ID: tunick.ztv

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Re: Request for Interpretation of 49 CFR 579.21 and 579.27

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This is in reply to your FAX of June 15, 2003, revising your request of June 9 for an interpretation of certain provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which are set out at Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to point out that you have raised several specific issues that had not been raised during the rulemaking proceeding that led to the EWR regulations. In this letter, I will provide an interpretation of what is required under the current regulatory language. However, we may revisit some or all of these issues when we conduct our promised review of the regulations after they have been in effect for some time.

You presented the following hypothetical facts as the context for your questions: (1) a manufacturer of light motor vehicles produces fewer than 500 vehicles in calendar year (CY) 2003 and therefore would report under 579.27 for CY 2003 (i.e., it would only have to report claims and notices involving deaths associated with its vehicles); and (2) during the first quarter of CY 2004 the same manufacturer produces more than 500 light vehicles and thus must report under 579.21 (i.e., it would have to provide comprehensive data about warranty claims, consumer complaints, property damage claims, and field reports) for that quarter and the rest of CY 2004.

Although your hypothetical scenario assumes that the manufacturer in question produced over 500 vehicles in the first quarter of CY 2004, I want to point out that NHTSA expects vehicle manufacturers to make good faith estimates of their expected annual production when deciding whether to report under 579.21-24 or 579.27. For example, if a manufacturer of light vehicles produces 150-200 light vehicles in the first quarter of any calendar year, and expects to continue production at similar levels throughout the year, it must report under 579.21, rather than 579.27. It may not wait until the quarter that it actually surpasses the 500-vehicle threshold.

You first asked us to confirm your view that:

1. [A manufacturer] must report full 579.21 information only as regards a past model year within the nine-prior-model-years if such model year either:
1. Had production "built for sale in the US" that exceeded 499 units; or
2. Fell within a calendar year that had: vehicle production "built for sale in the US," that exceeded 499 units; and

1. As regards model years during the "nine-prior-model-years" that do not meet either (a) or (b) above, [the manufacturer] must supply only 579.21(b) (incidents involving death) information.

Your suggested interpretations are inconsistent with the language of the regulation. The introductory text of 579.21 specifies that its reporting requirements apply to "a manufacturer whose aggregate number of light vehicles manufactured for sale, offered for sale, imported, or sold, in the United States, during the calendar year of the reporting period . . . is 500 or more . . . ." In any CY in which a manufacturer produces 500 or more light vehicles for sale in the United States, the manufacturer must report under 579.21, regardless of how many vehicles it produced in prior CYs. Moreover, the text goes on to say that any manufacturer reporting under that section must submit the comprehensive information required under 579.21(a) and (c) for the vehicles produced during the model year of the reporting period "and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period, including models no longer in production." Thus, under the rule, comprehensive submissions are required from such a manufacturer for vehicles produced during the prior nine model years, regardless of whether the manufacturer was previously required to provide that information with respect to the vehicles produced in those earlier years.

You also asked us to confirm your view that:

A large volume manufacturer that has been reporting under 579.21 but who then downsizes, would, once two calendar years have passed without its crossing the 500-unit mark, no longer have to supply full 579.21 information for the nine-prior-model-years (as it would be reporting under 579.27).

We agree that under the current regulatory language, any manufacturer that reports under 579.27 (because at least two years have passed without it producing 500 or more vehicles of any category), does not have to submit the comprehensive information required under 579.21, regardless of the number of vehicles it produced during the preceding model years. However, we expect it to retain the information required under 579.21.

If you have any additional questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.7/24/03

ID: tunick2.ztv

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Re: Request for Clarification and Reconsideration of Interpretation

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of August 12, 2003, asking for a clarification and reconsideration of recent NHTSA interpretations of certain provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which are set out at Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Your first question is:"Consistent with the May 7, 2003, interpretation to Dan De Decker . . . is it correct that a Small Volume Manufacturer ('SVM', i.e. a producer with fewer than 500 USA units/year) does not have to report information going back 9 model years to the extent that such information is not available as computer data and only exists on paper?"

The threshold figure of 500 is not a sum total of motor vehicles but separate totals applicable to the individual categories we have established for EWR purposes. Thus, if a manufacturer produces 350 light vehicles and 400 medium-heavy vehicles in a year, it would report under 49 CFR 579.27 for each category.

The De Decker letter addressed a different situation then the one you raise. We informed Mr. De Decker that, to the extent that a manufacturer has not stored historical warranty records in an electronic medium (e.g., the warranty system is only paper-based), the manufacturer need not submit historical warranty information with respect to the one-time historical report required by Section 579.28(c). The one-time historical report is not required from manufacturers that report only under Section 579.27, and a manufacturer must provide the information on incidents involving deaths, as specified in subsections (b) and (c) thereof, even if it "only exists on paper."Prospectively, beginning with the third calendar quarter of 2003, manufacturers covered by 49 CFR 579.21-.26 must report warranty and warranty adjustment data regardless of the type of data storage system they maintain.

Your second question relates to the timing of a manufacturers determination of the 500 vehicle production threshold separating limited and comprehensive reporting under the early warning reporting regulation. As set forth in a letter to Jason Cavallo of July 21, 2003, where individual small volume manufacturers are held by a single parent corporation, under Section 579.3(b), EWR reports could be filed by either the parent corporation or each of the vehicle-manufacturing subsidiaries, but in either event, the production of all related vehicle manufacturers must be aggregated to determine whether the threshold for comprehensive reporting was met. We also stated in a July 24, 2003 letter to you that we expect each manufacturer to make a good faith estimate of its expected annual production of a category of vehicle, and that if its estimated production is 500 or more annually, the manufacturer should begin comprehensive reporting in the quarter in which the estimate is made rather than the quarter in which production actually reaches or exceeds 500.

You also stated that you had been under the impression that comprehensive reporting would begin with the first quarter following the calendar quarter in which production first exceeded 500. In consideration of these letters and your understanding of the regulation, you have asked us to agree to exercise our prosecutorial discretion not to take action against any manufacturer whose total production in 2003 was less than 500 if it fails to file comprehensive information for the first quarter of 2004.

While we do not believe it appropriate to make such a commitment, we do not anticipate taking enforcement action, particularly against relatively small manufacturers, who make good faith mistakes in attempting to comply with the EWR regulation.

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/14/03

ID: Turner.1

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Vice Chairman
School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
6298 Rock Hill Road
The Plains, VA 20198-1916

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your February 17, 2004, letter in which you discuss what you believe to be errors in certain school bus-related provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Specifically, you stated that as currently printed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), paragraphs S9.2(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the standard, pertaining to field of view requirements for the outside rearview mirrors on school buses, are inconsistent with amendments published in a 1995 final rule. Your letter seeks correction of the identified errors. After reviewing the relevant provisions, we agree that the current language in the CFR is inaccurate and in need of revision.

As you pointed out, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration previously modified FMVSS No. 111, including the above-referenced provisions, in a Federal Register notice published on March 27, 1995 (60 FR 15600). Paragraph S9.2(b) of that final rule, changes which were properly reflected in the CFR as late as 1997, provided as follows:

(b) Includes one or more mirrors which together provide, at the drivers eye location, a view of:

(1)For the mirror system on the right side of the bus, the entire top surface of cylinder N in Figure 2, and that area of the ground which extends rearward from cylinder N to a point not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet) from the mirror surface.

(2) For the mirror system on the left side of the bus, the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, and that area of the of the ground which extends rearward from cylinder M to a point not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet) from the mirror surface.

We believe that we now understand the source of the problem.In 1998, FMVSS No. 111 (and several other standards) were amended as part of the agencys metric conversion efforts (see 63 FR 28922 (May 27, 1998); 63 FR 50995 (September 24, 1998)). In converting the above requirements to metric measurements (i.e., 61 m), the May 27, 1998, Federal Register notice mistakenly inserted language referencing "area of the ground," rather than maintaining proper focus on the test cylinder (see 63 FR 28922, 28929). Subsequently, in attempting to correct an error brought to the agencys attention in a petition for reconsideration, the September 24, 1998, Federal Register notice mistakenly inserted a correction intended for S9.3(b)(2) at S9.2(b)(2) (see 63 FR 50995, 51000). Thus, the changes you have pointed out resulted from simple error, rather than any intentional regulatory action.

We appreciate your bringing this error to our attention, and we wanted to make you aware that we have drafted the attached correcting amendment to the standard to resolve the issue that you have raised. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.4/8/04

ID: nht95-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Holmes

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/15/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES HOLMES TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11084)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company.

In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your s on in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand "over the door handle . . . [and] was tring [sic] to hold on and the door came open."

You ask several questions relating to requirements for "a safety lock" for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have "safety locks."

Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and ne w items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 established certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold "new" to the rental company.

Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a "safety lock." Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to disable th e outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install "child safety locks" on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the "unlocked" posit ion. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA.

Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a "rental vehicle." The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a "truck" under our regulations, regardle ss of whether it is a rental vehicle.

Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action.

Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accide nt and where there were no fatalities or injuries.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Enclosure (COPY OF REGULATION IS OMITTED.)

ID: nht95-4.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karey Clock -- Moriden America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/7/95 LETTER FROM KAREY CLOCK TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11120)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Clock:

This responds to your inquiry about testing procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. In particular, you asked whether certain materials, which you list as flat woven, double raschel, tricot, and moq uette, should be tested by using support wires. The short answer is that during NHTSA compliance testing, support wires may be used in testing any specimen that "softens or bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning." However, the agency ca nnot specify, outside of the context of a compliance test, whether a given type of material falls in this category.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

You ask about Standard No. 302, which specifies requirements for the flammability resistance of materials in the occupant compartment of new vehicles. Along with specified performance requirements, Standard No. 302 sets forth conditions and procedures u nder which NHTSA tests materials for compliance with the standard. Section S5.1.3 of the standard states, in relevant part, that

The test specimen is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames of metal stock 1-inch wide and 3/8 of an inch high. The interior dimensions of the U-shaped frames are 2 inches wide by 13 inches long. A specimen that softens and bends at the flami ng end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of materia l is an additional U-shaped frame, wider than the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 1 -- mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

You ask whether certain specific types of materials could be tested using the supplemental wire described in S5.1.3. The agency uses supplemental wires when there is a reasonable expectation that a test specimen will soften and bend while burning. The agency bases its determination about the likelihood of softening and bending on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with components that are highly similar to a test specimen. However, since a decision to use wires is made only in the context of compliance testing, we regret that we cannot tell you at this time whether support wires will be used to test the materials you listed.

Vehicle manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its compliance testing. Thus, a vehicle manu facturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to soften or bend. However, vehicle manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying that their product will meet Standard No. 302's requirements when tested by NHTSA accor ding to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a vehicle manufacturer has met that due care standard when using support wires in situations other than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

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

ID: nht95-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Sta ndard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a dete rmination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Enclosure

ACTION: Issuance of Federal Register Notice Granting Cantab's Petition for Temporary Exemption From Standards Nos. 208 and 214 John Womack (K. WEINSTEIN) Acting Chief Counsel

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards

Attached for your signature is a Federal Register notice granting the petition by Cantab Motors for a temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, and the side impact protection requirements of Standard No. 214. The basis of the grant is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to meet the standards.

Cantab imports shells of Morgan sports cars from England, and installs propane engines and drive trains in the US; for this reason, we consider Cantab rather than Morgan as the manufacturer. In the year preceding the filing of its exemption petition it produced only 9 such cars. It has cumulative net losses approaching $ 93,000 for the last three fiscal years. It has been working with Morgan to develop vehicles that will be equipped with airbags meeting Standard No. 208, and provide side impact prote ction meeting Standard No. 214.

Because the components that must be modified for conformance are under the control of Morgan rather than Cantab, the company is dependent upon Morgan's efforts. Cantab asked for only a 2-year exemption from Standard No. 208, indicating that it is optimi stic that its cars will conform in less than the 3 years it could have asked for. However, it appears to require the full 3 years for Standard No. 214.

Any threat to safety that would be presented by an exempted vehicle would be minimal because they are few in number, and are represented as conforming to earlier versions of the two standards.

No comments were received on the application.

Attachment

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Docket No. 95-53; Notice 2

Cantab Motors, Ltd.

Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and 214

Cantab Motors, Ltd., of Round Hill, Va., applied for a temporary exemption of two years from paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, and for three years from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No . 214 Side Impact Protection. The basis of the application was that compliance will cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application was published on July 14, 1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 36328).

The make and type of passenger car for which exemption was requested is the Morgan open car or convertible. Morgan Motor Company ("Morgan"), the British manufacturer of the Morgan, has not offered its vehicle for sale in the United States since the e arly days of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the nine years it has been in business, the applicant has bought 35 incomplete Morgan cars from the British manufacturer, and imported them as motor vehicle equipment, completing manufacture by the addition of engine and fuel system components. They differ from their British counterparts, not only in equipment items and modifications necessary for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but also in their fuel system compon ents and engines, which are propane fueled. As the party completing manufacture of the vehicle, Cantab certifies its conformance to all applicable Federal safety and bumper standards. The vehicle completed by Cantab in the U.S. is deemed sufficiently di fferent from the one produced in Britain that NHTSA considers Cantab the manufacturer, not a converter, even though the brand names are the same.

Morgan itself produced 478 cars in 1994, while in the year preceding the filing of its petition in June 1995, the applicant produced 9 cars for sale in the United States. Since the granting of its original exemption in 1990, Cantab has invested $ 38, 244 in research and development related to compliance with Federal safety and emissions standards. The applicant has experienced a net loss in each of its last three fiscal (calendar) years, with a cumulative net loss for this period of $ 92,594.

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 208

Cantab received NHTSA Exemption No. 90-3 from S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208, which expired May 1, 1993 (55 FR 21141). When this exemption was granted in 1990, the applicant had concluded that the most feasible way for it to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 was by means of an automatically deploying belt. In the period following the granting of the exemption, Morgan and the applicant created a mock-up of the Morgan passenger compartment with seat belt h ardware and motor drive assemblies. In time, it was determined that the belt track was likely to deform, making it inoperable. The program was abandoned, and Morgan and Cantab embarked upon research leading to a dual airbag system.

According to the applicant, Morgan tried without success to obtain a suitable airbag system from Mazda, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and Lotus. As a result, Morgan is now developing its own system for its cars, and "[as] many as twelve different sensors, of b oth the impact and deceleration (sic) type, have been tested and the system currently utilizes a steering wheel from a Jaguar and the Land Rover Discovery steering column." Redesign of the passenger compartment is underway, involving knee bolstering, a s upplementary seat belt system, antisubmarining devices, and the seats themselves. Morgan informed the applicant on May 2, 1995, that it had thus far completed 10 tests on the mechanical components involved "and are now carrying out a detailed assessment of air bag operating systems and columns before we will be in a position to undertake the full set of appropriate tests to approve the installation in our vehicles."

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 214

Concurrently, Morgan and the applicant have been working towards meeting the dynamic test and performance requirements for side impact protection, for which Standard No. 214 has established a phase-in schedule. Although Morgan fits its car with a dua l roll bar system specified by Cantab, and Cantab installs door bars and strengthens the door latch receptacle and striker plate, the system does not yet conform to the new requirements of Standard No. 214, and the applicant has asked for an exemption of three years. It does, however, meet the previous side door strength requirements of the standard. Were the phase-in requirement of S8 applied to it, calculated on the basis of its limited production, only very few cars would be required to meet the st andard.

Safety and Public Interest Arguments

Because of the small number of vehicles that the applicant produces and its belief that they are used for pleasure rather than daily for business commuting or on long trips, and because of the three-point restraints and side impact protection currentl y offered, the applicant argued that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with safety. It brought to the agency's attention two recent oblique front impact accidents at estimated speeds of 30 mph and 65 mph respectively in which t he restrained occupants "emerged unscathed."

Further, the availability "of this unique vehicle . . . will help maintain the existing diversity of motor vehicles available to the U.S. consumer." Finally, "the distribution of [this] propane-fueled vehicle has contributed to the national interest b y promoting the development of motor systems by using alternate fuels."

No comments were received on the application.

In adding only engine and fuel system components to incomplete vehicles, the applicant is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles in the conventional sense. It does not produce the front end structural components, instrument panel, or steering wheel, ar eas of the motor vehicle whose design is critical for compliance with the airbag requirements of Standard No. 208. These are manufactured by Morgan, and the applicant is necessarily dependent upon Morgan to devise designs that will enable conformance wi th Standard No. 208. The applicant has been monitoring Morgan's progress, and that company is engaging in testing and design activities necessary for eventual conformance. The fact that the applicant is requesting only a two-year exemption, rather than three, indicates its belief that complying operator and passenger airbags will at last be fitted to its cars by the end of this period.

Similarly, the applicant is dependent upon the structural design of its vehicle for compliance with Standard No. 214. As with Standard No. 208, Morgan and the applicant are working towards conformance, though apparently it will not be achieved within two years. In both instances, however, the applicant is conscious of the need to conform and has been taking steps to accomplish it. Although the company's total expenditure of $ 38,244 in the last five years to meet emission and safety requirements is low, the small number of cars produced for sale in the United States in the last year, nine, would not make available substantial funds to the company, and its cumulative net losses of $ 92,594 indicate an operation whose financial existence is precario us.

Applicant's cars are equipped with manual three-point restraint systems and comply with previous side impact intrusion requirements. Because applicant produces only one line of vehicles, it cannot take advantage of the phase-in requirement. Given th e existing level of safety of the vehicles and the comparatively small exposure of the small number of them that would be produced under an exemption, there would appear to be an insignificant risk to traffic safety by providing an exemption. The public interest is served by maintaining the existence of small businesses and by creating awareness of alternative power sources.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that to require immediate compliance with Standards Nos. 208 and 214 would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has in good faith attempted to meet the standards, and that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, the applicant is hereby granted NHTSA Exemption No. 95-2, from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, expiring September 1, 1997, and from 49 CFR 571.214 Motor Vehicle Safety St andard No. 214 Side Impact Protection, expiring September 1, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on SEP 7 1995

Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator

BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P

ID: nht95-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1995

FROM: Carol Stroebel -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bart Stupak -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM BART STUPAK TO BRENDA BROWN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stupak:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA re gulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses.

Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jo bs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with "mini-school buses," which he believes is economically unfeasible.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law.

NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation.

The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definitio n to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013.

NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of "school buses" when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school b us and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high- backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht95-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joseph J. Smith -- Assistant Chief Maintenance Officer, New York City Transit Authority

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/28/95 LETTER FROM JOSEPH J. SMITH TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11187)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your inquiry about whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR @ 571.302), applies to air conditioning return air filters. You state that these filters are placed on top of the air c onditioning evaporator coil and are separated from the bus interior by a louvered panel. You were concerned that the filters may be subject to Standard No. 302 because they may be considered located in the "occupant compartment air space." As explained below, Standard No. 302 does not apply to air conditioning return filters.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, t he manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants i n the event of a crash. Section S4.1 represents a complete listing of all components in new vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requirements. Any component not identified in section S4.1 is not subject to those requirements. Ther efore, an air conditioning return filter is not subject to those requirements.

Please note that there are other NHTSA requirements that could affect the manufacture and sale of products related to motor vehicles. A motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer incorporating air conditioning filters in its vehicles or equipment would be subject to 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 to ensure that its vehicles or equipment do not contain any safety related defect. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purch asers of the defective vehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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: nht95-4.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1995

FROM: Guy Dorleans -- International Regulatory Affairs Manager, Valeo

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/09/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Guy Dorleans (Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

The use of light-emitting diodes brings technical solutions to almost all the styling trends, and allows to obtain an even patch luminance on the whole extension of the light-emitting surfaces. The sketches hereunder examplify a new area of freedom for rear end lighting:

Functions: Tail, Stop, rear turn signal

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED -- SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

All the LEDs are red in color. The internal wiring is such that failure of one LED does not switch off a complete array of diodes: if we suppose that the system incorporates a total 32 diodes. The diodes will still be in operation if a single diode fai ls. In cases C, C', D and D' [ILLEGIBLE WORD], Standard 108 revised as of October 1, 1994 shall consequently apply in its relevant figure 1b for one lighted section.

Case A: During daytime, when neither the service brake nor the turn signal is operated, all the LEDs are off and no lighting function is used.

Case B: At night, the tail lamp is on, but neither the service brake nor the turn signal is operated. The whole light-emitting surface is slightly glooming, enough to fulfill the optical specifications of Standard 108 for tail lamps. All the diodes are energized at low-level intensity.

Case C: When braking at night, the current in the diodes is increased, so that the sum of the photometrics of the stoplamp and the tail lamp is fulfilled. The whole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity. At point HV, the light output is at least fivefold bigger than in case B.

Case C': When braking during the day, the current in the diodes is increased, so that the photometrics of the stoplamp is fulfilled. The shole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity. At point HV, the light o utput is at lease fivefold bigger than in case B.

Case D: When changing direction at night, the whole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity during the on-period of the turn signal. The sum of the photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp and the tail lamp i s then fulfilled and at point HV, the light output is at least fivefold bigger than in case B. During of off-period of the turn signal, the diodes receive the same intensity as in case B, which corresponds to tail lamp only.

Case D': When changing direction during the day, the diodes are energized at full intensity during the one-period of the turn signal and then the whole light-emitting surface is glooming. The photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp is then fulfilled. During the off-period of the turn signal, the diodes are not energized.

We hereby ask confirmation that this new lighting combination is correct.

Best Regards.

ID: nht95-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven B. Fisher, Esq. -- Kostow & Daar, P. C.

TITLE: Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM STEVEN B. FISHER TO PHILLIP R. RECHT (OCC 11096)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fisher:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, to Philip R. Recht, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked several questions relating to use of the word "practicable" in the lamp location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standa rd No. 108.

Your first question is "with respect to truck, trailer identification lights (red), what is meant exactly by 'practicable' as used in SS5.3.1.1 and 5.3.1.4." Your second question is whose responsibility it is to make the determination of practicability. Your final question is whether there is any way for a manufacturer of "a single rear identification light" to know where a trailer manufacturer will install the product on any given trailer.

We don't see the word "practicable" in S5.3.1.1. However, S5.3.1.4 does provide that rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they "be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" when the rear identification lam ps are located at the extreme height of the vehicle. Table II specifies location of lighting equipment on the vehicle, and it is therefore the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, in certifying that its vehicle complies with all applicable Federa l motor vehicle safety standards, to determine what is practicable. As you indicate, a trailer manufacturer may make such a determination "in light of the particular design/configuration of the trailer involved." NHTSA will not contest this determinatio n unless it is clearly erroneous. In short, "practicable" as meant by S5.3.1.4 or any other place where the word occurs, is not a term defined by Standard No. 108, and derives its meaning from specific factual contexts. We note that the Random House Di ctionary of the English Language (1967) defines "practicable" as "capable of being done, effected, or put into practice with the available means" (p. 1127).

There is no responsibility under Standard No. 108 for the manufacturer of identification lamps to know where its products will be installed on the motor vehicle. Its responsibility under Standard No. 108 is to ensure that any identification lamp that it manufactures for replacement purposes is designed to conform to Standard No. 108's performance specifications and so certified at the time the lamp is shipped from the factory.

If you have any further questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).