ID: 9559

Mr. Richard Kreutziger
Executive Director
New York State Bus Distributor Ass'n, Inc.
102 Grace Street
Penn Yan, NY 14527

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your FAX of January 12, 1994, requesting an information on the extent to which a state can adopt requirements for school buses which exceed the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This also responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the location requirements for a side emergency door exit in Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

Your January 12, 1994 FAX requested clarification of when a state could impose requirements on school buses which exceeded the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Specifically, you asked whether the state could impose such requirements on (1) a public school and (2) a contractor providing transportation for a public school. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable FMVSS that are different from the applicable FMVSS, except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law imposing higher requirements would be preempted under 103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. In addition, the agency has previously interpreted the phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" to include public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school. See, for example, February 20, 1987 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin (copy enclosed).

Your February 14, 1994 FAX asked whether the November 2 final rule permits a right side emergency exit door to be to the rear of the passenger compartment. The answer is yes. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#217 d:3/28/94

ID: 86-5.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William C. Fisher

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William C. Fisher Product Engineer Parker Hannifin Corporation Parflex Division 1300 North Freedom Street Ravenna, OH 44266

Dear Mr. Fisher:

Thank you for your letter and enclosure regarding the labeling requirements for air brake hose assemblies set forth in Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. I regret the delay in our response. We have referred the matter to our enforcement division to obtain more information about the assemblies you enclosed. We will return the samples of brake hose assemblies you sent, as you requested, when our examination is completed.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Department of Transportation Office of Chief Council, NOA32 Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington,D.C. 20590

Attention : Ms. Deirdre Hom, Attorney Advisor

Subject: D.O.T. Safety Standard 106 Section 7.2.3, Parts a and b - Identification of brake tubing assemblies by banding; Section 7.2.3.1 - End fitting marking to D.O.T. regulations.

Dear Deirdre:

Per our recent conversation, I have enclosed samples of the air brake end fittings which we contend are not in compliance with DOT 106 regulations. These assemblies were permanently ". . attached by crimping or swaging. ." a brass collar to the nylon tubing. This would, in our opinion, constitute a permanently attached fitting which is not reusable. In addition, no identification band was found on the coil assembly, and all end fittings lack D.O.T. identification markings.

I request that you review these samples and render a decision on the following questions:

1) Do these samples constitute permanently attached fittings under Section 7.2.3?

2) Is the attachment of a D.O.T. identification band required on brake hose assemblies made with this type of end fitting?

3) Is the end fitting identification marking in compliance with DOT 106 regulations?

I have enclosed for review, a current production sample of a Parker brake coil assembly that complies with DOT 106 regulations.

I request that these samples be returned to me at the Parker Parflex Division upon completion of your study.

Ms. Deirdre Hom Page 2

Your swift attention to this matter will be appreciated. If you have any additional questions, please contact me at (216) 296-2871, ext. 259.

Very truly yours,

William C. Fisher Product Engineer

WCF:dm

Enclosures

1) Unidentified brake hose end fitting (Section Out) 2) Unidentified brake hose end fitting 3) Parker brake coil assembly

cc: William Hertel, Corporate Staff Engineer, Parker Hannifin Corp. Mark Kugelman, General Marketing Mgr., Parker Hannifin Corp. Robert Wiseman, Plant Mgr., Parker Hannifin Corp.

ID: nht73-1.39

DATE: 06/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Automotive Aftermarket

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1973 and confirms the telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff on June 14, 1973.

The amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 published on May 17, 1973 modified container labelling requirements only for silicone-based brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil (paragraph S5.2.2.3) and did not affect the requirements for conventional DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids (paragraph S5.2.2.2) as you assumed. Therefore you appear to have no problem, and it is not necessary to consider your letter as a petition for reconsideration.

Sincerely,

Bendix

Automotive Aftermarket

May 30, 1973

Department of Transportation

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Reference: Phone conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent on 5/14/73

Dear Mr. Schneider:

The revision to the FMVSS #116 Standard, as published May 17, 1973, has an effective date for label changes of July 1, 1973, but does not specifically authorize the sellers of Brake Fluid to exhaust existing container stock.

The label changes are minor, as follows:

Existing Safety Warnings:

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. Contamination with dirt, water, petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

4. CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

* New Safety Warnings:

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN. Contamination with dirt or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. CAUTION: STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED. DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER OR USE OTHER LIQUIDS.

* We have corrected the labeling as to the use of upper and lower case letters per the instructions of Mr. Taylor Vincent.

The current safety warning label requirements are not inadequate for the conventional Brake Fluids. Bendix labeling for DOT 3 Brake Fluid conforms to the existing standard for safety warnings.

This letter is a request for permission to exhaust container stock purchased prior to the July 1, 1973, effective date. Existing Bendix container stock is in the form of lithographed containers both filled and unfilled. A minimum of 60 - 90 days is required to modify lithography plates. If permission is not granted, this letter is to be considered a petition to amend the Docket No. 71-13, Notice 4, published May 17, 1973. Please amend this docket to give the conventional Brake Fluid sellers the right to exhaust stock purchased prior to the July 1, 1973, effective date.

Very truly yours,

Cam Brame --

Quality Assurance Analyst

cc: M. J. Stepanek; B. Stubbs; R. Hasnerl; J. Howard

ID: 11920.DRN

Mr. Richard Barbera
DYNACUSA
6305 Renaissance Way
Atlanta, GA 30308

Dear Mr. Barbera:

This responds to your May 13, 1996, letter asking if the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) apply to your product, the "Fixcover." The Fixcover is a plastic disc that is designed to be attached to a motor vehicle wheel rim. You state that the Fixcover resembles a hub cap and when attached to a vehicle, "will stay in place and will not rotate even if the car is moving." You indicate that this enables any advertisement placed on the Fixcover to be legible at all times.

NHTSA is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following opinion is based on the information in your letter.

While the Fixcover is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any safety standards for such an item. You appear to believe that the Fixcover may have to meet Safety Standard No. 211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps. The standard would not apply, as the Fixcover incorporates no "winged projections." In any event, on May 6, 1996, NHTSA rescinded Standard No. 211, effective June 5, 1996.

While no Federal safety standard applies to the Fixcover, you are subject to the provisions of sections 30118-10122 of our statute (at Title 49 of the United States Code) concerning the recall of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Other legal requirements may apply depending on how the Fixcover is sold. If the Fixcover were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would certify that the vehicle, with the Fixcover, meets all safety standards. In addition, if the Fixcover is installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business on a new or used vehicle, '30122(b) of our statute prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly

making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition subjects the violator to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Fixcover on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to somehow result in the vehicle no longer meeting a safety standard. However, NHTSA urges owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

In the enclosed information sheet, I direct your attention to the discussion on pages 2-3, of NHTSA's requirement that foreign manufacturers designate a permanent resident of the U.S. as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. While your letter states that you are a Swiss based company, you informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that you intend to manufacture the Fixcover in this country. If your company manufactures all Fixcover components in the U.S., it need not designate an agent. However, if your company imports any Fixcover component into the U.S., including the plastic cover and metal components that hold the cover to the vehicle, the foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in accordance with 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:211#VSA d:6/5/96

ID: 6921

Dr. Larry J. French
President and CEO
Magnascreen
265 Kappa Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238

Dear Dr. French:

This responds to your letter inquiring about a recent amendment to Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. (49 CFR 571.111) You explained that your company is developing electronically controlled dimmable (day/night) rearview mirrors for motor vehicles and requested that the agency assess your reading of section S11 of the standard. We are pleased to have this opportunity to interpret our standard for you.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following letter represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter.

Safety Standard No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which was recently amended to better address new mirror designs, specifies requirements for mirror construction. (See 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991.) The section states in relevant part that:

All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure.

You asked whether an alternate power source can be used to achieve the specified fail-safe operation (i.e., adjusting the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure). While your letter did not specify what you meant by "alternate power source," we assume that it means an electrical power source other than the one intended to normally operate the mirror. Examples of an alternate electrical power source include solar energy or a self-contained battery system.

We interpret the term "electrical failure," as used in section S11 of Standard No. 111, to include any type of electrical failure. This would include electrical failure related to an alternate power source as well as electrical failure related to the primary power source. Therefore, unless adjustment of the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent occurred even in situations where there was electrical failure related to the alternate power source, the alternate electrical source could not be used to provide the fail-safe operation required by section S11.

The preamble to the final rule amending Standard No. 111 explained that the agency wanted to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. The agency noted that situations can occur where the mirror would be unpowered even though the vehicle could be operational, citing connector faults and circuit board faults. See 56 FR 58515.

To comply with section S11 in situations where a mirror is unpowered as a result of electrical failure, a mirror would either have to default automatically to the high reflectance mode (as in the case of an opposite polarity fail-safe liquid crystal mirror described in the preamble) or be capable of being manually adjusted to the high reflectance mode. We do not have enough information about your proposed mirror to determine whether it would comply with the amendments in the case of electrical failure related to the alternate power source.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref: 111 d:3/26/92

ID: nht92-8.16

DATE: March 26, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry J. French -- President and CEO, Magnascreen

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/24/92 from Larry J. French to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6921)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter inquiring about a recent amendment to Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. (49 CFR S571.111) You explained that your company is developing electronically controlled dimmable (day/night) rearview mirrors for motor vehicles and requested that the agency assess your reading of section S11 of the standard. We are pleased to have this opportunity to interpret our standard for you.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following letter represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter.

Safety Standard No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which was recently amended to better address new mirror designs, specifies requirements for mirror construction. (See 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991.) The section states in relevant part that:

All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure.

You asked whether an alternate power source can be used to achieve the specified fail-safe operation (i.e., adjusting the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure). While your letter did not specify what you meant by "alternate power source," we assume that it means an electrical power source other than the one intended to normally operate the mirror. Examples of an alternate electrical power source include solar energy or a self-contained battery system.

We interpret the term "electrical failure," as used in section S11 of Standard No. 111, to include any type of electrical failure. This would include electrical failure related to an alternate power source as well as electrical failure related to the primary power source. Therefore, unless adjustment of

the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent occurred even in situations where there was electrical failure related to the alternate power source, the alternate electrical source could not be used to provide the fail-safe operation required by section S11.

The preamble to the final rule amending Standard No. 111 explained that the agency wanted to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during this vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. The agency noted that situations can occur where the mirror would be unpowered even though the vehicle could be operational, citing connector faults and circuit board faults. See 56 FR 58515.

To comply with section S11 in situations where a mirror is unpowered as a result of electrical failure, a mirror would either have to default automatically to the high reflectance mode (as in the case of an opposite polarity fail-safe liquid crystal mirror described in the preamble) or be capable of being manually adjusted to the high reflectance mode. We do not have enough information about your proposed mirror to determine whether it would comply with the amendments in the case of electrical failure related to the alternate power source.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1978y

Mr. Larry P. Egley
109 Travelers Trail
St. Charles, MO 63303

Dear Mr. Egley:

This is in reply to your letters with respect to the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF), your invention, now registered with the U.S. Patent Office. Your first letter is a "Request for Evaluation/Interpretation" of your invention; your second is "An Appeal for Variant Interpretation." I regret the delay in responding.

You have explained that the SSF operates as follows: when a vehicle reaches a certain high rate of deceleration, the SSF automatically flashes all three of the stop lamps on passenger cars at a rapid rate. If the vehicle has crashed, the SSF continues to flash until the ignition switch is recycled. You recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning. You nevertheless ask for a favorable interpretation because the SSF will be actuated only rarely, and "the concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system." Because of the expense of developing the SSF, you state that you are not willing to undertake it "unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model."

You are correct that Standard No. l08 requires stop lamps to be steady burning, and hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that stop lamps are intended to be operated while the vehicle is in motion, while the hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning begins to flash, the agency is concerned that the signal will prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its effectiveness.

Even if we did not have this reservation about the SSF, we could not change the steady burning requirement through interpretation. A change could be made through rulemaking only.

We do not currently have information indicating that a flashing signal would be superior to a steady burning one. The SSF is based upon the concept that a flashing lamp increases vehicle conspicuity, and hence should shorten the reaction time of following drivers. As you noted, "whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration." In research sponsored by this agency that led to the adoption of the center high-mounted stop lamp, a field study was conducted using 600 taxicabs in San Diego and Sacramento. The cabs were equipped with one of three kinds of center lamps, a steady-burning one, or one that flashed at 2.5 Hz, or one that flashed at either l.5, 2.5, 4.5, or 7.0 Hz depending on the degree of deceleration. The test fleet accumulated 4l million miles. The study found that there was no statistically significant differences among the lamps (Mortimer, R.G., Field test evaluation of rear lighting deceleration signals: II - Field test. Final Report, DOT-HS-806-125, 198l).

The agency would be unlikely to issue grants or fund research for the SSF, a proprietary device. Most of its vehicle safety research is devoted to obtaining data to support the development of standards that are more performance-oriented.

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive in our response, but we do appreciate your interest in reducing traffic accidents, and deaths and injuries associated with them.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:8/8/89

ID: nht90-2.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1990

FROM: William F. Canever -- Staff Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Ford Motor Company

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from K. DeMeter to W.F. Canever; Also attached to letter dated 10-22-90 from P.J. Rice to W.F. Canever (A36; Sec. 501(8); Sec. 501(12)

TEXT:

You have requested information regarding Ford Motor Company's interest in Jaguar plc, and our intentions with regard to filing the Final 1989 Model Year Report for Ford and Jaguar.

We intend to file a combined 1989 report for Ford and Jaguar because Ford controlled the import of Ford vehicles during model year 1989. Having first obtained the agreement of the Board of Directors of Jaguar to recommend-the offer, Ford Motor Company, Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, publicly announced its tender offer for Jaguar shares on November 2, 1989. The offer document, which constituted the formal legal offer, was mailed on November 8. After over 50 percent of Jaguar st ock had been tendered, Ford declared the tender offer "unconditional" on December 10, 1989. Thus, Ford gained controlling interest in Jaguar and the importer of Jaguar vehicles, and under provisions of the CAFE laws, Ford became the manufacturer of Jagu ar vehicles imported during the 1989 model year and therefore these vehicles must be combined for purposes of calculating 1989 model year corporate average fuel economy levels.

During the period of negotiation, tender offer, and acceptance, and continuing through the end of calendar year 1989, Ford was manufacturing 1989 model year vehicles. Ford, by virtue of its acquired interest in Jaguar and the importer of Jaguar vehicles , was the manufacturer for CAFE calculation purposes of Jaguar vehicles imported into the United States customs territory during that period of time. Additionally, Ford's 1989 model year had not closed at the time of acquisition because Ford was the man ufacturer, for CAFE calculation purposes, of certain 1989 Aston Martin vehicles that were being imported into the United States through calendar year end 1989.

Because Ford controlled Jaguar and the importer of and Jaguar vehicles prior to the end of the 1989 model year, and because fuel economy standards apply to particular model years as a whole and not to separate parts of a model year, all Ford and Jaguar v ehicles produced and imported for model year 1989 should be placed in Ford's fleet. This treatment is consistent with that accorded Chrysler and AMC for model year 1987, the year Chrysler acquired AMC, as outlined in your letter of April 4, 1990 to Lewi s Goldfarb.

Therefore, Ford will file its Final 1989 Model Year Report with the Jaguar vehicles included in its import CAFE fleet. Because we anticipate that Ford and the importer of Jaguar vehicles will jointly earn credits in 1989, we may, at some future date, fi le a carryback plan to cover Jaguar's

shortfall for model years 1986 through 1988 and to recover civil penalties paid (see, for example, letter dated March 21, 1990 from Jaguar Ltd.). Again, this is consistent with the treatment accorded CAFE credits in the Chrysler/AMC situation.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office. As we discussed, we will not file our Final 1989 Model Year Report until you have had an opportunity to review and respond to this information.

ID: 003418drn

Mr. Matthew Sausaman
Director of Engineering
Turtle Top
67819 State Road 15
New Paris, IN 46553

Dear Mr. Sausaman:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength (49 CFR 571.221), to "multifunction school activity buses" (MFSAB) that your company plans to manufacture. You currently manufacture buses for commercial and transit applications. You state that "the construction of our vehicle includes no seams in the passenger area; hence we are having trouble determining test applicability."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve new motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Each manufacturer is responsible for determining its vehicles compliance with all applicable FMVSSs and to certify that the vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs.

On July 31, 2003, NHTSA published its final rule creating the MFSAB as a school bus category (68 FEDREG 44892, copy enclosed). The final rule takes effect on September 2, 2003, but manufacturers have the option of complying with the new rule as of July 31, 2003. MFSABs are school buses. Since FMVSS No. 221 applies to school buses, the standard applies to MFSABs.

In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that the terms that establish the applicability of the requirements of FMVSS No. 221 to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S5, Requirements (March 17, 1977, letter to Mr. Edmund C. Burnett). That section states:

S5.1 Except as provided in S5.2, each body panel joint, including small, curved, and complex joints, when tested in accordance with the procedure of S6, shall hold the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel determined pursuant to S6.2.

The terms "body panel" and "body panel joint" are defined at S4 of FMVSS No. 221. "Body panel" means a body component used on the exterior or interior surface to enclose the bus occupant space. "Body panel joint" means the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, including but not limited to floor panels, and body panels made of composite materials such as plastic or plywood.

S4 and S5.1 together specify that if the edge of a surface body component (body panel) that encloses occupant space comes into contact with or is in close proximity to any other body panel or body component, the requirements of S5.1 apply, unless the body panel joint is excluded in S5.2.

You write that your vehicle "includes no seams in the passenger area." Very little information about the construction of the bus was provided. If your bus consisted of a single, seamless, body component and had no body panel joint whatsoever, there would be no body panel joint subject to FMVSS No. 221. However, this appears unlikely, since the specifications you enclosed of your component body construction refers to the welding of the roof to the sidewall frames, the rear body panel to the sidewall and floor frame, and the bonding of the exterior rear panel to the rear frame. That is to say, it appears that your vehicle could have an area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component. If you identify a particular joint to us, we might be able to interpret whether the standard applies.

Please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:221
d:8/12/03

ID: nht90-4.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 20, 1990

FROM: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Interpretation and/or Petition for Combination of Headlighting Systems

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-13-90 to M. Iwase from Paul Jackson Rice (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your kind advice to the subject matter.

There are three (3) different kinds of headlighting system as specified in the current FMVSS No. 108 --- Sealed Beam Headlighting System of S7.3, Integral Beam Headlighting System of S7.4 and Bulb Replaceable Headlighting System of S7.5.

We are thinking of taking a new headlamp configuration into our design of headlamps which seems not to come under any of lighting systems abovementioned, as shown in the attached sheet-1.

It is a combination of the current systems, consisting of the integral beam headlighting and the bulb replaceable headlighting, and is a possible and reasonable construction for hybrid headlighting systems combining a new technology of HID headlighting a nd the conventional tungusten filament headlightings, we think. We would hereby ask for your kind advice as to whether the said combination of lighting systems could be accepted in use for the automobile headlamps under the current FMVSS No. 108.

Our intended configuration is just a conbination of lighting systems currently permitted in use, never raising argument on the safety and performance aspect, we believe.

If the configuration is not accepted just because it has not been provided in the wording of the lighting systems of FMVSS No. 108, we would like to petition an amendment of FMVSS No. 108 so that such a configuration as we intend might be accepted to use , by submitting the attached sheet-2 enclosed herewith.

Your kind and favourable attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Attached Sheet 1

Combination of Headlighting Systems

4 Lamp System (Drawing omitted.)

Note:(1) Lower Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirement of S7.5. (2) Upper Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirements of S7.4. (3) Photometric design is in conformity with Fig. 15 of FMVSS No. 108.

2 Lamp System

(Drawing omitted.)

(1) Lower Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirement of S7.5. (2) Upper Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirement of S7.4. (3) Photometric design is in conformity with Fig. 17 of FMVSS No. 108.

Attached Sheet 2

Atten: Mr. Paul Jackson Rice Date: November 20, 1990

Petition for Amendment of FMVSS No. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Combination of Integral Beam and Bulb Replaceable Headlighting System We would hereby petition to amend FMVSS No. 108, as belowmentioned, so that a combination of Integral Beam Headlamp and Bulb Replaceable Headlamp can be use for automobile headlamps;

S7 should be changed as follows;

S7. Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus shall be equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the requierments of S7.3, S7.4 or S7.5. Headlighting systems may be a combination of integral beam headlighting system and bulb replaceable headlighting system provided that each headlamp or part of headlamp meets the applicable requirements. In this case, photometric requirements of Fig. 15 or Fig. 17 shall be met according to the lamp system.