ID: nht95-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 27, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef -- Attorney, GM

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 12/23/94 letter from Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef to Philip R. Recht (OCC 10600)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Nowak-Vanderhoef:

We have received your letter of December 23, 1994, with respect to an alternative to HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources, and asking for our "guidance as to the most appropriate method for seeking approval of the alternative bulb configurations." Altho ugh your letter is silent on the matter, we understand from Dick Humphrey of your Washington office that GM would like to incorporate the revised light sources in production in the summer of 1995.

You have presented three possible methods for our consideration. The first is to "seek approval" through 49 CFR Part 564. The second is to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to incorporate the revised light sources. The third is to reque st that HB3 and HB4 bulbs be placed in Part 564 with the alternative configurations included on the drawing.

Under the current regulatory scheme for headlamps, there are two regulations that govern the permissibility of replaceable light sources. The first of these, Standard No. 108, prescribes detailed dimensional specifications and performance requirements f or replaceable light sources Types HB1 through HB5. Faced with the possibility of an endless number of new light sources which could not be added to Standard No. 108 without at least two rulemaking notices, NHTSA decided to deregulate the dimensional asp ects of replaceable light sources by establishing Part 564 which sets up an agency procedure for the allowance of new light sources upon receipt of the dimensional information specified in the regulation. However, the new light source must not be interc hangeable with any other replaceable light source, either in Part 564 or Standard No. 108. NHTSA has been petitioned for reconsideration of this restriction but has not yet acted upon it. Further, it can be argued that there is a regulatory inconsisten cy in the different treatment of replaceable light sources, and that NHTSA needs to address this inconsistency.

NHTSA is conscious of the need for regulatory flexibility in both areas and is actively working towards their resolution.

At present, it appears that we could respond positively to petitions for reconsideration of Part 564 by a direct amendment allowing modifications in previous submissions, but we have not completed our examination of the possible safety ramifications of a llowing interchangeability of modified light sources. The inconsistent treatment of light source dimensions can be resolved through transfer of the HB Types to Part 564, but we do not believe that the Administrative Procedure Act permits us to do so with out a formal proposal asking public comment. In the present regulatory climate, we cannot estimate when the appropriate rulemaking notices will appear but GM's letter evidences the need for a less restrictive regulatory scheme, and we are sympathetic to GM's position. It is our best estimate that both final action on Part 564 and that a NPRM on the transfer amendments to Standard No. 108 will have been published by July 1, 1995, but the issuance of a final rule on the transfers may not have occurred a s of that date. I might add that we see no true safety issues presented by the modified light source; the difficulties are all procedural.

For these reasons, GM may wish at this point to petition for rulemaking to add HB3S and HB4S, as you call them, to Standard No. 108. In the less likely event that, during the pendency of the HB3S/HB4S rulemaking, rulemaking is completed to Standard No. 108 that removes the other HB Types and places them in Part 564, HB3S/HB4S could be added to Part 564 as a termination of the rulemaking. If a proposal to amend Standard No. 108 to remove the HB Types has not proceeded to a final rule, HB3S/HB4S could b e added to Standard No. 108 as proposed, which would allow their use in GM's vehicles.

The following scenario is the most likely resolution of GM's problem. Under paragraph 564.5(a), GM is eligible to furnish information on HB3S/HB4S to Part 564 because they do not meet the requirements of S7.7. Since information indicates that they are interchangeable with HB3/HB4, they could not be accepted absent an amendment to Part 564 allowing for changes. Thus, when a response to the petitions for reconsideration of Part 564 is published that allows changes without affecting interchangeability, GM could immediately file HB3S/HB4S information in Part 564 which, upon acceptance, would allow immediate use of the light sources in GM cars. Acceptance would also moot any rulemaking that might then be underway to add HB3S/HB4S to Standard No. 108 pur suant to a GM petition for rulemaking.

You have also suggested that a single new submission to Part 564 could consist of the HB3/HB4 information currently part of Standard No. 108 with the alternative configurations of HB3S/HB4S included on the drawing. Given paragraph S564.5(a)'s specific e xclusion of Standard No. 108 light sources from Part 564, we could not accept for Part 564 a submission that included a light source meeting the requirements of S7.7 of Standard No. 108.

Our rulemaking and legal staff would be willing to talk with you further if you wish.

Sincerely

ID: nht94-5.22

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/2/94 From Paul Anderson To John Womack (OCC-9923)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994, requesting information on which of the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020; December 2, 1992), would apply to Type A-1 school buses. Your letter notes that Type A-1 school buses have a capacity of 16-20 passengers and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds.

The recent amendments to Standard No. 217 set new requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effect of each of these amendments on Type A-1 school buses is discussed separately below.

Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2)

The recent amendments listed above revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. This section states:

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

The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses, including Type A-1 school buses, are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by Standard

2

No. 217 before the recent amendments. After deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) a emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows.

Please note that, while these new requirements apply to all school buses, it is unlikely that a 20 passenger school bus will require additional exits. Under the new requirements, a school bus with 21 designated seating positions (20 passengers plus the driver) is required to provide 9,072 square centimeters of exit area. A school bus with a front service door and either of the mandatory options (rear emergency exit door or side emergency exit door and rear push-out window) should easily exceed this amount. To illustrate, in the past, the agency has estimated that the average front service door has a daylight opening of 12,916 square centimeters. For school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, a rear emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,270 square centimeters. A side emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,954 square centimeters. A rear push-out window that is the minimum size required has a daylight opening of 5,002 square centimeters.

Emergency Exit Release (S5.3)

The recent amendments added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. As explained above, the recent amendments should not require either of these types of exits to be installed on Type A-1 school buses. However, if either of these types of exits are voluntarily installed on Type A-1 school buses, the release mechanisms must comply with these requirements. In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements, including the release requirements in S5.3, apply to "each" emergency exit. This language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus, including voluntarily installed ones. Other requirements apply to "required" emergency exits. (See, for example, S5.5.3(c) discussed below.) Those requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits.

Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4)

The amendments of the extension requirements also apply to Type A-1 school buses. The recent amendments revised the extension requirements for side doors on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses with a GVWR

3

of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). These amendments also affect school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, as the requirements specify that these vehicles are to comply with the same requirements as school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds (except for the minimum size for rear emergency exit doors).

If a Type A-1 school bus has a side emergency exit door, that exit is required to comply with the amended requirements concerning access to the exit. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch.

In addition, if an emergency roof exit is installed in a Type A-1 school bus, it is required to provide an opening at least 41 centimeters high and 41 centimeters wide under the new requirements.

Finally, all emergency exit doors, including emergency exit doors on Type A-1 school buses, are required to have a positive door opening device.

Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5)

Finally, the recent amendments revised the identification requirements (S5.5) for exits on all school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit," as appropriate. For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed by these amendments. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. Please note however, that the identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3).

You should be aware that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. I have enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures

4

regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

To summarize and answer your specific questions, Type A-1 school buses typically would not be affected by the recent amendment requiring either emergency roof exits or emergency window exits. However, required emergency exits (including a rear emergency exit door) are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape. In addition, all exits (required and voluntary) must comply with the new performance requirements for release and extension.

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

Please note that recent delay of the effective date of the recent amendments applies only to provision of emergency exits (S5.2) (59 FR 22997; May 4, 1994). The other amendments were effective on May 2, 1994. I also note that the May 4 notice does not state "that it only applys (sic) to School Buses with capacity of 24 to 90 passengers." The notice does refer to tables in a previous NPRM which listed the types of exits required under the proposal for buses with a capacity in that range.

I have also enclosed a copy of the recent final rules for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: 20127.ztv

Mr. Tom Shreeve
Manager of Engineering
Trident Automotive Lighting
P.O. Box 821
Kentwood, MI 49518-0821

Dear Mr. Shreeve:

This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1999, asking for an interpretation of S5.1.1.18 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as modified by footnote 1 of Figure 2.

Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108 require motor vehicles as specified in these Tables to be equipped with a backup lamp complying with SAE Standard J593c Backup Lamps February 1968. However, under S5.1.1.18, a backup lamp is not required to meet the minimum photometric values at each test point specified in Table 1 of SAE J593c if the sum of the candlepower actually measured at the test points within a group listed in Figure 2 of Standard No. 108 is not less than the sum of the total minimum candlepower specified in Figure 2 for test points in that group.

Figure 2 specifies minimum luminous intensity for backup lamps for five groups of test points, or "zones" as you refer to them. Both J593c and Standard No. 108 permit more than one backup lamp to be used. Footnote 1 of Figure 2 states that:

When 2 lamps of the same or symmetrically opposite design are used, the reading along the vertical axis and the averages of the readings for the same angles left and right of vertical for 1 lamp shall be used to determine compliance with the requirements. If 2 lamps of differing designs are used, they shall be tested individually and the values added to determine that the combined units meet twice the candela requirements.

When only 1 backup lamp is used on the vehicle, it shall be tested to twice the candela requirements.

You interpret this as meaning that,

when using two lamps that are symmetrically opposite in design, the intent of this footnote was to allow the average of the two lamps combined output. That is, the right hand lamp output in zone 2 added with the left hand lamp output in that same zone 2, and that the average of those two lamps for that zone must not be less than the minimum candela requirements.

However, your customer thinks that

the intent is for us to average the zones 2 and 5 of the same lamp. If this is done, it is measuring output of the lamp at angles opposite of each other and that these two zones actually are intended to illuminate a completely different target area. If the averaging is done in this manner, it will also default the third sentence of the footnote [which reads: "When only one backup lamp is used on the vehicle, it shall be tested to twice the candela requirements."].

SAE Standard J593c is straight-forward. If a single backup lamp is used, it shall comply with twice the minimum candela requirements specified in Table 1 of J593c. If two lamps are used (and they are identical or symmetrical), each lamp must meet the minimum candela requirements. Thus, the total light output of a backup lamp system is intended to be roughly the same, whether the system consists of one or two lamps. This is the basic backup lamp requirement incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

Unlike SAE J593c and as an alternative to it, S5.1.1.18 does not require a lamp to meet every test point if the sum of the candlepower measured for all test points within a group of test points described in Figure 2 is not less than the sum of the minimum candlepower required for all test points in that group.

The question that you have asked is how Footnote 1 shall be interpreted as to group photometric measurements in a backup lamp system consisting of two symmetrically opposite lamps. This requires an interpretation of the meaning of "the averages of the readings for the same angles left and right of vertical for 1 lamp shall be used to determine compliance with the requirements." We did not intend Footnote 1 to alter the concept of group photometrics. The quoted language simply means that each lamp shall meet the group candlepower minimum specified in Figure 2 for each group. It does not mean, as your customer thinks, that two groups within the same lamp left and right of vertical are combined into a larger group and averaged. The footnote deals solely with individual test points.

Footnote 1 clearly refers to a single lamp and not, as you argue, to the average of the output of the same group in two lamps, one on each side of the vehicle. We interpret it as saying that, if two lamps of the same or symmetrically opposite design are to be installed, the test for a single lamp in a pair shall be as follows. First, measure all test points. Second, take the values of the test points on the vertical axis and use them to calculate their respective group totals. Next, add the measured values of two symmetrically opposite test points, divide by two, and use this average as the value for each of the two test points when calculating the group sum in which each of the two test points is located. Then do the same for the rest of the test points. Finally, calculate the sum of each group and compare with the totals provided in Figure 2 for each group to determine whether the lamp meets the test requirements of Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/26/99

ID: 77-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Wagner Electric Corporation's October 26, 1977, request for confirmation that S5.6.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, does not prohibit the use of a two-valve sequential means to release the parking brakes on a towed vehicle.

I have enclosed for your information an interpretation that addresses this question, stating that a two-valve sequential release is permissible under S5.6.4.

SINCERELY, This responds to your April 23, 1974, question whether Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, is a proposal, whether buses manufactured after January 1, 1975, must conform to Standard No. 121 under all circumstances, what "cut-off date" exists for determination of brake equipment suppliers' ability to provide 121 components on time, and to what extent a bus must be completed to be certified as in compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

Standard No. 121 has been a final rule since February 27, 1971, and had an effective date of January 1, 1973. In 1972 the effective date was postponed until September 1, 1974. Recently the NHTSA further delayed the effective date for trucks and buses until March 1, 1975, having concluded that suppliers will be able to supply all necessary components by that date.

All buses manufactured after the effective date of an applicable standard must comply with its requirements, under @ 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (13 U.S.C. @ 1392(a)(1)), which states "No person shall . . . manufacture for sale . . . any motor vehicle . . . on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard. . . ."

You asked whether a trailer which is substantially complete before the effective date but lacks one or more parts due to parts shortages can be certified as conforming although it is equipped with a pre-121 brake system. By analogy with the rules allowing manufacturers to omit "readily attachable" items to be added later in the chain of distribution (Import regulations @ 12.80, Parts 567, 568), the NHTSA will accept a good-faith determination that a vehicle is substantially completed, where only a few parts subject to shortages are missing.

I would also like to answer a technical question raised by R. E. Houser of your engineering staff. In an April 23, 1974, letter he asked for an interpretation of the S5.6.4 language "The parking brake control shall be separate from the service brake control." as it applies to the DD-3 two-step brake release. The S5.6.4 requirement for a separate parking brake control is intended to address the actuation of the brake. We interpret this language not to prohibit the use of a two-step release involving a manual and a foot control.

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

October 26, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Request for Interpretation of Section 5.6.4 of FMVSS-121

Section 5.6.4 of FMVSS-121 establishes the need for a parking brake control on a truck or bus to control the parking brakes on the vehicle and of any air braked vehicle that it is designed to tow. This section is reproduced below for your immediate reference.

Section 5.6.4 S5.6.4 Parking brake control trucks and buses. The parking brake control shall be separated from the service brake control. It shall be operable by a person seated in the normal driving position. The control shall be identified in a manner that specifies the method of control operation. The parking brake control shall control the parking brakes of the vehicle and of any air braked vehicle that it is designed to tow.

We request an interpretation which conforms that Section 5.6.4 does not preclude the sequential operation of two valves to release the parking brakes on the towed vehicle.

We have concluded that multiple valve operation is permissible to release the parking brakes on the towed vehicle. Our conclusion is based on the following observations:

1. A towing vehicle has historically been equipped with a separate trailer air supply valve to permit closure of the lines leading to the trailer when the vehicle is operated without an attached trailer. The ability of the parking brake control mentioned in Section 5.6.4 to establish air flow to the trailer is, therefore, dependent upon the operational position of the trailer air supply valve. An adverse interpretation of Section 5.6.4 would, therefore, eliminate the use of this simple disconnect feature and impose a design restriction which apparently was not intended.

2. Section 6.1.14 of FMVSS-121 defines the venting of the lines leading to the trailer when testing the towing vehicle emergency brake system per Section 5.7.3(a). The venting of the trailer supply line could appreciably reduce the pressure available on the towing vehicle to effect the emergency stop. Many vehicle manufacturers have elected to use a trailer air supply valve, which, under these conditions, will automatically trip to the closed position to preserve a high pressure in the tractor service brake resorvoir system.

These tripping air supply valves respond in a similar manner when the parking brake control required by Section 5.6.4 is utilized to park the combination vehicle. It is, therefore, necessary to manually restore the trailer air supply valve to the depressed position before air flow to the towed vehicle can be restored. An adverse interpretation of Section 5.6.4 would prohibit the use of these systems.

3. A clarification proposed in Docket 75-16 Notice 4 defines the desired interaction of the various push-pull valves provided on a tractor to control the tractor parking brakes and the flow of air to the trailer. We refer you specifically to Section 5.6.1(c)(1) and Section 5.8.1.2, which are reproduced below for your convenience.

Section 5.8.1.2

S5.8.1.2 Truck-tractor service brake system-criditional requirements. The service brake system of a truck designed to tow an air-brake-equipped vehicle shall, under the conditions of S6.1.15, be capable of modulating the air pressure in the control line of the control trailer by means of the service brake control. The service brake system shall be equipped with a means of opening and closing the connections from the service brake system of the towing vehicle to the supply and control lines of the control trailer, and simultaneously to open and close a vent to the atmosphere in the supply line to the control trailer. This means shall close automatically in all cases before automatic application of the parking brake system occurs, and before air pressure in all reservoirs of the truck service brake system drops to a level chosen at the option of the top manufacturer that is more than 20 psi, but less than 45 psi. This means shall also operate by utilization of a manual control that does not override automatic operations consisting of a red octagonal knob that, when pulled, closes the air supply to the towed vehicle and vents the trailer supply line to the atmosphere, and when pushed, opens the air supply line to a towed vehicle and permits presentation of the trailer supply (Illegible Word). The following legend shall appear on, above, or below the knob in block capital letters at least one-eighth of an inch in height:

TRAILER AIR SUPPLY

FUEL TO (Illegible Words)

Section 5.6.1.6(c)(1)

(c) In the case of a truck designed to tow an air-brake-equipped vehicle, be equipped with two parking brake system controls that meet the requirements of (1) and (2):

(1) The tractor and trailer parking control shall consist of a yellow diamond-shaped knob that, when pulled, applies the parking brake system of the towing vehicle and vents the trailer supply line to the atmosphere, and, when pushed, releases the parking brake system of the towing vehicle and permits pressurization of the trailer supply line. The following legend shall appear on, above, or below the knob in block capital letters at least one-eighth of an inch in height:

TRACTOR-TRAILER PARK PULL TO APPLY PUSH TO RELEASE:

Note in Section 5.6.1.6(c) that the tractor trailer park valve when pushed releases the tractor parking brakes and "permits pressurization of the trailer supply line". In Section 5.8.1.2, the trailer air supply valve when pushed opens the air supply line to a towed vehicle and "permits pressurization of the trailer supply line". The term "permits" accurately describes the present interaction of the two valves in question. The tractor trailer park valve cannot pressurize the trailer air supply line unless the trailer air supply valve is positioned to deliver air to the trailer supply line. Similarly, the trailer air supply valve cannot pressurize the trailer air supply line if previously vented by the tractor trailer park valve. The driver must restore the particular valve(s) to the appropriate delivery position to effect repressurization of the trailer air supply line. The sequence of valve restoration is dependent on the type of tractor protection system provided on the vehicle.

In conclusion, the apparent intent of the present Section 5.6.4 of FMVSS-121 is to insure the provision of a single (common) control means to apply the parking brakes on all of the vehicles in the combination and does not preclude the sequential operation of two valves to release the parking brakes on the towed vehicle. Interpretation of Section 5.6.4, which confirms this intent, will clarify this matter.

John W. Kourik, Chief Engineer Brake Products

ID: 009070rbm

Mr. Michael J. Martin
School Bus Information Council
1840 Western Avenue
Albany, NY 12203

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your correspondence seeking clarification of whether school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds will be included in any final rule resulting from an August 6, 2003, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (68 Federal Register 46546) issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In that NPRM, NHTSA proposed requiring lap/shoulder belts for all forward-facing designated seating positions other than the front center seat for most vehicles with a GVWR below 10,000 pounds. School buses are not among the vehicles contemplated in the NPRM and will not be included in any final rule issued as a result of that notice.

Footnote 5 of the NPRM stated the following: "The rule, if adopted, would include school buses under 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.). However, the agency is currently working on a separate rulemaking regarding seat belts in school buses. Accordingly, this document will not further discuss potential requirements for lap/shoulder belts on school buses with a GVWR under 10,000 lb."68 FR at 46549. The footnote indicated that, while not discussed in the preamble, these buses would be addressed by a final rule based on the NPRM. This is not the case.

Unfortunately, the footnote contains a typographical error. The word "not" was mistakenly left out of the first sentence of the footnote. The sentence should have read, "The rule, if adopted, would not include school buses under 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)."Should NHTSA decide it may be appropriate to require safety belts in school buses, it will publish a separate NPRM discussing the benefits and disbenefits associated with such a requirement.

I hope this addresses your concerns. Should you have any additional questions, feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992 or the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc: Charles L. Gauthier


School Bus Information Council
1840 Western Avenue
Albany, NY 12203

ref:208
d.2/9/04

ID: GF008483

Robert Strassburger, Vice President
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 Eye Street, NW - Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005-6562

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This is in response to your letter dated November 2, 2004, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Specifically, you ask about certain target points located on the seat belt mounting structure.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is in the process of responding to petitions for reconsideration of the February 27, 2004, final rule that addressed issues related to the targets located on seat belt mounting structures (see 69 FR 9217). We will address the issue raised in your letter in our response to the petitions for reconsideration.

Should you have any remaining or additional questions once the response to the petitions for reconsideration is published, please feel free to submit them to the agency. If you have further questions in the interim, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.12/30/04

ID: nht91-2.36

DATE: March 18, 1991

FROM: George Ziolo

TO: Administrator, US DOT/NHTSA

TITLE: Re Petition for Rectification of an Error, FMVSS 208

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to George Ziolo (A37; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I advise clients of NHTSA's requirements.

It is my understanding that the seat belt warning system furnished with manual belts need be activated only by the driver's belt in vehicles manufactured between 1-1-72 and 8-31-89 inclusive, in accordance with S7.3.

However, your 49 CFR, revised as of October 1990, requires that a seat belt warning system furnished with manual belts need be activated not only by the driver's belt but also by

the front outboard passenger's belt in vehicles manufactured between 1-1-72 thru 8-31-73 inclusive (S4.1.1.3.1(a) and S4.1.1.3.2); and by

the front outboard and front center passenger's belt, in vehicles manufactured 9-1-73 thru 8-31-89 (S4.1.2.3.1(a), S4.1.2.3.1(b), and S4.1.2.3.2).

In view of the fact that the above represents a more severe requirement than the original one in effect on 1-1-72, and the fact that NHTSA has not in the past retroactively tightened its requirements, the above appears to be an inadvertent error, particularly because S7.3 makes no mention of seating positions other than the one for the driver.

If the above is an error, please confirm this to me for my record and use.

If the above is not an error, please advise me as to when you published this change in the Federal Register. If you have not published it in the Federal Register, I request that you do, including the effective dates of the changed requirement for compliance purposes.

I make this request as a petition under provisions you find applicable. If you wish that I resubmit this petition in another format, please advise me which format is appropriate.

This matter is very important to me and my clients for reasons of both compliance and product liability.

ID: aiam3077

Dear Mr. Willhite: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weine of my office on June 29, 1979, about your intention to start a business that will sell and install auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in passenger cars. You noted that you would like to install the tanks in used vehicles and possibly in new ones. Specifically, you asked what Federal law applies to your proposed activities and whether these activities would violate any Federal law.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, (see enclosed copy) is a vehicle standard which applies to vehicles, including passenger cars, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (this includes both gasoline and diesel fuel).; Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicles is delivered to the ultimate customer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Second, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration of purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 567.7).; Should a noncompliance due to an alterer's modification be discovere in a recertified vehicle, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act.) The civil penalty imposed could be up to $1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act.); Since the installation of an auxiliary fuel tank significantly affect the configuration of an automobile, the legal provision summarized above would apply to you as an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in new cars (i.e., cars not yet purchased for purposes other tan resale and delivered to that purchaser). Thus, upon installing an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle you would be required to affix a label to the vehicle stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable FMVSS's including FMVSS 301-75 in effect on a date not later than the date on which the alterations were completed (49 C.F.R. Part 567.7). This means that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by FMVSS 301-75 but that the system as supplemented by the auxiliary tank added by you to a new car must meet them also.; As an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in new vehicles, you will als be subject to the provisions of sections 151 *et seq*. of the Act. (see enclosure). If you or this agency finds that there is a safety defect in the manner in which you have installed auxiliary tanks in new vehicles, you would be required to notify purchasers and remedy the defect. Under sections 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1000 per violation.; As a dealer in and installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in used vehicles you would be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment of elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. there is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act.); If one of the persons or entities listed above adds an auxiliar gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974)). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; In closing, I would like to point out that, in addition to the Federa law discussed above, there may be State products liability laws applicable to your proposed activities. As an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks, you could be liable for the manner and location in which the tanks are installed. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before starting your new business.; I hope that you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-5.29

DATE: 02/25/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Mary Harding

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Fort Worth Regional Office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has forwarded to us your February 2, 1976, letter asking whether 16-passenger van-type school buses that presently serve to transport children to and from a day care center fall within the new definition of "School bus" recently issued by the NHTSA (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975).

The answer to your question is no. The definition is based on the regulatory authority found in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.). This Act authorizes the regulation of motor vehicle construction in accordance with standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture.

In the case of this amendment of the definition, the NHTSA chose to make the new definition effective on October 27, 1976, to correspond with the effective date of the new school bus standards. This means that the existing definition of "School bus" applied at the time of the construction of the vehicles operated by your library. The existing definition applies only to vehicles designed primarily to carry children to and from school, and would not include van-type vehicles.

YOURS TRULY,

FORT WORTH PUBLIC LIBRARY

February 2, 1976

Alex Calaluca NHTSA Region VI

Here is the information you asked for in our phone conversation on Feb. 2, 1976.

Vehicle Make, Model and Year--Dodge, Sports Van 1975. Vehicle Identification Numbers: B36BE54 131771 B36BE54 127066

These two vehicles are used to transport pre-school children from non-profit day care centers to branch libraries for special library programs. The children are picked up in a group at their center, accompanied by one or more day care staff members, and returned to their center after the program.

The vehicles are equipped with seat belts for each seat and a fire extinguisher.

I would like to know if these vehicles would be covered by the new amendment to the National Highway Transportation Safety Act?

Thank you so much for your time and trouble.

Mary Harding Director -- Outreach Program

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Memorandum

DATE: February 5, 1976

SUBJECT: School Bus Definition

FROM: Regional Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fort Worth, Texas

TO: Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Services, N40-40 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

In the enclosed letter of February 2, Ms. Mary Harding describes the make and model of vehicles she uses to transport preschool children. The vehicles are designed to carry 16 passengers and are equipped with a seat belt in each sitting position. Ms. Harding desires a legal interpretation on whether or not the above vehicles come under the new definition for a school bus and if this is the case, would the vehicles be in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard developed under the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974?

Please provide this office with a copy of your response to Ms. Harding. If we can be of further assistance to you in this matter, please let us know.

Alex M. Calaluca Motor Vehicle Programs Director

For: E. Robert Anderson Regional Administrator

ID: 1982-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Manson & Barish, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 22, 1982 NOA-30

Mr. Mel Weinstein, President Manson & Barish, Inc. 171 Fourth Avenue Bayshore, New York 11706

Dear Mr. Weinstein:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff requesting that your firm, which imports tires, be assigned to retreader's identification mark under the provisions of 49 CFR Part 574. As I understand it, you plan to import tires retreaded in Japan by six or seven different retreaders, and would like to put your own identification mark on all these tires.

Retreader identification marks are assigned only to retreaders, and not to importers. Therefore, I cannot take the action you have requested. I have enclosed the materials necessary to permit the Japanese retreaders to export their tires into this country, which would achieve the same results you sought.

Chapter 49 CFR 574.5 (copy enclosed) specifies that each retreader shall mold or brand into the sidewall of each retreaded tire it produces for sale in the United States, certain information including the the retreater's identification mark. Part 574.6 specifies that the retreader, not the importer, should apply to this agency to obtain the identification mark. The identification mark is used by the agency as a device to readily identify the manufacturer or retreader of a tire. Thus, S 574.6(b) requires that the manufacturer or retreader identify each of its plants in its application for the identification mark. A separate identification mark is assigned to each plant. It would not serve this intended purpose for the agency to assign an identification mark to an importer, such as yourself, which imports from six different retreaders.

Although you as an importer may not receive an identification mark, each of the Japanese retreaders may apply individually for such a mark. To facilitate any applications by those retreaders, I have enclosed six copies of the form required to receive an identification mark.

In addition to the identification mark required on each tire, the only other requirement with which the Japanese retreaders must comply before offering tires for sale in the U.S. is to designate an agent for service of process. The person or corporation designated as an agent must be a permanent resident of the U.S., as set forth in 49 CFR Part 551 (copy enclosed). Additionally, 49 CFR 551.45 requires that the designation must be in writing and dated with a signature in ink, and must be binding upon the retreader under the laws of Japan. When completed, these designations should be submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Once the agency has received this designation of agent from a retreader and that retreader has been assigned an identification mark, that retreader's tires may be offered for sale in the U.S. You, of course, could be the retreaders' designated agent.

Should you need any further information or assistance, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

September 28, 1982

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Steve Kratzke

Dear Mr. Kratzke,

As per our telephone conversation of September 24, 1982, the following is a request to be assigned a D.O.T. identification number, so that our firm can be qualified to import and distribute retreaded foreign tires.

To clarify our position and thoughts, please be advised that we import and export used tires and casing for retreading. We are currently interested in importing Japanese retreaded tires. We understand that the purpose of the D.O.T. identification number is to be able to identify the retreader in case of a recall, as well as a method of communication with the users of such tires.

It is our belief that for the purposes intended it would be beneficial for our company to be assigned the identification number rather than the retreader for the following reasons.

In the event of a recall, we will be able to be notified more readily than a foreign retreader.

It is in our best interest to be abreast of any current laws regarding D.O.T. standards and we are not sure that the same concern is available from a foreign source.

Considering that there is no fedaral standard for truck tire retreading at this point, we believe that it would make more sense to issue our company the D.O.T. identification number. Our company will then negotiate overseas in order to insure the standards that are used in the retreading of the truck tires.

As a member of NTDRA and ARA, it behooves our company to be in a position to oversee the quality of the retreading process and to have only those tires retreaded that would meet basic safety standards imported into the United States.

If we can be of any assistance to you in expediting a decision, please call on us.

We await your reply,

Sincerely yours,

Mel Weinstein, Pres.

MW:ms 11/22/82