ID: nht78-1.20

DATE: 04/24/78

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

TO: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 16, 1978, letter asking about the responsibility for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards when previously certified tires are modified by the addition of white sidewalls.

In your first question, you ask whether the person who modifies the tire must recertify it for compliance with safety requirements. The answer to your question is no. A modifier of a tire is not considered a manufacturer as that term is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). A modifier's status is analagous to that of an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. However, unlike an alterer of a motor vehicle, there are no labeling or certification requirements for alterers of motor vehicle equipment. Persons who modify previously certified motor vehicle equipment are required to ensure that their modification does not render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a safety standard.

Since the modifier of previously certified motor vehicle tires has no labeling or certification requirements, the answer to your second question whether it would be required to obtain a manufacturer's identification code mark is no. Only a manufacturer or retreader of motor vehicle tires need obtain such identification marks.

In your final question, you ask who would be responsible for the registration of these modified tires. The original tire manufacturer would be required to conduct the tire

registration program. You assert that this might cause confusion in tire recalls since manufacturers might indicate that blackwall tires are being recalled when, in fact, some whitewalls would be included. Our regulation requires that tires be identified in a recall by their serial number. We are not aware of any instance where recalled tires have been additionally identified as "blackwall" by the manufacturers. Thus, although the problem you describe could conceivably occur, we at this time have no basis for viewing it as a real threat to effective recall campaigns.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

March 16, 1978

Joseph Levin, Esq -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration

Subject: Converting Blackwall Tires to Whitewall TIRE COSMOTOLOGY, INC 10920 Indian Trail - Suite 201 Dallas, Texas 75229

Dear Mr Levin:

The conversion of a new blackwall tire to whitewall prior to sale to the end consumer would appear to me to constitute a violation of the Safety Act of 1966 as amended, and non-compliance with FMVSS109 or 119 as the case may be, if the tire was not recertified after completing the whitewalling process. In addition it would appear to me that this procedure could and probably would result in frustration of the tire registration requirements in that, in the event of a recall, the tire in question would be identified by the manufacturer as a blackwall, whereas the consumer would have in his possession a whitewall. This problem becomes acute when the process is performed by an independent tire dealer or other organization not affiliated with or under the control of the tire manufacturer.

Attached is a copy of a Training Manual and other literature published by Tire Cosmotology, Inc explaining various of its procedures relating to several different conversion processes.

Aside from the legal and safety implications of these tire conversion processes, Goodyear has instructed its field organization that any Goodyear-brand tires altered or converted without our authorization and approval will not be eligible for adjustment consideration under our tire warranties.

The purpose of this letter is to ask for the NHTSA's official position on this subject. Specifically, we would like to know:

(1) If an independent tire dealer or other organization not affiliated with the tire manufacturer converts a new blackwall tire to a whitewall prior to sale to the end consumer, must that dealer or organization recertify such tire as meeting the applicable FMVSS?

(2) Must such dealer or organization acquire a manufacturer's identification code mark and apply it to the reprocessed tire? Would tire manufacturer's tire identification number have to be removed and a new number, including a new date code have to be applied?

(3) Whose responsibility is it after such reprocessing to comply with the NHTSA's tire registration requirements?

Please advise.

Sincerely, TOM CAINE -- Attorney, LAW DEPT.

Attachments

cc: Francis Armstrong -- Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration COSMO G-300

BASIC UNIT

TRAINING MANUAL

TIRE COSMOTOLOGY INC

ID: 8458

Mr. Larry Bluthardt
Director of Pupil Transportation
Kansas Department of Transportation
Docking State Office Building
Topeka, KS 66612-1568

Dear Mr. Bluthardt:

This responds to your letter of March 19, 1993, concerning the use of built-up foot operated throttle controls. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

1. Is there a violation of the FMCSR's in conjunction with the FMVSS concerning the modification of a school bus foot operated throttle control or other equipment modifications that may relate to the physical accommodation of a commercially licensed driver to perform his or her duties behind the wheel?

My answer is limited to a discussion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's), since NHTSA issued these under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act). The Federal motor carrier safety regulations (FMCSR's) are issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on the FMCSR's you should contact:

Office of Motor Carrier Standards Room 3404 Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-1790

The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). Standard No. 124 "establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control." The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new, completed school bus) prior to the new vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR 567.7.)

If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). 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" provision would prohibit a commercial business listed in 108(a)(2)(A) from modifying the foot operated throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the foot operated throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition.

Please note that the render inoperative prohibition only applies to the named commercial entities. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

2. If we can modify the foot operated throttle control to the vehicle (school bus), does the modification require specific registration, certification, or inspection prior to the installation?

FOR EXAMPLE: Can the modification be made and installed locally, or should the modification be purchased and installed by a certified commercial vendor ie., manufacturer.

NHTSA does not limit who may modify vehicles, and does not approve modifications or motor vehicle designs. Thus, the person making the modification does not receive any NHTSA approval prior to making the modification. If the modification is made by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 108(a)(2)(A) would be a factor in how the modification may be performed. As explained above, those persons must not render inoperative any device or design installed pursuant to an FMVSS.

State law might affect how a throttle control can be modified on a vehicle. We suggest you consult with your State as to whether its law might affect the registration or inspection of the modified vehicle.

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

cc: Office of Motor Carrier Standards

ref:124 d:4/22/93

ID: nht93-3.13

DATE: April 22, 1993

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

TO: Larry Bluthardt -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Kansas Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-19-93 from Larry Bluthardt to Patricia Breslin (OCC 8458)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 19, 1993, concerning the use of built-up foot operated throttle controls. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

1. IS THERE A VIOLATION OF THE FMCSR'S IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FMVSS CONCERNING THE MODIFICATION OF A SCHOOL BUS FOOT OPERATED THROTTLE CONTROL OR OTHER EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS THAT MAY RELATE TO THE PHYSICAL ACCOMMODATION OF A COMMERCIALLY LICENSED DRIVER TO PERFORM HIS OR HER DUTIES BEHIND THE WHEEL?

My answer is limited to a discussion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's), since NHTSA issued these under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.; Safety Act). The Federal motor carrier safety regulations (FMCSR's) are issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on the FMCSR's you should contact:

Office of Motor Carrier Standards Room 3404 Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-1790

The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 124, ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEM (49 CFR S571.124). Standard No. 124 "establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control." The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new, completed school bus) prior to the new vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR S567.7.) If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA

requirement that would affect the modification is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

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" provision would prohibit a commercial business listed in S108(a)(2)(A) from modifying the foot operated throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the foot operated throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition.

Please note that the render inoperative prohibition only applies to the named commercial entities. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

2. IF WE CAN MODIFY THE FOOT OPERATED THROTTLE CONTROL TO THE VEHICLE (SCHOOL BUS), DOES THE MODIFICATION REQUIRE SPECIFIC REGISTRATION, CERTIFICATION, OR INSPECTION PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION?

FOR EXAMPLE: CAN THE MODIFICATION BE MADE AND INSTALLED LOCALLY, OR SHOULD THE MODIFICATION BE PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BY A CERTIFIED COMMERCIAL VENDOR I.E., MANUFACTURER.

NHTSA does not limit who may modify vehicles,and does not approve modifications or motor vehicle designs. Thus, the person making the modification does not receive any NHTSA approval prior to making the modification. If the modification is made by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, S108(a)(2)(A) would be a factor in how the modification may be performed. As explained above, those persons must not render inoperative any device or design installed pursuant to an FMVSS.

State law might affect how a throttle control can be modified on a vehicle. We suggest you consult with your State as to whether its law might affect the registration or inspection of the modified vehicle.

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: nht91-5.14

DATE: August 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Saunders-White

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-91 from Charles Saunders-White to Steve Kratzke

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter asking whether any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were in effect in 1929, and from 1920-1934. You stated that you are building a vehicle, which the state of Wisconsin will title a "reconstructed vehicle", using the frame and body from a 1929 roadster. You indicated that the vehicle must conform to all 1929 state and Federal laws and asked whether, in 1929, any Federal standards required motor vehicles to be equipped with

(1) fenders; (2) bumpers; (3) hoods; (4) doors, or (5) windshield wipers (power or manual).

You also asked whether any Federal standards, in effect from 1920-1934, required motor vehicles to be equipped with these items.

To answer your question, there were no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect prior to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., which was signed into law on September 9, 1966. This Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The initial group of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued under the authority granted by the Safety Act took effect on January 1, 1968, except for Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, which took effect on March 1, 1967. Thus, no Federal standards were in effect in 1929, nor between 1920 and 1934, that required vehicles to be equipped with the items of motor vehicle equipment listed above.

ID: 2635o

Frank S. Perkin, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
The Budd Company
Law Department
3l55 West Big Beaver Road
Box 260l
Troy, Michigan 48084

Dear Mr. Perkin:

This responds to your letter expressing concern about a statement in one of our interpretation letters, which you believe could be read as condoning the practice of rebuilding wheels by processes which include heating and welding. As discussed below, our letter's reference to remanufacturing wheels was made only to serve as an illustrative example and was not intended to address either the safety of such processes or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies.

The interpretation letter in question is one that we sent on September 22, l986, to Steven R. Taylor, responding to a request concerning regulations that apply to manufacturers of reconditioned brake drums. The letter included the following paragraph:

NHTSA has in the past considered the issue of what types of operations make a person a manufacturer with respect to retreaded tires and remanufactured wheels. A person who retreads tires is considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The retreading process involves significant manufacturing operations, which do not differ substantially from those of manufacturing new tires. By contrast, a person who remanufactures wheels is not considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The process of remanufacturing wheels consists of such things as straightening, re-welding parts, and repairing cracks by welding. These types of actions are not significant manufacturing operations, but instead are the type of operations commonly performed in repair shops.

You stated that all of the things mentioned in our letter, i.e., straightening, re-welding parts and repairing cracks by welding, are specifically prohibited by the OSHA standard applicable to truck wheels, both multi and single piece. You also stated that the "out of service" criteria adopted by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety mandate that a vehicle be placed out of service if welded repairs are found on certain disc wheels. According to your letter, any significant changes made after the manufacture of a steel truck wheel, especially involving bending, heating or welding, carry a significant risk of rendering the wheel unsafe.

As is indicated from the context of our September 22, l986 interpretation letter, the reference to remanufacturing wheels was made solely for the purpose of providing an illustrative example and was not intended to address either the safety of such processes or their permissibility or impermissibility under the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. I would note that NHTSA has long taken the position that remanufactured wheels are considered to be used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See, for example, our November 28, l973 letter addressed to Mr. L. Clinton Rich and February 7, l983 letter to Mr. H. J. Lindekugel (copies enclosed). Again, however, these letters do not purport to address the safety of remanufacturing wheels or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies.

We appreciate your bringing to our attention your concern about the safety of remanufactured wheels. Copies of this correspondence are being placed in the public docket.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#110#120 d:1/22/88

ID: nht94-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 2, 1994

FROM: Forbes Howard -- Chairman, Goodlife Motors Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Forbes Howard (A43; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

About a year ago, we talked with two of your attorneys about the super golf car we were developing. Our "Runabout" is now ready to go into limited production. We need to get the letter from you confirming that our vehicles are not required to meet the c urrent national safety standards for automobiles.

We assume the 23,000 plus golf cars now registered in Arizona, many of which go 25 mph, have not been required to meet these standards.

Our cars are safer than golf cars by being wider, longer, and they include doors, seat belts, wipers, etc. and will have a top speed of 29 mph.

The enclosed photographs and specifications will familiarize you with one model of our vehicles. Please call me at my North Carolina office if you have any questions. Thank you for your prompt attention to our need.

Very truly yours,

Enclosures

(Photos and specifications omitted.)

ID: 77-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. R. W. Straub - Governor of Oregon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to express this agency's views on legislation recently enacted by the State of Oregon which appears to be preempted by Federal legislation of the same subject matter.

Specifically, we understand that ORS 483.404 was amended in June 1977 to require that headlamps on motor vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or

". . . the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts; done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both."

Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d):

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." [Emphasis added.]

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.

The United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, permits the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000. Further, they do not require that the headlamps be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps a passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and specifies that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, and that Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, do not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that this part of the amendment to ORS 483.404 is, in our opinion, preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect.

As a consequence, it is our conclusion that any person in Oregon manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States through the State of Oregon any lighting equipment that does not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon ORS 483.404, could be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) in an amount up to $ 800,000 (15 U.S.C. 1398(a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)). There is no preemption, however, of your State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment not currently included in Standard No. 108 (e.g. foglamps).

Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariably upheld. (See e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy, 294 F. Supp. 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)). We would also observe that the interpretation by an administering agency of its own statutes and regulations, has been viewed by courts as "of controlling weight." (Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra, at 512.)

We would appreciate the views of the State of Oregon on this subject. Questions on it may be referred to the Chief Counsel of this agency, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. The agency's position on this matter was presented previously in a letter dated May 27, 1977, from Mr. Levin to the Administrator of the Oregon Senate Transportation Committee. The Committee, however, chose to disregard our opinion, when it considered Oregon House Bill 2998 and recommended its passage.

ID: nht87-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allen R. Tank

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Allen R. Tank President Minikin 606 NE Lincoln Avenue St. Cloud, MN 56301

Dear Mr. Tank:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1986, with respect to the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether a vehicle with two wheels at the front, and one at the rear with two tires mounted on it, would still be regarded as a motorcycle.

The definition of a motorcycle is "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." This is technically inaccurate in part because wheels do not contact the ground. I believe that the drafter of the definition meant to say "tires" rather than "wheels." Thus the configuration about which you have asked is one in which four tires contact the ground, and we therefore conclude that such a vehi cle would not be regarded as a motorcycle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I have communicated with George Shifflett in the Department regarding our three wheel vehicle. According to your standards, we are governed by the laws specifically addressed to motorcycles. The question was raised, if the three wheel vehicle had two whe els in the front with one in the rear, the rear rim having two tires mounted on it, would it still be regarded as a motorcycle.. I have enclosed three photos that will visually explain our proposed application.

I would appreciate your opinion on the additional tire effect on our motorcycle classification.

Sincerely,

Allen R. Tank President

cc: George Shifflett

ID: 24477a.drn

Rod Nash, V.P. Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your May 30, 2002, letter asking about an April 19, 2002, final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release (67 FR 19343). The rule restricted where wheelchair securement anchorages may be installed, to ensure that they do not block access to emergency exit doors. You ask whether the rules restrictions limit or supercede requirements in S5.4.2 of the standard, which requires unobstructed passage of a parallelpiped through the emergency exit door. The answer is no.

Your first question concerned the meaning of S5.4.3.1, which states:

S5.4.3.1 Except as provided in paragraph S5.4.3.2 [for tracks and track-type devices running on the school bus floor] of this section, no portion of a wheelchair securement anchorage shall be located in a school bus such that:

(a) In the case of side emergency exit doors, any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by the interior side wall and emergency exit door opening, transverse vertical planes 305 mm (12 inches) forward and rearward of the center of any side emergency exit door restricted area, and a longitudinal vertical plane through the longitudinal centerline of the school bus, as shown in Figure 6A and Figure 6B.

(b) In the case of rear emergency exit doors in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the left and right sides of the door opening, a transverse vertical plane 305 mm (12 inches) forward of the bottom edge of the door opening, and a horizontal plane 1,145 mm (45 inches) above the floor of the bus, as shown in Figure 6C and Figure 6D.

(c) In the case of rear emergency exit doors in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the left and right sides of the door opening, a transverse vertical plane 150 mm (6 inches) forward of the bottom edge of the door opening, and a horizontal plane 1,145 mm (45 inches) above the floor of the bus, as shown in Figure 6C and Figure 6D.

You ask whether S5.4.3.1 means that "the exit space in front of the rear emergency exit door of a school bus is now determined by the width of that door." The answer is no. The requirements of S5.4.3.1 are separate from the requirements in S5.4.2 for minimum exit aisle space to the rear emergency exit door. The latter requirement was established in a 1976 final rule (41 FR 3871, January 27, 1976). Today, the requirement is specified at S5.4.2.1, for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. S5.4.2.1 requires that an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 1145 mm x 610 mm x 305 mm (45 inches x 24 inches x 12 inches) to the rear emergency exit door be provided, keeping the parallelepiped upright and the lower surface in contact with the floor of the bus at all times. S5.4.2.2 specifies the same requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, except that the parallelepiped is 1145 mm x 550 mm x 150 mm (45 inches x 22 inches x 6 inches). S5.4.2 remains in effect today, and still requires exits on large and small school buses to be, basically, 24 and 22 inches wide, respectively, and to provide adequate emergency aisle space.^[1]

The new requirements in S5.4.3.1 set forth dimensions in which wheelchair securement anchorages may not be installed. This prohibition is intended to minimize the chances that a wheelchair would be installed in a school bus in service at a position where the emergency exit would be blocked or obstructed by the wheelchair. This complements the minimum dimensional requirements for exits.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:217

d./8/2/02

^[1] Parallelepipeds were also proposed for S5.4.3 but were not included in the final rule. The final rule stated: "NHTSA has determined that defining the space by using planes better meets NHTSAs intention in restricting spaces where the wheel chair securement may not be placed [than specifying a parallelepiped], as the space defined by planes would explicitly include the floor near the school bus rear emergency exit door." (See 67 FR at 19346.)

ID: nht91-6.9

DATE: September 25, 1991

FROM: Gordon W. Didier --Butzel Long

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice; Ed Glancy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gordon W. Didier (A38; CSA S501(8))

TEXT:

Page one is missing

decision denying ASC's petition on July 29, 1991. In that decision, the NHTSA stated that it was concerned to avoid establishing a precedent by which a major manufacturer (in this case, General Motors) could potentially transfer significant numbers of low fuel economy vehicles out of its production otherwise subject to the industry-wide fuel economy standard.

Subsequent to the NHTSA's decision, ASC has evaluated the various alternatives available. In the course of these considerations, ASC discussed with General Motors the alternative of including ASC's total 1989 and 1990 production of 4,500 of these automobiles in General Motors' corporate average fuel economy. As you may recall, the agency's correspondence to ASC on February 20, 1990, suggested that, due to the relationship between General Motors and ASC in connection with the production of these automobiles, all of ASC's production could or should be included in General Motors' calculation of its corporate average fuel economy. Further, both the proposal for decision issued by the agency on January 28, 1991, and the final decision in this matter confirm the NHTSA's position that it would allow the manufacturers under these circumstances to determine, by agreement, which of them would count a vehicle as its own.

As I advised both Barry Felrice and Ed Glancy yesterday, General Motors Corporation has now agreed to include ASC's production of the Turbo Grand Prix and Grand Prix STE Turbo four-door sedan during 1989 and 1990 in its production and corporate average fuel economy for these model years, subject to the acceptance of the NHTSA. A copy of the letter of September 25, 1991, from General Motors Corporation setting forth this agreement is enclosed. Ed Glancy confirmed to me yesterday afternoon that the NHTSA has no objection to this arrangement and will agree to an amendment of General Motors' production for model years 1989 and 1990 to include ASC's production of these automobiles and a recalculation of the corporate average fuel economy for General Motors Corporation.

Pursuant to my discussion with Ed Glancy, ASC and General Motors are communicating directly with the Environmental Protection Agency to arrange for the EPA to amend its data base and include ASC's production in the calculations for General Motors for model years 1989 and 1990. We are requesting the EPA to conclude this amendment of its records as soon as possible and make an appropriate report to the NHTSA. In this regard, the

EPA has requested a copy of a letter confirming the NHTSA approval of this arrangement. We would, therefore, appreciate receiving your written confirmation as soon as possible.

On the basis of this understanding and agreement with the NHTSA, ASC will not be filing a petition for review of the agency's decision with the U.S. court of Appeals at the end of this week. As I indicated in my telephone conversations yesterday, we appreciate your consideration and agreement to this arrangement which, ASC believes, represents a reasonable resolution under all of the circumstances.

Thank you again for your cooperation. Please call me immediately if you have any questions or if the foregoing does not correctly set forth the understanding and agreement of the NHTSA in this matter.

ATTACHMENT

September 25, 1991

Mr. Joseph D. Bator ASC, Inc. One Sunroof Center Southgate, MI 48195

Dear Mr. Bator:

Re: GM - ASC Turbo Master Production Agreement - Possible Inclusion of ASC Turbo Grand Prix Vehicles in GM's CAFE

This is to confirm that General Motors is willing to accept the transfer from ASC, Inc. to General Motors of responsibility under the CAFE law for the 1989 and 1990 Turbo Grand Prix vehicles produced pursuant to the referenced production agreement, provided that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not object to this transfer of CAFE responsibility. If NHTSA indicates its acceptance of such transfer, General Motors anticipates that it would submit to NHTSA a supplementary CAFE report for model years 1989 and 1990 noting the inclusion of the Turbo Grand Prix vehicles in its domestic passenger car fleets. We anticipate that the inclusion would have no effect on General Motors final CAFE numbers for those model years.

Very truly yours,

David W. Schrumpf Attorney General Motors Legal Staff