ID: 8382a

Matthew J. Ryan, Director
Commercial Vehicle Safety Bureau
State of New York
Department of Transportation
Albany, NY 12232

Dear Mr. Ryan:

This responds to your letter of March 3, 1993, regarding a recent final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (58 FR 4586; January 15, 1993). This final rule requires buses designed to transport persons in wheelchairs to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems meeting specified performance standards. You request confirmation of two statements that you believe correctly construe the new requirements. The statements and our response to each follows.

1.If a school bus is built or modified to accommodate one or more wheelchairs, after January 17, 1994, the restraint/securement system required by the regulation change must be complied with.

This statement is partially correct. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (VSA) prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. The rule you ask about becomes effective on January 17, 1994, and would apply to all school buses manufactured on or after that date. Therefore, you are correct that a school bus manufactured on or after that date, and which has one or more locations designed for carrying a person seated in a wheelchair, must be equipped with a wheelchair securement device and occupant restraint system complying with the requirements of Standard 222 at each wheelchair location.

Whether a modified school bus must meet the restraint/securement requirements depends, first, on the date of manufacture of the bus, and second, the date of the modification. Since the wheelchair restraint/securement requirements would not apply to a school bus manufactured before the effective date of the requirements, a pre-January 17, 1994, school bus modified to carry a person in a wheelchair need not meet the requirements of the new rule regardless of when the modification is made. A post-January 17, 1994, school bus that is modified before the vehicle's first sale to the consumer to carry a person in a wheelchair would have to meet the new requirements. This is because the person installing the securement system would be considered an "alterer" under NHTSA's regulations (49 CFR 567.7) and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard 222 and its restraint/securement requirements.

If a school bus is modified after the vehicle's first sale, the restraint/securement system need not meet the new requirements. This is because none of our FMVSS's for vehicles (such as Standard 222) applies to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to the consumer. After a vehicle's first sale, the only Federal requirement that would affect modifications of the vehicle is the "render inoperative" prohibition in 108(a)(2)(A) of the VSA. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The "render inoperative" prohibits commercial businesses from modifying a vehicle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards. However, the "render inoperative" provision does not require commercial businesses to bring the vehicle into compliance with standards upgraded after the vehicle was manufactured. Therefore, a used school bus modified after January 17, 1994, does not have to be equipped with wheelchair securement/restraint systems complying with the new requirements of Standard 222.

2.A school bus built with no wheelchair seating positions, is not required to have a wheelchair position.

This statement is correct. The January 14, 1993, final rule amended Standard 222 by adding a new section S5.4. That section requires a "school bus having one or more locations designed for carrying a wheelchair" to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems at those locations. If a school bus is not designed for carrying a wheelchair, wheelchair securement/restraint systems do not have to be provided. The agency's rationale for not requiring all school buses to be designed to transport persons in wheelchairs is stated in the preamble to the final rule on page 4586.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:222 d:4/19/93

ID: 86-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ron Luce, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/14/77 letter from F. Berndt to Sergio Campanini, The Berg Manufacturing Co.; 8/27/79 letter from F. Berndt to the Berg Manufacturing Co.; 9/30/77 letter from R. L. Carter to R. W. Hildebrandt, The Bendix Corp.

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Luce President International Transquip Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 590169 Houston, Texas 77259

This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You asked several questions relating to whether vehicles equipped with "Mini-Max" brakes, a type of brake produced by your company, comply with the standard. Your questions are responded to below. We note that while Question 4 was not asked directly by your letter, the question is implicit with respect to one of the questions you did ask.

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

Question 1: Is delayed mechanical parking permissible under section S5.6.3 as long as the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 are satisfied?

The second sentence of section S5.6.3 provides that "(o)nce applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means." As discussed by a recent notice granting a petition for rulemaking submitted by the California Highway Patrol (copy enclosed), there are at least two issues relating to whether a braking system such as Mini-Max complies with these requirements.

The first issue is whether the system meets the requirement that once applied, the parking brakes must be held solely by mechanical means. As currently designed, the Mini-Max parking brake can be held by air and not by mechanical means, solely or otherwise, for many hours. Indeed, since a driver will often park the vehicle for a period of time shorter than that required to obtain mechanical holding, there will be many instances when the vehicle is parked and the parking brake never is held by mechanical means. The second issue is whether the parking brakes are held in the applied position. With the current design of the Mini-Max braking system, the air pressure leaks down over time until the mechanical lock is activated. Since the position of the brake components necessarily changes during this time, resulting in reduced parking brake force, there is an issue whether the parking brake is being held in the applied position.

While NHTSA has never concluded that a brake system resulting in false parking is safe or provided an interpretation that the current Mini-Max system complies with section S5.6.3, we recognize that some past interpretations, as well as one issued by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, could contribute to ambiguity concerning whether some of the features incorporated in the Mini-Max design are permitted by the standard. In light of that ambiguity and for the other reasons discussed in the grant notice, NHTSA decided to grant the CHP petition to initiate rulemaking on the delayed mechanical park issue rather than issuing an interpretation whether or not such a braking system complies with these requirements.

Question 2: Is an external pressure separation assembly consisting of a two-way check valve and accompanying steel hex nipple considered to be a component of a brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3 if the assembly is "permanently bonded" to the housing?

The answer to this question is no. Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part that "(t)he parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing)." (Emphasis added.) The dictionary defines "housing" as "a fully enclosed case and support for a mechanism." See Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). Thus, the term "brake chamber housing" refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. An external pressure separation assembly does not become part of the brake chamber housing merely because it is attached to the housing, whether by "permanent bonding" or some other means. However, a brake chamber housing could be cast or molded to include a fitting, serving the same purpose as the external pressure assembly, as an integral part of the brake chamber housing.

Question 3: Is an internal assembly consisting of a diaphragm within the brake chamber housing considered to be a component of the brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3?

The answer to this question is no. As discussed above, the term "brake chamber housing" refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. A diaphragm within the brake chamber is not a component of the case enclosing the brake chamber.

Question 4: Does section S5.2.1.1 require that capability of release must be unaffected or that air pressure in the tank must be unaffected?

Section S5.2.1.1 provides that "(a) reservoir shall be provided that is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system." (Emphasis added.) The word "unaffected" refers back to "reservoir". Thus, the required reservoir is not permitted to be "affected" by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system, i.e., it must be protected. A reservoir would not meet this requirement if a loss of air pressure in the service brake system resulted in a loss of air pressure in the reservoir, even if the reservoir was still capable of releasing the parking brakes.

Question 5: If the emergency brakes on trailers can be modulated so as to provide a driver with several applications and releases to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system, is it unnecessary for an S5.2.1.1 reservoir to be capable of releasing the brakes?

The capability of modulation after activation of the low air warning system does not satisfy the requirements of section S5.2.1.1 (quoted above). That section requires that the reservoir not be affected by loss of service air, i.e., that it be protected, and that, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i. (a pressure that corresponds to the lower end of the range of pressures maintained by compressors), it be capable of releasing the parking brakes at least once. A vehicle's emergency brakes could be capable of modulation after activation of the low air warning system and not meet either of these requirements.

In addition to the notice granting the CHP petition, we are enclosing copies of interpretation letters concerning the Mini-Max system addressed to Navistar, P.T. Brake Lining Company, and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures August 20, 1985 U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 ATTN: Duane Perrin

Subject: Our letter of August 6, 1985 and Docket No. 75-16: Notice 27. Request for immediate interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121.

Dear Mr. Perrin:

After our July 31, 1985 meeting in Washington, DC and subsequent to my letter of August 6, 1985 I have requested, received and reviewed copies of all information contained in all volumes of the "Red Book" of 121 interpretations maintained in the document section of the D.O.T. After review of this information it is very evident that the NHTSA has offered several interpretations with respect to delayed mechanical parking that clearly allows this means of parking to satisfy the requirements of S5.6.3 as long as either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 can be achieved. The references are as follows.

1. Berg Mfg. Co. letter dated February 9, 1977 that describes a system that is air applied on initial emergency or parking application and is held by spring application only in the event of service application pressure loss. The NHTSA response N40-30 (TWH) dated March 14, 1977 does not allow all design features of the Berg system but does clearly allow delayed mechanical parking as stated in the last sentence of the reference letter.

"In other respects the system you described does not appear to violate the requirements of Standard No. 121. The use of service air pressure to actuate the parking brakes has been used in certain bus applications and is permissible as long as a source of energy to apply the parking brakes is usable at all times and is unaffected by any single failure in the service brake system."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit A".

2. Berg. Mfg. Co. letter dated June 28, 1979 that describes a parking brake system that employs delayed mechanical parking. This system, I believe, was later denied because of non compliance to section S5.2.1.1 because emergency springs were released by supply air rather than from a protected reservoir. However, the NHTSA interpretation is clear with respect to application by service air and subsequent spring application as the air supply is depleted. The NHTSA response NOA-30 dated August 27, 1979 covers this point in the second paragraph.

"You first ask whether section S5.6.3 allows the use of service air to apply the parking brakes as long as a source of energy to supply the parking brakes is available at all times and is unaffected by a single failure in the service brake system. The answer to this question is yes. On August 9, 1979, the agency published in the federal register a notice amending section S5.6.3 of the standard to permit the type of parking brake system that you outlined in your letter."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit B".

3. Bendix letter dated September 14, 1977 that explains the many benefits of delayed mechanical parking by use of service air for initial application and spring application only after service pressure has depleted. This system also was later determined to not be in compliance to S5.2.1.1 because no reservoir was provided for release of brakes. However it clearly describes the delayed mechanical parking mode. The NHTSA response dated September 30, 1977 states in the last paragraph:

"You also requested written confirmation that the interpretation of S5.6.3 of FMVSS No. 121 given by NHTSA to Motor Coach Industries Inc., on April 14, 1976, would pertain to the air/spring parking brake system described in your letter. Your assumption is correct, and this letter constitutes such written confirmation."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit C".

Upon review of the information presented we respectfully request written confirmation that our assumption is correct that our delayed mechanical system as outlined in the information provided with our August 6, 1985 letter does comply with S5.6.3 of the 121 Standard.

We also request an interpretation with respect to the use of an external pressure separation assembly detailed in the information provided with our August 6, 1985 letter. Is our assumption correct that both the external and internal assemblies are a component of the brake chamber housing in this unique brake chamber design.

We further request an interpretation with respect to S5.2.1.1. Is our assumption correct that as discussed in our August 6, 1985 letter and detailed in the enclosures with the same letter that our "system" complies to section S5.2.1.1 of the 121 Standard. Without considering the above, in our letter of August 6, 1985 page 6, we also disclosed the fact that our trailer system allows modulation of emergency brakes. Are we correct in assuming that if we are able to modulate emergency brakes on trailers, this improvement in safety would also dictate that no release is necessary because a modulated emergency system provides a driver with several applications and releases of the emergency brake system to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system. We understand that this would not exempt us from the requirement that "a reservoir shall be provided..." however it should remove the release requirement in emergency situations and would result in improved vehicle safety.

Please respond as quickly as possible to these requests for interpretations. We again point out that the absence of compliance checks at the OE level have placed us at an extreme disadvantage when compared to systems that were being marketed prior to discontinuation of compliance inspections. Thanks again for your assistance and early reply.

Regards, Ron Luce enc.:

See 3/14/77 letter from F. Berndt to Sergio Campanini, The Berg Manufacturing Company. See also 8/27/79 letter from F. Berndt to The Berg Manufacturing Company. See also 9/30/77 letter from R.L. Carter to R.W. Hildebrandt, The Bendix Corporation.

ID: 22203.ztv

Mr. Thomas V. Wolcott
Test Engineering Manager
Nevada Automotive Test Center
P.O. Box 234
Carson City, NV 89702-0234





Dear Mr. Wolcott:

This is in reply to your letter of September 26, 2000, requesting an interpretation concerning a motorcycle braking configuration.

You state that the master cylinder in the system "would be actuated hydraulically using the standard handlebar mounted lever." You further describe the system in some detail and inform us that your vehicle will comply with "all regulations regarding volume and wording on the cap." The intent of the design is "to be able to remote mount the master cylinder unit to a more protected and less visible area of the motorcycle." You have not been able to find a regulation or standard that would not allow this configuration.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are intended to establish performance requirements, leaving the design of systems to the manufacturer. There is nothing in the Federal motorcycle braking standard (FMVSS No. 122), controls and displays standard (FMVSS No. 123) or any other FMVSS or regulation that would prohibit the motorcycle brake system configuration described in your letter.





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:122
d.11/1/00

ID: nht71-1.1

DATE: 05/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. carter; NHTSA

TO: SAAB-Scania of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your petition of March 12, 1971, for amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illustration.

You petitioned that the abbreviation for the defroster control identification be changed from "DEF" to "DEFR." In the preamble to the reconsideration and amendment of Standard No. 101, (36 F.R. 8269, May 4, 1971), a copy of which I enclose, this agency noted that additional identifying words or symbols are permissible if they do not conflict with the required or permissible words and symbols set out in Standard No. 101. In our opinion your use of "DEFR" would create no conflict.

You also petitioned that certain controls located below the drivers E point and available to all passengers be exempted from the control identification illumination requirement. The recent amendment to Standard No. 101 no longer requires illumination of all heating and air conditioning controls, but only those that direct air directly upon the windshield. We believe this may be responsive to your petition.

Finally, you asked that we define our position on bilingual control identification. Identification in a language other than English is permissible, in the

language of the preamble to the recent amendment, "as long as the additional words . . . do not conflict with the required words . . ."

We hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

March 12, 1971

Docket Room National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our Reference: T. Needell

Reference: Petition for Rulemaking to Amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 "Control Location, Identification and Illumination" Effective January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1972.

Gentlemen: Under the provision of Sub-part 553.31 of Sections 103 and 119 of The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, SAAB-Scania of America, Incorporated hereby petition that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 be amended as outlined below for the reasons included herein.

I - Table 1 "Control Identification and Illumination" list the acceptable abbreviation for a windshield wiping system control as "WIPE". Table 1 list the acceptable abbreviation for a windshield washing system control as "WASH". Both of these abbreviations contain 4 letters. However, Table 1 list the allowable abbreviation for a windshield defrosting system control as "DEF". (3 letters).

It is our opinion that some form of consistency is in order within Table I. Accordingly, we petition to change Column 2 of Table 1 to read so that the abbreviation "DEFR" (4 letters) is noted as an acceptable abbreviation for a windshield defrosting system control.

We believe that this abbreviation is completely concise as to its meaning. This Company has for several years used the abbreviation "DEFR" to identify the windshield defrosting controls of its products. To change the tooling necessary to bring this particular control into conformity with Column 2 of Table I would cause this Company to charge the customer an additional sum in excess of the list price of the vehicle. This, we feel, considering the above circumstances, is unfair to the purchaser.

II - Table I "Control Identification and Illumination" requires that all windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems and heating and air conditioning controls be permissibly identified and illuminated. Table I makes no provision for the exclusion of rear passenger controls from this requirement.

This Company manufactures a vehicle offering sophisticated rear passenger-oriented controls, which are console mounted at the right side of the driver in approximate alignment with and just below the seated driver's 'H' point. These controls were primarily designed with the comfort of the rear passenger in mind and were so located to be accessible to any passenger in the vehicle.

Since these controls were so located, they, of course, are readily accessible to the driver, as well as rear passengers. SAAB has purposely located these controls to be placed so that the driver is capable of operating such without disturbing his vision. We feel the illumination of such controls will unnecessarily and dangerously burden the driver, by subconsciously attracting his vision to their location, while he performs relative adjustment.

Accordingly, we strongly appeal for amendment of Table I to so read that such rear passenger-oriented controls are not subject to the requirements of F.M.V.S.S. 101.

III - Nowhere, in the recent amendment to F.M.V.S.S. 101, do we note where it is unacceptable for control identification to appear in a bilingual (combination English/non-English) form. Although it is quite apparent which abbreviations or words or combination of abbreviations or words and symbols are permissible, nowhere can we find where bilingual identification is non-permissible.

Because the Administration's position on this subject is not defined within F.M.V.S.S. 101, many manufacturers may retool existing controls to bilingually conform to the requirements of this Standard. If in the event a manufacturer did bilingually retool his controls, it would be an extreme hardship on a smaller manufacturer if the Administration were to amend F.M.V.S.S. 101 so not to allow bilingual compliance in the future.

Accordingly, we ask that the Administration clearly define its position on bilingual identification in the content of F.M.V.S.S. 101. In so asking, we strongly urge that the Administration allow the use of bilingual controls for compliance with F.M.V.S.S. 101. The reasoning behind this request is evident. Immense financial burden will confront the small manufacturer forced to tool two individual sets of controls for the English and non-English speaking markets.

We ask that the Administration give this petition for rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 very careful consideration. In view of the urgency involving the tooling now in progress for model year 1972, we feel that all you can do to expedite such amendment will be beneficial to the manufacturer.

Very truly yours,

SAAB-SCANIA OF AMERICA, INC.

Donald W. Taylor Product Technique Section Manager

cc: R. T. Millet/President, SAAB-Scania of America, Inc.; H. Gustavsson/BT; N. Gustavsson/BTS; B. Ilhage/BTE; L. Nilsson/BTSL; D. Schwentker/Consul A.I.A.

ID: 2504y

Virve Airola
Oy Toppi Ab
Toppi Plast.
PL 25 P.O. Box
SF-02321 ESPOO
Finland

Dear Mr. Airola:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. We understand that you are interested in supplying your products to a vehicle manufacturer (Saab-Scania), who specifies that you must "register" with this agency as a brake hose manufacturer. You request information that would enable you to meet this product specification. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported into this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Saab-Scania's product specification appears to relate to the labeling requirements of Standard No. 106. Under S7.2.1(b) of Standard No. 106, air brake hose manufacturers must label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brake hoses. There is no NHTSA application form for the designation; instead, the manufacturer simply files the designation in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division, at the address provided in S7.2.1(b) of the standard.

From your letter, it appears that Saab-Scania also specifies that your brake hoses must meet all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If they don't comply, the manufacturers are subject to civil penalties of $1000 per violation, and the notification and remedy provisions of the Safety Act. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information, photocopied from the October 1, 1989 edition of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 571.106).

In addition to the requirements described above, please note that your manufacture of brake hoses may also be affected by NHTSA's longstanding interpretation of our regulation on manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566; copy enclosed), if Saab-Scania sells vehicles equipped with your brake hoses in this country. This rule requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment"--e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which the equipment manufacturer supplies its products. NHTSA has interpreted this regulation to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplying their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the United States. (Enclosed is a copy of the agency's January 26, 1972 letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota Motor Company on this issue.)

Please note that Oy Toppi is not required to designate an agent for service of process under 49 CFR Part 551 (Subpart D), if Oy Toppi supplies its products only to a foreign vehicle manufacturer. This is the case even if the foreign vehicle manufacturer installs Oy Toppi's products on vehicles that will be sold in the United States. However, please keep in mind that Oy Toppi must designate an agent under Part 551 if Oy Toppi decides to offer its equipment for importation into the United States. I have enclosed a copy of this regulation for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:106#VSA#566#551 d:5/3l/90

ID: nht93-3.7

DATE: April 19, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Matthew J. Ryan -- Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Bureau, State of New York, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-3-93 from Matthew J. Ryan to Charles R. Hott (OCC 8382)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 3, 1993, regarding a recent final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, SCHOOL BUS PASSENGER SEATING AND CRASH PROTECTION (58 FR 4586; January 15, 1993). This final rule requires buses designed to transport persons in wheelchairs to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems meeting specified performance standards. You request confirmation of two statements that you believe correctly construe the new requirements. The statements and our response to each follows.

1. IF A SCHOOL BUS IS BUILT OR MODIFIED TO ACCOMMODATE ONE OR MORE WHEELCHAIRS, AFTER JANUARY 17, 1994, THE RESTRAINT/SECUREMENT SYSTEM REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION CHANGE MUST BE COMPLIED WITH.

This statement is partially correct. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (VSA) prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. The rule you ask about becomes effective on January 17, 1994, and would apply to all school buses manufactured on or after that date. Therefore, you are correct that a school bus manufactured on or after that date, and which has one or more locations designed for carrying a person seated in a wheelchair, must be equipped with a wheelchair securement device and occupant restraint system complying with the requirements of Standard 222 at each wheelchair location.

Whether a modified school bus must meet the restraint/securement requirements depends, first, on the date of manufacture of the bus, and second, the date of the modification. Since the wheelchair restraint/securement requirements would not apply to a school bus manufactured before the effective date of the requirements, a PRE-January 17, 1994, school bus modified to carry a person in a wheelchair need not meet the requirements of the new rule regardless of when the modification is made. A post-January 17, 1994, school bus that is modified BEFORE the vehicle's first sale to the consumer to carry a person in a wheelchair would have to meet the new requirements. This is because the person installing the securement system would be considered an "alterer" under NHTSA's regulations (49 CFR S567.7) and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard 222 and its restraint/securement requirements.

If a school bus is modified AFTER the vehicle's first sale, the restraint/securement system need not meet the new requirements. This is because none of our FMVSS's for vehicles (such as Standard 222) applies to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to the consumer. After a vehicle's first

sale, the only Federal requirement that would affect modifications of the vehicle is the "render inoperative" prohibition in S108(a)(2)(A) of the VSA. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The "render inoperative" prohibits commercial businesses from modifying a vehicle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards. However, the "render inoperative" provision does not require commercial businesses to bring the vehicle into compliance with standards upgraded after the vehicle was manufactured. Therefore, a used school bus modified after January 17, 1994, does not have to be equipped with wheelchair securement/restraint systems complying with the new requirements of Standard 222.

2. A SCHOOL BUS BUILT WITH NO WHEELCHAIR SEATING POSITIONS, IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A WHEELCHAIR POSITION.

This statement is correct. The January 14, 1993, final rule amended Standard 222 by adding a new section S5.4. That section requires a "school bus having one or more locations designed for carrying a wheelchair" to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems at those locations.

If a school bus is not designed for carrying a wheelchair, wheelchair securement/restraint systems do not have to be provided. The agency's rationale for not requiring all school buses to be designed to transport persons in wheelchairs is stated in the preamble to the final rule on page 4586.

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.

ID: warner.ztv

Mr. Robert J. Warner
Member of Assembly
124th District
State of New York
State Office Building, Floor #17
44 Hawley Street
Binghamton, NY 13901-4416

Dear Assemblyman Warner:

Your letter of August 16, 1996, to the Office of Public & Consumer Affairs of this agency has been forwarded to the Office of Chief Counsel for reply. We are pleased to assist you in your development of a proposal for economical, energy-efficient alternative vehicles.

You mention that an important issue is "whether all four-wheeled vehicles manufactured in this country (excluding trucks, etc.) must comply with the Safety Standards for the 'Passenger Vehicle' category." As a general rule, the answer is yes; all four-wheeled passenger cars manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). However, through letters of interpretation, this Office presently excludes from compliance specific on-road vehicles whose configuration is "abnormal" and whose top speed does not exceed 20 mph. The agency has been asked to raise the speed to 25 mph but has taken no action yet on this request.

You also ask whether a vehicle called the Intruder "has been subjected to crash testing and emissions compliance? Is this vehicle actually legal for sale in the United States? Has it been approved by the DOT for sale in this country? If not, how can they claim it is U.S. Legal?"

Under the basic Federal vehicle safety regulatory statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to approve a vehicle for sale. The legislation establishes a self-certification scheme under which a manufacturer permanently affixes a label to each motor vehicle upon its manufacture which certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS. No submission of data to NHTSA or prior approval is required. A manufacturer must have a reasonable basis for its certification, but there is no legal requirement that it test according to the procedures set out in the FMVSS. For example, it is not necessary to crash test a vehicle in order to certify compliance with those

FMVSS which specify performance requirements to be met in barrier impacts if the manufacturer has satisfied itself through computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematic calculations, or other bases, that the vehicle would meet the performance requirements were it to be crash tested.

Our legislation establishes no requirements for vehicles constructed from used parts, or a mixture of them. It is possible that the Intruder consists of a new body placed on the chassis of a vehicle previously in use from which its original body has been removed. If this is the case, no certification is required, and a state may establish its own equipment requirements as a condition of registration.

In summary, the manufacturer of the Intruder has been under no obligation to report to us whether it has crash tested its vehicle. The Intruder is legal for sale in the U.S. under Federal law if it is constructed on a used chassis, or, if it is a new vehicle and it bears its manufacturer's certification of compliance with the FMVSS. We have no knowledge of its compliance with emissions requirements as those standards are issued and enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency.

You also asked "Is there an exemption to the safety . . . regulations for small volume 'passenger vehicle' manufacturers? If so, what are the rules for such an exemption?"

NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30113 to exempt, on a temporary basis, a manufacturer whose total yearly production does not exceed 10,000 motor vehicles, from any FMVSS that would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship were it required to meet it immediately. The application procedures for such an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(a). The applicant must not only show hardship but also that it has tried in good faith to meet the standard from which it requests relief..

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:555

d:9/13/96

ID: 21269.ztv

Mr. Michael Borbath
US Embassy New Delhi
DCSG
Washington, DC 20521-9000

Dear Mr. Borbath:

We are responding to your letter of February 2, 2000, to our agency, asking several questions relating to importation of an Indian Enfield motorcycle from India. You relate that you are "almost certain that Enfield has no documentation that proves their bikes adhere to US DOT specs."

In order to enter the United States, a motorcycle must have been manufactured to conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), and bear the manufacturer's certification of compliance with those standards. The process of importing a machine that was not manufactured to conform is not impossible, but it is cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive. First, you will have to contract with a registered importer to act on your behalf. The registered importer must then petition us for a determination that the Enfield is capable of being conformed to meet all applicable FMVSS. If we agree that the Enfield is capable of conversion, you may then import the Enfield under bond, and the registered importer must then conform and certify the vehicle within 120 days of entry. When the registered importer certifies to us that the Enfield has been brought into compliance, it must hold the vehicle until we release the bond, or until 30 days pass, whichever first occurs. At that time, the registered importer can release the vehicle. If we do not agree that the Enfield is capable of conversion, it cannot be imported permanently (If you are only temporarily in the United States before reassignment outside the country, it may be possible for you to import a non-conforming Enfield for the duration of your stay here, provided that it is not longer than one year). I enclose a list of registered importers who have had experience in filing petitions for conformance capability determinations, and some information on the FMVSS that apply to motorcycles.

You also asked about "the conditions for importing a 'classic or historic bike' from India" and how we define those terms. Any motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old, including a motorcycle, is not required to conform to the FMVSS. This means that Enfields manufactured in 1975 and earlier may be directly imported by their owners. We have recently been given the statutory authority to allow permanent importation of noncomplying vehicles for purposes of "show or display" without the necessity of conforming them to the FMVSS. This would apply to vehicles manufactured in 1976 and later. In this circumstance, an importer is not required to use the services of a registered importer, and may directly ask us for approval. We are interpreting this authority as permitting admission of vehicles only of technological or historical significance, according to such arguments as the prospective importer wishes to make. Further, we are not allowing importation under "show or display" of vehicles still in production unless the importer is the manufacturer itself. Under certain circumstances, we will also approve limited use of a "show or display" vehicle on the public roads (e.g., up to 2,500 miles a year).

I have provided you a summary of our programs. If you would like further details on these programs, please call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). You may also e-mail him at Tvinson@nhtsa.dot.gov

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:591
d.3/21/00

ID: 1982-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION NOA-30

Mr. Dick Premo Superior Division Sheller-Globe Corporation 1200 East Kibby Lima, Ohio 45802

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your telephone call of March 10, 1981, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked two questions about the requirements applicable to a vehicle which is completed as a school bus: (1) What symbol or words must be used to identify the controls of a heater which is placed in a vehicle, either next to a door or in the rear of the vehicle, for the purpose of providing heating capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary heating system, and (2) what symbol or words must be used to identify the controls of a fan which is mounted along a vehicle is instrument panel for the purpose of providing defogging capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system. You stated that the controls for both the additional heaters and the fan are located on a panel mounted on the vehicle 's engine cover, next to the driver, and that the controls are illuminated.

Both the heaters and the fan must be identified as provided in Standard No. 101. Section S5 of Standard No. 101 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of the standard regarding the location, identification and illumination of such controls. Controls for both heating systems and defrosting/defogging systems are listed in column 1 of Table 1. Since the additional heaters" comprise part of the completed vehicle's heating system and the fan comprises part of the completed vehicle 's defogging system, the controls for those devices are subject to Standard No. 101's requirements.

I will first discuss the requirements for the heater controls. If the heater has a fan for which there is a control, it must be identified by the symbol specified in Table 1 of the standard. Identification must be provided for each function of any heating system control and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. The standard does not specify the means of such identification other than to require that it be in word form unless color coding is used. Also, if color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the standard specifies that the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue.

Section S5.2.1 states:

. . .any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol. Such a control may, in addition, be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Any such control for which no symbol is shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. . . Neither a symbol nor identifying words are listed in Table 1 for the controls of a heating system, with the exception of the control for a heating fan.

Section S5.2.2 states:

Identification shall be provided for each function of . . .any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue.

The requirements for the defogging fan are simpler. Table 1 does specify a symbol for a defrosting/defogging system. Since the fan constitutes a part of the completed vehicle' s defogging system, that symbol must be used to identify the control.

While it is not required by the standard, we suggest that you use words in addition to the symbol to indicate that the fan is for the purpose of providing defogging capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system. For example, you might use the words "Auxilliary Defog" or "Aux. Defog." The use of such words in addition to the symbol would help prevent a driver seeing the control identification from incorrectly concluding that the control operated the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corp. -- Arnold Van Ruitenbeck, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. van Ruitenbeek:

This responds to your recent letter asking for an interpre-tation concerning Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked whether your company could label two maximum load ratings on the sidewall of certain motorcycle tires it manufactures. One maximum load rating would be applicable at the tire's top-rated speed, while the other would be applicable at a speed of 60 miles per hour. Such labeling would violate Standard No. 119.

Section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewall of all tires to which the standard applies. Section S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on all motorcycle tires, shown as follows:

Max load lbs at psi cold.

The maximum load rating on the tire's sidewall, as the name implies, is intended to alert the consumer to the tire's maximum capabilities. Allowing tire manufacturers to specify more than one maximum load, based on various vehicle speeds, would dilute the value of the maximum load information to the consumer, by introducing the possibility of confusion and uncertainty about the actual maximum load the tire could carry while in use on a particular trip. To avoid this, the agency has stated on each occasion when questions have arisen in this area that only one maximum load rating may appear on the sidewall of tires.

Please understand that the agency does not doubt that these tires can carry higher loads at lower speeds. Further, it does not have any objection to your publicizing those loads in your advertising literature, which you enclosed with your letter. However, the purpose of the labeling requirements on the sidewall of tires is not to give the consumer information for all possible operating conditions for the tire. Indeed, there is not enough space on the sidewall of the tire to do this. The purpose of the labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. In the case of the maximum load information, this necessitates providing only one maximum load rating on the sidewall of the tires.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 21, 1983

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION 200 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are requesting an advisory opinion on motorcycle tire sidewall markings as required by FMVSS 119.

Continental motorcycle tires are made in Germany where there are no speed limits on the Autobahn.

Motocycle tire load ratings are governed by the speed rating of the tire: the higer the speed rating, the lower the load and, visa versa, the lower the speed the higher the load.

Our SuperTwin tire (see attached brochure) have a V-rating for 150 MPH and the load rating molded into the tire is for this speed. At 60 MPH the load rating is aproximately 52% higher - as is shown in the last column of the enclosed brochure.

In our program are two sizes that are mainly used on touring bikes, usually ridden with one extra passenger and extra luggage.

We are now asking for your permission to engrave, in addition to all required DOT markings, the higer 60 MPH load capacity on the sidewall of the tire, underneath where the DOT load rating for 150 MPH now appears.

The proposed sentence is: For size 30/90 V 16 TK44 : At 60 MPH the load capacity is 880 lbs at 40 PSI. For size 130/90 V 17 TK44 : At 60 Mph the load capacity is 900 lbs at 40 PSI.

This information is very helpful for the rider and contributes to the safe operation of the motorcycle. We look forward to hearing from you.

Very truly yours,

Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President