Skip to main content

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. 

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage. 

An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.

  • Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
  • Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
  • The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
  • Some combination of the above, or other, factors.

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.

Single word search

 Example: car
 Result: Any document containing that word.

Multiple word search

 Example: car seat requirements
 Result: Any document containing any of these words.

Connector word search

 Example: car AND seat AND requirements
 Result: Any document containing all of these words.

 Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.

Phrase in double quotes

 Example: "headlamp function"
 Result: Any document with that phrase.

Conjunctive search

Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.

Wildcard

Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).

Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).

Not

Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”

Complex searches

You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.

Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”). 

Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search



Displaying 1 - 10 of 369
Interpretations Date
 

ID: nht79-2.6

Open

DATE: 08/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for written confirmation of statements made by Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during a meeting with your representative, Mr. Bernstein. That meeting concerned the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216 as they apply to convertibles. The discussion below follows sections "I" and "V" of the transcript enclosed in your letter, which involve legal questions.

(I.) Convertibles, like all other passenger cars, must comply with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 beginning in 1981, 1982 or 1983, depending on vehicle wheelbase size. This means that convertibles will have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and, either meet the lateral and roll-over requirements of S5.2 and S5.3 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants or, at the option of the manufacturer, have a Type I or Type II seat belt assembly at each front designated seating position (and meet the frontal requirements of S5.1 with these belts fastened around the test dummies).

In the second part of your first question, you asked whether a convertible may meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. The answer to your question is yes. Convertibles are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 but may do so, at the option of the manufacturer, as an alternative to meeting the automatic roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. Please note that compliance with Standard No. 216 would not excuse convertibles from compliance with the automatic lateral protection requirements of Standard No. 208. As stated above, however, installation of a lap belt at front designated seating positions would excuse all passenger cars from both the lateral and the roll-over requirements. Therefore, a convertible that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and that also has lap belts installed, does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216. I am enclosing a letter of interpretation that was issued last year which discusses the relationship between Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216, in light of the automatic restraint requirements.

In the final part of your first question, you asked whether you could manufacture convertibles with fold-down tops, removable tops or removable hard-tops that would comply with Safety Standard No. 216, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is also yes. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible," the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, if any of the vehicle designs you mentioned meet this criteria and also comply with Safety Standard No. 216, they would not be required to comply with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208.

(V.) Section V of your transcript includes a discussion of the growing aftermarket convertible industry (removing hard-tops from vehicles) and the increasing number of kit-car convertibles. You asked about the legal requirements for these vehicles. Any new vehicle that is manufactured or assembled from a kit-car must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Likewise, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (by converting a hard-top vehicle to a convertible, for example) is required to place an additional lable on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. This means that all of these vehicles would have to be in complaince with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 (after those requirements become effective). Mr. Hitchcock's statement that removing the top of a vehicle that is in compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 would be prohibited by Federal law is incorrect. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, does provide that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and this is the law that Mr. Hitchcock referred to. The agency has stated in the past, however, that conversion of one vehicle type to another vehicle type (e.g., hard-top to convertible) does not violate this provision, as long as the converted vehicle complies with all safety standards that would have been applicable to it if it had originally been manufactured as the new type. Therefore, removal of a passenger car's hard-top does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216 since a new convertible would not have been required to comply with that standard.

I hope this letter has responded fully to the legal questions raised in your discussions with Mr. Hitchcock. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

July 3, 1979

Ralph J. Hitchcock Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

This letter is in reference to the meeting concerning F.M.V.S.S. 208 between you and Mr. Bernstein of this office on Monday, July 2, 1979.

I do appreciate the opportunity of having our representative meet with you and thank you for clearing up some vague areas of the regulations concerning convertibles.

We are following your advice and have made a transcription of the discussion which is enclosed for your review. Following your review, we would like the office of General Counsel to review it so that we may get a written confirmation (or clarification of misconceptions) by both the N.H.T.S.A. Engineering and Legal staffs concerning these issues.

D. Black

Manager

U.S. Engineering Office -- ALFA ROMEO, INC.

ENCLS.

CC: ING. LANDSBERG; ING. TOBIA; ING. SURACE; DOTT. BOZZI

OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND HENRY BERNSTEIN OF ALFA ROMEO ON JULY 2, 1979 CONCERNING:

FMVSS 208 - OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION

FMVSS 216 - ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE

AS RELATED TO OPEN BODY OR CONVERTIBLE TYPE VEHICLES

I. INTRODUCTION & QUESTIONS

Introduction:

Alfa Romeo is a very old company dating back to 1909; practically to the beginning of automobile development. Alfa Romeo has always built vehicles which are out of the ordinary in both engineering, style and performance. This is a heritage that we wish to preserve and continue into the future. We have always strived for excellence in our product and always will. We realize the need for safety standards and wish to comply with all applicable standards in effect for present and future model years, however, we are concerned over and a little confused about the requirements of open body vehicles (convertibles) as related to the occupant crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208 and it is this reason for which I come to Washington to meet with you with hopes of clarification of our questions in this area. Questions & Answers: Mr. Bernstein question: (I) Is it true that even convertibles must meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 as follows: a) meet the frontal crash protection require- ments (S5.1) by means that require no action by occupants (passive)? Mr. Hitchcock answer: yes Mr. Bernstein question: b) and either meet the lateral crash require- ments of S5.2 and the rollover requirements of S5.3 passively? Mr. Hitchcock answer: No (see 2) Mr. Bernstein question: c) or at each front designated seating position have a Type I seat belt or a Type II seat belt conforming to FMVSS 209 (seatbelts) and meet the requirements of S5.1 (labelling) in addition to passive? Mr. Hitchcock answer: Yes Mr. Bernstein question: (2) May we as optional compliance with the standard (208) as an alternative to the rollover require- ments of FMVSS 208 show compliance with the requirements of roof crush resistance FMVSS 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: According to Mr. Hitchcock, a recent amendment to FMVSS 208 (Dec. 5, 1977, 42 FR 61466) was the addition lap belts as an alternative to meeting lateral and rollover passively (S4.1.3) and that 216 would no longer be applicable. (This is "relief" for convertibles in his opinion).

In other words, we do have to meet the frontal requirements passively (belts or bags) and also provide lap belts and that neither roof crush or rollover compliance were necessary.

Hitchcock said he believes his interpretation is correct, but suggests that I write a report with these specific points and questions outline , which would be reviewed by the legal staff as well as the engineering staff. As a result , upon receipt of your comments and questions, a copy of this report will be forwarded to Mr.

Hitchcock so it may be reviewed and confirmed in writing by N.H.T.S.A.

We also discussed 216 as an alternative /optional compliance to rollover in 208 and I asked the following: Mr. Bernstein question: (3) May we design and produce a fold down convertible a) top which will meet 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: OK Mr. Bernstein question: b) May we design and produce a removeable convertible top which will meet 216?

c) What about a removeable hard top which will when installed meet 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: No need to comply but Mr. Hitchcock gave the following remarks concerning above questions b) and c). This area is not specifically covered in the regulations due to lack of proper definitions of "convertible top", "soft top", "hard top", etc.

The advise given was if we specifically wanted a review and confirmation concerning particular items such as these, that we should make specific Mr. Hitchcock answer: written presumptions about these subjects requesting definitions and concurrence with our views. This is the only way we may get documented proof of N.H.T.S.A.'s concurrence or non-concurrence with our views.

II. BACKGROUND

I discussed the importance of Spider sales to our company including past sales performance and future projections for which Mr. Hitchcock understood Alfa Romeo's concern in this area. Our Spider model is currently our largest selling model as indicated by both past and present sales figures and projections for the future as follows*: Future projections: 1980: 3,500 or 46.7% of projected sales total 1981: 4,500 or 41% of projected sales total 1982: 4,500 or 45% of projected sales total 1983: 5,000 or 41% of projected sales total 1984: 13,000 or 81% of projected sales total 1985: 14,500 or 73% of projected sales total 1986: 16,000 or 67% of projected sales total

Future projections: 1980: 3500 of 7,500 1981: 4500 of 11,000 1982 4500 of 10,000 1983: 5300 of 13,000 1984: 13000 of 16,000 1985: 14000 of 20,000 1986: 16,000 of 24,000

So therefore, Mr. Hitchcock, you can see our deep concern for saving this vehicle and promoting it well into the 1980's and beyond into the '90's.

* please refer to sales comparison graph and raw data (attached) for U.S. Spider (Illegible word) history from 1961 to 1978.

III. PROBLEMS INVOLVED/CONVERSION, ETC.

Commercially:

We wish to keep a convertible; it is a "disappering breed"; people still want this type of car. Detroit cannot justify production of convertibles anymore. We wish to be different than others (as we always have been) and provide our customers with a true convertible for which there is a great demand. We don't want to compromise by adding targa roofs, moon roofs, "T" tops, etc. as many maufacturers have already done and will do in the future.

At this point, we discussed briefly some other "convertibles" incorporating the systems mentioned above, and I also showed Mr. Hitchcock some brochures, newspaper and magazine clippings on the subject.

We discussed also passive limitations. Technically:

Air bags are impossible due to cost considerations, size, and a complete lack of European suppliers. U.S. suppliers aren't interested in our small numbers. We could do it if we did not care about cost and had a supplier.

Belts: passive belts (VW/Chevette type) are impossible due to lack of "B" pillar and lack of door frame to anchor belt to.

Roll bar: the producer, Pininfarina, is on contract to ARI at a certain. price. They say the present structure does not allow for adaption of a roll bar. Very difficult if not impossible when taking into consideration the desire to provide a folding soft top assembly.

Targa roof/door frames: roof rails would not be a convertible and buyers would agree.

Mr. Hitchock recommended "Development of Specifications for Passive Belt Systems by Man Factors, Inc." (DOT-HS-800-809) for some other passive ideas. I have already ordered a copy for Alfa Romeo.

IV. LEGALITIES "RULING OUT" CONVERTIBLES, ETC. (reference 1966 Safety Act)

When we discussed the 1966 Safety Act statement concerning "safety standards which are appropriate for the particular type of vehicle for which it was prescribed and that safety standards should not rule out a class of vehicle" (FR 1392 (f)(3), Mr. Hitchcock noted that convertibles are not ruled out as a class of vehicle and that many presume that they are due to a lack of total understanding of the regulations.

V. AFTERMARKET MANUFACTURERS, ETC.

Mr. Bernstein question: What alarms me is the ever growing aftermarket convertible industry. Conversion shops, etc. are turning out and selling convertibles in large quantities to meet the demand. Replicar manufacturers are constantly increasing their sales and new companies are being born overnight due to the fact that most are convertibles which are in such great demand. Also, many "kit cars" are becoming prominent on the market, most of which are also convertibles. Is there no relief to us, a manufacturer who imports far less convertibles than these operations sell here?

Mr. Hitchcock answer: Concerning the aftermarket manufacturers, Mr. Hitchcock explained that they will also be responsible for compliance due to the fact that rendering a safety device or system inoperative is prohibited by law and that "chopping" a roof off a vehicle would probably violate this requirement. Naturally, enforcement is an area requirement. Naturally, enforcement is an area in which these operations may be safe for now due to manpower limitations and other priorities.

VI. ECONOMICS, EXEMPTIONS, AMENDMENTS

Mr. Bernstein question: What about petitions, exemptions, etc.?

Mr. Hitchcock answer: If economics are a problem, we may be able to petition and that we may also petition for an amendment to the standard for convertibles. This amendment would not be for Alfa Romeo vehicles exclusively, but for convertibles in general.

NOTE: Apparently, a current Chrysler petition is in the docket with a petition for amendment concerning a similar situation as related to hard top vehicles with no "B" pillar. Chrysler must comply in 1982 >114" wheelbase.

VII. RECOMMENDED FOLLOW UP ACTION

A written report as outlined in this report for review and written reply by N.H.T.S.A.

Henry E. Bernstein

Attachments 7.3.79 BREAKDOWN OF GRAPH DATA BODY STYLE SPIDER COUPE SEDAN YEAR 1961 349 38 0 1962 572 165 12 1963 608 73 1 1964 799 169 0 1965 832 729 5 1966 658 747 1 1967 804 747 1 1968 426 487 0 1969 1199 671 690 1970 887 352 313 1971 1218 899 435 1972 935 866 546 1973 163 863 732 1974 1703 1565 844 1975 3089 2072 1082 1976 2503 1685 1139 1977 1993 2162 1265 1978 3562 1663 912 TOTAL: 22,300 15,953 7,978 % OF SALES 48.2% 34.5% 17.3%

GRAND TOTAL = 46,321 = 100%

(Graphics omitted) (Illeg.) 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 (Illeg.) TOTAL 73 = 1758 74 = 4112 75 = 6243 802 76 = 5329 (Illeg.) 110 77 = 5420 (Illeg.) 1663 78 = 6139 3562 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 TOTAL 73 = 1758 74 = 4112 Retails 75 = 6243 Sedan 802 76 = 5327 Automatic 110 77 = 5420 Sprint Veloce 1663 78 = 6137 (Illeg.) 700 981 1265 (Illeg.) GT 635 1254 2119 844 382 158 43 1565 1437 431 1703 3089 2503 1993 3562

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam5432

Open
Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager
Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley
GA 31030;

"Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994 requesting an interpretation of how the term 'daylight opening,' as used in a recent amendment of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, would apply to various exits (57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020, December 2, 1992). Your letter references a March 24, 1994 interpretation letter to Mr. Bob Carver of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles. That letter discussed the term 'daylight opening' as follows: The term 'daylight opening' is defined in the Final Rule as 'the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.' An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the 'maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit,' we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. Your letter states that this interpretation represents a drastic change in what we understood from the wording of the final rule ... and what we were told by Rulemaking. We believed and were told that the definition of daylight opening applied to the exit opening itself and did not involve access to the opening. Access to and obstruction of openings are addressed later in the standard in section S5.4.2 School Bus Emergency Exit Extension. Before answering your specific questions, I would like to respond to these statements. You are correct that S5.4.2 includes requirements related to access to, and obstruction of, exits in that it specifies the minimum opening and the minimum amount of access required for various exits. However, the issue of minimum opening is separate from the issue, addressed in S5.2.3, of the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. Section S5.2.3 specifies the number and type of exits required on school buses. This section states: The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening. Thus, S5.2.3 specifies the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. An interpretation of the term 'daylight opening' that allowed credit for the exit opening, regardless of obstructions, would be contrary to the plain language of the definition of that term. Giving credit for obstructed areas would also be contrary to the intent of the final rule, which is to increase the area on larger buses which is available for exit in an emergency. With respect to your report of receiving an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent the public has any questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authoritative and which therefore can be relied upon by members of the public, such as manufacturers, are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might misinterpreted by manufacturers as official agency guidance on which they may safely rely. Your letter states that the March 24 interpretation 'raises other questions regarding the various school bus emergency exits.' Your questions and the response to each follows. By way of background information, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Rear Emergency Exit Door a. Section S5.4.2.1(a)(1) ... requires unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 30 centimeters deep. It is our rationale and interpretation that a seat back or other interior component that lies forward of this 30 centimeter deep parallelepiped is not an obstruction to the rear emergency door and would not result in a reduction of the area credited to the rear emergency door. (See figure 1a) Is this interpretation correct? In the case of a rear emergency exit door, the depth requirement in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) reflects a determination that an interior component outside that limit does not render the exit unusable. Therefore, an interior component outside the area bounded by the transverse vertical plane of the exit opening, the two longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the sides of the exit opening, and the transverse vertical plane parallel to and 30 centimeters away from the plane of the exit opening would not be considered an obstruction for determining the area of 'daylight opening.' b. School buses are typically equipped with 39-inch (99 cm) wide seats. At the rear emergency door, one of the rear seats is typically shifted forward to provide the clearance required by S5.4.2.1(a)(1). The other rear seat is typically allowed to be near or against the rear wall of the bus to fully utilize the available seating floor space and to provide maximum knee clearance. When viewed from the rear, this seat protrudes into the door opening, and according to the (March 24) interpretation ..., the area of the obstruction would not be credited to the exit. Following the logic of the interpretation, the area of the seat itself and the area above the seat could not be credited. We disagree with the logic of the interpretation that door exits are only used by movement along the floor. If the bus is on its side or top, the exit must be used from different approaches. It is therefore our logic and interpretation that only the actual area obstructed (i.e. the area of the seat and the area below the seat) cannot be credited to the exit. For the case in question, the area above the seat can be used in many accident scenarios and therefore can be credited as 'daylight opening.' (See figure 1b) Is this interpretation correct? You are correct that emergency doors will be used by people moving along an interior surface other than the floor if the vehicle is on its side or roof following an accident. As stated in the March 24 interpretation, in determining the amount of daylight opening, you should not credit any area which 'cannot be used for exit purposes.' In the case of the seat illustrated in incoming letter from Wayne, the area over the seat is 6.12 inches by 12.5 inches. However, in reviewing that letter in light of your question, we now agree that the area over the seat may be usable in some accident scenarios. For your exit, neither your letter nor figure 1b provide dimensions of the area over the seat. If the area is large enough to be usable in an accident scenario, that area can be credited towards the daylight opening. c. The rear emergency door on Blue Bird school buses is hinged on the outside, and the top portion of the door is angled forward when the door is closed. When the door is opened and held in the open position by the device required by S5.4.2.1(a)(3)(i), the door protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. It is our understanding, based on the interpretation of reference 3, that the protrusion of the door now constitutes an obstruction and the area of the obstruction cannot be credited to the exit area. (See figure 1c) Is this understanding correct? This is correct. Emergency Window Exits The seat backs of school bus seats can protrude into the lower region of side window exit openings. Side window exits when the bus is upright may be used by climbing over the seats. If the bus is on its side or top, the side window exits may be used from different approaches. Since areas of sufficient size above, in front of, and behind a protruding seat back could be used for different parts of the body, (i.e. head, knees, legs) when crawling out a side window exit in different vehicle orientations, it is our logic and interpretation that only the actual area of the seat back in the side window exit opening and the smallest area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edges of the exit opening constitute obstructions and cannot be credited to the exit. (See figure 2) Is this interpretation correct? In your illustrations, the area obstructed by the seat back protruding into the window opening clearly cannot be credited to the daylight opening. Whether area above or forward or rearward of the seat back can be credited depends on whether the size of the area is sufficient to be used in exiting the vehicle. Any of these areas which permits passage of the ellipsoid proposed in a December 1, 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking indicates that these areas clearly should be credited (58 FR 63321, see proposed S5.4.2.1(c)). NHTSA proposed this because it believed it reflected the minimum size window which could be used as an exit. If not cut off by obstructions from other unobstructed areas of the daylight opening of the window, as viewed in a plan view, it may be possible that smaller areas should also be credited. In all of the illustrations in figure 2, the seat back extends less than halfway up in the opening. Therefore, it appears that the area above the seat would be credited. We also agree that if the seat protrudes near the front or rear edge of the window opening, it is unlikely that the area between the seat back and the nearest edge of the opening would be usable. However, one of your illustrations shows the seat back protruding near the center of the window opening. In such an instance, it may be possible that the area on each side of the seat back is large enough to be usable. For example, a person might use the window by climbing over the seat, with either their legs straddling the seat, or their head and torso over one side of the seat and their legs over the other. Side Emergency Exit Doors Following the logic presented above regarding the use of emergency exits in different vehicle orientations, we disagree with the interpretation that area A2 (an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat) ... is not usable. In fact even when using the side emergency door when the vehicle is upright, a person would likely lean over the seat back and hold on to the seat, thus using area A2. Figure 3 enclosed is drawn more to scale than the illustration used in (the March 24 interpretation). We suggest the Agency review this illustration, conduct field research by using the exits in real buses, and then reconsider the interpretation ... regarding side emergency doors. We recommend that area A2 be credited as 'daylight opening' for a side emergency door. As explained in our response to question b on rear emergency exit doors, the area above some seats may be large enough to be credited toward the daylight opening. Front Service Door a. The lower portion of the grab handle on many school bus front service doors protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. (See figure 4) Based on the (March 24) interpretation ..., we understand that this protrusion now constitutes an obstruction. Is this understanding correct? This is correct. b. The front service door of most school buses leads to a stepwell and steps used to enter the bus. On front engine transit style school buses, the steps are typically angled to the rear and the riser to the first step is just a few inches inboard of the door opening. It is our logic and interpretation that steps in a stepwell do not constitute an obstruction and their presence does not reduce the area credited to the entrance door opening. (See figure 4) Is this interpretation correct? The steps provide the means of using the door, allowing a person to move between the ground and the floor level of the bus. They do not 'block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access' of occupants descending to the front service door. Therefore, although they are visible in the doorway when the doorway is viewed in a plan view, the steps are not obstructions within the meaning of the definition of daylight opening. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht87-3.37

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/04/87

FROM: PAUL L. PETERSCHMIDT -- DIRECTOR, BIOMASS RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

TO: GEORGE PARKER -- ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KEITH E. MADDEN, REDBOOK A33(2), CUSTOM REGULATIONS; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM KENNETH E. MADDEN TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 3106

TEXT: Dear Mr. Parker:

This letter is in regard to importation of "Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" (P.L. 89-563 Sects. 108 and 114, 19 C.F.R. 12.80) and related to DOT Form HS 7, Item 7.

The vehicles involved in this request for importation would be classified (under Item 7) as being imported solely for the purpose of test and experiment. The purpose of this letter is to explain the objectives of our research program and the need for th is undertaking.

BACKGROUND

Brazil has in the order of 1.3 million vehicles on the road which are fueled by "neat" ethanol, which is also referred to as hydrous ethanol. The hydrous azeotropic product of ethanol distillation has to be dehydrated to the anhydrous form to be involve d in blending operations with gasoline in this country. The hydrous ethanol fuel for the Brazilian vehicles has a typical analysis of 95% ethanol and 5% water. Today the vast majority of the new over the road passenger vehicles and light trucks in Braz il are ethanol dedicated designs. The use of ethanol as the only fuel was inaugerated about ten years ago, and prompted by the lack of natural petroleum reserves in Brazil. The production of significant numbers of over the road passenger vehicles was in augerated in the early part of this decade, and the production rate has been increasing ever since. About 90% of Ford Brazil's over the road passenger car production models are ethanol fueled vehicles.

During this period (the decade of the 1980's) little, if anything has been done to evaluate these vehicles in the U.S. in terms of performance, economics, exhaust gas composition, emission controls, fuel economy-ambient problems, durability, the material s of construction to accomodate the ethanol fuel, maintenance, power trained design, fuel composition (there are no denaturants used in Brazil), cold weather starting, hot weather Reed vapor pressure problems, etc.

To our knowledge there has been practically no importation of these over the road ethanol vehicles primarily because of a lack of any comprehensive testing programs, and the lack of import approval by the EPA and the DOT. Also the provisions for either re-exporting the vehicles or destroying the vehicles after one year was an obvious deterrent. It is also significant that in the recent "Fuel Ethanol Cost-Effective Study" which was prepared by the National Advisory Panel on Cost Effectiveness of Fuel E thanol Production, published in November of 1987, the accompanying bibliography cited ten pages of references (125) and only one reference was a reference to Brazilian technology in ethanol vehicles. This one reference had to do with "Automotive Use of Alcohol in Brazil and Air Pollution Related Aspects. SAE Technical Paper 850390, February 1985." This University has been involved in research on the production economics of ethanol and utilization throughout this decade. In 1983 we were provided with a Ford-Brazilian designed prototype tractor (which was a modified 4600 design), one of seven in the world, which was ethanol fueled. We tested the unit under field operating conditions for approximately 20 months. The unit was considered a "dedicated" ethanol design and brought into this country by Ford Tractor operations at Troy, Michigan. The unit was equipped with a number of design features which enabled it to perform effectively in cold weather conditions. The tractor was placed on a research f arm operated by Pioneer Hi-Bred International near Iowa City and was used for farm tasks ranging from a feedlot operation through forage operation and silo filling.

The unit was heavily instrumented and a large body of information collected involving cold and hot weather operating characteristics, and its general economy of operation was compared to conventional diesel fueled units that were performing similar tasks . Because of the prototype nature of the test unit, data was not published as Ford Tractor Operations was considering the potential sale of the design in this country.

The unit did go into production in Brazil and eight production prototypes are in an evaluation program by the Illinois DOT.

CURRENT SITUATION

The units we wish to import will be either the F-100 Ford pickup (upon which you already have specifications) or the F-1000, which is about 3.6 liters and somewhat comparable to the Ford "Ranger" produced in this country. It should be pointed out tha t Ford Brazil has, as of the first of July merged with Volkswagen in Brazil. They have formed a company named "Auto-Latino". The company does produce some gasoline fueled vehicles that are imported into this country under the name of the Volkswagon Fox . The manager of Volkswagen altered the executive responsibilities of several of the people with whom we had maintained liaison at Ford Brazil. It should also be pointed out that we made our original inquiries to Ford Brazil over two years ago regardin g the importation of their over the road vehicles and obtained the necessary clearances that we needed from that end but we did not follow through on our programming of a test project because of lack of funds. The following is the program that we will m anage in the testing of the three vehicles we request approval to import.

OBJECTIVES

The overall efficiency of the dedicated ethanol fueled vehicles has been continually improving -- to a point where a 3 to 4% increase in efficiency would balance out the difference in BTU values of gasoline versus ethanol. (Gasoline being approximately 110,000 BTU and ethanol being approximately 85,000 BTU). * The dedicated ethanol spark injection engine had traditionally been more fuel efficient than its gasoline counterpart.

* per U.S. Gallon

The objective of this test is three-fold:

1. To determine the efficiency of the Brazilian units and what improvements might be made by the use of fuel injection, and alternate fuel composition.

2. To determine the operational economics of the Brazilian vehicles as compared to similar gasoline fueled vehicles, using current gasoline prices and current ethanol production costs.

3. Evaluate the ambient effects (particularly cold weather) on vehicle operation (particularly engine starting) and classify them as to degrees of difficulty and outline corrective measures.

4. Evaluate alternate fuel compositions (i.e. use of detergents as a denaturant).

5. Evaluate emissions and determine the need (if any) for control procedures.

6. Evaluate the procedures for fuel handling and establishing compliance with BATF.

7. Evaluate potential customer acceptance.

8. Set a time frame (if possible) for on going research or commercial development.

TEST PROCEDURES

The units would be tested in an agricultural environment for a number of reasons, among which is to minimize the problems of fuel handling. Typical farmers today will have at least two or possibly three fuels in storage (gasoline, diesel and LPG). The arrangement would eliminate the need for service station type distribution in the area.

1. Data Loging. Each research vehicle would be equipped with a Omnidata data loger which would have a 16 channel input with a 64,000 character storage and would be capable of monotoring the performance of the vehicle for a 20 hour period which would no rmally encompass two weeks of anticipated activity. Although not all of the specific inputs have been defined those that would be monitoroed include: RPM of the crank shaft (tachometer), RPM of the output shaft from the transmission, ground speed of the vehicle, fuel consumption rate, coolant temperature, outdoor ambient, exhaust manifold temperature, intake manifold temperature, fuel temperature, real time and combustion air intake temperature (for carbonated units). These readings would be sampled an d loged every 10 - 20 seconds.

The data loger and the associated sensory equipment would be installed by the Automotive Technology Section of the Carroll branch of the Des Moines Area Community College (DEMAC). Every one or two weeks (depending on usage patterns) the data logers woul d be off loaded into a 1500 Zenith portable computer which is compatible to the data loger. This would be done at the Automotive and Agricultural Engineering Vocational Center at the Audubon Community High School in Audubon. The data from the Zenith un it would then be transfered to an IBM PC/AT at the Audubon Industrial Development Corporation for evaluation.

2. Fuel Analysis and Formulations. Preliminary arrangements have been made with a fuel alcohol plant, ADCII * at Hamburg, Iowa. This arrangement has been tentatively sanctioned by the BATF's regional office in Chicago. The hydrous ethanol fuel from t he ADCII would be sold to an ethonal fuels research company in the Audubon area which would have a permit from the BATF to do experimental research and evaluations of ethanol fuels. This would include analysis of denaturants that are inherent in the fue l prior to the cyclohexane or molecular sieve dehydration of the ethanol to the anhydrous form (which is the normal product sold by the Hamburg facility), detergents and other additives that would be incorporated in the fuel, which would then be evaluate d by the BATF to determine if these components would constitute a legal denaturant.

* or ADC-II

An analysis of performance of the U.S. fuel would be compared against the performances of the Brazilian fuel composition. To the extent possible an attempt would be made to emulate the conditions and analysis of the Brazilian produced hydrous ethanol fu el.

3. Maintenance Analysis. Periodically the units would be returned to the Automotive Technology Section of the Carroll Branch of DEMAC. Specialized personnel teaching courses in automotive technology will compare maintenance requirements with those tha t have been experienced by the Brazilian producers of the units.

Particular attention would be given to the cold weather operating conditions to determine if the lower temperatures being experienced in Iowa would have any unusual effect upon normal engine performance.

At the time the vehicles are acquired the Brazilian Manufacturer will recommend a package of spare parts that will be imported with the vehicles.

4. Emissions Testing. Equipment is being secured to enable emissions testing. This equipment was designed for conventional gasoline fueled vehicles. It is not known if this will be adequate to provide the necessary data for the EPA. It may be necessar y to ship emission samples to the University for a more detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis, particularly in regard to aldehydes. To our knowledge there is no testing equipment currently available that is designed specifically for ethanol fue led vehicles.

DESIGN MODIFICATIONS

It is anticipated that some modification for cold weather starting of these vehicles may be necessary. This is in an area in which the University of Iowa has gained considerable experience in its research work with Ford Tractor Operations, which include d a combination of block heaters, preheated intake air (which is passed over the exhaust manifold), fueled heaters, propane starting fuel plus a number of other design alternatives with which we are aware. In addition one of the units should possibly be factory equipped with a fuel injection system. It is anticipated, however, that the fuel injection may have to be a retrofit, and this eventuality has already inaugerated a search for appropriate hardware. We also have the advantage of using the Centr al Scientific Research Laboratory on alternative fuels in Ford-Dearborn for design-engineer counsel.

SELECTION OF SPECIFIC SITES FOR VEHICLE TESTING

It has been understood by all concerned that this test program is not being inaugerated for publicity purposes or to sell some sort of public relations image. The units will be tested in an environment that is strictly rural. Although it will be known i n the small community of Audubon that these tests are taking place, there is no intention to encourage public demonstration of these vehicles during the test period, other than what is unavoidable. The location of the units will be selected by a three m an committee that are all Audubon area locals who are either farmers, or have local business interests.

The units are to be used in the same pattern and to perform the same tasks as would be typical for a light weight pickup employed on the farm -- which would include hauling small loads, and farm to city to school travel. It is anticipated that the vehic les would be housed each night on the farmstead. The vehicle operators would carry their own insurance on the vehicle, although the licensing and ownership would be considered as part of the state vehicle fleet titled to the University of Iowa and would carry a state licensing, the latter to be sanctioned through the Vehicle Registration of the Motor Vehicles Division of the Iowa DOT.

TAXES.

There would be no state tax on the ethanol fuel used in the vehicles as this activity would be considered as "in the public service". As mentioned, the vehicles would be owned by the University of Iowa as test and research vehicles.

SUMMARY.

There is a large body of knowledge on the operation and economics of dedicated, ethanol fuel over the road vehicles that has never been scientifically evaluated. There are over a million of these vehicles on the road in Brazil.

This University has, for most of the decade, been involved in evaluating the technical and economic aspects of ethanol produced from corn and ethanol utilization. This University has also done much work in corn utilization in general.

The principle objectives of this project is to establish, using state-of-the-art production -- engineering design, where ethanol fueled vehicles are -- in terms of economic and technical viability. And do these vehicles represent an alternate transporta tion concept, that this country should consider as a partial solution to our over production of corn, as a means of providing some improvement in our balance of payments, and improve our national security by reducing our dependence on imported oil.

We respectfully request your approval of our undertaking.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.2

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: SAF-TEE SIPING & GROOVING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICL E ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: For SIPING mounted passenger car tires & light duty truck tires

Our model SP Saf-Tee siper is designed specifically for passenger and light duty tires which are mounted on wheels. The machine comes equipped with 12 blades along with the 4 lead screws for siping depths of 5/32", 7/32", 9/32" and 11/32", a wrench for changing the lead screws and a file for sharpening the blades. The machine also comes standard with the Universal Passenger Adapter that will accommodate any wheels that have an opening of 1.75" up to 5 1/2" center hole. This machine has recently been redesigned and the lifting height of the tire has been lowered. It is fast, easy to operate and takes less than 3 minutes to mount, sipe and dismount the tire. The machine requires very little room and operates with 110 power and air.

This machine is an excellent profit builder for a tire operation or anyone who services automobiles and light duty vehicles. With the advent of high performance tires siping is becoming increasingly popular as a way to offer these tires traction and sta bility on wet and slippery surfaces, in addition to extending the tire life.

FEATURES:

* Fast . . . entire siping process takes less than three minutes.

* Exclusive spiral cut creates "tie bars" that strengthen tread components to reduce chunking.

* 90 degrees angle cut across tire gives most traction opposite to the line of travel and desired braking vector.

* Sipes remain sharp and gripping -- can be accomplished only by siping after tire is manufactured.

* Profitable. You get repeat business from satisfied customers. You give them increased safety, reduced operating costs and better tire performance.

SPECIFICATIONS: Height 38"

Width 27"

Side Width 34"

Weight 200lbs.

Motor 1 HP, 110 (standard)

The concept of siping was first patented in the 1920s by John Sipe, who made a series of small cuts in his shoes to give him better traction. The idea is not new, but modern technology has developed siping machines to a high level of sophistication. Siping cannot be duplicated during manufacturing because it leaves a small void of rubber between the sipes. After a short period of time it becomes round and ineffective. Saf-Tee sipes cut into the tire, remove no rubber and the edges remain sharp an d gripping.

Saf-Tee siping machines cut slits at a 90 degrees angle across the tire tread, from 5/32" to 11/32" deep. These slits create thousands of sharp, gripping edges to provide extra traction, safer braking and actually extend the life of the tire as a res ult of dissipation of heat on highway travel. Siping across the tire gives the most traction opposite to the line of travel and desired braking vector.

RUNNING

Under normal road conditions: The ribs flex, responding to bumps and pits in the road, reducing shock to carcass and sidewalls. The tire runs cooler. Under wet, icy snow conditions: The ribs flex, the sharp, exposed edges cut through the hazard squeege eing the water out of the way.

ACCELERATION

Positive traction starts and acceleration in all weather conditions . . . spin on snow and ice is drastically reduced: The ribs separate and expose the sharp squeegee edges to cut to the road surface and channel the hazard out of the way. And . . . sipin g reduces tread wear, extending tire life.

BRAKING

Straight line braking: Without jacknifing, fishtailing or skids. The ribs separate, squeegeeing the hazard or road film away, giving the tire a sure-footed grip on the road surface. Siped tires greatly reduce heat buildup in braking and reduces tire we ar. Siped tires greatly reduce the distance needed to stop.

TESTS

Tests conducted by the National Safety Council on the performance of siped vs. unsiped tires on ice resulted in a 64% increase in breakaway traction and an increase of 28% spinning traction. In stopping distance tests, the reduction was from 200 feet to 155.6 feet -- a 22% improvement.

Major airline engineers tested the use of siping on ground equipment vehicles at O'Hare Field. They recorded a 25.72% increase in drawbar pull on a wet ramp flooded with glycol from deicer. They also show a 33.96% increase in braking under the same conditions. Tests were made before and after siping. As a result of these tests, they have saved thousands of dollars by reducing the need for chains on all vehicles.

The winning car in the Uniroyal One Lap of America auto rally was equipped with siped B. F. Goodrich tires. The 8,800 mile, eight-day endurance race began in Detroit, traveled through 28 states, and ended back at Detroit. Even though the driver enco untered near-blizzard conditions with snow and ice in the mountains, he had no trouble with traction. After the rally the siped tires were just like new.

Saf-Tee sipers employ a circular knife to make slits around the circumference of the tire. This causes the bottom of the sipe to form a scallop pattern, providing a varied depth and strength tie between adjoining sipes. Unlike the uniform depth cut of other siping processes, these scalloped "tie bars" reinforce tread components.

WHAT THEY SAID:

"At the present time we operate three retail stores all dealing in passenger and light duty vehicles. We have a siping machine in each of these stores and in the last twelve months our income has been $ 28,000 from siping."

-- Earl Springer, VP

Roemers Tire Centers, Missoula, MT

"On three sets of our logging tires siped at 11/32 deep the results were 40% less useage of chains, less abrasive damage to tread area and 7%-10% more mileage."

-- Larry Gifford, Service Rep.

Yokohama Tire Corporation

"Increased safety and reduced operating cost don't always go together but with Saf-Tee siped tires, they do. There is no way that I would go back to running without them."

-- Bob Beach

Beach Bus Service, Missoula, MT

"We experienced severe handling problems on snow and ice with police vehicles. In an effort to improve this performance we siped tires on several of these vehicles and ran tests. We found we could negotiate 90% comers safely on ice at 25-30 miles per ho ur after siping where previously we could control the car only at 10 miles per hour. Braking was increased in all cases by 30%."

-- Lynn L. Keil City of Billings, Billings, MT

"The improved safety record of our 44 trucks has earned lower insurance rates."

-- Jim Palmer Trucking, Missoula, MT

"Our truck and trailer tires have 20% better wear after siping."

-- Holland Trans. Co., Fargo, ND

"The traction on ice/snow covered surfaces was much improved."

-- Wayne County Sheriff, Wooster, OH

"Since the tires were siped on our tank truck, we find that braking is better. Tires last longer too."

-- Terreberry Septic Service Ltd.

Port Colborne, Ontario

Call for more information, test results, testimonials, specifications and prices.

For SIPING mounted tires from 12" to 24.5"

The Model ST is our most popular siping machine because it is a multi-purpose unit -- it can sipe any tire from 12" to 24.5". with the adapters available. It's easy to run: operators can be trained in 15 minutes. It's fast: the process takes only 3 to 4 minutes per tire to perform. Any type of tire can be siped -- new, re-cap, or used -- as long as it has 5/32" of tread left. Twelve cutting blades are furnished with the ST, along with four lead screws for siping depths of 5/32", 7/32", 9/32" and 11/3 2", a file, and a wrench for switching lead screws.

FEATURES:

* Fast . . . three to four minutes per tire.

* Versatile. Depth and width of sipe can be changed in seconds. Five depths: 5/32", 7/32", 9/32", 11/32" and 13/32". Two widths: 4 to the inch, 5 to the inch. Five angles: 90 degrees standard, and optional 45 degrees right or left, 60 degrees right o r left.

* Reliable. Machines have been in operation for over 15 years, trouble free. Siping does not affect the tire warranty of major tire manufacturers.

* Profitable. Permits servicing wide range of customers. Truckers buy their tires from dealers who offer siping services.

* Exclusive spiral cut creates "tie bars" at bottom of scalloped sipe to strengthen tread components.

* Marketing assistance. A factory-trained rep will set up the machine, instruct operators, and provide a complete promotional package to help sell siping services to your customers.

SPECIFICATIONS:

Height 42"

Width 34"

Side Width 36"

Weight 250 lbs.

Motor 1 HP,110(standard)

For HIGH VOLUME SIPING before mounting on wheels

The Model STE Siper is designed for use by a retreader, large retailer or wholesaler of tires for volume siping before tires are mounted on wheels. The STE is fast. The rim inflates in about five seconds after the operator positions the tire. The whol e process, including the siping, takes less than three minutes.

The Model STE is equipped with an expandable hub to handle rims to fit tire sizes from 13" to 24.5". Four different size rims are needed to accomodate these sizes -- one from 13" to 16", 17" to 20", 20" to 22.5" and 22.5" to 24.5". Rims are optional equ ipment to be selected depending on the tire sizes you most frequently sipe.

Twelve cutting blades are furnished with the STE, along with four lead screws for siping depths of 5/32", 7/32", 9/32" and 11/32" and a wrench for changing the lead screws.

FEATURES:

* Fast . . . entire siping process takes less than three minutes.

* Exclusive spiral cut creates "tie bars" that strengthen tread components to reduce chunking.

* 90 degrees angle cut across tire gives most traction opposite to the line of travel and desired baking vector.

* Sipes remain sharp and gripping -- can be accomplished only by siping after tire is manufactured.

* Profitable. You get repeat business from satisfied customers. You give them increased safety, reduced operating costs and better tire performance.

SPECIFICATIONS:

Height 45"

Width 42" Side Width 40"

Weight 450 lbs.

Motor 1 HP, 110 (standard)

Blades Available from Saf-Tee Siping & distributors

AVIATION GROUND EQUIPMENT SHOWS NEARLY 34% INCREASE IN PERFORMANCE AFTER SAF-TEE (registered) SIPING

This chart shows documented proof of the dramatic increase in draw bar pull that can be expected with the use of "Siped" tires. Siping can reduce the need for tire chains on all your vehicles. Chains are costly and dangerous especially on airport surfa ces. The outlawing of sludded tires made our need even greater. At United where I managed the ground equipment maintenance, we Siped all drive wheel tires, and also some front tires depending on application.

Thousands of dollars were saved by United at O'Hare by reducing the need for chains on all vehicles. They have been using Siped tires for 6 years. For economy and safety I see Siping as a must in all Airport operations.

C.N. HOSTERT

Equipment Maintenance Manager-Retired

O'Hare Field

United Airlines

TIRE SIPING TEST

GATOR TRACTOR 30500# AT 55

TEST ACCOMPLISHED USING DIGAL READOUT DYNAMOMETER ATTACHED TO REAR HITCH OF GATOR AND FRONT HITCH OF T800 WHICH WAS USED FOR LOAD. A. DRAWBAR PULL BEFORE DRY CONCRETE RAMP SIPING AFTER SIPING % INCREASE TEST 1: 14250 15000 5.26% TEST 2: 14200 15300 7.75% TEST 3: 14350 15800 10.10% AVG. 7.70% WET RAMP (FLOODED WITH RUNNING WATER) TEST 1: 11800 13200 11.86% TEST 2: 11900 12800 7.56% TEST 3: 11650 12500 7.30% AVG. 8.91% WET RAMP GLYCOL (FLOODED WITH GLYCOL FROM DEICER) TEST 1: 9750 12400 27.18% TEST 2: 9700 12160 25.36% TEST 3: 9550 11900 24.61% AVG. 25.72%B. BRAKING TEST ACCOMPLISHED STATIC BY LOCKING BRAKES ON GATOR AND DRAGGING WITH T800 BEFORE DRY CONCRETE RAMP SIPING AFTER SIPING % INCREASE TEST 1: 13000 13800 6.15% TEST 2: 13100 14000 6.87% TEST 3: 13200 13950 5.68% AVG. 6.23% WET RAMP (FLOODED WITH RUNNING WATER) TEST 1: 10700 13450 25.70% TEST 2: ? 13600 ? TEST 3: 11200 13900 24.11% AVG. 24.90% WET RAMP . GLYCOL (FLOODED WITH GLYCOL FROM DEICER) TEST 1: 8700 12270 41.03% TEST 2: 9500 12380 30.32% TEST 3: 9500 12400 30.53% AVG. 33.96%

Test conducted by United Airlines Engineers

ID: 9920

Open

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994, requesting an interpretation of how the term "daylight opening," as used in a recent amendment of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, would apply to various exits (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020; December 2, 1992).

Your letter references a March 24, 1994 interpretation letter to Mr. Bob Carver of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles. That letter discussed the term "daylight opening" as follows:

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.

Your letter states that this interpretation

represents a drastic change in what we understood from the wording of the final rule ... and what we were told by Rulemaking. We believed and were told that the definition of daylight opening applied to the exit opening itself and did not involve access to the opening. Access to and obstruction of openings are addressed later in the standard in section S5.4.2 School Bus Emergency Exit Extension.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to respond to these statements. You are correct that S5.4.2 includes requirements related to access to, and obstruction of, exits in that it specifies the minimum opening and the minimum amount of access required for various exits. However, the issue of minimum opening is separate from the issue, addressed in S5.2.3, of the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. Section S5.2.3 specifies the number and type of exits required on school buses. This section states:

The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening.

Thus, S5.2.3 specifies the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. An interpretation of the term "daylight opening" that allowed credit for the exit opening, regardless of obstructions, would be contrary to the plain language of the definition of that term. Giving credit for obstructed areas would also be contrary to the intent of the final rule, which is to increase the area on larger buses which is available for exit in an emergency.

With respect to your report of receiving an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent the public has any questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authoritative and which therefore can be relied upon by members of the public, such as manufacturers, are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might misinterpreted by manufacturers as official agency guidance on which they may safely rely.

Your letter states that the March 24 interpretation "raises other questions regarding the various school bus emergency exits." Your questions and the response to each follows.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Rear Emergency Exit Door

a. Section S5.4.2.1(a)(1) ... requires unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 30 centimeters deep. It is our rationale and interpretation that a seat back or other interior component that lies forward of this 30 centimeter deep parallelepiped is not an obstruction to the rear emergency door and would not result in a reduction of the area credited to the rear emergency door. (See figure 1a) Is this interpretation correct?

In the case of a rear emergency exit door, the depth requirement in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) reflects a determination that an interior component outside that limit does not render the exit unusable. Therefore, an interior component outside the area bounded by the transverse vertical plane of the exit opening, the two longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the sides of the exit opening, and the transverse vertical plane parallel to and 30 centimeters away from the plane of the exit opening would not be considered an obstruction for determining the area of "daylight opening."

b. School buses are typically equipped with 39-inch (99 cm) wide seats. At the rear emergency door, one of the rear seats is typically shifted forward to provide the clearance required by S5.4.2.1(a)(1). The other rear seat is typically allowed to be near or against the rear wall of the bus to fully utilize the available seating floor space and to provide maximum knee clearance. When viewed from the rear, this seat protrudes into the door opening; and according to the (March 24) interpretation ..., the area of the obstruction would not be credited to the exit. Following the logic of the interpretation, the area of the seat itself and the area above the seat could not be credited. We disagree with the logic of the interpretation that door exits are only used by movement along the floor. If the bus is on its side or top, the exit must be used from different approaches. It is therefore our logic and interpretation that only the actual area obstructed (i.e. the area of the seat and the area below the seat) cannot be credited to the exit. For the case in question, the area above the seat can be used in many accident scenarios and therefore can be credited as "daylight opening." (See figure 1b) Is this interpretation correct?

You are correct that emergency doors will be used by people moving along an interior surface other than the floor if the vehicle is on its side or roof following an accident. As stated in the March 24 interpretation, in determining the amount of daylight opening, you should not credit any area which "cannot be used for exit purposes." In the case of the seat illustrated in incoming letter from Wayne, the area over the seat is 6.12 inches by 12.5 inches. However, in reviewing that letter in light of your question, we now agree that the area over the seat may be usable in some accident scenarios.

For your exit, neither your letter nor figure 1b provide dimensions of the area over the seat. If the area is large enough to be usable in an accident scenario, that area can be credited towards the daylight opening.

c. The rear emergency door on Blue Bird school buses is hinged on the outside, and the top portion of the door is angled forward when the door is closed. When the door is opened and held in the open position by the device required by S5.4.2.1(a)(3)(i), the door protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. It is our understanding, based on the interpretation of reference 3, that the protrusion of the door now constitutes an obstruction and the area of the obstruction cannot be credited to the exit area. (See figure 1c) Is this understanding correct?

This is correct.

Emergency Window Exits

The seat backs of school bus seats can protrude into the lower region of side window exit openings. Side window exits when the bus is upright may be used by climbing over the seats. If the bus is on its side or top, the side window exits may be used from different approaches. Since areas of sufficient size above, in front of, and behind a protruding seat back could be used for different parts of the body, (i.e. head, knees, legs) when crawling out a side window exit in different vehicle orientations, it is our logic and interpretation that only the actual area of the seat back in the side window exit opening and the smallest area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edges of the exit opening constitute obstructions and cannot be credited to the exit. (See figure 2) Is this interpretation correct?

In your illustrations, the area obstructed by the seat back protruding into the window opening clearly cannot be credited to the daylight opening. Whether area above or forward or rearward of the seat back can be credited depends on whether the size of the area is sufficient to be used in exiting the vehicle. Any of these areas which permits passage of the ellipsoid proposed in a December 1, 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking indicates that these areas clearly should be credited (58 FR 63321, see proposed S5.4.2.1(c)). NHTSA proposed this because it believed it reflected the minimum size window which could be used as an exit.

If not cut off by obstructions from other unobstructed areas of the daylight opening of the window, as viewed in a plan view, it may be possible that smaller areas should also be credited. In all of the illustrations in figure 2, the seat back extends less than halfway up in the opening. Therefore, it appears that the area above the seat would be credited. We also agree that if the seat protrudes near the front or rear edge of the window opening, it is unlikely that the area between the seat back and the nearest edge of the opening would be usable. However, one of your illustrations shows the seat back protruding near the center of the window opening. In such an instance, it may be possible that the area on each side of the seat back is large enough to be usable. For example, a person might use the window by climbing over the seat, with either their legs straddling the seat, or their head and torso over one side of the seat and their legs over the other.

Side Emergency Exit Doors

Following the logic presented above regarding the use of emergency exits in different vehicle orientations, we disagree with the interpretation that area A2 (an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat) ... is not usable. In fact even when using the side emergency door when the vehicle is upright, a person would likely lean over the seat back and hold on to the seat, thus using area A2. Figure 3 enclosed is drawn more to scale than the illustration used in (the March 24 interpretation). We suggest the Agency review this illustration, conduct field research by using the exits in real buses, and then reconsider the interpretation ... regarding side emergency doors. We recommend that area A2 be credited as "daylight opening" for a side emergency door.

As explained in our response to question b on rear emergency exit doors, the area above some seats may be large enough to be credited toward the daylight opening.

Front Service Door

a. The lower portion of the grab handle on many school bus front service doors protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. (See figure 4) Based on the (March 24) interpretation ..., we understand that this protrusion now constitutes an obstruction. Is this understanding correct?

This is correct.

b. The front service door of most school buses leads to a stepwell and steps used to enter the bus. On front engine transit style school buses, the steps are typically angled to the rear and the riser to the first step is just a few inches inboard of the door opening. It is our logic and interpretation that steps in a stepwell do not constitute an obstruction and their presence does not reduce the area credited to the entrance door opening. (See figure 4) Is this interpretation correct?

The steps provide the means of using the door, allowing a person to move between the ground and the floor level of the bus. They do not "block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access" of occupants descending to the front service door. Therefore, although they are visible in the doorway when the doorway is viewed in a plan view, the steps are not obstructions within the meaning of the definition of daylight opening.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref: 217 d:8/24/94

ID: 1984-4.10

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Seating and Passenger Protection, and FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your first question concerned your interpretation of FMVSS No. 222. You stated that Illinois has told school bus sellers and users that an aisle facing seat may not be installed in vehicles characterized by your state as Type I school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more), unless the seat is necessary in order to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger. Moreover, your state determined that aisle facing seats "installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs" will not be allowed. You asked whether your state has correctly interpreted the requirements of Standard No. 222.

Standard No. 222 exempts from its requirements aisle facing seats which are installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. The term "installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers" includes seats installed longitudinally to provide space for moving wheelchairs through the aisles. Thus, our interpretation of the word "accommodate" is broader than that of Illinois.

We would like to point out that a state requirement that regulates the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard is preempted under @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1381 et seq.), unless the state standard is identical. A state standard which disallows aisle facing seats installed to accommodate the handicapped regulates the same aspect of performance, i.e., seat orientation, as FMVSS No. 222, and would be preempted under @ 103(d).

Your second question stated your understanding that the forward facing requirement in Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 222 does not apply to aisle facing seats in school buses characterized by Illinois as "Type II" school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). You have told school bus sellers and users that aisle facing seats may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. You asked whether your interpretation of the standard is correct.

The answer to your question is that the language of Standard No. 222 does not require school bus passenger seats on a school bus with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds to be forward facing. The requirement for forward facing seats found in S5.1 was not included in S5(b), the section that lists the requirements that smaller school buses must meet.

Your third question concerned the applicability of FMVSS No. 222 to aisle facing seats on school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (your "Type II" school bus). As discussed earlier, Standard No. 222 excludes aisle facing seats installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers from the definition of "school bus passenger seat." Since the performance requirements of the standard that are specified in S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.5, and S5.3, are expressed in reference to the "school bus passenger seats," the requirements do not apply to aisle facing seats which are installed solely to accommodate handicapped passengers. However, Standard No. 222 does require that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, be met "at all seating positions other than the driver's seat." Therefore, the agency concludes that aisle facing seats must have seat belts and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of these standards.

Your fourth question concerned FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, and the use of "theater" type seat cushions. You described that type of seat cushion as containing a hinge near the seat back which allows the cushion to swing up against the seat back. The first part of the question asked whether this type of seat cushion would be allowed by the Federal safety standards. The answer is that the safety standards would not prohibit the use of these folding seats if such seats meet all applicable performance requirements.

The second part of the question asked whether the use of "theater" type seat cushions eliminates the requirements of S5.4.2.1(b) that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. The answer is no. As indicated above, folding seats may be used only if they meet all of the standard's applicable requirements.

The third part of the question asked, "How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?" The answer is that no variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible.

The fourth part of the question concerns S5.4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 217 as it applies to your "Type I" and "Type II" school buses. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(b) states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. You asked whether the transverse plane may be positioned 4 to 12 inches forward of the forward edge of the emergency door. The standard specifies that the plane shall pass through the forward edge of the side emergency door and thus no variation is permissible.

You requested copies of previous interpretations made by the agency concerning school bus seating. These interpretations may be obtained from NHTSA's Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. We will forward your request to them.

SINCERELY,

Illinois Department of Transportation

OCC-1254

September 24, 1984

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Earlier this year during a telephone conversation our Standards Engineer (M. Post) asked Mr. Robert Williams, of your Crash - Worthiness Division, a few questions about requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards governing school bus seating. Mr. Williams said such questions should be submitted to the Chief Counsel's Office and suggested they be sent to your attention. Last May I addressed and sent the attached letter but have received no reply.

When should I expect a reply?

Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ATTACH.

REF. OCC-662

Illinois Department of Transportation

May 21, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Except for certain transit, interurban, charter, and shuttle buses, Illinois standards for Type I school buses (GVWR more than 10,000 pounds) and Type II school buses (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) apply to vehicles owned or operated by or for a school and designed to carry more than ten persons. These Illinois standards include, by reference, each federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS -- 49 CFR 571) that applies to school bus. The State owns very few, if any, school buses, but each school bus registered in the State must conform to State school bus rules and standards. Under 15 USC 1392(d) our State requirements for school bus seats must be identical to federal requirements stated in applicable FMVSS.

1. Each Illinois school bus must have an aisle extending from front service entrance area to rear emergency exit. Because of the forward facing and limited spacing requirements in FMVSS 222, S5.1 and S5.2, we have told school bus sellers and users an aisle facing seat may NOT be installed in a Type I school bus unless the seat is required to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger who uses that aisle facing seat. (See definition of school bus passenger seat in FMVSS 222, S4.) For example, an aisle facing seat may be installed to accommodate a student with limited knee movement who cannot sit in forward facing seat close behind barrier or seat back. In Type I school buses we have disallowed aisle facing seat(s) installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs because the aisle facing seat(s) would accommodate, or seat, either normal student passengers or student passengers not requiring the extra space because of limited knee movement or other handicap. The transportation of handicapped student(s) shall NOT be used to deny any other student in a Type I school bus the full protection of a forward facing seat conforming to FMVSS 222. Are these correct interpretations of FMVSS 222 requirements?

2. Because the forward facing requirement in S5.1 and the limited spacing requirement in S5.2 do not apply to Type II school buses we have told school bus sellers and users aisle facing seat(s) may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. In some Type II school buses ALL seats face the aisle. Is "aisle facing seat for any student in Type II school bus" a correct interpretation of FMVSS 222?

3. Recently, additional questions have arisen. In a Type II school bus (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) does FMVSS 222:

a. Require seat belts at each seating position, including seating positions on aisle facing seats?

b. Require seat belts and anchors meet requirements of FMVSS 209 and 210 at each seating position on aisle facing seat?

c. Require aisle facing seat meet requirements of S5.1.2. S5.1.3, S5.1.4 and/or S5.1.5?

d. Require an aisle facing seat be equipped with a seat back?

e. Require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between each seating reference point of aisle facing seat and the seat(s) or other object(s) across the aisle, or require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between the forwardmost seating reference point of an aisle facing seat and the seat or other object(s) forward of that seating reference point?

f. Require that S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both, or neither, be complied with in the case of an aisle facing seat?

4. Both Type I and Type II school buses in Illinois have been equipped with one or more "theater" type seat cushions. This type cushion is arranged with a hinge near the seatback allowing the seating surface of the cushion to swing up against the seatback. The cushion might swing up automatically, under action of spring(s), or might require manual raising and securing into the "up" position. The "theater" type cushion has been used on forward facing seat adjacent to side emergency door and also on forward facing or aisle facing seat(s) in other locations to provide optional use of space either for seating (cushion down) or for wheelchair (cushion up).

a. Do FMVSS either allow or disallow the "theater" type seat cushion?

b. Does the presence of "theater" type seat cushion eliminate the requirement in FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), for a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back to pass through forward edge of side emergency door?

c. How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?

d. Does FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), merely require the forward edge of door be located at or rearward of the plane; i.e., allow the plane to be 4 -- 12 inches forward of forward edge of door? (This condition has been observed on school bus certified under 49 CFR 567 without "theater" type seat cushion.)

Thank you very much for answering these questions. We would also appreciate your providing us with any available earlier interpretations of the FMVSS's governing school bus seating.

Melvin Smith, Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ID: aiam4721

Open
His Excellency D. H. Burney Ambassador of Canada 501 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001; His Excellency D. H. Burney Ambassador of Canada 501 Pennsylvania Ave.
N.W. Washington
D.C. 20001;

"Dear Mr. Ambassador: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1990 expressing the concern of your country about this agency's new regulations on importation of motor vehicles and equipment. Canada is concerned that, under P.L. l00-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers, and private citizens will not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or used Canadian market vehicles to the United States. It is concerned further that Canadian individuals and firms will be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States. Canada therefore requests that this agency modify its regulations with respect to Canadian market vehicles, recognizing their near-compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. You have five specific requests, and I shall address each. Preliminarily, I want to note several things. First, my assurance that this agency gave very careful consideration to the concerns of Transport Canada in adopting final regulations under the 1988 Act, as well as those expressed by Canadian companies that commented on the proposed regulations. As we noted in the notices proposing and adopting those regulations, our discretion to make changes in the regulations was narrowly circumscribed in many instances by the detailed language of that Act. On a more technical level, I want to note that your understanding of our new regulations expressed in paragraphs (a) through (g) on page 2 of your letter is essentially correct. However, with respect to your paragraph (d), please note that determinations of vehicle eligibility for importation may also be made by me as Administrator on my own initiative, and need not be pursuant to a petition. Also, as to paragraph (e), I would like to point out that the bond processing fee, proposed to be $125, is only $4.35 (however, under paragraph (f) the bond is not less than l50% of the dutiable value of the vehicle). Your first request is that the agency 'recognize Canadian market vehicles as a special class of non-complying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS.' The l988 Act was enacted on October 31, l988, and became effective January 31, l990. I regret to say that none of its provisions authorize the agency to directly distinguish between non-complying vehicles of Canadian manufacture and those originating in other countries. However, the eligibility provisions that you reference in paragraph (d) do permit a basis for minimizing some of the burden that the l988 Act imposes. We begin with the premise that if a Canadian vehicle has not been certified by its manufacturer as in conformance with U.S. standards, then it cannot be presumed to conform in all respects to the U.S. standards. Canadian and U.S. safety standards do differ in some ways (e.g., mandatory automatic crash protection for U.S. market passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l989). Nevertheless, we believe that enough similarity may exist to support a finding that a Canadian passenger car is 'substantially similar' to a U.S. passenger car, justifying a determination that it is eligible for importation into the United States, and capable of conversion to meet U.S. safety standards. Further, such a finding may be made on our own initiative. I am pleased to inform you that NHTSA is publishing a notice of tentative determination that would cover all passenger cars certified as meeting the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and that were manufactured up to September 1, l989. A copy of the notice is enclosed for your reference. After receiving and considering public comment, we will make a final decision on this matter. If we decide to adopt our tentative determination as a final determination, your first request would, in effect, be granted. Your second request is that we 'exempt such vehicles from the fees.' These fees are the ones mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of your letter, the registered importer annual registration fee, the vehicle eligibility petition fee, and the bond processing fee. Each fee is specifically required by the l988 Act, and must be established in advance of the fiscal year in which it is effective. The registered importer fee is required to cover agency costs for administration of the registration program. The vehicle eligibility fee is required to cover the agency's costs in making and publishing eligibility determinations. The bond processing fee is required to reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for its costs in processing the agency's conformance bond that accompanies each nonconforming vehicle. Congress provided no authority to waive these fees, or to modify them during the fiscal year that they are in effect. Thus, the fees that have been established must remain in effect until October 1, l990. When we begin the review that will lead to next year's fees, we shall be happy to consider whether some provision may be made for Canadian market vehicles. In the meantime, I would like to point out that under our notice of tentative determination on eligibility of Canadian vehicles, the fee of $l,560 would cover the blanket determination of all passenger cars, and would not be applied to each individual model and model year of passenger car. This action would effectively moot Canada's second request that Canadian market passenger cars be exempted from the determination fee. Canada's third request is to 'exempt them from the bonding requirement.' The l988 Act requires the importer of a non-conforming vehicle to furnish an appropriate bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into compliance, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States. This is not a new requirement, ever since January 1, l968, each nonconforming vehicle, Canadian or otherwise, has been required to be accompanied by a conformance bond upon its entry into the United States. The l988 Act provides us with no authority to exempt Canadian vehicles, and does not distinguish degrees of nonconformity. Therefore, we believe that we are unable to grant Canada's request, absent specific authorization by the U.S. Congress. The fourth request is to 'exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.S. citizens.' This request raises two issues: whether Canadian market cars may be imported by persons other than registered importers, and whether registered importers must be U.S. citizens. As to the first issue, the l988 Act does allow one alternative to direct importation by a registered importer. That is, a person other than a registered importer may import a nonconforming vehicle if he has a contract with a registered importer to perform conformance work. This would allow a Canadian citizen to import a Canadian market car, without himself becoming a registered importer. The second issue is whether a Canadian company is permitted to be a registered importer. We believe that a registered importer is a person who is physically present in the territory in which importation occurs, as opposed to an exporter, who is outside that territory. While we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, we believe that a Canadian company could qualify to do business within an individual State, and become a registered importer. Thus, it is not necessary to be a U.S. 'citizen', but it is necessary to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The l988 Act requires the registered importer regulation to contain requirements for recordkeeping, and inspection of records and facilities. Since the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not extend beyond the boundaries of the United States, we believe that it would be difficult to enforce our provisions on inspection of premises, documents, etc. in the territory of another country. This brings us to your fifth and final request, that we 'allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada.' Under current regulations, conformance work is permitted to be performed outside the United States. However, vehicles modified in this fashion must be admitted under the same procedures as if they had not been modified. This allows the agency to review the documents on pre-importation conversion work, to ensure that it has been satisfactorily accomplished, before the conformance bond is released. Accordingly, we believe that the concern underlying this request has already been accommodated. If, after reviewing this letter, you have further suggestions for reducing the burdens that the new law may have imposed on importations of Canadian-manufactured vehicles, I would be happy to consider them. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosure";

ID: 1983-1.23

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Anton Ostermeier

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1983, supplying the further information we requested on January 28.

The 1955 Mercedes replica which you contemplate building is a hybrid of new and old parts. The body is of your construction and consists of new parts. You fabricate the chassis using new tubing; however, its front cross member may be either a new replacement Mustang part (1974-1978 models) or one actually taken from a vehicle in use. Similarly, the front suspension, differential and rear suspension, and transmissions may be new replacement parts or taken from vehicles in use. You will employ used rear wheel cylinders in the braking system and used engines (either a 1964 Chrysler Slant 6 or a 1969 Chevrolet V-8). Any equipment that has previously been used will be rebuilt to the manufacturer's specifications, and new parts will be incorporated where necessary.

As a general rule, the agency has no requirements for "used" vehicles. Whether a vehicle is treated as new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage consisting of a new body on the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads as a "used" motor vehicle and therefore not subject to the Federal motor vehicle standards. On the other hand, the agency will consider a truck newly manufactured when an old cab is replaced with a new one unless at least the engine, transmission, and drive axle of the assembled vehicle are not new and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

The vehicle you propose to manufacture is somewhat different from either of these examples, but we have concluded that it is a "new" motor vehicle and must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new passenger cars. Not only do previously unused parts appear to predominate in your plans, but, in addition, the old parts that are used will be rebuilt with new parts where necessary, to the manufacturer's original specifications. With the exception of the 1964 engine, the rebuilt components were originally used in vehicles manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and there appears no reason why your product may not also be manufactured to comply, even though it is a replica of a 1955 car.

Use of the 1964 engine could raise problems of compliance with Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, and with Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. However, in that event, we believe that you (as a producer of less than 10,000 vehicles a year) would be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from those standards, or any other standard where immediate compliance would cause you substantial economic hardship. I enclose an information sheet which tells you where you may obtain a copy of our regulations, including the standards and temporary exemption petition procedures.

If you have further questions, we would be happy to assist you.

ENC.

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

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 4, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt,

General Description of the products used in the construction of the 300SL Mercedes Replica by Gullwing Car, Inc. 19240 South Vermont Avenue, Gardena, Calif. 90248. (213) 324-9847 as follows.

Frame;

The frame is of square steel tubing construction, using new tubing. Sizes are as follows;

1" x 1" x .065

1" x 1" x .090

.75 x .75 x .065

.75 x .75 x .125

3" x 2.5" x .375

3/16" flat stock

The front cross member is 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11. This assembly is purchased both new old stock and used. It is welded into our frame assembly using original weld points, angles, forward aft locations and ground clearances. Even the axel weight has been maintained as prescribed for the 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 manufacturing specifications. This unit is assembled and jig built as shown by previously supplied pictures the Dept. of the Chief Counsel, this insures the product uniformity.

Bumpers both front and rear;

Bumpers are constructed of stamped nickel chrome plated steel as orginally manufactured for the 1953 thru 1957 Gullwing 300SL. It is bolted to the frame through spring steel brackets as was the original production car.

Front Suspension;

The front suspension used is the 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 and is used in its entirety. This suspension is purchased both new old stock and used. When purchased used, units are completely disassembled. Basic units are inspected to assure conformity to the original manufacturers specifications, then reassembled using new parts. i.e. all new bushings, all new bearings, bearing races and seals. The stearing gear is stock 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 rack and pinion and is installed as prescribed for the 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 by the manufacturer. Front end alignment as to Caster, Camber, Toe-in, suspension travel and clearances are maintained as originally designed.

Differential and Rear Suspension;

The products used is the 1979 to 1983 Ford Fairmont rear suspension and differential, it is used in its entirety unaltered. It is installed in our frame to the exact same specifications as it would be installed in the 1979 to 1983 Ford Fairmont frame, i.e. clearance, mounting points, angles and travel. These specifications and locations are maintained by the jig building of our frame. These units are purchased both new old stock and used. When purchased used they are disassembled, inspected and rebuilt to original manufacturer specifications using new bearings, bearing races, seals, gaskets and gears where ever necessary.

Brakes;

The rear brakes are drum type 10" x 1 and 3/4" hydraulicly operated. They are the original brakes for the 1978 to 1983 Ford Fairmont. They are installed unaltered and in there entirety. New brake lining and wheel cylinders are used and assembled to the original manufacturers specifications. The front brakes are of Disc type and are used in there entirety as prescribed for the 1972 to 1979 Mustang 11. The lining is new and the wheel cylinders are rebuilt with new parts to original manufacturers specifications.

Brake Lines;

Flexible brake lines both front and rear are original equipment type.

Master Cylinder;

Master cylinder is the duel type vacuum boosted as used in 1979 to 1983 Ford Fairmont. Hydraulics to wheels is supplied through compatable differential valve and andoized double flared steel tubing and is of the sizes and routing using the practices of the manufacturers. note: Vehicle weight is between 2,050 lbs and 2,500 lbs.

The brakes system employed is capable of handling a 3,200 to 3,800 lb vehicle and is more than adequate.

Engines;

Two engines are available in our Gullwing Replica. They are 1964 225 cubic inch slant 6 Chrysler engine and the 1969 350 cubic inch V-8 Chevrolet engine. The engines are purchased used and rebuilt to the original manufactures specifications, using new parts where ever necessary.

Transmission;

The transmission selections are as follows, for the Chrysler slant 6 the Borge Warner 4 speed standard shift transmission and the aluminum automatic 3 speed torque flight transmission. For the Chevrolet V-8 engine the 4 speed Munci transmission and 350 hydromatic transmission are used. These units are purchased both new old stock and used. When purchased used they are completely disassembled, inspected and reassembled to manufacturers specifications, using new parts when ever necessary.

Body;

Body is constructed of four layers, first layer of epoxy, second layer of 2oz fiberglass matting and epoxy, third layer 4oz fiberglass matting and epoxy, fourth and inside final layer of 2oz fiberglass cloth and epoxy. Fiberglass sequence is layed up in a female mold and Kiln dried for optimum cure and strength. Through temperature control. note: enclosed in the windshield frame is a 3/4" x 3/4" x .090 square tubing. Center section of roof contains steel support and hinge box, a rear window support also of 3/4" x 3/4" x .090 square tubing. The center hinge box assembly is bolted to front and rear window support tubing. When completely assembled driver and passenger are protected 360 degrees with steel bolted to frame assembly. On both left and right sides by no less than 8 inches of bridged frame work, not to mention inner and outer epoxied fiberglass panels and padded leather upholstery.

Lights;

Headlights are seal beam type, rear tail light lens are the reflector type required. Fully automatic signal and hasard lights are incorperated.

Glass;

All glass is new. Front windshield is two layered safety glass as prescribed by D.O.T.S. Door glass left and right is of the tempered type required by D.O.T.S. Left and right 1/4 windows, is also of tempered type required by D.O.T.S. As is the back window glass.

Rims and Tires;

Rims and tires are both 14" and 15", customers obtion. They will be supplied new old stock and new only.

The above is a summary of my replica's construction. I hope this supplies you with the information you requested to assist me with my list of requirements. Please contact me for any further information you may require.

ID: 2405y

Open

His Excellency
D. H. Burney
Ambassador of Canada
501 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Mr. Ambassador:

Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1990, expressing the concern of your country about this agency's new regulations on importation of motor vehicles and equipment.

Canada is concerned that, under P.L. l00-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers, and private citizens will not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or used Canadian market vehicles to the United States. It is concerned further that Canadian individuals and firms will be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States. Canada therefore requests that this agency modify its regulations with respect to Canadian market vehicles, recognizing their near-compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. You have five specific requests, and I shall address each.

Preliminarily, I want to note several things. First, my assurance that this agency gave very careful consideration to the concerns of Transport Canada in adopting final regulations under the 1988 Act, as well as those expressed by Canadian companies that commented on the proposed regulations. As we noted in the notices proposing and adopting those regulations, our discretion to make changes in the regulations was narrowly circumscribed in many instances by the detailed language of that Act. On a more technical level, I want to note that your understanding of our new regulations expressed in paragraphs (a) through (g) on page 2 of your letter is essentially correct. However, with respect to your paragraph (d), please note that determinations of vehicle eligibility for importation may also be made by me as Administrator on my own initiative, and need not be pursuant to a petition. Also, as to paragraph (e), I would like to point out that the bond processing fee, proposed to be $125, is only $4.35 (however, under paragraph (f) the bond is not less than l50% of the dutiable value of the vehicle).

Your first request is that the agency "recognize Canadian market vehicles as a special class of non-complying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS." The l988 Act was enacted on October 31, l988, and became effective January 31, l990. I regret to say that none of its provisions authorize the agency to directly distinguish between non-complying vehicles of Canadian manufacture and those originating in other countries.

However, the eligibility provisions that you reference in paragraph (d) do permit a basis for minimizing some of the burden that the l988 Act imposes. We begin with the premise that if a Canadian vehicle has not been certified by its manufacturer as in conformance with U.S. standards, then it cannot be presumed to conform in all respects to the U.S. standards. Canadian and U.S. safety standards do differ in some ways (e.g., mandatory automatic crash protection for U.S. market passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l989). Nevertheless, we believe that enough similarity may exist to support a finding that a Canadian passenger car is "substantially similar" to a U.S. passenger car, justifying a determination that it is eligible for importation into the United States, and capable of conversion to meet U.S. safety standards. Further, such a finding may be made on our own initiative. I am pleased to inform you that NHTSA is publishing a notice of tentative determination that would cover all passenger cars certified as meeting the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and that were manufactured up to September 1, l989. A copy of the notice is enclosed for your reference. After receiving and considering public comment, we will make a final decision on this matter. If we decide to adopt our tentative determination as a final determination, your first request would, in effect, be granted.

Your second request is that we "exempt such vehicles from the fees." These fees are the ones mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of your letter, the registered importer annual registration fee, the vehicle eligibility petition fee, and the bond processing fee. Each fee is specifically required by the l988 Act, and must be established in advance of the fiscal year in which it is effective. The registered importer fee is required to cover agency costs for administration of the registration program. The vehicle eligibility fee is required to cover the agency's costs in making and publishing eligibility determinations. The bond processing fee is required to reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for its costs in processing the agency's conformance bond that accompanies each nonconforming vehicle. Congress provided no authority to waive these fees, or to modify them during the fiscal year that they are in effect. Thus, the fees that have been established must remain in effect until October 1, l990. When we begin the review that will lead to next year's fees, we shall be happy to consider whether some provision may be made for Canadian market vehicles. In the meantime, I would like to point out that under our notice of tentative determination on eligibility of Canadian vehicles, the fee of $l,560 would cover the blanket determination of all passenger cars, and would not be applied to each individual model and model year of passenger car. This action would effectively moot Canada's second request that Canadian market passenger cars be exempted from the determination fee.

Canada's third request is to "exempt them from the bonding requirement." The l988 Act requires the importer of a non-conforming vehicle to furnish an appropriate bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into compliance, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States. This is not a new requirement; ever since January 1, l968, each nonconforming vehicle, Canadian or otherwise, has been required to be accompanied by a conformance bond upon its entry into the United States. The l988 Act provides us with no authority to exempt Canadian vehicles, and does not distinguish degrees of nonconformity. Therefore, we believe that we are unable to grant Canada's request, absent specific authorization by the U.S. Congress.

The fourth request is to "exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.S. citizens." This request raises two issues: whether Canadian market cars may be imported by persons other than registered importers, and whether registered importers must be U.S. citizens. As to the first issue, the l988 Act does allow one alternative to direct importation by a registered importer. That is, a person other than a registered importer may import a nonconforming vehicle if he has a contract with a registered importer to perform conformance work. This would allow a Canadian citizen to import a Canadian market car, without himself becoming a registered importer.

The second issue is whether a Canadian company is permitted to be a registered importer. We believe that a registered importer is a person who is physically present in the territory in which importation occurs, as opposed to an exporter, who is outside that territory. While we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, we believe that a Canadian company could qualify to do business within an individual State, and become a registered importer. Thus, it is not necessary to be a U.S. "citizen", but it is necessary to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The l988 Act requires the registered importer regulation to contain requirements for recordkeeping, and inspection of records and facilities. Since the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not extend beyond the boundaries of the United States, we believe that it would be difficult to enforce our provisions on inspection of premises, documents, etc. in the territory of another country.

This brings us to your fifth and final request, that we "allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada." Under current regulations, conformance work is permitted to be performed outside the United States. However, vehicles modified in this fashion must be admitted under the same procedures as if they had not been modified. This allows the agency to review the documents on pre-importation conversion work, to ensure that it has been satisfactorily accomplished, before the conformance bond is released. Accordingly, we believe that the concern underlying this request has already been accommodated.

If, after reviewing this letter, you have further suggestions for reducing the burdens that the new law may have imposed on importations of Canadian-manufactured vehicles, I would be happy to consider them.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

Enclosure ref:59l#592#593#594 d:4/24/90

ID: 15504.drn

Open

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-2247

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

This responds to your association's request that this office review the most recent revisions of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's (TTMA) Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number" and Recommended Practice Number 53, "U. S. Trailer Certification Label." We have reviewed both draft documents as time and resources would allow and offer the following comments. Please note, however, that these comments do not constitute any sort of NHTSA approval or endorsement of the TTMA's Recommended Practices. TTMA is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the documents.

In general, the TTMA Recommended Practice No. 56 appears to be correct about NHTSA's vehicle identification number requirements as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. In general, Recommended Practice No. 53 appears to be correct about NHTSA's labeling requirements in 49 CFR Part 567 Certification and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. (49 CFR 571.120).

However, in several instances, the Recommended Practices go beyond what is required by NHTSA's regulations to recommend one particular means be used to meet the Federal requirement, when NHTSA's regulations leave that matter to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. Examples of the TTMA recommendations going beyond the NHTSA regulations may be found in the directions provided in Recommended Practice No. 56's Part 13.0 on the Vehicle Descriptor (Second) Section Code, and Part 15.0 Vehicle Indicator (Fourth) Section Code. For Recommended Practice No. 53, an example is found in the combined certification and tire-rim information provided in Section 6.0 "Certification Label Requirements."

While TTMA is free to make these recommendations, it may be helpful for your members to recognize the distinction between information or labeling required by NHTSA, and which therefore must follow an exact format according to Federal law, as opposed to matters that are within the discretion of the manufacturer and for which the TTMA provides one suggested means by which the requirement(s) may be fulfilled.

I also note that in Section 12.5 (pages 12-13) in No. 56, TTMA provides recommendations for handling certification and VIN assignment responsibilities for trailers sold in a bankruptcy sale. You correctly note that NHTSA has not yet issued an interpretation on this issue, and in the absence of a specific fact situation to be addressed, we will not comment. However, your members should be advised that if they decide to follow TTMA's advice on the bankruptcy issue, they will be doing so at their own risk, as NHTSA may not agree with TTMA's recommendation. The safest course if this situation should arise, is to write to the Chief Counsel and ask for an interpretation.

We offer the following comments on particular sections of each recommended practice:

COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED PRACTICE NUMBER 56 "TRAILER VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER"

2.0 Purpose:

An extra sentence should be added to Section 2.1 as follows: "This Recommended Practice references relevant provisions of NHTSA's VIN regulation in parentheses; e.g. (565.3(h)) for the definition of `manufacturer'".

4.4 Trailer Kits:

The citation should be changed from "49 CFR 571.115, S2 and S3" to " 49 CFR 565.2".

9.5 Format

Section 9.5 addresses situations where there are spaces in a VIN, and comments: "The space can, however, be filled with any approved letter or number listed in Section 9.3." This sentence is not necessarily true. In the twelfth through seventeenth positions of the VIN (production sequence), other than characters designated for use by the SAE in the twelfth through fourteenth positions (because the manufacturer makes fewer than 500 vehicles per year), numbers must be used. Section 565.6(d)(3) states that the twelfth through seventeenth positions "shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process if the manufacturer produces 500 or more vehicles of its type annually." (Emphasis added.)

17.0 Interpretations and Questions:

If there are any questions about VINs, the first person TTMA members should contact is the VIN Coordinator at (202) 366-6018.

Requests for legal interpretations may be obtained by writing to:

Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590

Information on legal interpretations may be obtained from:

DOROTHY NAKAMA (202) 366-2992.

Please note that NHTSA attorneys do not provide oral interpretations or other "informal answers to questions."

Excerpts from Legal Interpretations Issued by NHTSA Pertaining to VINs

I suggest the following cautionary language precede the section with excerpts from interpretations:

The following excerpts from NHTSA's Chief Counsel's interpretation letters are provided for the reader's convenience only. NHTSA strongly advises that before deciding to rely on an excerpt, the reader review the entire letter from which the excerpt was taken.

Further, in attempting to use these interpretations to resolve a question, please be aware that they represent the views of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases. If you are aware of a previous interpretation that appears to address your question, please cite that interpretation and present your question to the Chief Counsel. Do not act on the assumption that the interpretation is necessarily applicable to your situation. There may be critical factual differences between your situation and those addressed in previous interpretations. Further, the agency's standards and regulations change from year to year, and past interpretations may no longer be applicable.

Interpretation letters are available from: NHTSA Technical Reference, Room 5108, 400 Seventh St., S. W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Phone number (202) 366-4941. Please be sure to reference 49 CFR part or NHTSA regulation being interpreted.

NHTSA's interpretation letters are available for viewing on the Internet at: "http:\\www.nhtsa.dot.gov". On the home page, click on "Table of Contents", then on "Regulations and Standards" under "NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search". Letters may be searched by "key words" such as date, name of addressee, or subject matter.

Finally, I note that in a June 29, 1993 letter to TTMA, I advised you that the "Anti Car Theft Act of 1992" resulted in adding Section 511, Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers, to Title 18 of the United States Code. Section 511 provides that whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, for purposes other than repair, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. It may be helpful to your members if Section 511 was mentioned somewhere in the recommended practice, perhaps in the section containing excerpts from NHTSA's legal interpretations.

COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED PRACTICE NUMBER 53 "U. S. TRAILER CERTIFICATION LABEL"

3.1 References:

The correct title for Standard No. 120 is Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars and the correct title for Part 568 is Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

4.2 Certification Label ... Specifications:

4.2 should read as follows:

"The label must be affixed to a location on the forward half of the left side of the trailer such that it is easily readable from outside the trailer without moving any part of the trailer."

6.0 Certification Label Examples:

6.2 The example shown in S6.2 (certification label not combined with Std. 120 labeling requirements) provides the correct information in the correct order specified in Part 567. However, in the S6.2 example, the "Date of Manufacture" should read "Month and Year of Manufacturer", as specified at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(2). The information "All Axles 19,000 with 10.00-20(F) Tires" should be preceded by "Gross Axle Weight Rating [GAWR]".

6.8 In the example shown in S6.8, "Date of Manufacture" should read "Month and Year of Manufacture."

Excerpts from Rulemaking and Interpretations

On excerpts from interpretation letters, my earlier comments provided for Recommended Practice Number 56 also apply to this discussion.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:565#567#120

d.9/11/97

Request an Interpretation

You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:

The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590

If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.

Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.