ID: nht94-5.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1994

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

TO: R. F. Wareham -- Technical Director, Total Vehicle Security, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1/26/93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DAVID H.B. LEE; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/9/94 FROM R. E. WAREHAM TO J. WOMACK (OCC 10573)

TEXT: We have received your letter of December 9, 1994, to John Womack, the Acting Chief Counsel who responded to David Lee on January 26, 1993. This will confirm that his opinion regarding the "Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor" remains the official positi on of this agency.

We shall be pleased to meet with you when you come to Washington late in January. You may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office to make arrangements (202-366-5263). We will be particularly interested in learning more about how the device "will be marketed as a D.I.Y. installation by the car owner."

ID: nht94-5.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1994

FROM: Baysul Parker -- Manager, Safety Department, California Trucking Association

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/14/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO BAYSUL PARKER (A43; PART 567) 11/20/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO J. LESLIE DOBSON, 7/1/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO GENE FOUTS, 3/19/91 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO JERRY TASS AN, AND 5/24/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN PAUL BARBER

TEXT: I have received numerous inquiries recently regarding whether an alterer can alter and change the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of a vehicle prior to sale or first registered, and also on used vehicles. This is generally in regards to vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 lbs. or more, and the owner desires to lower the GVWR so that the driver would not be required to possess a commercial drivers license to operate. I have reviewed 49 CFR, Sections 567.4, 567.7 and 571.115.

As I presently understand the statutes, only a manufacturer can assign a GVWR, including a VIN number. The original manufacturer, or an alterer approved by NHTSA who performs a manufacturing process prior to first sale or registration, can change the GV WR. Is there a list of NHTSA approved alterers?

Please furnish any valid information, decisions and/or interpretations you may have that is related to this subject.

ID: nht94-5.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1994

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

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/94 FROM MICHAEL LOVE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10533)

TEXT: We have received your letter of November 29, 1994, asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 591.

Specifically, Porsche wishes to import vehicles for the Canadian market through the Port of Charleston, where certain processing activities will be performed on the cars before they are exported to Canada. The temporary importation of Canadian-market ca rs would be through 591.5(c) which allows importation "solely for export", provided that the vehicle is so labeled. You have asked for our concurrence in your interpretation of 591.5(c). We agree that Porsche may import and export Canadian-market cars under this section of the importation regulation.

You foresee a situation in which "a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U.S. customer". Porsche would like to be able to convert the vehicle to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards after impo rtation and before it leaves Porsche's control. Porsche would also like to be able to re-import from Canada into the U.S. vehicles that would be converted to U.S. specifications. You have asked for confirmation that these operations would also be permi ssible under 591.5(c).

Importation of noncomplying motor vehicles into the United States and their subsequent conversion to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be accomplished through the mechanisms established by Congress in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compli ance Act of 1988 (now 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.). First, NHTSA must have decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. Second, a vehicle intended for sale must be imported under bond by one who has been designated a Re gistered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, who will undertake to bring the vehicle into compliance and to submit appropriate proof of this to NHTSA. Porsche may become a Registered Importer by filing an application under Part 592.

If a vehicle intended for the Canadian market has been temporarily imported under 591.5(c), and Porsche then wishes to convert it to U.S. specifications rather than export it to Canada, you should telephone Clive Can Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compl iance (202-366-2830), to apprise him of the situation. We see no problem in this as long as NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation and Porsche provides a compliance package, in accordance with the requirements of Parts 592 and 59 3.

ID: nht94-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 23, 1994

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

TO: Paul N. Wagner, President, Bornemann Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-26-88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO GLENN J. DUNCAN; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-28-94 FROM PAUL N. WAGNER TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 10392)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 28, 1994, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of S4.2.1 in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to an integrated seat. Section S4.2.1 states

Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2.

Your questions and our response to each follow.

1) Can the agency respond specifically to what the seat adjustment refers to? Does this mean only that once a seat recliner (used only for comfort), or a seat slide track, is positioned at its normal driving position, or appropriate testing position, it may not be moved until the completion of the test?

Or, does it mean that while the static test is conducted a recliner mechanism, for example, can not change position during the test, due to bending or twisting, or release of internal parts, even though the frame did not break during the test? In oth er words, the recliner may bend or twist, but the seating structure remained intact, despite deformation of the recliner mechanism.

Section S4.2.1 requires a seat, with one exception, to remain in the position to which it was adjusted while the force specified in S4.2 is applied. The exception is that vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats may occur while the load is applied. Section S4.2 requires a seat to withstand certain specified forces. NHTSA has previously stated that S4.2 "allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that structural integrity of the seats is maintained." (Se e August 26, 1988 letter to Mr. Glenn L. Duncan, Esq.) NHTSA would not consider any deformation allowed by S4.2 (for example, bending or twisting) by itself to be a change in adjustment position. However, if bending or twisting resulted in the seat movin g from one adjustment position to another (for example, a change in detent position within the adjustment mechanism), there would be a change in adjustment position.

In the example provided in your letter, the adjustment position of the seat back recliner mechanism is caused by the gear mechanism being "destroyed," even though the recliner mechanism itself does not separate from the seat. It appears that this scenar io involves more than deformation as the seat back is free to move to a variety of adjustment positions. Therefore, the seat would not comply with S4.2.1.

2) An integrated seat has several angle adjustments on its recliner, which are only for the purpose of comfort. In reference to the static testing, does the integrated seat need to be tested in its designed riding position, or need it be tested in ev ery possible reclined position?

Both S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) require the seat to withstand the specified load "(i)n any position to which it can be adjusted." The usage of the term "any," when "used in connection with a range of values or set of items," is specifically defined at 49 CFR 57 1.4 as meaning "the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." Thus, NHTSA may chose to test a seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions. Section S4.2(c) incorporates the requiremen ts of S4.2(a) and S4.2(b); therefore, NHTSA may also chose to test an integrated seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions.

I hope this information has been 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: nht94-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 23, 1994

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

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

TITLE: Re: Alternative To 9005 & 9006 Bulbs:

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/27/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: General Motors Corporation (GM), in conjunction with Osram Sylvania Inc., has developed alternatives to two existing HB3 and HB4 (9005 and 9006) bulbs approved for automotive use in FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The alt ernative bulbs have a different base configuration than the currently approved bulbs, but in all other ways are identical. The alternative configuration would allow packaging flexibility while still maintaining all photometric/output characteristics of the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

Since the alternative bulbs improve packaging flexibility without affecting the output of the lamps, GM would like the alternative bulbs to be interchangeable with the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We request your Office's guidance as to the most app ropriate method for seeking approval of the alternative bulb configurations.

BACKGROUND

The currently approved 9005-6 bulbs have bases that form right angles (see attachment 1). This configuration provided the most appropriate means of meeting automotive packaging considerations when these bulbs were originally approved.

Since then, however, aerodynamics and styling have dramatically affected the construction of the front of vehicles. In some instances it has become very difficult to package the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. In addition, the bulbs can be difficult t o access for replacement.

It occurred to GM and Osram Sylvania that the situation could be improved with a simple modification to the existing 9005-6 bulbs. By straightening the base of these bulbs (see attachment 2), while keeping all other design criteria the same, the packagi ng could be improved without affecting any performance characteristics of the bulbs.

Since the new configurations are identical with the currently approved bulbs in all ways other than the bases, GM believes it appropriate to allow them to be interchangeable with the existing 9005-6 bulbs. This would further enhance packaging flexibilit y by allowing alternative configurations which might be better suited to late program design changes.

The alternative bulbs will have little or no affect on the consumer. A vehicle will come equipped with one of the bulb configurations, and the operator's manual will reference the appropriate configuration. If the alternative bulb is inadvertently purc hased for replacement, it could be used in all cases except in the highly unlikely circumstance that the vehicle packaging is so restrictive as to prevent the bulb from being inserted. Once inserted it is designed to perform identically to the bulb that has been replaced, regardless of the configuration of the base. In the unlikely case that the bulb could not be inserted because of restrictive packaging, the owner would need only to return the inappropriate bulb for the bulb approved for his or her v ehicle - a situation that exists today.

To further minimize any confusion on the part of the consumer, we would recommend that the alternative bulbs have a unique identifier to distinguish them from the current bulbs. This could easily be accomplished by adding a character to the codes of the existing bulb. For example, HB3S and HB4S could be used to identify the alternative bulb configurations of HB3 and HB4.

APPROVAL PROCESS

GM believes there are three possible methods that could be used for seeking approval of the 9005-6 bulb alternative configurations. They are

1. Seek approval of the alternative configuration through 49 CFR Part 564.

The language of Part 564 suggest that we would be unable to maintain interchangeability between alternative configurations and the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We understand these provisions were adopted to prevent interchangeability between bulb s with different photometric output, since such interchangeability could have drastic effects on headlamp beam patterns. This, however, is not the case with the alternative bulbs GM proposes. Except for the bases, they are identical in all respects to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. Therefore, there is no photometric difference between the two sets of bulbs, and hence, no safety concern.

Still, the wording in Part 564 would suggest that the alternative bulbs we developed would require a new or different connector than 9005-6. We do not believe that this is appropriate in this instance, and seek clarification of whether Part 564 direc tly applies to this circumstance.

2. Petition for FMVSS 108 rulemaking to allow new bulb configurations as alternatives to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

While this appears to be a valid method for obtaining approval of the proposed configurations, it is our understanding that NHTSA is planning to transfer all bulb specifications from the body of FMVSS 108 into Part 564. Therefore, we believe that the agency may not welcome a petition to amend FMVSS 108 to comprehend additional bulbs (or new bulb configurations).

3. Request that the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs be placed in Part 564 with the alternative configurations included on the drawing. Attachment 3 contains a draft of what the drawings might look like.

Please confirm which method the agency believes is most appropriate for seeking approval of the new alternative bulbs which, as described above, except for their bases perform identically to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-5.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 28, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; John Womack

TO: Roger Matoba

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7/29/94 FROM ROGER MATOBA TO PATRICIA BRESLIN

TEXT: This responds to your letter, addressed to Patricia Breslin, asking us to review our safety belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans. You stated that manufacturers interpret Safety Standard No. 208 to require the installat ion of shoulder belts for these seating positions. You expressed concern that this requirement creates a safety hazard for vehicles with a side aisle to rear seating locations. According to your letter, passenger seats next to the side aisle have should er belts that cross the aisle. You believe that these shoulder belts would block the exit of more rearward passengers in an emergency, and suggested that we eliminate this requirement.

Your understanding of Standard No. 208's requirements is not entirely correct. It is correct that the standard requires (S4.2.4) lap/shoulder safety belts in all forward-facing "rear outboard designated seating positions" in new passenger vans with a GVW R of 10,000 pounds or less. However, under S4.2.4.1, the term "rear outboard designated seating position" excludes, for purposes of this requirement, any seating positions that are "adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehi cle, which walkway is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions." Therefore, the seating positions that you are concerned about are not required to have shoulder safety belts. The standard instead only requires manufacturers to provide lap safety belts for these seating positions.

NHTSA decided not to require shoulder safety belts at these seating positions because the agency recognized that the belts might obstruct an aisle designed to give access to rear seating positions. Manufacturers are, however, permitted to provide lap/sh oulder belts if they choose to do so.

With respect to your concerns about the safety of shoulder safety belts which cross an aisle, I note that such belts do not in fact prevent rearward passengers from existing the vehicle. Such passengers may exit the vehicle by going under or over the be lt.

They may also move the belt aside by spooling out the webbing, or even unlatch the belt. Indeed, any difficulty that rearward occupants face in exiting the vehicle is much smaller than that faced by rear seat occupants in a two-door car or the occupants of middle seats. In considering the safety of such belts, it is also important to consider the extra protection offered by the shoulder belt to the occupant who wears it. We believe the vehicle manufacturer is in the best position to balance, for its vehicles, the benefits associated with this extra protection against any difficulties related to occupants entering and exiting the vehicle.

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

ID: nht94-5.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1994

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

TO: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/16/94 FROM YOSHIAKI MATSUI TO PATRICK BOYD

TEXT: We have received your letter of November 16, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency, asking for an interpretation of the final rule that amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on November 2, 1994.

The rule amended S5.1.2(c) to specify, in pertinent part, that "after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors . . . shall not show . . . haze that exceeds 7 percent. . . ." The amendment is effective November 1, 1995. You have presented two fact situations with respect to replacement reflex reflectors, and ask whether the amended haze requirement is applicable in each case. These are:

"First case - replacement reflex reflectors manufactured after the effective date, but the vehicle to which the reflex reflectors are fitted is no longer manufactured after the effective date."

Motor vehicle replacement equipment is governed by S5.8 of Standard No. 108. S5.8.1 requires that any reflective device manufactured to replace any reflective device on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standar d No. 108. Paragraphs S5.8.2 through S5.8.9 permit certain specified items of replacement equipment to be manufactured to original equipment specifications (e.g., earlier versions of SAE standards no longer specified for original equipment on motor vehi cles); however, reflex reflectors are not included among them. This means that any reflex reflectors manufactured on and after November 1, 1995, whether original or replacement, must conform with the 7 percent haze limitation, regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle.

"Second case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured before the effective date, which may be fitted to a vehicle manufactured before or after the effective date. (In this case, the same type of vehicles are manufactured before and after the effe ctive date continuously.)"

A replacement reflex reflector manufactured either before or after November 1, 1995, is subject to the requirement that the plastic materials used in them shall show no haze in a visual inspection after the outdoor exposure test because that is the requi rement in effect at the time the replacement reflex reflector is manufactured.

As a practical matter, it would appear to make no difference when the reflector was manufactured or to which specification. The amendment is not intended to change manufacturing techniques or composition of plastics materials in any way. Because it is impossible not to have some degree of haze at the end of the three-year test period, Standard No. 108 was amended to make it more objective and practicable, and the measured haze limit raised to 7 percent, at which point haze is visible to the naked eye.

ID: nht94-5.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 29, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; John Womack

TO: Antonio Salvetti

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/13/94 FROM ANTONIO SALVETTI TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10425)

TEXT: This responds to your letter in which you inquired about a vehicle called an "AGM Playa."

You stated that Advanced Generation Motors, Inc. (AGM) converts a Geo Metro or Suzuki Swift into an "AGM Playa" by removing the doors, cutting the roof and "redesigning the vehicle in fiberglass." You stated that the Playa has no doors but can be enclose d in canvas. The pictures you enclosed depicts a subcompact passenger car with no doors and no top but with the A and B pillars intact. A spare tire in a cover has been mounted on the outside of the back of the car. You asked four specific questions, w hich I will address after first providing some background information.

49 U.S. Code, @ 30101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of mot or vehicle equipment. The Safety Act further provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or item of equipment complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that product on the date of its manufacture. In addition, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible not only for ensuring that their vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable FMVSSs, but also for certifying such compliance. That certification must be displayed in the form of a label as required by 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

It appears that the modifications made to the original vehicle makes AGM an alterer of new motor vehicles. An "alterer" is one who, before sale of a previously-certified new motor vehicle to its first retail purchaser, modifies the vehicle other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or by altering a vehicle so that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid (49 CFR 56 7.7). 49 CFR 567.7 requires the alterer to ensure that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to the FMVSSs affected by the alteration(s) and to certify to that effect in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7. Alterers make such certification by affixing a permanent label to the altered vehicle identifying the alterer and the date of alteration. The label must also include a statement that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Finally, the alterer must allow the original manufac turer's certification label to remain affixed to the vehicle.

With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions.

a. Is this vehicle approved to be on the streets? ANSWER: As stated above, manufacturers must ensure that their vehicles or equipment meet all FMVSSs and certify such compliance. NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, endorse, or offer assurances of c ompliance of any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification. Rather, NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards as explained in c below. In addition, states have authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles. Therefore, if the state ac cepts the vehicle for registration, that is an indication that the vehicle meets all state requirements. Accordingly, you should contact your state authorities to determine if the vehicle would meet Florida's licensing and registration requirements. If the required certifications are affixed to the vehicle as discussed above, and if the vehicle is properly registered under state law, the vehicle may be operated "on the streets."

As explained in c below, NHTSA has the authority to determine, in the course of compliance or defect proceedings, that a particular vehicle is unsafe. In that event, the vehicle manufacturer will be required to recall the vehicle and remedy the unsafe f eature. We do not prohibit a recalled vehicle from being operated on the streets. Again, the use of motor vehicles is a matter of state law.

b. How do I know that they [vehicles) comply with all the safety requirements? ANSWER: As discussed above, manufacturers and alterers are required to indicate their respective certifications by labels permanently affixed to the vehicle. Look for su ch labels or ask the alterer to point them out to you.

c. How are they (alterer) responsible for any vehicle problems? ANSWER: NHTSA enforces the FMVSSs in proceedings in which the agency purchases vehicles or equipment at retail and tests them in accordance with the test procedures specified in the sta ndards. If the product "passes" the compliance tests, no further action is taken. If a noncompliance is found, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the problem at no expense to the purchasers (i.e., "recall" the product ). NHTSA also investigates safety related defects. If either NHTSA or the manufacturer identifies a defect affecting motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer must recall the product.

NHTSA also has authority to oversee how some commercial businesses modify new and used vehicles. 49 U.S.C. @ 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or eleme nt of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an FMVSS unless that manufacturer, etc., reasonably believes that the vehicle will not be used while the device is inoperative. Violation of this provision could subject the violator to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, or a maximum penalty of up to $ 800,000 for a series of related violations (49 U.S.C. @ 30165).

Apart from what is required by the FMVSSs, presumably the vehicle you purchase will be covered by a warranty of some kind. As a consumer, you should ascertain whether the alterer warrants the work and/or whether the vehicle manufacturer's warranty may b e voided by the alterations.

d. Are there any other requirements beside safety to meet? ANSWER: NHTSA administers a number of programs in addition to the safety program of the FMVSSs. For example, new vehicles must meet fuel economy, bumper, and theft prevention standards in ad dition to the FMVSSs. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those programs. The responsibility to meet those requirements falls on the manufacturer and seller of the vehicle.

As stated previously, this agency's authority, except for the defect, compliance, and making inoperative provisions of the Safety Act, terminates upon the first retail sale of a vehicle. After that, the use of that product becomes a matter of state conc ern. States may impose their own requirements with regard to use, inspection, registration, taxation, and so forth. Accordingly, you should contact your state department of motor vehicles for any further requirements that may be applicable to this "Pla ya" vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

ID: nht94-5.21

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald F. Lett -- Lett Electronics Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/19/94 From Donald F. Lett To Department Of Transportation (OCC-9590)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lett:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether any "pre-necessary authorization" is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume "pre-necessary authorization" means this agency's prior approval or permission to modify the tires in the manner you propose.

You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 1/2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a "D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire" into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self-certification system, neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSSs. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to

2

comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance.

It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 1/2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Therefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the tire. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer would constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously-complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate @ 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above.

Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters "DOT" appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section

3

will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties.

In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely affected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems.

Finally, I note that you used the term "previously D.O.T. approved" tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation "approves" tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the "DOT" code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-5.22

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. Anderson:

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

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

Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2)

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

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

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

2

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

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

Emergency Exit Release (S5.3)

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

Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4)

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

3

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

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

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

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

Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5)

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

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

4

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Enclosures