ID: 20702.ogm

Mark W. Peterson, Esq.
Suite 900
88 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This responds to your letter regarding the manufacture of motorcycles. You indicate that your client intends to manufacture and sell custom motorcycles. You ask that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirm your understanding that no certificate of authority or other similar document from the United States government is necessary before your client can hold itself out as a manufacturer of these vehicles.

Your understanding is correct. There is no requirement that a manufacturer of vehicles obtain a certificate of authority before it can represent itself as a manufacturer of motor vehicles. There are, however, other requirements applicable to new manufacturers of motor vehicles which are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, our statute establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer has the responsibility to certify that its product meets all applicable standards.

The following Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 571) apply to motorcycles: Standard No. 106, Brake hoses; Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors; Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids; Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars; Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars; Standard No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems; and Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. In addition, each motorcycle must have a unique vehicle identification number (VIN) in accordance with 49 CFR Part 565.

Each motorcycle must be certified by its manufacturer as meeting all applicable safety standards. The certification must be made in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. In addition, if a vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the vehicle manufacturer must notify all owners, purchasers, and dealers of the defect and provide a remedy without charge.

A new manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture (49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification). I am, for your information, enclosing an information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" and another sheet that describes how you may obtain copies of NHTSA's standards.

In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established motor vehicle noise and emission standards. For information on EPA's requirements, please contact:

Office of Transportation and Air Quality
401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460
Mail Code 6401A
Telephone (202) 564-1682
Fax (202) 564-1686

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.6/14/00

ID: 20706.drn

The Honorable Judd Gregg
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2904

Dear Senator Gregg:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. Peter Halpin, Director of the Department of Transportation's Office of Congressional Affairs, on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Anne Duguay of Bedford. Ms. Duguay has contacted you to find out about "a federal law recently passed which sets requirements for transporting groups of children in vans ... which hold 8 to 15 passengers."

Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for school buses, your letter has been referred to my office for reply. At the outset, let me state that there is no new Federal law that regulates how children must be transported. Requirements regulating how persons must be transported are determined by State law.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." Persons selling or leasing new 15-person vans for such use must sell or lease a van that meets our school bus standards.

In determining whether a dealer must sell a school bus to a facility, we distinguish between facilities that provide educational programs and those that are strictly custodial. We do not consider facilities that provide custodial programs to be "schools." However, in recent interpretations (see the attached July 23, 1998 letter to Mr. Don Cote) we have stressed that, even if a bus were sold to a facility that provides custodial care, if that facility were purchasing the new bus to use significantly to transport students to or from a school or events related to a school, a dealer knowing of this purpose would be required to sell a school bus.

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit schools or child care facilities from using large vans to transport school children, even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, New Hampshire law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children must be transported.

We wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than "conventional vans." There are small school buses available that seat 15 children. While school buses are more expensive than large vans, we believe that the cost difference is not so large that it should prevent child care centers from acquiring school buses. The cost range for 15-passenger school buses is approximately $30-32,000, compared to $25-28,000 for 15-passenger vans. The longer service life for school buses will offset a part of this difference.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." This guideline establishes NHTSA's recommendations for how pre-school age children should be transported in school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.10/14/99

ID: 2070y

Mr. David G. Gould
Legislation Department
Lotus Engineering
Hethel, Norwich,
Norfolk NR14 8EZ
ENGLAND

Your ref: DGG/JCG

Dear Mr. Gould:

Thank you for your letter asking whether a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) pursuant to a contract with this agency may be deleted from SAE's register of assigned WMIs upon request of a foreign national governmental agency, but without the consent of the holder of the WMI. Absent some extraordinary circumstances, the answer to your question is no.

49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements, sets forth format and content requirements for vehicle identification numbers (VINs). Section 565.4(a) specifies that the first three characters of the VIN shall be the manufacturer's WMI, which is "assigned in accordance with /565.5(c) of this part." Section 565.5(c) specifies that the SAE assigns WMIs to vehicle manufacturers under contract with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

No provision in NHTSA's regulations sets forth any procedures for deleting assigned WMIs from the SAE register upon the request of any party, even the manufacturer assigned the WMI. Similarly, no provision in the contract specifically addresses the issue of deleting assigned WMIs for any reason. In its contract with NHTSA, SAE has agreed to "furnish the facilities, materials, personnel and services necessary to accomplish the work..."

We contacted the SAE's WMI Coordinator to learn how they have handled this situation in the past. We were informed that the WMIs are assigned by the SAE for an indefinite period with no express provision for revocation of the assignment. There have been a few isolated instances in which the party to whom a WMI was assigned has contacted SAE and asked that the WMI assignment be revoked. In those instances, the SAE has granted the manufacturer's request but the revoked WMI is never reassigned to another manufacturer. To date, SAE has never been asked to delete an assigned WMI by any party other than the manufacturer to whom the WMI was assigned. If a situation arose in which the SAE was asked to delete an assigned WMI without the knowledge and consent of the manufacturer to whom the WMI was assigned, the SAE assures us that they would not act on the request without consulting this agency.

If and when we are ever consulted by SAE for our opinion on how to handle such a request, we would carefully consider the circumstances of the particular case before advising SAE on how to respond to the request. As a general matter, however, NHTSA does not favor the deletion of assigned WMIs for any reason.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:565 d:9/29/89

ID: 20718nhf

Mr. Robert Boston
Adaptive Mobility Systems, Inc.
5865-B Oakbrook Parkway
Norcross, GA 30093

Dear Mr. Boston:

This responds to your letter to Nicole Fradette, formerly of my staff, requesting permission to modify pre-owned 1993-1995 Dodge Grand Caravans for your disabled clients. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that you mainly modify these vehicles by lowering the floor and relocating the fuel tank behind the lowered floor. (You explain that you cannot lower the floor without relocating the fuel tank.) You state that you use "accepted engineering practices" and perform this modification according to standards established by the Society of Automotive Engineers. You also explain that you ensure that there are no sharp angles or protruding bolts surrounding the relocated tank. Nonetheless, you are concerned that lowering the floor and relocating the gasoline tank will affect the vehicles compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You request blanket approval to perform any modifications which may require an exemption from the "make inoperative" provision of our statute. As explained below, we decline this request.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their new products conform to our safety standards before the products can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) would require businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which modifiers or repair businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Modifiers are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. We have issued letters stating that we would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modified a vehicle to accommodate a particular person's disability. We have always done this on an individual, case-by-case basis. While we understand your desire to avoid writing to the agency each time you need to modify a vehicle to accommodate a particular person's disability, we can not grant blanket approval at this time for all such modifications.

Further, we have not granted, and in all likelihood will not grant, an exemption from Standard No. 301. We do not believe such an exemption is justified or needed. In order to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires caused by leaking fuel during and after a crash, Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements for fuel systems in crashes. Preserving fuel system integrity in a crash to prevent occupant exposure to fire is extremely important to all persons, but perhaps even more so for persons with disabilities, since they often require more time to exit a vehicle. In addition, we believe that compliance with Standard No. 301 can be preserved in modified vehicles. We are aware of one tank manufacturer who has demonstrated that when its tank was correctly installed in the rear of a 1992 Ford E150 with a lowered floor and raised body, the vehicle met the performance requirements of Standard No. 301.

For your information, on September 28, 1998 (63 FR 51547), we published a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition for certain standards and under certain conditions. In place of our reviewing each request for exemption case-by-case, the proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. However, we announced in the NPRM that we strongly believe that a make inoperative exemption for Standard No. 301 is not justified. Standard No. 301 was not included in these standards because of the safety need to assure fuel system integrity in vehicles modified for persons with disabilities and because it is possible to modify vehicles while maintaining conformance to Standard No. 301. We anticipate publishing a final decision on the NPRM in the near future.

In closing, you do not have to ask NHTSA for an exemption from Standard No. 301 if the modification is done without compromising a modified vehicle's compliance with the standard. We urge you to ensure that the vehicles you modify will continue to meet the standard.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#301
d.3/20/00

ID: 2071y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HBl] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HBls]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/l0/89

ID: 2072y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HBl] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HBls]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/l0/89

ID: 2073y

Mr. John E. Hammer
John E. Hammer & Associates
235 W. Hamilton Lane
Battle Creek, MI 49015

Dear Mr. Hammer:

This responds to your inquiry about the attachment of a rigid hood ornament onto a motor vehicle. You explained that you were developing an aftermarket kit to help prevent the theft of such hood ornaments. You asked about the legalities of an individual owner using such a kit to attach a hood ornament. As explained below, while the agency does not regulate the actions of an individual vehicle owner, you as the manufacturer will have responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Vehicle Safety Act").

A replacement hood ornament kit would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). That section defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle....

The Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Although NHTSA has issued motor vehicle safety standards for certain types of motor vehicle equipment, there is no standard directly applicable to hood ornaments. Thus, the manufacture and sale of the aftermarket product to a vehicle owner for use with his or her vehicle would not be affected by the requirements of any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Although no standard directly applies to a hood ornament, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

If using the hood ornament would adversely affect compliance with a safety standard, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would "render inoperative" a design element in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated /108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each /108 violation where a design element was "rendered inoperative." However, the provisions of 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by using the hood ornament kit even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle or equipment.

Second, you will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if you offer this product for sale. As a manufacturer, you will be subject to the requirements of //151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Section 102(11) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines "defect" as "any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment." (emphasis added). Section 102(1) defines "motor vehicle safety" as "the performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of design, construction or performance of motor vehicles..." (emphasis added).

If you or the agency determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign.

The agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects, except in the context of a defect proceeding. I note that hood ornaments typically are constructed to yield to pressure so as to reduce the risk of injuries to pedestrians. Therefore, it is possible that a rigid, non-yielding ornament might be considered a safety related defect if the rigid design were determined to pose an unreasonable safety risk.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#108(a)(2)(A)#102(4)#102(11) d:l0/6/89

ID: 20747.ztv

Mr. George Manset
Director of Engineering
Martin Industries
P.O. Box 128
Florence, AL 35631

Dear Mr. Manset:

This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1999, to Rich Van Iderstine, with respect to whether your prospective location of taillamps on utility trailers complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your current practice is to locate taillamps "on the very rear of the trailer (which have total lengths of 96" and 132")." You are considering locating these lamps in the fenders "which are 12" and 30" from the rear on the respective trailers." You observe that for many trailer designs, with tilt features and loading ramps, "it isn't always practical to be located directly on the rear." Mr. Van Iderstine tells us that these designs may also affect the location of other rear lighting equipment such as stop and turn signal lamps, and perhaps license plate lamps and clearance lamps as well.

Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicle lighting equipment to be mounted in the location specified in Table II or Table IV of Standard No. 108. Each Table requires stop, turn signal, clearance, and taillamps to be mounted "on the rear." Further, S5.3.2 requires each lamp to be located "so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard." The applicable SAE Standards are indicated in Table I and Table III.

As you know, lamps must be designed to meet minimum candlepower specifications measured at various test points. In general, the visibility of lamps must not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle throughout the photometric test angles for the lamp, unless the lamp is designed to comply with all photometric and visibility requirements with the obstructions considered. Further, the signal from lamps on both sides of the vehicle must be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right. To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex at least 2 sq. in (12.5 sq. cm.) in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

Enclosed are three letters which address issues raised by your question. You will see from our letter of January 29, 1996, to Tommy Reeder, that it is not necessary to locate lamps literally on the extreme end of a tilt bed trailer provided that the photometric and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 are met in the location chosen. We informed Jack Rademacher on August 22, 1990, that we interpret "on the rear" as meaning the trailing edge of the rear fender, providing the visibility requirements were met. If your taillamps meet all the visibility requirements when mounted in the trailing edge of a rear fender 12 inches from the extreme end of the trailer, we would consider the lamps as mounted "on the rear." However, our letter of January 8, 1990, to Howard Kossover stated that lamps mounted 27 inches from the rear edge of the vehicle were not mounted "on the rear" as the standard specifies; further, we had reservations whether the visibility requirements could be met in that location. This means that your contemplated location of 30 inches would not comply with Standard No. 108 as we have interpreted it.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.11/16/99

ID: 1983-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flyer Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 5 1983 NOA-30

W. E. J. Moss, P. Eng. Flyer Industries Limited 64 Hoka Street Box 245 Transcona P.O. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R2C 3T4

Dear Mr. Moss:

This responds to your January 27, 1983, letter asking about the application of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to the front entrance doors of buses. You ask that the window retention test not be applied to your bus, because application of the required amount of force will cause the door to open. You state further that if the door had no glazing, it would not be tested for retention and, therefore, would be acceptable under the standard.

Standard No. 217 states that all glazing that exceeds 8 inches in diameter shall be tested for retention. During that test, neither the glazing nor the surrounding frame shall open in a manner that would allow a 4-inch sphere to pass through the opening. The intent of this requirement is of course to prevent the ejection of occupants in accidents.

The agency does test the front door of buses for compliance with this section if they contain glazing that meets the size requirement. In tests that have been conducted, most front doors have complied. Accordingly, the proper construction of front doors in compliance with the requirement would not appear to be a problem. The agency does not believe that it would be in the interest of safety to exempt front door glazing from the test requirements. Although passengers are required to stand behind the standee line as you note in your letter, they may easily be thrown forward of that line in an accident. The agency considers it important to reduce the possibility of their being thrown from the vehicle if such a situation were to arise.

You are technically correct that an all metal door would not be tested for compliance with this retention provision since it would not contain glazing. However, the agency would not view favorably the installation of doors in buses that open so easily in an accident. Use of such doors might be considered to be a safety-related defect subject to the agency's recall and remedy authority.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 27, 1983

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attn: Mr. R. Tildon 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Petition

Dear Sir:

I wish a clarification of FMVSS #217 on the front doors of a transit coach. This coach has two piece "slide glide" type doors.

If a solid aluminum door is used and tested to FMVSS 217 the door will deflect enough to permit passage of the 4" ball. In this case the door will pass FMVSS 217, as there is no glazing in the door.

In the case of glazing in the door, "this is necessary to allow the driver visability", the deflection will be the same magnitude as a solid door permitting the passage of a 4" diameter ball. This then does not pass the FMVSS test on this glazing, as the frame is not retained by its surrounding structure, nor can it be.

I ask for an exception for the front door glazing of a transit coach from FMVSS 217. This would not pose a danger as the passengers are asked to stand behind a whiter yellow line on the floor rearward of the front door area.

Yours truly,

W.E.J. Moss, P. Eng Test Engineer

/jc B-286

ID: 1983-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 7 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Richard H. Attenhofer Technical Manager, O.E Dunlop Tire Company Box 1109 Buffalo, New York 14240

Dear Mr. Attenhofer:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked if Dunlop could use a print type called OCR-A for the DOT symbol and the tire identification number.

Note 1 to Figure 1 of Part 574 specifies only four different print types which may be used for the DOT symbol and identification number, none of which are OCR-A. However, Note 4 to Figure 1 states that other print type will be permitted if approved by this agency. We have examined the print type shown in the diagram attached to your letter and have no objections to your company printing the required information in OCR-A type.

In the final rule establishing Part 574 (35 FR 17257, November 10, 1970), the agency explained that the reason for specifying only four print types which would be acceptable without advance agency approval was to ensure that the information would be easily readable by all persons. The OCR-A print type shown in the diagram attached to your letter is easily readable and thus satisfies our concerns in that regard. Accordingly, that print type is hereby approved.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 10, 1983

Mr. Steven Kratzke Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation wishes to utilize the latest electronic techniques for sorting and inventory control of automobile, motorcycle and truck tires which are subject to Tire Identification and Recordkeeping as defined in CFR 49, Chapter V, Part 574.

We request an interpretation of your office if the style of characters shown on the attached sketch 9522-DS do meet the requirements of Notes 1 or 4 shown in Figure 1 of Part 574.

Dunlop is grateful for your prompt consideration of this matter. Should you have any questions please call me direct at 716/879-8327.

Very truly yours,

DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION

Richard H. Attenhofer, Technical Manager, O.E.