ID: nht94-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Gianfranco Venturelli -- Director General, Automobile Lamborghini

TO: Christopher A Hart -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Standard Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to John E. Gillick (Std. 214 and Part 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini) hereby petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for the purpose of compliance with t he side impact standard's phase-in calculation. n1 In the alternative, Lamborghini petitions NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption from the side impact standard requirements until September 1, 1996, pursuant to its authority under 49 C.F.R. @ 555.

n1 Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., 40019 Sant'Agata Bolognese (BO)-via Modena, 12-Italy, is a joint stock company organized under the laws of Italy. Chrysler Corporation, on January 31, 1994, sold Lamborghini to a group of investors led by MegaTech Lt d., a Bermuda corporation.

Background

On October 30, 1990, NHTSA promulgated revisions to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 regarding side

2

impact protection. See 55 Fed. Reg. 45,722 (Oct. 30, 1990) (codified at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214). Standard 214 specified vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified streng th requirements for side doors. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214(b). The standard included the following phase-in schedule: (1) at least 10% of a manufacturer's passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1994, must comply; (2) at least 25% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1995, must comply; and (3) at least 40% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, and before September 1, 1996, must comply. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214 S8. In promulgating the rule, NHTSA recognized that it could take single-line manufacturers up to three years to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to comply with the standard. 55 Fed. Reg. at 45,749. Accordingly, Standard 214 provides an alternative to the phase-in option. The standard permits manufacturers to delay implementation of the side impact protection standard for one year (until September 1, 1994) if after that date all vehicles produced meet the standard's re quirements. 49 C.F.R. @ 5711.214 S1(d).

As noted supra, Lamborghini was sold by Chrysler on January 31, 1994. Chrysler, as the corporate parent of Lamborghini, had included Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for side impact protection compliance purposes. Due to the number of differe nt Chrysler models that required modifications to meet Standard 214, Chrysler elected to comply through the phase-in alternative. Lamborghini vehicles were scheduled to be modified during the last year of the phase-in period because

3

of the relatively low number of vehicles the subsidiary produced and the lead time necessary for engineering and tooling modifications.

Discussion

Chrysler's sale of Lamborghini has placed Lamborghini in a difficult position regarding compliance with the side impact safety standard. Prior to the sale, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing that it would not need to meet the requiremen ts of Standard 214 until the production year beginning September 1, 1996 due to its status as part of Chrysler's vehicle fleet. Now that Lamborghini is not part of the Chrysler fleet, the company cannot utilize this flexibility. While the first segment of the phase-in requirement (10% compliance for all passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993) has already passed, Lamborghini still could elect Standard 214's alternative compliance date that requires full compliance by September 1, 1994. However, Lamborghini does not now have sufficient lead time to complete the engineering analysis and implement the tooling changes to comply with the standard for the production year beginning either September 1, 1994 or September 1, 1995. In addition, since Lamborghini only produces one model, it cannot phase in compliance even if this were technically possible and the first year of the phase-in period had not already begun. Accordingly, Lamborghini respectfully requests NHTSA to grant this petition to enable Chrysler to count Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's fleet for purposes of side impact compliance, or in the alternative, grant Lamborghini a temporary exemption from the requirements of Standard 214. Granting either request would be in the

4

public interest as it will not affect overall motor vehicle safety because Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance, thereby ensuring that, consistent with the objectives of the Nati onal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the total number of vehicles meeting the side impact requirements will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its Lamborghini subsidiary.

I. FLEET AVERAGE CALCULATION.

As part of the contract with MegaTech, Ltd. for the sale of Lamborghini, Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance. This action will ensure that the overall number of vehicles com plying with the standard through the phase-in period will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its subsidiary. This approach gives Lamborghini, a single line manufacturer, the three-year lead time needed to develop and implement the engineering chang es necessary to satisfy the standard's requirement envisioned in the preamble to the final rule. All Lamborghini vehicles produced after September 1, 1996, will satisfy Standard 214.

II. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION.

In the alternative, Lamborghini requests NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption to Standard 214 through August 31, 1996, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. @ 555.6(a). In the meantime, as noted above, Chrysler will include, for purposes of production vo lume compliance, all Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's phase-in calculations. Beginning September 1, 1996, all Lamborghini vehicles produced will fully comply with the standard.

5

The application of Standard 214 to Lamborghini without adequate leadtime would subject the company to substantial economic hardship. In order to comply with this standard, Lamborghini must modify the door structure and redesign the aperture and door for its automobiles. In view of the extremely short lead time between now and the beginning of production for next year's model, it is simply not possible to complete the necessary engineering and related retooling necessary to meet the September 1, 199 4, target date in the regulations.

Lamborghini is confident, however, that it will be able to comply with the standard by September 1, 1996, but not sooner, in accordance with the following schedule:

1. May 1994 - 1995

- engineering, drawing and development of preliminary prototypes.

2. June 1995 - May 1996

- final tune-up tests, and modification of production tooling.

3. July 1996

- begin production of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

4. September 1996

- delivery of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

The estimated cost of the research and development and the tooling changes necessary to meet the new standards is estimated to be between

6

We would reiterate that the financial hardship this action would cause is primarily due to the absence of sufficient leadtime to implement this standard. Lamborghini had only recently begun analysis of the engineering changes necessary to meet the sta ndard and has not yet begun to implement the necessary tooling changes and purchasing because, until the sale occurred, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing it would not have to meet the standard until September 1, 1996.

* * *

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact Michael J. Grossman, our designated agent for U.S. certification and regulatory liaison (516-829-8694) or John Gillick of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, our legal counsel (202-775- 9870), if you have any questions about this petition.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Doris Hull -- Owner, Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.

TO: Robert Hellmuth -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/12/94 Letter from John Womack to Doris Hull (Std. 109, 119 & 12)

TEXT:

This letter is in regards to a phone conversation with Mr. Walter Meyers on May 13, 1994 that David McCormick and I had. The conversation was concerning trailers with new and used tires. The understanding that we got that we are allowed to do is includ ed in this letter. I would appreciate a quick response from you.

We understood that we, as manufactures, can sell to a dealer, who picks up a load of trailers, the trailers being stacked on top of each other; we can install new tires on the bottom trailer that would meet the requirements of standard 120 and for the ot her trailers that are stacked we can sell the used tires and rims mounted but not installed on trailers. That if a tractor trailer loaded with trailers was sold we could sell the used tires and rims but not installed on the trailers. All used tires and rims would meet the D.O.T. Standard 120 qualifications. We understood that an individual can request used tires and rims, we can sell them to them and install them if requested by the individual.

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. We have also talked with George Shifflett concerning what Mr. Meyers informed us.

Please do not hestitate calling me at the number listed above if there are any questions I may be able to help with.

ID: nht94-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/21/93 From Michael Love To Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-8259)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 101; Controls and displays and No. 102; Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. I apologize for the d elay in our response. You asked about the standards in connection with three options your company is considering for changing its "Tiptronic" automatic transmission system.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure th at its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The current Tiptronic automatic transmission system can be described as follows:

The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventiona l automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 1. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The ri ght slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the "M" position aft er being tapped.

2

There are two gear position displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel. The middle console display, which is not illuminated, shows each of the 10 positions where the shift lever may be placed. It also shows the position which is selected. The display on the instrument panel, which is illuminated, has two columns which correspond to the slots on the middle console. However, while the left column (corresponding to the left slot or automatic function) shows the positions P R N D 3 2 1, the right column (corresponding to the right slot or manual function) shows the positions 4 3 2 1. In other words, the right column portion of the display shows the available gears and the actual gear selected rather than + M -. For bot h columns, the selected position or gear is indicated by an illuminated arrow.

In your letter to NHTSA, you indicate that Porsche is considering the following three options for modifying its system:

Option 1. The first proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot.

Option 2a. The second proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot and the + and - positions on the right (manual) slot. Gear selection in the manual mode would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel.

Option 2b) The third proposed modification would provide only one slot with the following positions (in order): P R N D M D. In the M position, gear selection would be accomplished by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel.

For each of the proposed modifications, the shift lever positions would be labeled on the middle console, in the same manner as the current system. Similarly, the middle console would not be illuminated. The instrument panel display would not change for any of the options.

You ask a number of questions concerning whether the Tiptronic system, as modified under options 1, 2a and 2b, would comply with Standards No. 101 and 102. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 which are relevant to your questions. Section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states:

Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position,

3

identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist:

(a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted.

(b) The transmission is not in park.

S3.1.4.4 states:

Effective September 23, 1991, all of the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 shall be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the infor mation may be provided.

Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position indicators. Section S5.1 requires that gear position display must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S5.3.1 an d Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102. In a April 2, 1989 letter to Porsche concerning the Tiptronic system, we concluded that, given the reference in Standard No. 101 to Standard No. 102, where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. 102 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. 101 must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. 102.

With this background in mind, I will discuss the existing Tiptronic system and the three possible modifications. For the reasons discussed above and in our April 2, 1989 letter, while multiple gear position displays are permitted, one such display must comply with all of the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. Since your console display is not illuminated, it would obviously not comply with Standard No. 101. I will therefore address your letter in the context of whether the instru ment panel display meets the requirements of the two standards. I assume that the instrument panel is activated during the times specified by Standard No. 102.

Under section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102, there must be a display of all of the shift lever positions in relation to each other, and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. In our April 2, 1989 letter, we stated that your design has the following ten shift lever

4

positions: P R N D 3 2 1 + M -. We noted that the right column of the alternative instrument panel displays identified in your letter showed either 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1 instead of + M -. We concluded that if the instrument panel display was to be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 102, it would be necessary for the display to show the 10 actual shift lever positions, including + M -.

Porsche evidently did not follow the opinion provided in that letter, since Porsche neither provided illumination for the console display nor showed the 10 actual shift lever positions, identified in our letter, on the instrument panel display. While we do not understand the reason for this decision by Porsche, we believe that one could reasonably argue that the + and - locations are not really shift lever "positions," since the shift lever cannot be left in those locations. Under this view, + M - cou ld be seen as "one" shift lever position, which is represented on the instrument panel by 4 3 2 1. We would accept this as an alternative way of characterizing the current Tiptronic system, and are therefore not aware of any compliance problems.

I will now turn to the three possible modifications. Once again, since the non-illuminated console display would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, the relevant question is whether the instrument panel display meets the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. A common problem for all three options would be that the instrument panel display retained from the original Tiptronic system would not correspond to the shift lever positions of the modified designs. This could be co rrected for options 1 and 2a simply by deleting the 3 2 1 portion of the left column. A more complicated correction would be needed for option 2a, since the display would need to show the following positions in relation to each other: P R N D M D.

I have several other comments on your letter. You stated that for all three options, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display those positions if selected automatically in the D pos ition, as long as they as displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Porsche is correct that it is unnecessary to provide shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1. Moreover, to th e extent that such shift lever positions are not provided but the gears are instead selected automatically in the D position or manually in the M position by tapping the shift lever or shift rocker switch, it is unnecessary to display the gears.

You also stated the following:

5

Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as "shift levers" during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The "shift lever position" would the n be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of "shift levers." It follows then that identification of "shift lever position" would entail identifying the distinct transmission oper ating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected. . . .

For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under the provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmiss ion position is illuminated.

We would not view the shift rocker switch(es) as shift levers under any circumstances. Instead, for the vehicle designs at issue, the lever provided on the middle console would be the only shift lever. When the shift lever is in the "M" position, the s hift rocker switch(es) simply permit manual shifting that is akin to the automatic shifting that occurs when the shift lever is in the "D" position. The rocker switch(es) could not be used to shift the transmission to P, R or N. Under these circumstanc es, we view the rocker switch(es) as a control which is auxiliary to the shift lever and unregulated by Standard No. 102. I note that we might take a different position if the rocker switch(es) permitted the transmission to be shifted to P, R or N, sinc e Standard No. 102 includes requirements to prevent shifting errors. I also note that Standard No. 101 does not require transmission shift levers or controls which are auxiliary to shift levers to be illuminated.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager Vehicle Regulations, Voirswagen of America, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Confirmation of Interpretation Relating to 49 CFR Parts 541 & 543, Theft Prevention Standard

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/94 from John Womack to Dietmar R. Haeochen (A42; Part 543; Part 541

TEXT: This is to request an interpretation relative to the parts marking requirements for replacement parts on a vehicle which has been granted an exemption from parts marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.

By letter dated May 7, 1993, NHTSA granted an exemption for the 1995 model year Volkswagen Corrado from the parts marking requirements based on a petition for exemption filed by Volkswagen on September 29, 1992. The Volkswagen Corrado was parts marked f or the model years 1990 to 1994.

In an interpretation letter of October 12, 1989 to Saab-Scania of America, Inc., NHTSA stated that after a carline has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, the replacement parts for that carline no longer need to be marked even if the replacement parts can also be used on prior model years during which the particular carline was parts marked and not exempt under Part 543.

Volkswagen has just determined that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for the 1995 model year and as such, Volkswagen will not be selling vehicles covered under the exemption granted in the letter of May 7, 1993.

Our question is whether in line with the interpretation to Saab the marking of replacement parts for the Volkswagen Corrado carline can be terminated based on the exemption granted for the 1995 model year, even if the replacement parts can be used for ea rlier model years and even though the 1995 model year Corrado will not be sold in the United States (although it will be available in Europe).

4

Because we would like to take advantage of the cost savings from the termination of parts marking as soon as possible, your earliest possible response to the issue will be appreciated.

As an additional question with regard to replacement parts anti-theft marking, Volkswagen would like to know whether replacement parts marking can ever be terminated on carlines that were parts marked while they were in production, but which have been ou t of production for more than five years and which are therefore statistically low theft. The particular example Volkswagen has in mind is the Audi 5000 carline which was produced through the 1988 model year as a parts marked vehicle.

Thank you for your consideration of the issues in this letter.

ID: nht94-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Larson, Victor -- P.E., Cryenco, Inc.

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Conspicuity Striping Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/14/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Victor Larson (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: Cryenco is a manufacturer of cryogenic tank trailers. Our trailers are cylindrical in shape and in most cases, have no side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road, except at the center of the tank (at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions ). This is at a height of approximately 90" above the ground. Additional structures would have to be added to the sides of the trailer to provide lower mounting surfaces that are at the 1.25m height. In our interpretation of the rule, which is based o n phone calls with NHTSA and 3M striping performance specifications, the side striping 1.) Can legally be placed at a height of 90" above the ground, if that is the only available vertical mounting area, and 2.) it is not necessary to add additional stru cture for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface for the side striping. Please advise if this interpretation is correct.

Additional limited side mounting areas are sometimes available. For instance, some cryogenic transports have a rear cabinet that is approximately 4' long. Some also have a midship undermounted cabinet. These locations provide limited lower areas for si de striping to amount to, approximately 4' to 6' length each, that could be used for striping location. However, if striping is mounted to these surfaces and to the remaining areas above, (on the tank at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions and 90" height), the result is a fragmented, non-aligned striping pattern that is not visually pleasing, and which Customers object to. Since transporters are highly interested in visual impact they sometimes find this pattern unacceptable. Would compliance be satisfied if the side striping was placed only at the higher (90" above the ground) location, where the predominant available vertical mounting surface is found?

Requests to mount the side striping lower on the tank, to better fit-in with their graphics, have been received. In one instance, if this were done, the side striping would be rolled down from the 3:00 and 9:00 positions to about the 4:30 and 7:30 posit ions. This would place the side striping on an area of the tank that angles downward approximately 30 degrees. The striping manufacturers do not certify to meet the reflectivity requirements at compound angles exceeding 15 degrees down, combined with t he horizontal angles indicated in the rule. The general feeling among transporters and striping suppliers is that the rule is not definitive about the angular orientation of the striping, i.e. that there is no need to have the striping mounted on a surf ace that is perpendicular to the road. Please verify what the requirement is relative to orientation of the striping for conspicuity.

ID: nht94-2.96

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Neil Rowe -- Rowe Manufacturing

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/1/94 (EST) from Rowe Manufacturing

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to your product, the Glad Grip. You stated that this product serves as a handle to help connect and disconnect truck tractor air brake hoses at the glad hand. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle e quipment, such as your product. However, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSS for your product.

Our standard for brake hoses (FMVSS 106) applies to air brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies installed as original equipment and to those sold in the aftermarket. Standard 106 defines "brake hose end fitting" as a coupler, other than a clamp, designe d for attachment to the end of a brake hose. You describe the Glad Grip as a device which attaches to the end fitting of an air brake assembly and the glad hand. Since the brake hose that attaches to the Glad Grip is equipped with its own end fittings, t he Glad Grip itself is not an end fitting. Therefore, Standard 106 is inapplicable.

While it does not appear that you will market your device as original equipment on new vehicles, bear in mind that FMVSS No. 121, AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS, applies to trucks and trailers. Any new truck or trailer that has your product as original equipment must meet the standard's requirements with your product installed.

I note also that, while NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the Glad Grip contains a safety related defect, you as the manufacturer of the product would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Further, the Glad Grip is also subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 393.45 and 393.46 (copy enclosed), which are regulations administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for commercial vehicles. If you are interested in these FHWA requ irements, you can write to that agency at the addressed provided in the enclosed information sheet.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this

address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.97

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributors Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 5/4/94 from Richard Kreutziger to John Womack (OCC-9945)

TEXT:

This responds to your fax of May 4, 1994, requesting information on a May 4, 1994, final rule (59 FR 22997) delaying the effective date of one section of the November 2, 1992, final rule amending Standard No. 217, BUS EMERGENCY EXITS AND WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE (57 FR 49413). Your letter enclosed a bulletin from Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. concerning "options" which can be deleted because of the delay of effective date. Your fax notes that New York state regulations exceed the minimum requirement s of Standard No. 217 and requested any information we can provide on how the delay of effective date affects buses in the State of New York.

The November 2, 1992, amendment to Standard No. 217 set 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 May 4, 1994, delay of effective date affects only the amendments to S5.2.

PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS (S5.2)

The November 2, 1992, final rule revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses. As amended, S5.2.3 states, in part:

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 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 S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. The November 1992 rule amended S5.2.3.1 by specifying additional exits to meet the new minimum area requirement of S5.2.3. If, after deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), additional exits are needed to meet the minimum area requirement of S5.2.3, any remaining exit area

must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) an emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows.

The May 4, 1994 final rule delayed the effective date of the amendment of S5.2.3.1 only. The effect of the delay is that, until September 1, 1994, manufacturers may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217 by installing either a rear emergency ex it door, or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window.

Your letter notes that New York regulations exceed Standard No. 217 in that they require additional exits. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... 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 a ny safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103 (d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that are different from the applicable standard except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law requiring exits in addition to those required by Standard No. 217 would be preempted under S103(d) to the extent that the law requires ALL school buses man ufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. Any exits required by New York regulations on public school buses which exceed the requirements of Standard No. 21 7 would be considered voluntarily installed for purposes of federal law.

EMERGENCY EXIT RELEASE (S5.3)

The November 2, 1992, final rule added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if N ew York requires either emergency exit windows or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the release mechanisms comply with the requirements of S5.3. The effective date for the amendments to S5.3 was NOT extended by the May 4, 1994, fin al rule.

EMERGENCY EXIT EXTENSION (S5.4) The November 2, 1992, final rule revised the extension requirements for side emergency exit doors on school buses and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either side emergency exit doors or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with the new extension requirements. The effective date for the amendments to S5.4 was NOT exten ded by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

I note that the bulletin enclosed with your letter implies that, due to the delay of the effective date of the November 2, 1992, final rule, flip-up seats are not needed to meet the new requirements of S5.4. This information appears to be incorrect, sinc e the May 4, 1994, final rule did not delay the effective date of S5.4. Compliance with the new requirements of S5.4 might entail the installation of flip-up seats. 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 aisl e 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. Thus, if New York requires side emergency exit doors, flip-up seats adjacent to those exits m ight have to be used to enable the bus to meet these requirements. For example, a flip-up seat might be needed to meet the requirement that the aisle for a side exit must be at least 30 centimeters wide.

EMERGENCY EXIT IDENTIFICATION (S5.5)

Finally, the November 2, 1992, final rule revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effective date for the amendments to S5.5 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit." For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location r equirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. The identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3).

Please note that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the November 2, 1992, final rule. In a July 7, 1993, letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company NHTSA stated tha t it would issue a correction notice that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

I have enclosed a copy of the May 4, 1994, final rule 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.

ID: nht94-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gilbert Gallahar -- Kings Environmental Hydrogen Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/18/94 From Gilbert Gallahar To John Womack (OCC-9731)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gallahar:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to an on-board hydrogen generator used on an internal combustion engine to control exhaust emissions. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulati ons to you.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle e quipment, including an on-board hydrogen generator.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151 -159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be respons ible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please note that no FMVSS would preclude the installation of your product as an item of original equipment. Nevertheless, if your device were installed on a new vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or an alterer before the first consumer purchase, then the y would have to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

A commercial business that installs the on-board hydrogen generator would also be subject to provisions of the Safety

2

Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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 vehicl e safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs. For instance, compliance with FMVSS No. 301 might be degraded if the hydrogen generator affected the integrity of a motor vehicle fuel system. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install an on-board hydrogen generat or in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You may wish to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for any questions concerning emissions and air quality. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. You may also wish to contact the state of Arizona for information on its emi ssions testing regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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 permis sion 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 NH TSA 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 FMVSS s. 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 t o

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. Th erefore, 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 ti re. 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 wo uld 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 rep air 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 compli es 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 a ffected 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: nht94-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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 appl y 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), r evised 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 base d 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 p ush-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 am ount. 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 re quired 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 instal led 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 performan ce 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 "require d" 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 requirem ents 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 th an 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 c entimeters 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 flip s 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 b e 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 measure s

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 authori tative 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 age ncy 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 s tate "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