ID: nht92-5.4

DATE: July 31, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Le Van Lac -- Vice President, Pioneer Electronic Services, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/5/92 from Le Van Lac to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7406)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 5, 1992, with reference to your plan to sell a new car speaker in the U.S. It will be installed "in the rear deck" with the "Pioneer brand name to be printed on the rear side of the speaker cabinet." The brand name will be lit "with blue color at night" and "there are 8 lamps for each left and right speaker." The brightness of the lamp is "just 1/40 of the high mount stop lamp." You believe that the "illuminated speaker will not impair the effectiveness of the existing lighting equipment installed into the car."

We understand that the speaker will be sold as aftermarket equipment, not as original equipment. Installation of the speaker by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is permissible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as long as it does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any of the rear view mirror or lighting equipment that is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The drawing you enclosed, and the description of the speaker, are insufficient for us to provide you a definitive interpretation. For instance, it is not possible to tell whether the light is oriented to the rear, so that it will be seen through the rear window, adjacent to the center highmounted stop lamp, or whether it is oriented to the front, so that it will reflect in the rear view mirror. In either location, it may have the potential to affect negatively the safety performance of rear view mirrors or the rear center stop lamp. Taylor Vinson of this Office telephoned your company on June 22, suggesting that it furnish a clearer drawing and a better description. As of the date of this response, we have heard nothing further from you.

Further, there are state laws that prohibit illumination in vehicle interiors under certain conditions. We are unable to advise you of these laws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to provide you with an interpretation.

ID: nht92-5.40

DATE: June 29, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Bart Gordon -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/4/92 from Bart Gordon to Adele Derby

TEXT:

Thank you for your June 4, 1992, letter to Ms. Adele Derby, Associate Administrator for Regional Operations, regarding the use of 11-15 passenger vans for school purposes.

You stated in your letter that some confusion exists in Tennessee as to whether such vans can be used to transport students such as the debate team or the cheerleading squad to extracurricular activities. You said that it is your understanding that there are regulations prohibiting the sale of such vans for school use, and that your question is whether schools that currently own such vans can use them. You pointed out that the specific confusion seems to lie in whether this agency's definition of a school bus applies to these vans and if so, whether the vans must comply with our school bus safety standards. Finally, you advised that the State of Tennessee, in interpreting our regulations, advised schools to stop using vans in the 11-15 passenger category.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) appreciates the opportunity to clarify for you our school bus regulations. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. SS1381 - 1431 (hereinafter Safety Act), authorizes NHTSA to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments. These amendments directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all school buses. Such standards became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to every school bus manufactured on or after that date. The standards may be found in 49 CFR Part 571.

Under Federal law, a vehicle, including a van, designed for carrying 11 or more persons is a bus. A bus is a school bus if used or intended for use in transporting students to and from school or school-related activities.

The Safety Act requires each person selling a new school bus to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, a person may sell a new bus, including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons, to a school or school district only if the vehicle is certified as complying with our school bus safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the bus. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus and the vehicle is not certified as such.

Please note that Federal law and our implementing regulations directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. School districts are not prohibited by Federal law from using their vans to transport school children, whether or not such vans meet school bus safety standards. However, states are free to impose their own standards relating to the use of

motor vehicles, including school buses. Therefore, Tennessee may impose any regulation it deems appropriate regarding the use of school buses.

We also would like to note that it is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children. In addition, use of noncomplying vehicles of any kind to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. School districts should consult their attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on this issue.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-5.41

DATE: June 29, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: John Tanner -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from John Tanner to John A. Cline (OCC 7373)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. John A. Cline, Director, U.S. Department of Transportation Congressional Liaison, inquiring into the possibility of amending "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations against the use of 11-plus passenger vans to transport students."

You received the same letter from six constituents, all junior high or high school officials, in which they stated that in past years they used 12 to 15-passenger vans to transport students to and from school-related events. They can no longer do so because of memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education, wherein he called attention to a 1970s law regarding use of vehicles with a capacity of 11 or more. The letter emphasizes the adverse effects of not being able to use 12 to 15-passenger vans and asks your help in having that law amended to allow use of such vehicles. In closing, the letter states that the writer does not understand the rationale in allowing a van to transport 10 passengers but not 11 or more.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify for you the Federal law and our implementing regulations on the safety requirements for school buses. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. SS1381 to 1431 (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus Safety Amendments to the Safety Act, directing the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such standards to be applicable to all school buses. NHTSA issued those standards, effective April 1, 1977, which may be found in 49 CFR Part 571.

Under Federal law, a vehicle, including a van, designed for carrying 11 or more people is classified as a bus, and a bus is further classified as a school bus if it is used or intended for use in transporting students to and from school or school related activities. The Safety Act requires each person selling a new school bus to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, a person may sell a new bus, including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons, to a school or school district only if the vehicle is certified as complying with applicable Federal safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the bus, and the seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus if the vehicle is not certified as a school bus.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA implementing regulations directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their subsequent use. Therefore, school districts are not prohibited by Federal law from using vans of any size to transport school children, whether or not such

vans meet Federal school bus safety standards. Individual states, however, are free to impose their own standards on the USE of motor vehicles, including school buses. Accordingly, the State of Tennessee may regulate the use of school buses to any extent that it deems appropriate, so long as the Federal standards are not thereby affected.

Although not specifically required by Federal law, it is this agency's strongly held position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children. We should also caution that use of noncomplying vehicles of any kind to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. School districts should consult their attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on that issue.

I hope this letter will be helpful in clarifying this matter for you and your constituents. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you.

ID: nht92-5.42

DATE: June 26, 1992

FROM: Becky Plank -- Executive Director, National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/15/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Becky Plank (A39; Std. 301; Part 567)

TEXT:

Our Association consists of dealers that modify vehicles for the disabled. We have enclosed a set of our guidelines,along with an information brochure, for your perusal.

As you will note, the guidelines/standards are for our members to follow for installation of adaptive equipment. To our knowledge, there are no other guidelines/standards in the market. We are aware that we must follow the FMVSS when installing or modifying a vehicle that is not adaptive- equipped.

Currently there is a controversy in our membership over a fuel tank issue involving FMVSS 301.

One of the modifications our members perform is lowering a floor, on a full size van. When an individual drives from their wheelchair, they sit higher, thus causing them to bend their head forward to have a clear view from the windshield. Therefore, the adaptation is necessary in order to lower the eye level of a wheelchair driver, for safer operation of the van.

There was a problem with the design of the new Ford van, in that their fuel tank is larger and mounted mid-ship. When Ford Motor Company realized the hardship they had created for the disabled, they designed an after-market fuel system that complies with FMVSS.

Some of our members categorically state that they can lower the mid-ship OEM tank. Taking into consideration that the OEM fuel fill line needs to be changed, along with the mounting brackets, as well as other fuel lines; our question is - will this lowered system have to be crash tested due to the original fuel system being changed.

Based on the foregoing, we would like a legal interpretation of FMVSS 301.

We would appreciate your response regarding this very important matter as soon as possible.

ID: nht92-5.43

DATE: June 26, 1992

FROM: Richard Hamlin

TO: Andrew Card -- Secretary of Transportation, DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard Hamlin (A39; Part 571)

TEXT:

I am relatively certain, at this time, that you are besieged with transportation issues. However, your assistance or that of one of your colleagues would be a tremendous asset.

I have particular knowledge that the safe maintaining of school buses is governed by specific state laws and regulations; and, I am aware that particular components of a school bus must comply with certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

My question, in lieu of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards governing particular components of school buses; would federal standards - possibly laws and regulations - not also be the rule rather than the exception as it pertains to maintaining school buses in safe operating condition.

Your reply to my inquiry would be of great assistance.

ID: nht92-5.44

DATE: June 25, 1992

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Fred Grubbe -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

COPYEE: TTMA Engineering Committee; Tank Conference Engineering Committee; Brake Associates; Larry Strawhorn -- American Trucking Associations; Hank Seiff -- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association; Andrew H. Card, Jr. - Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: Subject: Petition to Extend the Comment Period for Docket No. 92-29; Notice 1 - Stability and Control Requirements for Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/92 from Barry Felrice to Donald W. Vierimaa (A39; Std. 121)

TEXT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. 92-29; Notice 1, asks 32 questions pertaining to a proposed requirement to equip trucks, truck tractors, and trailers with antilock braking systems (ABS). This notice issued in the June 8th Federal Register requests comments by August 7th. We petition for an extension of the comment period for another 60 days.

We are disappointed that you have not responded to our petition of April 23, 1992 (enclosed) which requested a comment period of 120 calendar days for any major proposed rulemaking. The proposed requirement for ABS is considered by trailer manufacturers as a major proposed rulemaking. You have also requested comments on ABS even though testing has not been completed nor have test reports on completed testing been issued.

When we petition DOT for rulemaking, we often wait months and even years for a decision. Yet, when you propose rulemaking, you request comments within 60 days. Please provide us with the same amount of time to comment on proposed rulemaking as you require in responding to our petitions for rulemaking.

Enclosure

Letter dated 4/23/92 from Donald W. Vierimaa (TTMA) to Andrew H. Card, Jr., DOT Secretary. Text of letter:

We petition that any major proposed rulemaking issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Highway Administration, or Research and Special Programs Administration allow a public comment period of at least ninety (90) calendar days (approximately 63 working days) and preferable one hundred twenty (120) calendar days.

Typically, a DOT agency will spend months or even years developing a proposed rulemaking, then ask the public for comments within 30 to 60 calendar days, and then spend several months or years analyzing the comments before issuing a final rule.

Several examples of comment closing dates follow.

Comment Extended Published Comment Period Comment Docket Subject Date Closing (calendar Closing days) date)

HM-183 Cargo Tank Requirements 9/17/85 2/11/86 150

HM-198A Elevated Temperature 9/21/89 11/20/89 60 2/20/90 Materials

FS-1 Safeguarding Food During 2/20/91 3/26/91 35 4/29/91 Transportation

91-21; N1 Automatic air brake 5/3/91 6/17/91 45 adjustment

80-9; N4 Conspicuity 12/4/91 2/3/92 60 3/31/92

1-11; N9 Rear Impact Guard 1/3/92 3/4/92 60* 6/8/92 & Protection

(*) 41 working days

We have 86 member manufacturers of trailers and two engineering committees, one of which is concerned with tank vehicles and the other concerned with non-tank trailers. These committees meet about every three months. The following is a typical handling of our response to major rulemakings listed by your agencies.

Day Activity

1 Published In Federal Register 4 Federal Register received by TTMA 6 Proposed rulemaking mailed to members 10 Proposed rulemaking received by members 20 Task Force drafts response to proposed rule 24 Draft received by TTMA office 29 Draft reviewed and mailed to members 33 Draft received by members 40 Comments on draft mailed to TTMA office 44 Comments received by TTMA office 48 Comments compiled and a second draft mailed to members 52 Second draft received by members 59 Comments on second draft mailed to TTMA office 63 Comments received by TTMA office 67 Comments compiled and final draft mailed to members 71 Final draft received by members 78 Approval and/or comments mailed to TTMA office 82 Approvals and comments received by TTMA office 90 Final comment submitted to DOT agency

The above scenario does not include discussion at a regularly scheduled engineering meeting. If a proposed rule is very complex or controversial, it may not be possible to draft a response to the rule without holding a meeting.

In this situation, a 120 day comment period would likely be needed. In the case of Docket 80-9; Notice 4, Conspicuity, we sent four draft comments to our members before obtaining approval. Weekends, holidays, and in the summer, vacations, may add to the days needed to respond to a proposed rulemaking. In some cases, prototype development or testing may be required. This could easily require an additional ninety (90) calendar days or more.

Most trailer manufacturers are small businesses with limited staff. Designing and producing trailers to meet customer orders takes precedence. Often the review of proposed rulemaking must be accomplished on weekends.

Typically, the longer the comment period, the more detailed our comments will be. Your agencies should allow a comment period equal to the period they will require to analyze docket comments and issue a final rule. As a matter of course, we intend to petition for an extension of the comment closing date for any period less than ninety (90) calendar days for any major proposed rulemaking.

cc: Jerry Curry, NHTSA Administrator Travis Dungan, RSPA Administrator Thomas Larson, FHWA Administrator

ID: nht92-5.45

DATE: June 24, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe Wos -- A & D Lock & Key

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5/26/92 from Joe Wos to NHTSA Office of Chief Council (OCC 7333)

TEXT:

This responds to your May 26, 1992 letter asking whether it is "legal to repair an automobile that has an airbag deployed and not put the air bag back in."

I am enclosing a copy of a January 19, 1990 letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad, that explains whether a used car dealer has an obligation to replace a deployed air bag prior to selling the car. The same statutory and regulatory considerations that applied to that situation would apply to the replacement of a damaged air bag steering column (after the air bag has deployed) with a steering column without an air bag.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-5.46

DATE: June 24, 1992

FROM: Kenneth Lenz -- HME Incorporated

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated July 1, 1992 (est.) from Paul J. Rice to Kenneth Lenz (A39; Std. 206)

TEXT:

I have been reviewing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for applicability to fire trucks, specifically certain provisions of FMVSS 206.

There have been requests from fire departments to eliminate the interior and exterior door locks required by FMVSS 206, S4.1.3. The fire company's reasons for eliminating all door locks is that "the vehicle is used in emergency situations and a door that has been locked accidently may hinder the ability of the apparatus to respond".

I would appreciate and interpretation of FMVSS 206 on whether or not fire trucks are required to comply with this regulation or if an exemption from compliance with S4.1.3 can be obtained for fire trucks.

Thank you.

ID: nht92-5.47

DATE: June 24, 1992

FROM: Peter E. Reinert -- Counsel - Transaction, GE Plastics

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- General Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: G. Robert McAllister

TITLE: Request for Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 (the "Request")

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/4/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Peter E. Reinert (A39; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Dorothy Nakoma from your staff recommended that we direct our Request to your attention. Ms. Nakoma told us that it was not necessary that we contact anyone at the AAMVA for an interpretation of FMVSS 205 since the interpretation from NHTSH would be controlling over AAMVA. We also understood that we could expect to receive a response to our Request within sixty days from receipt.

Statement of Facts. General Electric Company ("GE") manufactures at its Mt. Vernon, Indiana plant LEXAN polycarbonate sheet (the "Sheet") which is used in applications for motor vehicles which FMVSS No. 205, S6--Certification and Marking--applies. GE and its distributors have agreed contractually that the distributors will be responsible for marking the Sheet with GE's DOT number in accord with section 6 ANZ 26 after the distributors receive the Sheet from GE and before the distributors ship the Sheet to the customer. The distributors are responsible contractually for marking the Sheet with GE's DOT number in the same manner as the distributors, if they cut the Sheet, are required by FMVSS No. 205, S6.4 and S6.5 to mark pieces after cutting with the GE DOT number.

Question. May GE, as a prime glazing material manufacturer having its own DOT number and being required to mark and certify in accordance with FMVSS No. 205, S6.1 and S6.2 the Sheet it manufactures in Mt. Vernon, ship the Sheet unmarked to its distributors?

Provided that the above question is answered affirmatively then what is the timing required in order to implement the new procedure wherein GE will not mark the Sheet initially? For example, would GE be required to file a notice in the Federal Register? Also, if GE is to continue as a registered prime glazing material manufacturer can GE cancel its existing DOT No. 94 and replace it with another new number.

If you have any questions regarding the above, or require any additional facts please do not hesitate to contact me at (413) 448-4672. We look forward to hearing from you.

G. Robert McAllister

ID: nht92-5.48

DATE: June 23, 1992

FROM: R. Marie McFadden -- Cable Car Concept, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/20/92 from Paul J. Rice to R. Marie McFadden (A39; Std. 207; Std. 208)

TEXT:

We are a manufacturer of rubber tired trolleys, Road-Trains and Trolley-Trams. These vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles. I have enclosed some spec sheets to give you an idea of what we build.

We would like a letter of interpretation on the following:

1 - Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs.

2 - As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all.

3 - We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats.

We have been manufacturing Trolleys for over twenty years, and are aware that new regulations came into effect Sept 1, 1991. We also have a copy of Federal Regulation #208. We would appreciate if you could interpretate the ruling before this date and after.

We appreciate your time, and await your reply.

Attachment

Brochure describes the Mini Trolly manufactured by Cable Car Concepts, Inc. (Text omitted)