ID: nht91-3.32

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric G. Hoffman -- Russell & Hoffman, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-91 from Eric G. Hoffman to Harry Thompson (OCC 5892)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 26, 1991, addressed to Mr. Harry Thompson, asking about a private school's use of "mini-vans which are designed to carry more than 10 passengers." Your letter was referred to our office for reply. You stated that the school has become aware of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and is concerned whether the operation of the vans is in compliance with applicable regulations under the Act. You asked a number of questions related to that concern.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Therefore, the vehicles refered to in your letter would be considered school buses under federal law.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. These standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. If your client believes that they have been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of their intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law.

Without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a user of a school bus. Since the various questions you ask assume that the Safety Act regulates users of school buses, we are unable to provide specific answers to those questions. To determine whether the private school your firm represents may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law.

I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage the school your firm represents to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 17433.drn

L. W. Camp, Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This responds to your February 27, 1998, request for an interpretation of requirements specified in Standard No. 221, School bus body joint strength. In that letter, you ask that we reconsider our November 28, 1997, interpretation letter to Ford of which joints "fall within the definitions of 'body panel joint' and 'bus body' as defined in Paragraph S4." You also ask for further guidance on how to "objectively test curved, compound, and reinforced body joints in accordance with paragraph S6."

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) has not yet issued a rulemaking document making a final decision about the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11142) on Standard No. 221. As previously stated in our November 1997 letter, until and unless Standard No. 221 is amended, the applicable requirements are those that are currently in Standard No. 221. Our earlier letter to you reiterated a longstanding agency position about which joints are subject to the standard.

As for testing curved and compound body joints, we have reconsidered the views in our earlier letter to you about testing these joints. There are two relevant provisions in Standard No. 221, S6.1.1 and S6.1.2. S6.1.1 specifies that if a body panel joint is 8 inches or longer:

cut a test specimen that consists of any randomly selected 8-inch segment of the joint, together with a portion of the bus body whose dimensions, to the extent permitted by the size of the joined parts, are those specified Figure 1, so that the specimen's centerline is perpendicular to the joint at the midpoint of the joint segment.

S6.1.2 provides: "If a joint is less than 8 inches long, cut a test specimen with enough of the adjacent material to permit it to be held in the tension testing machine specified in S6.3."

Our current view on testing curved and complex joints is that if NHTSA cannot cut a test specimen as described in S6.1.1 or in S6.1.2 (with adjacent material), the tension testing machine can not be used to test the joint. In these circumstances, if the test device specified in Standard No. 221 cannot be used to test the joint, NHTSA will not test that joint. Again, bear in mind that this and other issues relating to the performance and testing of curved and complex joints will be addressed in the pending rulemaking document on Standard No. 221.

I am very sorry for the delay in responding to your concerns. If you have any further questions at this time, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/17/98
ref:221

ID: nht79-3.43

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G. Hunter for R. J. Hitchcock; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors Limited Car Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 17, 1979, regarding the requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, pertaining to the emergency release warning system for automatic belts.

Paragraph S4.5.3.3(b)(1) of the standard requires an audible and visible warning if the driver's automatic belt system is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened. On one of your automatic belt designs the latch mechanism consists of a pivoting bar which slips through a small stitched loop on the end of the belt webbing. You note that this latch mechanism can be fastened without the webbing being connected to the pivot bar, and that in such a case the warning system would not operate even though the belt is not in use. Therefore, you ask if you can install a switch in the automatic belt retractor to detect when insufficient webbing is extended from the retractor to engage with the latch on the door frame. You ask if such a system could be used as an alternative to the existing requirement or, if the standard could be amended to allow the alternative.

In answer to your question, a switch in the retractor of an automatic belt system would not satisfy the current warning system requirement if the system did not also include a switch in the emergency release latch mechanism. Further, the Agency does not believe that it is necessary to amend the standard to allow such an alternative. Although it may be true that the existing warning system could be defeated in a belt system such as you describe, the same is true with most warning system requirements. For example, if the standard provided the alternative you suggest, the automatic belt could be "tied-off" after sufficient webbing was withdrawn from the retractor and the warning system would be defeated. As you know, this method has been used to defeat the warning systems of many manual belts in the past. Therefore, we believe the existing requirement is sufficient to warn vehicle occupants that their automatic belt has been released and should be reconnected.

The "pivot-bar" release mechanism described in your letter appears to comply with the requirements of the standard. However, we believe that the bar should remain in the released position after the belt webbing has been removed so that the warning system will activate. In other words, we assume that the pivot bar does not re-latch automatically after being released but, rather, requires manual re-latching by the occupant.

Regarding your third question we have enclosed, for your information, Notice 14, Docket No. 1-18, which establishes the new requirements related to controls and displays.

ID: nht75-6.31

DATE: 07/16/75

FROM: WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

TO: B. J. CAMPBELL -- CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCIL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Dr. Campbell:

As you and the many members present at the Council's last meeting will recall, Dr. Gregory asked the Council to consider two important questions facing NHTSA's motor vehicle safety program. I would like to formally reiterate that request and emphasize the importance of obtaining the Council's collective advice on them.

The first concerns the way NHTSA does business. As a regulatory agency, NHTSA establishes motor vehicle safety standards under the Administrative Procedure Act. Similarly, there are administrative procedures for ensuring industry compliance with those standards. In addition, NHTSA is responsible for monitoring the safety defects of motor vehicles on the highways and has established procedures for carrying out that task.

We are constantly in the process of reviewing, revising, and expanding these procedures. I ask that the Council look at them and determine whether NHTSA is being fair to all involved and at the same time responsive to the requirements of public safety and the mandates of Congress. Are these procedures timely, logical and equitable? Can they be improved?

The second important question concerns the role of cost/benefit studies in our safety standards process. Dr. Gregory and I have taken the position that cost/benefit analysis is important and should always be considered when developing a new or reviewing an existing safety standard. But the cost/benefit factors can be only one input. For example, in the transportation of school children we have a public that demands the safest possible ride on school buses, cost/benefit ratios notwithstanding. On the other hand, we clearly want to avoid a situation of rapidly rising costs with no or little increase in benefits. The question is -- how do we handle this in relation to public values and industry demands? Dr. Gregory and I believe that in any regulatory program standards should be set at a level where the cost -- in terms of dollars, inconvenience, or whatever -- is modest in proportion to the increase in safety benefits. I realize that the Council's Fourth International Congress on Automotive Safety is in large part directed at this question. I hope the information presented there and the ensuing discussions will aid the Council in tackling this important issue.

I've asked Dr. Gregory to make available background material and briefings to aid the Council in deliberating these questions, and I look forward to receiving the Council's advice.

Sincerely,

ID: 004-003063

Mr. David Hutton
Interregs, Ltd.,
21-23 East Street
Fareham
Hants PO13 0BZ
England

Dear Mr. Hutton:

This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between U.S. Federal laws and State laws. You indicated that you have been involved for many years with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations regarding the equipment installed in motor vehicles, mainly the safety and associated standards under 49 CFR Part 571. You stated that you understand that "no US state can enforce a regulation which is different to the Federal regulation, however, they can make rules where no federal rule exists."You asked whether this position is "laid down in any laws."

NHTSA is an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation. Congress has authorized the Secretary of Transportation to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which is now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. The Secretary has delegated that responsibility to NHTSA.

Chapter 301 includes a section addressing the relationship to other laws ( 30103, copy enclosed). Paragraph (b) of that section addresses the issue you asked about:

(b) Preemption

(1)  When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.

(2)  A State may enforce a standard that is identical to a standard prescribed underthis chapter.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.5/4/04

ID: 1984-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kentucky Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert J. Crail Kentucky Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 17185 Louisville, Kentucky 40217

Dear Mr. Crail:

This responds to your letter seeking clarification of the testing requirements of paragraphs S5-3-3 and S5-3-4 of Federa1 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems.

You state that you have always tested all of your trailers with the 50-cubic-inch test reservoir connected to the rear of the trailer, downstream of the trailer test rig and the trailer. This is the correct testing method, because the purpose of the 50-cubic- inch test reservoir is to represent the volume of lines in the following vehicle.

You also state that a customer suggests that the correct reservoir connection is between the trailer test rig and the control coupling on the front of the trailer. This location of the reservoir in front of the trailer would indeed negate the purpose of the test requirement, because in this position the reservoir could not simulate the volume of lines in the trailing vehicle. Your interpretation, not the customer's, is correct for testing vehicles equipped with air brake systems for compliance with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 15, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: 49CFR 571.121, Air Brake Systems

Dear Sir:

This letter is to seek clarification on sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4. These require that on a vehicle designed to tow another vehicle equipped with air brakes, meet brake actuation and release time requirements with a 50 cubic inch reservoir connected to the control line coupling. We have always tested all of our trailers with the 50 cubic inch reservoir connected to the rear of the trailer, that is downstream of both the trailer test rig and the trailer.

A customer insists that the proper location for the 50 cubic inch reservoir is between the trailer test rig and the control coupling on the front of the trailer. This, of course, negates the whole reason for placing the 50 cubic inch reservoir on the control coupling, which is to simulate the towed vehicle.

Since the standard is not clear as to where the 50 cubic inch reservoir is connected, we are requesting an interpretation as to the proper control coupling to which it should be connected.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Crail Director of Engineering

RJC/maf

ID: nht72-2.16

DATE: 05/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Norman W. Quinn, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 5 on behalf of your client Lee Ross. Mr. Ross has developed a motor vehicle deceleration warning system that, as described by you, activates two amber lights on the rear of a vehicle. Your letter indicate that these lamps would be incorporated into a vehicle back-up lamp system and that Mr. Ross envisions his system as an aftermarket accessory item rather than as new vehicle original equipment. You state your understanding that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 would not preclude marketing the system as an aftermarket accessory, and that back-up lamps are required to be white in color. You ask our advice whether Standard No. 108 prohibits amber lamps in the back-up lighting system and, if so, whether a proposal for amendment of the Standard to allow the system would be feasible.

Standard No. 108 would in certain instances preclude the aftermarket sale of an amber deceleration warning system incorporated into a back-up lamp system. Standard No. 108 as of January 1, 1972, does cover certain aftermarket equipment items, and in some instances would preclude the sale of a back-up light system with amber lamps. Lighting equipment manufactured on or after that date as replacement for similar equipment on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, must meet Standard No. 108 which, as you have noted, requires that the color of the back-up lamps be white. Federal law would not preclude sale of this system for use on motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972, or purchase of an amber system by the owner of a vehicle manufactured after that date if he wished to change over from a white to amber system. As a practical matter, however, I believe That virtually every State has a requirement that back-up lamps be white, and that a back-up light with amber bulbs or lenses would be forbidden. Standard No. 108 would not preclude sale of the Ross System as a separate lighting device. I do not know what position the States would take on such a matter.

Our research contracts on deceleration warning system indicate that further development and testing under field conditions is necessary before specific proposals can be made by NHTSA. Therefore, I do not think action on a proposal by Mr. Ross would be feasible at this time, though we would welcome his comments to our Docket 69-19 as a comment to be considered in future rulemaking on this subject.

ID: nht68-3.9

DATE: 01/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G. F. Lambert for Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: MR. BRIDWELL HAS ASKED me to reply to your letter of December 1, 1967.

In your letter you raise three questions. The first is:

"(1) We find that in smaller rim diameter models that it is impossible to place all the branding in the white sidewell side between the buffing rib and the top of the rim flange area as shown in Figure 1, Page 14 - MVSS No. 109.

In complying with a state requirement, namely V-1, it was necessary to place the stamping above the buffing rib. Permission is requested to place the stamping above the rib in a protected area where it will not be scuffed and destroyed."

The labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 make it mandatory that the approved symbol (DOT) and the code mark be between the maximum section width and the bead, other information need only be conspicuously labeled. Additionally, there is no requirement that the information be in one section of the area specified, but rather the entire circumferential area can be used for the labeling.

Your second question is:

"(2) Reprocessed Tires

In tire manufacturing sometimes a mold fold will occur in the area of the branding. The area is buffed. If such stamping is removed, will it be necessary to rebrand the tire, or will the use of a label be sufficient? This usually occurs on one side of the tire only."

Your question concerns new tires that have had the labeling information removed by some subsequent manufacturing process. In order to comply with S4.3 of Standard No. 109, the tire will have to be labeled on both sidewalls. Please note however, that S4.3.1 states that "until August 1, 1968, the labeling requirements of S4.3 may be met by affixing to each tire a label or tag that incorporates all specified information not molded into or onto the tire."

Your third question is:

"(3) Removal of 'V-1' born Models

It is our understanding that MVSS Standards No. 109 and 110 prcempt the 'VESC' regulation 'V-1' revised. We are also aware that states can impose safety regulations for tires and motor vehicles provided they are higher than the Federal Standards and are for use on the state owned equipment.

We request a statement from the Department of Transportation stating the position the Department will take regarding the 'V-1' requirements."

Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not require that tires be manufactured without the "V-1" symbol. Presently, a manufacturer may, at his option, continue the practice of molding tires with the "V-1" symbol.

ID: nht92-2.1

DATE: December 1, 1992

FROM: Raymond S. Byers -- Engineering Manager, Research, Testing, and Certification, Utilimaster Motor Corporation

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-27-93 from John Womack to Raymond S. Byers (A41; Part 567)

TEXT: I am writing to you regarding the federal label location on Utilimaster Motor Corporation's "Aeromate" front wheel drive van. The approved label locations, as published in CFR 49, part 567.4, are not practical for the "Aeromate" vehicle. The Aeromate has a driver's door which slides between an inner and outer metal panel. However, access is available on the left-hand side of the driver's position. Therefore, we propose to install the federal label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's door opening. This location would be visible from the driver's position and to inspection from officials.

The enclosed photographs depict the proposed label location, submitted for your approval.

I am looking forward to receiving your decision regarding approval of our proposed federal label location.

ID: KenWeinstein