has more than three wheels. If our understanding is correct, your vehicle would be classified as a passenger car rather than as a motorcycle.

The requirements for passenger cars are more stringent than for motorcycles. We have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by the agency which gives a brief summary of the requirements and applicability of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (issued as of August 1978). However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. We have enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain up-to-date copies of our standards and other regulations.

This agency does not license any vehicles for street or highway use. Licensing is handled by the States. We specify performance requirements, and any motor vehicle must be certified by its manufacturers as being in compliance with all applicable safety standards as of the date of its manufacture. If the vehicle complies with these requirements, we specify no further steps which must be taken.

The agency will provide confidential treatment for your letter and accompanying drawings.

ID: nht81-1.1

DATE: 01/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kux Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 25, 1980 asking whether any Federal regulation "prohibits the use of reflective red markings on the front of vehicles."

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation administered by the Federal Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation impliedly prohibit the use of red reflectors on the front of vehicles subject to its jurisdiction by requiring that all reflectors, other than those at the rear, be amber in color (49 CFR 393.26(d)). The common contract, private or exempt carriers covered by this requirement are found in 49 U.S.C. 303.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting (49 CFR 571.108) applicable to the manufacture of all motor vehicles contains a general prohibition (paragraph S4.1.3) against installation of reflective devices that impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Because of the generally accepted lighting coding of amber to the front and red to the rear, we would view installation of red reflective material on the front of a vehicle as prohibited by S4.1.3.

SINCERELY,

KUX MANUFACTURING COMPANY

November 25, 1980

Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Our Company is a manufacturer of vehicle graphics for the trucking and automobile industries. It has been our understanding that there is a Department of Transportation or other federal regulation prohibiting the use of reflective red markings on the front of vehicles. I would appreciate a response from your office as soon as possible verifying whether, in fact, such a prohibition exists. If so, please provide a citation for the provision.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Eric C. Oppenheim Corporate Attorney

cc: J. JONES

ID: nht81-1.10

DATE: 02/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Richard A. Rechlicz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 18, 1980, letter asking several 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 question 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 the 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 exists. 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 forward-most 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 statute 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 which 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,

RICHARD A. RECHLICZ

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR

December 18, 1980

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

RE: Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release File No. 80-82

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Please be advised that the undersigned has been retained by and represents a corporation engaged in the manufacture of school buses throughout the United States, for the purpose of investigation certain issues that relate to standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release and the Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter MVD 17 entitled Transporation of School Children.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request a written legal opinion from your offices on the issues raised in this correspondence as they relate to standard 217 and MVD 17.

First, as I understand the legislative history of standard 217, S5.2.3.1 was first issued with only subsection (a). Later, as a response to and after opposition was voiced by certain west coast bus manufacturers using the "California window" due to rear mounted engines, NHTSA promulgated subsection (b). Thus, the present standard allows the manufacturer to choose either subsection (a) or subsection (b). Is it correct that subsection (a) established the minimum degree of safety and that subsection (b) either meets or exceeds that minimum standard?

Second, please advise as to the NHTSA position on the supremacy clause, 15USC section 1392(b). It was my belief that with respect to the directive of Congress to the NHTSA to address itself to the safety standards itemized in 15 USC 1395(i), where the NHTSA issued a safety standard thereon, the State could not adopt "any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of said vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." (State owned and used vehicles excepted).

Third, and I believe this relates to question 2, as I read Standard 217, especifically 217 S5.2.1, it is my impression that all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more "shall meet the unobstructed openings requirements by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 through S5.5". Has the federal government pre-empted the field as to what is unobstructed for the openings? For this example, please refer to the spec drawing enclosed: if the manufacturer meets the requirements of S5.4.2.1(b), can the State initiate a rule that the seating arrangement as shown in the drawing for the side door obstructs the opening? (Assume also that the seating arrangement meets federal specifications as to distance.)

Fourth, it is my belief that nowhere in the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17, is there a requirement that buses must have aisles. From your reading of that chapter alone, and I suggest that the word aisle is used only in MVD 17.13(1) and 17.25(2)(b), do you find anywhere that MVD 17 either

(1) defines aisle? or

(2) requires aisles in school buses?

Again, I request the opinion on this aspect only from your reading of the provision, not from other outside factors.

Finally, MVD 17.06(3) defines "emergency door zone" as "the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit. . ." From a reading of this definition alone, could you please advise as to whether there are any emergency door zones on a bus that is manufactured with exists meeting FMVSS 217 S5.2.3.1(b) ("California window" and side door exit).

I understand that responses to all of these issues raised in this correspondence will require a considerable amount of time by your offices. Please realize that it is important that we have a response from your offices on each question.

Accordingly, if there is any question that is not clear to you as stated, please call.

Furthermore, I would request that you acknowledge receipt of this correspondence.

Your prompt and immediate attention to this correspondence is appreciated as we are currently experiencing certain time restraints.

I thank you in advance for your consideration and courtesies. Seasons greetings to you and your family.

ENC.

cc: THOMAS BUILT BUS, INC. ATTN: BRYCE HUNT; RODDY LIGON, JR.; WILLIAM G. LADEWIG, ATTY AT LAW;

NOTE:

THE SEAT JUST FORWARD OF THE SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR CAN NOT EXTEND BEYOND LEADING VERTICAL EDGE OF DOOR OPENING.

APPLIES TO:

"S" MODELS WITH SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR AND WITHOUT REAR EMERGENCY DOOR.

ALL GAUGES TO CONFORM TO AMERICAN IRON A STEEL INSTITUTE (AISI) SPECIFICATIONS

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC. HIGH POINT, N.C.

TITLE

SEAT LOCATION - SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR FMVSS #217

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-1.11

DATE: 02/09/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Synnestvedt & Lechner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letter of December 11, 1980, in which you ask us to reconsider the interpretation we issued on April 22, 1980, regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. We stated in our letter to you on that date that the abrasion test for vehicle windshield glazing must be conducted on both the exterior and the interior surfaces of the windshield (i.e., both surfaces must comply with the requirements of the standard).

After further consideration, we reaffirm our earlier interpretation. However, on January 19, 1981, the NHTSA did issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on whether Standard No. 205 should be amended to adopt less stringent requirements for glass-plastic glazing. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information.

Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SYNNESTVEDT & LECHNER

December 11, 1980

Frank E. Berndt, Esquire -- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: NOA-30

Dear Mr. Berndt:

By letter of December 9, 1980 from Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein, we have been advised of the granting of the petition of our client, Saint-Gobain Vitrage, to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

In the context of a rulemaking proceeding in progress, we ask that prompt attention be given to our letter of May 7, 1980, copy enclosed, requesting that you reconsider the interpretative ruling we seek. By the interpretation we urge, some actual on-road experience in the United States could be gathered during the pendency of the rulemaking proceeding. This would come about through the supply from Saint-Gobain Vitrage to European car manufacturers who are already customers for the Securiflex inner guard windshield, of additional such windshields to be used in cars being shipped to the United States. Audi and Peugeot are obvious candidates to begin such introduction, although there are other European car manufacturers who would probably do the same, perhaps as an optional feature.

We will look for your response.

Very truly yours,

John T. Synnestvedt

Enclosures

cc: Joan Claybrook