ID: nht87-2.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/87

FROM: S. T. MESSINA, -- NJ DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

TO: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING INC.

TITLE: COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGER MC 157-87

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K BROCK; RED BOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM TERRY K. BROCK TO STEVE KRATZKE RE CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE 217, OCC-1009; LETTER DATED 08/20/87 FROM TERRY K. BROC K TO SEBASTIAN MESSINA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brock,

This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1987 pertaining to emergency escape areas.

Parts 393.61, 393.62 and 393.63 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require that emergency exits comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217. The escape areas are to be through windows of a push out type. The ordinary opening o f a window for ventilation should not be included due to possible jamming.

The front entrance door cannot be considered since the intent of the regulations is to provide emergency escape through push out windows and roof escape hatches.

I hope that we have been of assistance.

ID: nht75-2.23

DATE: 12/23/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: FILE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD NO. 119

On December 10, 1975, I received a telephone call from Mr. Dan Warner of Transportation Manufacturing Corporation in New Mexico (505 347-2011), concerning the scope of Standard No. 119.

Mr. Warner asked whether the standard required vehicles to be equipped with tires conforming to it. I explained that Standard 119 applies only to tires, while vehicles would be the subject of Standard No. 120. I declined to predict the issue date or effective dates of Standard 120, but assured him that the scheme of effective dates would take into account the realities of production and inventories.

Meaning of effective date of Standard No. 119

Attorney Advisor

Interps. file

On December 1, 1975, I received a telephone call from Mr. Nakajima of Bridgestone Tire Co. (213-320-6030) concerning the meaning of the March 1, 1975, effective date of Standard No. 119. He wanted confirmation that tires, for vehicles other than passenger cars, that were manufactured before that date are not subject to the standard's labeling requirements. I explained that his understanding was correct, citing 49 CFR @ 571.7.

Mark Schwimmer

ID: nht89-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/89

FROM: HARRY REID -- SENATE

TO: DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/25/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; REDBOOK A33 [4]; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/03/8 9 FROM STEVEN P. ELLIOTT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE RE AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTOMOBILE AIR BAGS; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICL E CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985; RESEARCH NOTES ON CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH 03/31/89, FROM VERNON ROBERTS

TEXT: Dear Director:

The City of Sparks Police Department has a problem with the air bags that are equipped in their patrol cars.

The Police would like the United States Department of Transportation to authorize them to disconnect the bags. I would appreciate it if you could look into this matter. A copy of a letter from the Sparks City Attorney is enclosed for your review.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-2.16

DATE: March 15, 1993

FROM: Kirk Brown -- Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-22-93 from John Womack to Kirk Brown (A41; VSA S108(a)(2)(A); FMVSS 124)

TEXT: I am requesting your opinion whether modifying the throttle controls on a school bus so that a short person can operate it would jeopardize the manufacturer's certification that a bus is in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I have enclosed a copy of a letter from School Services and Leasing, Inc. which has requested this opinion from the state of Illinois and, apparently, other states. Rather than have each state render possibly differing opinions on this question, it would be appropriate for NHTSA to respond to this company's questions.

If it is your opinion that this modification would violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for buses, would you also advise this company whether it might obtain a waiver for this modification for particular buses.

I look forward to a response to these questions from you.

Attached to letter dated 2-22-93 from George Marter, School Services and Leasing, Inc. to Curt Brown, Illinois Department of Transportation.

(Text omitted)

ID: nht91-1.27

DATE: January 22, 1991

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Clive Van Orden -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

COPYEE: Congressman Ben Blaz

TITLE: Re Ref 0-3J001

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8))

TEXT:

On December 11, 1990 we wrote you the letter attached with a copy to Congressman Ben Blaz. Would you please advise if you received this letter and if you can shed any light on our query I do not believe it is in the best interest of the CNMI residence or the automobile distributors of the CNMI for this issue to continue to lie dormant.

Your early attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated as we sincerely wish to have this matter resolved one way or the other.

ID: 2899yy

Mr. Jerry Tassan
177 Airport Blvd
San Francisco, CA 94080

Dear Mr. Tassan:

This responds to a telephone inquiry in which you explained to Mr. Stephen Wood, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, that your truck rental company is considering lowering the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of some of its used trucks so that a renter need not have a commercial driver's license to operate them. You asked how the regulations of this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), would apply to such an action. As explained below, because only a manufacturer can assign a GVWR, any modification of a vehicle's GVWR by parties that are not manufacturers would have no legal effect.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The Certification requirements in 49 CFR Part 567 require each manufacturer to affix to the vehicle a label containing, among other things, the vehicle's GVWR. Under Part 567, the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the original manufacturer (567.4(g)(3)), a final stage manufacturer (567.5(c)(5)), or an alterer (567.7(b)). Modifications of GVWR by any other parties would have no legal effect under Part 567. Accordingly, a vehicle owner that performs no manufacturing operations on a vehicle cannot modify the GVWR of the vehicle.

You should also be aware that another Federal authority - the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Office of Motor Carrier Standards - may regulate your attempts to lower a vehicle's GVWR. The FHWA regulates the licensing of operators of "commercial motor vehicles" under the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. I recommend you contact Mr. James Scapellato, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, HCS-1, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590 if you have any further questions about driver licensing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about the GVWR assigned to vehicles, 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

ref: 567 d:3/l9/9l

ID: nht91-2.38

DATE: March 19, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry Tassan

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to a telephone inquiry in which you explained to Mr. Stephen Wood, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, that your truck rental company is considering lowering the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of some of its used trucks so that a renter need not have a commercial driver's license to operate them. You asked how the regulations of this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), would apply to such an action. As explained below, because only a manufacturer can assign a GVWR, any modification of a vehicle's GVWR by parties that are not manufacturers would have no legal effect.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The Certification requirements in 49 CFR Part 567 require each manufacturer to affix to the vehicle a label containing, among other things, the vehicle's GVWR. Under Part 567, the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the original manufacturer (S567.4(g)(3)), a final stage manufacturer (S567.5(c)(5)), or an alterer (S567.7(b)). Modifications of GVWR by any other parties would have no legal effect under Part 567. Accordingly, a vehicle owner that performs no manufacturing operations on a vehicle cannot modify the GVWR of the vehicle.

You should also be aware that another Federal authority - the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Office of Motor Carrier Standards - may regulate your attempts to lower a vehicle's GVWR. The FHWA regulates the licensing of operators of "commercial motor vehicles" under the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. I recommend you contact Mr. James Scapellato, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, KCS-1, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590 if you have any further questions about driver licensing.

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

ID: 9948

Mr. J. L. Steffy
Triumph Designs Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate
Hinckley, Leics. LE10 3BS
England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your FAX of May 5, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You describe a motorcycle lamp "which comprises a headlight with high and low beams and 2 symmetrically (sic) flanking front auxillary (sic) lamps possessing low beam (sic) that augment the headlight." You ask for our comments.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits auxiliary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 108 includes certification to S5.1.3 and represents its determination that the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it.

Your letter contains too little information for us to comment further. For example, we do not know whether the candela of the auxiliary lower beam lamps is higher, lower, or the same as the main lower beam of the headlamp. Nor does the letter indicate whether the supplementary lower beam lamps are extinguished when the upper beam is activated.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/31/94

ID: nht94-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached T o Letter Dated 5/5/94 From J. L. Steffy To Taylor Vinson (OCC-9948)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your FAX of May 5, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You describe a motorcycle lamp "which comprises a headlight with high and low beams and 2 symmetrically (sic) flanking front auxillary (sic) lamps possessing low beam (sic) that augment the headlight." You ask for our comments.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits auxiliary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance with Stan dard No. 108 includes certification to S5.1.3 and represents its determination that the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question i t.

Your letter contains too little information for us to comment further. For example, we do not know whether the candela of the auxiliary lower beam lamps is higher, lower, or the same as the main lower beam of the headlamp. Nor does the letter indicate whether the supplementary lower beam lamps are extinguished when the upper beam is activated.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-2.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/21/94 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC 9719)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1994, requesting further clarification of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Section S5.5.3( c) states that "(e)ach opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape." *1 Your letter referenced our July 7, 1993 letter to you in which we stated that S5.5.3 (c) permits interruptions in the tape necessary to accommodate curved surfaces and functional components. You requested confirmation "that retro-reflective tape around the perimeter of the rear of a school bus can be used to satisfy the requirements of S5.5.3(c)."

I cannot interpret the requirements of S5.5.3(c) as you request, since for many, if not most, designs the nearest possible location will be closer than the perimeter of the bus. While we appreciate your concerns about durability if numerous cuts or notc hes are made to accommodate rivets, our July 7 letter stated that manufacturers have the option of placing the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets. As an example, from the illustrations you enclosed, it a ppears that it may be possible to apply retroreflective tape outside the rivets adjacent to the lower portions of the door. Thus, that would be the nearest possible location, rather than the perimeter of the bus itself. I note, however, that the illust rations do not provide sufficient detail of all obstructions for us to determine the nearest possible location for each design.

I also note that your letter stated in support of your request that all school buses are required to have a rear emergency exit. While this is true, the type of emergency exit will vary and retroreflective tape at the perimeter of the exit would allow r escuers to immediately know the precise location of the exit. Moreover, retroreflective tape at the perimeter would enable rescuers to immediately know which type of exit is in this location. This information could be vitally important. Because push-ou t windows are not required to have a means of releasing the exit from outside the bus (S5.3.3.2), this information would allow rescuers to quickly determine that they should move to the sides of the bus to locate an exit they can open.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if we did not interpret the standard as you requested. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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.

*1 The July 7, 1993 letter also stated that the agency planned to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. This notice has not yet been published. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.