ID: nht79-2.5

DATE: 04/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Studio Aguila

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 12, 1979, letter asking whether a sports car designed for use without doors must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). The vehicle design discussed in your letter would apparently only have attachable doors for use in bad weather.

Since the test procedures in Safety Standard No. 214 require a loading device to be placed against the vehicle door, a passenger car having no doors could not practicably be tested. Therefore, a vehicle having doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from the vehicle are not required to comply with Safety Standard No. 214, if the vehicle is designed to be operated without the doors.

SINCERELY,

MARCH 12, 1979

Joseph J Levin Jr Chief Counsel Deartment of Transportation NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINSTRATION

Dear Mr. Levin,

Our office would like clarification from your Department on a point of ruling refering to USFMVSS 214.

We have a client, for whom we are developing a vehicle design aimed at introduction into the US market. This vehicle, being principally recreational in nature (In the sense of a sports car rather than a camper) is designed for use without doors.

Whilst this clearly is covered in clause S4 of VS206 we are concerned about VS214.

On the face of it one might say this vehicle need not comply with the standard VS214 as doors are not fitted except as draft excluders for use in any inclement weather. (Ref: VS206).

However, as we see it, although the rule VS214 states its purpose is to test door strength, the intent and partialy stated objective is to prevent injury to the occupants in a side collision situation. We feel therefore morally obliged to meet this aspect of the rules intent.

We would like your confirmation of the following points in this regard.

1/ Does the fact that the vehicle complies with VS206 Clause S4 (ie is Designed for use without doors) mean that we are not required to demonstrate compliance with VS-216?

2/ If the answer to the above is affirmative and we do have to show compliance with VS214 how should we locate the test device when we have no door?

3/ May we demonstrate compliance by placing the loading device at a height above the ground line with the vehicle loaded to its GVW which corresponds to the typical height at which the load device would be placed for the majority of the US vehicle population?

Our vehicle has extremely deep sills which are effectively very deep but rigidly integrated into the chassis structure, doors.

May we therefore locate the test device with reference to this sill provided that the height covered (See first para of Q3) indicates the strength at the point at which a side intrusion at an intersection collision is most likely to occur?

If we can have your confirmation of approval of proceedures outlined in 3, we will test to VS214 on those lines.

Otherwise we shall require a clear answer to Q1/.

We are looking forward to your reply at your earliest opportunity.

Dave Williams DIRECTOR -- DESIGN OFC.

ID: nht79-2.50

DATE: 01/23/79

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

TO: Esley Development Corporation

COPYEE: Don Morrison -- BMCS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1978, asking about your responsibilities, as the manufacturer of a snow plow headlamp holder, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Under the Act a truck, with or without snow plow attachment, is a "motor vehicle" and the plow itself and any associated equipment is considered "motor vehicle equipment" since it is an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. But Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, contains no requirements either for snow plow or accessory lighting, and your sealbeam holder therefore is not subject to regulation under the standard. However, as a manufacturer of "motor vehicle equipment," you are responsible for notification of purchasers and dealers, and remedy of any safety-related defects that may occur in your product. (Sec. 151 et seq. of the Act)

As to "what legal burden rests" with you as a "manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse" of your units once they leave your plant, we are uncertain what you mean by "misuse." If you mean that the holder is used in a way that you did not intend, then the question would appear to be one not answerable under Federal law. If the "misuse" is attributable to a defect in the sealbeam holder, then the question would arise whether the defect is safety-related. If the answer is affirmative, then you would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, for a reply to your question as to what Federal requirements must be met for use of your units "on inter and intra state highways."

Enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested, as well as a copy of the Act.

SINCERELY,

ESLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

December 21, 1978

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of an all rubber heavy duty auxiliary lighthousing used in off road mining, construction and logging. We are looking into manufacturing a snow-plow headlight with a turn signal attachment out of the same heavy duty rubber. It will be similar to the Yankee snow plow light and the Dietz snow plow light. It will be designed to hold a standard PAR 56 sealbeam of the 6014 or 6015 series as manufactured by G.E., Wagner Tung-Sol, and Westinghouse which are the standard sealbeams being used as OEM in autos and trucks for their primary headlights. Since we are not manufacturers of the sealbeams but just the holder of the sealbeam we would like your determination and response to the following questions:

-- Is a snow plow or truck using a snowplow attachment considered a motorized vehicle?

-- What legal burden rests with us as a manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse of our units once they leave our plant?

-- What federal requirements or regulations must be met for use of our units on inter and intra state highways? $-- Please send us a copy of Federal Standard 108.

Gentlemen, it takes 6 to 8 months to develope a product such as this prior to going into production. We are aiming at the 79-80 winter season and would therefore appreciate receiving your reply and any other advise you care to pass along as soon as possible.

Stephen E. Hall President

ID: nht79-2.6

DATE: 08/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for written confirmation of statements made by Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during a meeting with your representative, Mr. Bernstein. That meeting concerned the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216 as they apply to convertibles. The discussion below follows sections "I" and "V" of the transcript enclosed in your letter, which involve legal questions.

(I.) Convertibles, like all other passenger cars, must comply with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 beginning in 1981, 1982 or 1983, depending on vehicle wheelbase size. This means that convertibles will have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and, either meet the lateral and roll-over requirements of S5.2 and S5.3 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants or, at the option of the manufacturer, have a Type I or Type II seat belt assembly at each front designated seating position (and meet the frontal requirements of S5.1 with these belts fastened around the test dummies).

In the second part of your first question, you asked whether a convertible may meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. The answer to your question is yes. Convertibles are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 but may do so, at the option of the manufacturer, as an alternative to meeting the automatic roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. Please note that compliance with Standard No. 216 would not excuse convertibles from compliance with the automatic lateral protection requirements of Standard No. 208. As stated above, however, installation of a lap belt at front designated seating positions would excuse all passenger cars from both the lateral and the roll-over requirements. Therefore, a convertible that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and that also has lap belts installed, does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216. I am enclosing a letter of interpretation that was issued last year which discusses the relationship between Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216, in light of the automatic restraint requirements.

In the final part of your first question, you asked whether you could manufacture convertibles with fold-down tops, removable tops or removable hard-tops that would comply with Safety Standard No. 216, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is also yes. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible," the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, if any of the vehicle designs you mentioned meet this criteria and also comply with Safety Standard No. 216, they would not be required to comply with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208.

(V.) Section V of your transcript includes a discussion of the growing aftermarket convertible industry (removing hard-tops from vehicles) and the increasing number of kit-car convertibles. You asked about the legal requirements for these vehicles. Any new vehicle that is manufactured or assembled from a kit-car must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Likewise, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (by converting a hard-top vehicle to a convertible, for example) is required to place an additional lable on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. This means that all of these vehicles would have to be in complaince with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 (after those requirements become effective). Mr. Hitchcock's statement that removing the top of a vehicle that is in compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 would be prohibited by Federal law is incorrect. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, does provide that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and this is the law that Mr. Hitchcock referred to. The agency has stated in the past, however, that conversion of one vehicle type to another vehicle type (e.g., hard-top to convertible) does not violate this provision, as long as the converted vehicle complies with all safety standards that would have been applicable to it if it had originally been manufactured as the new type. Therefore, removal of a passenger car's hard-top does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216 since a new convertible would not have been required to comply with that standard.

I hope this letter has responded fully to the legal questions raised in your discussions with Mr. Hitchcock. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

July 3, 1979

Ralph J. Hitchcock Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

This letter is in reference to the meeting concerning F.M.V.S.S. 208 between you and Mr. Bernstein of this office on Monday, July 2, 1979.

I do appreciate the opportunity of having our representative meet with you and thank you for clearing up some vague areas of the regulations concerning convertibles.

We are following your advice and have made a transcription of the discussion which is enclosed for your review. Following your review, we would like the office of General Counsel to review it so that we may get a written confirmation (or clarification of misconceptions) by both the N.H.T.S.A. Engineering and Legal staffs concerning these issues.

D. Black

Manager

U.S. Engineering Office -- ALFA ROMEO, INC.

ENCLS.

CC: ING. LANDSBERG; ING. TOBIA; ING. SURACE; DOTT. BOZZI

OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND HENRY BERNSTEIN OF ALFA ROMEO ON JULY 2, 1979 CONCERNING:

FMVSS 208 - OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION

FMVSS 216 - ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE

AS RELATED TO OPEN BODY OR CONVERTIBLE TYPE VEHICLES

I. INTRODUCTION & QUESTIONS

Introduction:

Alfa Romeo is a very old company dating back to 1909; practically to the beginning of automobile development. Alfa Romeo has always built vehicles which are out of the ordinary in both engineering, style and performance. This is a heritage that we wish to preserve and continue into the future. We have always strived for excellence in our product and always will. We realize the need for safety standards and wish to comply with all applicable standards in effect for present and future model years, however, we are concerned over and a little confused about the requirements of open body vehicles (convertibles) as related to the occupant crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208 and it is this reason for which I come to Washington to meet with you with hopes of clarification of our questions in this area. Questions & Answers: Mr. Bernstein question: (I) Is it true that even convertibles must meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 as follows: a) meet the frontal crash protection require- ments (S5.1) by means that require no action by occupants (passive)? Mr. Hitchcock answer: yes Mr. Bernstein question: b) and either meet the lateral crash require- ments of S5.2 and the rollover requirements of S5.3 passively? Mr. Hitchcock answer: No (see 2) Mr. Bernstein question: c) or at each front designated seating position have a Type I seat belt or a Type II seat belt conforming to FMVSS 209 (seatbelts) and meet the requirements of S5.1 (labelling) in addition to passive? Mr. Hitchcock answer: Yes Mr. Bernstein question: (2) May we as optional compliance with the standard (208) as an alternative to the rollover require- ments of FMVSS 208 show compliance with the requirements of roof crush resistance FMVSS 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: According to Mr. Hitchcock, a recent amendment to FMVSS 208 (Dec. 5, 1977, 42 FR 61466) was the addition lap belts as an alternative to meeting lateral and rollover passively (S4.1.3) and that 216 would no longer be applicable. (This is "relief" for convertibles in his opinion).

In other words, we do have to meet the frontal requirements passively (belts or bags) and also provide lap belts and that neither roof crush or rollover compliance were necessary.

Hitchcock said he believes his interpretation is correct, but suggests that I write a report with these specific points and questions outline , which would be reviewed by the legal staff as well as the engineering staff. As a result , upon receipt of your comments and questions, a copy of this report will be forwarded to Mr.

Hitchcock so it may be reviewed and confirmed in writing by N.H.T.S.A.

We also discussed 216 as an alternative /optional compliance to rollover in 208 and I asked the following: Mr. Bernstein question: (3) May we design and produce a fold down convertible a) top which will meet 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: OK Mr. Bernstein question: b) May we design and produce a removeable convertible top which will meet 216?

c) What about a removeable hard top which will when installed meet 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: No need to comply but Mr. Hitchcock gave the following remarks concerning above questions b) and c). This area is not specifically covered in the regulations due to lack of proper definitions of "convertible top", "soft top", "hard top", etc.

The advise given was if we specifically wanted a review and confirmation concerning particular items such as these, that we should make specific Mr. Hitchcock answer: written presumptions about these subjects requesting definitions and concurrence with our views. This is the only way we may get documented proof of N.H.T.S.A.'s concurrence or non-concurrence with our views.

II. BACKGROUND

I discussed the importance of Spider sales to our company including past sales performance and future projections for which Mr. Hitchcock understood Alfa Romeo's concern in this area. Our Spider model is currently our largest selling model as indicated by both past and present sales figures and projections for the future as follows*: Future projections: 1980: 3,500 or 46.7% of projected sales total 1981: 4,500 or 41% of projected sales total 1982: 4,500 or 45% of projected sales total 1983: 5,000 or 41% of projected sales total 1984: 13,000 or 81% of projected sales total 1985: 14,500 or 73% of projected sales total 1986: 16,000 or 67% of projected sales total

Future projections: 1980: 3500 of 7,500 1981: 4500 of 11,000 1982 4500 of 10,000 1983: 5300 of 13,000 1984: 13000 of 16,000 1985: 14000 of 20,000 1986: 16,000 of 24,000

So therefore, Mr. Hitchcock, you can see our deep concern for saving this vehicle and promoting it well into the 1980's and beyond into the '90's.

* please refer to sales comparison graph and raw data (attached) for U.S. Spider (Illegible word) history from 1961 to 1978.

III. PROBLEMS INVOLVED/CONVERSION, ETC.

Commercially:

We wish to keep a convertible; it is a "disappering breed"; people still want this type of car. Detroit cannot justify production of convertibles anymore. We wish to be different than others (as we always have been) and provide our customers with a true convertible for which there is a great demand. We don't want to compromise by adding targa roofs, moon roofs, "T" tops, etc. as many maufacturers have already done and will do in the future.

At this point, we discussed briefly some other "convertibles" incorporating the systems mentioned above, and I also showed Mr. Hitchcock some brochures, newspaper and magazine clippings on the subject.

We discussed also passive limitations. Technically:

Air bags are impossible due to cost considerations, size, and a complete lack of European suppliers. U.S. suppliers aren't interested in our small numbers. We could do it if we did not care about cost and had a supplier.

Belts: passive belts (VW/Chevette type) are impossible due to lack of "B" pillar and lack of door frame to anchor belt to.

Roll bar: the producer, Pininfarina, is on contract to ARI at a certain. price. They say the present structure does not allow for adaption of a roll bar. Very difficult if not impossible when taking into consideration the desire to provide a folding soft top assembly.

Targa roof/door frames: roof rails would not be a convertible and buyers would agree.

Mr. Hitchock recommended "Development of Specifications for Passive Belt Systems by Man Factors, Inc." (DOT-HS-800-809) for some other passive ideas. I have already ordered a copy for Alfa Romeo.

IV. LEGALITIES "RULING OUT" CONVERTIBLES, ETC. (reference 1966 Safety Act)

When we discussed the 1966 Safety Act statement concerning "safety standards which are appropriate for the particular type of vehicle for which it was prescribed and that safety standards should not rule out a class of vehicle" (FR 1392 (f)(3), Mr. Hitchcock noted that convertibles are not ruled out as a class of vehicle and that many presume that they are due to a lack of total understanding of the regulations.

V. AFTERMARKET MANUFACTURERS, ETC.

Mr. Bernstein question: What alarms me is the ever growing aftermarket convertible industry. Conversion shops, etc. are turning out and selling convertibles in large quantities to meet the demand. Replicar manufacturers are constantly increasing their sales and new companies are being born overnight due to the fact that most are convertibles which are in such great demand. Also, many "kit cars" are becoming prominent on the market, most of which are also convertibles. Is there no relief to us, a manufacturer who imports far less convertibles than these operations sell here?

Mr. Hitchcock answer: Concerning the aftermarket manufacturers, Mr. Hitchcock explained that they will also be responsible for compliance due to the fact that rendering a safety device or system inoperative is prohibited by law and that "chopping" a roof off a vehicle would probably violate this requirement. Naturally, enforcement is an area requirement. Naturally, enforcement is an area in which these operations may be safe for now due to manpower limitations and other priorities.

VI. ECONOMICS, EXEMPTIONS, AMENDMENTS

Mr. Bernstein question: What about petitions, exemptions, etc.?

Mr. Hitchcock answer: If economics are a problem, we may be able to petition and that we may also petition for an amendment to the standard for convertibles. This amendment would not be for Alfa Romeo vehicles exclusively, but for convertibles in general.

NOTE: Apparently, a current Chrysler petition is in the docket with a petition for amendment concerning a similar situation as related to hard top vehicles with no "B" pillar. Chrysler must comply in 1982 >114" wheelbase.

VII. RECOMMENDED FOLLOW UP ACTION

A written report as outlined in this report for review and written reply by N.H.T.S.A.

Henry E. Bernstein

Attachments 7.3.79 BREAKDOWN OF GRAPH DATA BODY STYLE SPIDER COUPE SEDAN YEAR 1961 349 38 0 1962 572 165 12 1963 608 73 1 1964 799 169 0 1965 832 729 5 1966 658 747 1 1967 804 747 1 1968 426 487 0 1969 1199 671 690 1970 887 352 313 1971 1218 899 435 1972 935 866 546 1973 163 863 732 1974 1703 1565 844 1975 3089 2072 1082 1976 2503 1685 1139 1977 1993 2162 1265 1978 3562 1663 912 TOTAL: 22,300 15,953 7,978 % OF SALES 48.2% 34.5% 17.3%

GRAND TOTAL = 46,321 = 100%

(Graphics omitted) (Illeg.) 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 (Illeg.) TOTAL 73 = 1758 74 = 4112 75 = 6243 802 76 = 5329 (Illeg.) 110 77 = 5420 (Illeg.) 1663 78 = 6139 3562 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 TOTAL 73 = 1758 74 = 4112 Retails 75 = 6243 Sedan 802 76 = 5327 Automatic 110 77 = 5420 Sprint Veloce 1663 78 = 6137 (Illeg.) 700 981 1265 (Illeg.) GT 635 1254 2119 844 382 158 43 1565 1437 431 1703 3089 2503 1993 3562

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.7

DATE: 02/13/79

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 15, 1978, petition asking for changes in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as that standard applies to the measurement of contact area. In particular, you ask the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to amend the standard adopting a specific test medium for measuring contact area and deleting the existing list of acceptable contact area test mediums currently established in the agency's compliance test procedures.

On July 19, 1978, the NHTSA responded to an earlier petition (December 20, 1977) submitted by you on this same issue. In that letter, the NHTSA denied your requested amendment of the standard. Your current petition presents no additional data or arguments supporting your suggested modification that were not presented and thoroughly considered in our determination of your first petition. Accordingly, for the reasons specified in our July 19, 1978, letter to you, the agency denies your suggested rulemaking.

In your August 15 petition, you suggested that Standard No. 222 should incorporate more detailed test procedures, because some of the agency's other safety standards specify test procedures in greater detail. Standard No. 222 currently specifies test procedures to be used by manufacturers in complying with the standard. However, like all of the agency's standards, Standard No. 222's compliance test procedures are even more detailed than the requirements specified in the standard.

The NHTSA writes safety standards as simply as possible while providing the necessary detail for manufacturers to comply with their requirements. A manufacturer is then permitted to develop its own test procedures as long as its procedures are compatible with the requirements of the standard. The NHTSA, itself, devises tests that it uses for testing a vehicle's compliance. Whenever possible, these tests are available to manufacturers, and manufacturers are free to adopt them or to proceed with their own test procedures. Your twice-submitted petition would have the NHTSA rewrite its standards in a manner that would specify test procedures in greater detail. Such an approach would increase the complexity of safety standards if done uniformly to all standards and would in fact be detrimental to small manufacturers. The purpose of allowing some variation in details of test procedures is to permit a manufacturer to develop test procedures that are tailored to that manufacturer's needs and constraints. For example, certain test procedures used by the NHTSA may be too costly for a small manufacturer. Under the current compliance system, any manufacturer can develop a less expensive alternative test methodology. Under the system that you propose, however, a manufacturer would be required to adopt the test procedures specified in the standard. Since your suggestion, if applied to all safety standard, could add costs to the agency's regulations without achieving any significant benefits, the NHTSA determines that your suggested amendment is not in the public interest.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

August 15, 1978

Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PETITION

References: 1. W. G. Milby Petition of December 20, 1977. 2. J. J. Levin to W. G. Milby, NOA-30 July 19, 1978. 3. R & D 222 - MS - 78-01 - Impact Media Evaluation.

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to reference 2 and to again petition the agency on the same subject as reference 1. The basis for this second petition is reference 3, which was not available when the first petition was submitted and apparently was not consulted by the agency before denying reference 1.

To quote a ranking NHTSA official, "regulation without enforcement is meaningless." We agree. But to have enforcement, there must be a repeatable procedure which all interested parties use. Otherwise test results are not comparable. When methodology causes significant variance in the test results, then, methodology must be addressed before rational enforcement can exist.

Today, as documented in reference 3, the allowable variations in test methodology regarding FMVSS 222 contact area cause significant variance in the test results and prevent rational enforcement. This is the reason we submitted reference 1, a petition requesting rulemaking action on FMVSS 222 which would require and allow only one transfer medium for measuring contact areas.

Reference 2 denies that petition. However, we believe the reasons which the agency set forth as a basis for the denial are not valid. Further, the agency did not address the content of the proposed amendment in reference 1. Each of the reasons the agency gave for denying reference 1 is discussed below with comments showing why they are not valid.

1. The first reason NHTSA gave for denial was that the agency does not specify the "details for manufacturer testing . . .", but instead, leaves it up to each manufacturer to determine how to test. We do not believe this is true in all cases. For example, FMVSS 121 goes into significant detail for air brake testing. FMVSS 209 goes into even more detail on seat belt assemblies, with the demonstration procedures alone requiring 11 pages. Therefore we conclude that the NHTSA does specify details in a standard when it is consisted with good rulemaking.

2. The second reason for denial was that the agency does adopt certain test procedures for use in its own compliance testing and that manufacturers are free to use these test procedures. It is true that NHTSA has published test procedures for FMVSS 222. However, these procedures are inadequate with respect to contact area measurement methodology as was spelled out in detail in reference 1. The basis of our petition, reference 1, was that the test procedures for FMVSS 222, as well as the standard itself, contains inadequate detail to insure consistent contact area measurements. Therefore, simply stating that NHTSA has published test procedures is not a valid reason for denying the petition.

3. NHTSA's third reason for denying the petition was that NHTSA makes the test procedures public and manufacturers are welcome to use them for their own testing. While it is true that the test procedures are eventually made public, reference 1 points out the fact that test procedures are sometimes not made public in time for manufacturers to use them for certification testing. In fact, we were not able to get the FMVSS 222 test procedures until December 9, 1977, and that was only in response to our request made under the Freedom of Information Act.

4. The fourth reason given for denial of the petition was that "the transfer medium specified in the NHTSA compliance test are for the purpose of convenience of NHTSA testing." We do not believe that the convenience of NHTSA testing should be given higher priority than the need for specifying procedures which will give repeatable results. In fact, as the standard and test procedures now allow more than one transfer medium, it results in inconvenience to all parties involved, including NHTSA, rather than convenience. This is so because allowing different transfer media causes different results which then generate false indications of non compliance. This is very costly as well as inconvenient to all parties involved.

None of these reasons, in our opinion, is a valid basis upon which to deny our petition reference 1. Since this issue must be resolved before enforcement of this part of the standard can occur, we hereby again petition NHTSA to amend FMVSS 222 as follows:

1. Change paragraph 6.8 to read "Except for during contact area measurement impacts, the head form and knee form, and contactable surfaces are clean and dry during impact testing."

2. Add a new paragraph 6.8.1 to read "Prior to each contact area impact, use a bristle brush to apply a cost of latex base exterior house paint to the entire sperical surface of the head or knee form. Wipe the head or knee form clean after each contact area impact."

3. Add a paragraph 6.8.2 to read "Immediately after each contact area impact, record the contact area pattern by holding a piece of vellum drafting paper stationary over the pattern and firmly rubbing it."

4. Add a new paragraph 6.8.3 to read "After allowing contact area patterns to dry on the vellum paper, draw non intersecting lines tangent to the outer bounds of areas of direct contact. the contact area is that area enclosed by the periphery of these lines and the area of direct contact. Measure this area by tracing the periphery with a direct reading planimeter."

We look forward to receiving an affirmative response to this petition within 120 days.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht79-2.8

DATE: 03/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 1, 1979, letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to withdraw an earlier interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which stated that any contactable objects falling within the head protection zone must comply with the head impact and force distribution requirements. The head protection zone might include some areas in the driver's seating location, and therefore, any contactable object in the driver's seating location that falls within the zone must comply with the requirements. The agency declines to alter its interpretation.

The standard is clear in its specification of zones for head form impact and force distribution testing. These zones help to ensure that any contactable objects falling within them will be sufficiently padded to protect a child from serious injury in an accident. The head protection zone for any passenger seat extends into the seat area of the passenger seat immediately in front of it. Similarly, the zone for the front passenger seat might extend into the driver's seating location. You argue that the restraining barrier between the front seat and the driver's seat removes the need for head protection zone requirements in the driver's seating area.

The fact that a restraining barrier separates the driver's seating location from the passenger seat bears no relevance to the need for head impact protection in the head protection zone for the front passenger seat. The head protection zone extends above and beyond the restraining barrier recognizing the possibility that the heads and upper bodies of larger children are likely to be impelled somewhat beyond the barrier in an accident. The barrier should help to prevent a child from being thrown entirely out of its seating position, but a barrier cannot prevent a child's head from being propelled beyond the barrier in some instances. Since the head protection zone requirements are designed to provide protection in these situations and that protection is needed for all passenger seats including the front seat, the agency will not alter its interpretation of the requirements as they apply to the head protection zone for the front passenger seat.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 1, 1979

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: 1. FMVSS 222 2. Robert B. Kurre to Frank A. Berndt, April 1, 1977

3. Frank A. Berndt to Robert B. Kurre, N40-30, May 11, 1977

Dear Mr. Levin:

Paragraph S 5.3.1.1 of reference 1 defines a head impact zone relative to the passenger seating reference point which must meet certain performance requirements with respect to head impact testing.

Reference 2 requests a clarification of the zone with respect to the drivers area. Reference 3 states that contactable surfaces in the zone of S 5.3.1.1 must meet the requirements as specified in S 5.3.1.

The purpose of this letter is to question the interpretation given in reference 3.

The driver's side barrier required by S 5.2 effectively isolates passengers from the driver's compartment. To require padded driver's seat frames in addition to isolating them from the passenger compartment is a redundant requirement which adds cost without any corresponding safety benefit.

The only other alternative is to provide more clearance between barrier and the driver's seat. By doing this, driver's seat padding requirements could be avoided. However, since most states have an overall length limit to which specific bus models are designed, this would eliminate at least three passenger positions.

As can be seen from the attached photos, taken before and after a barrier performance test, there is no need to pad the driver's seat since it is isolated from possible passenger impact. The posttest photograph is taken from NHTSA's compliance test report no. 780903 of a Blue Bird All American Schoolbus.

Therefore, on the basis of practicality we would ask that the interpretation given in reference 3 be reversed.

Thank you for your early reply.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

Barrier / Driver's Seat relationship, Protest.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 3-16 (CONT) FORCE/DEFLECTION TEST, DRIVER BARRIER, PRETEST & POSTTEST

ID: nht79-2.9

DATE: 05/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 13, 1979, letter in which you ask whether a seat that does not have another seat immediately behind it must comply with the rearward performance requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The seat to which you refer is abutted by a portion of a lift device for handicapped students. Behind the lift structure, itself, is a restraining barrier and more seats.

Standard No. 222 states that any seat that has another seat behind it must comply with the rearward performance requirements. The effect of this statement is to exclude rear seats from complying with the rearward performance requirements. In the Federal Register notice of April 23, 1975, the agency stated that it was adopting this approach to save costs in school buses without impairing the safety of those vehicles. The agency indicated that the passengers in the rear seat were protected as well as passengers in other seats, because they can "ride down" the vehicle structure rather than the seat back in an accident (40 FR 17855).

The above analysis is equally appropriate for other seats that are directly in front of some substantial vehicle structure. The lift mechanism depicted in your picture and diagram appears to offer similar "ride down" benefits to passengers as does the rear wall structure of a vehicle. Accordingly, the agency considers the rearward performance requirements to apply in situations such as yours only when a seat is immediately in front of another passenger seat. The agency cautions, however, that this interpretation applies only in those instances where the affected seat is in front of some substantial vehicle structure. If the seat does not have the benefit of vehicle structure behind it, it must comply with the rearward performance requirements.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 13, 1979

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 222 PARAGRAPH S5.1.4 SEAT PERFORMANCE REARWARD

REFERENCE: Telephone conversation between W. G. Milby and Roger Tilton March 6, 1979.

Dear Mr. Tilton:

The subject paragraph says "when a school bus passenger seat that has another seat behind it is subjected to the applications of force . . .". The effect of this language is to not require the rear most seats in a school bus to be subject to the rearward performance requirements of FMVSS 222.

The rationale behind this is that the rear structure of the bus body will restrict the seat back from excessive rearward deflection. The purpose of this letter is to seek a similar interpretation for seats which have other structures behind them (such as handicapped passenger lifts as described in the attached photo) which would insure that the rearward deflection does not exceed 8 inches as described in S5.1.4(b). An interpretation is necessary since in some floor plans, such as the ones described on the enclosed form number OE-79122 page 12, it is necessary to have some seating positions rearward of the lift. When this is the case, a barrier is placed between the rear portion of the lift and the next seating position, as shown on the enclosed floor plans. Although these seats are "behind" another school bus passenger seat, they are not immediately behind another seat which is the sense in which the language of S5.1.4 is used.

We thank you for your consideration in this matter and look forward to your early response.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

(Graphics omitted)

SCHOOL BUS

ALL AMERICAN BLUE BIRD'S HANDY BUS 35" LIFT

SUGGESTED SEAT PLANS BODY MODEL AAFC3101 Body Sections Front to Rear: 179" W.B. Floor Plan Number: 0917484 5-28, 2-35, 4-28 Seat Plan Number: 0896696

BODY MODEL AAFC3101 Body Sections Front to Rear: 179" W.B. Floor Plan Number: 0914069(1) 3-28, 2-35, 6-28 Seat Plan Number: 0914325

(Graphics omitted)

(1) NOTE: Option 4594 Relocate 60 gal. fuel tank w/barrier must be ordered. Body Sections Front to Rear: 149" W.B. Floor Plan Number: 0850875 5-28, 3-35, 1-28 Seat Plan Number: 0914309

BODY MODEL AAFC2700 Body Sections Front to Rear: Floor Plan Number: 0850875 5-28, 3-35, 1-28 149" W.B. Seat Plan Number: 0850867

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-3.1

DATE: 01/24/79

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

TO: Volkswagen of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 3, 1979, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a braking system that Volkswagen proposes to use on its 1980 Dasher model.

Specifically, the Dasher will employ a single "pressure switch on each vehicle, meaning that the stop lamp will be activated by only one of the [two, split] service brake systems." You asked whether this is consistent with S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 which requires that "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You argued that it meets the standard because:

"Neither FMVSS 571.105-75 nor 575.108 (sic) clearly specify the conditions under which the stop lights have to operate. Specifically the regulations do not specify that the stop lamps must illuminate upon application of the service brake control if one of the circuits of a dual circuit hydraulic braking system failed."

We do not concur with your interpretation. S4.5.4 quite clearly specifies the conditions under which the stop lamps must operate--"upon application of the service brakes," and it is immaterial which circuit of a dual circuit hydraulic braking system is braking the vehicle. Therefore, your proposed system would constitute an apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA

JANUARY 3, 1979

Joseph J. Levin -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Subject: Stop Lamp Switch Requirements - FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Levin:

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 specifies that a vehicle stop lamp shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. Volkswagen is currently considering a manufacturing decision regarding brake light switches, and because this would fall under the spectrum of the standard, we are requesting NHTSA's opinion of our contemplated course of action as it relates to the standard.

Volkswagen's current product line uses two pressure sensing switches in the master cylinder to activate both the stop lamps and the brake failure warning light. For the 1980 model year, Volkswagen is replacing these switches in the master cylinder with a float-type fluid level indicator switch to activate the brake failure warning light, and a pedal-activated switch to activate the stop lights. Together these changes will result in a cost saving. However, because of certain manufacturing considerations we are unable to employ the brake pedal switch on Dasher models. For these models we will need an alternate method to activate the stop lamps, specifically an in-line pressure sensing switch.

The proposed system uses only one pressure switch on each vehicle, meaning that the stop lamps will be activated by only one of the service brake subsystems. Our question is then whether the NHTSA believes that this strategy (the single switch) is consistent with the standard.

It is Volkswagen's position that our proposal meets the requirements of all applicable standards. Neither FMVSS 571.105-75 nor 575.108 clearly specify the conditions under which the stop lights have to operate. Specifically, the regulations do not specify that the stop lamps must illuminate upon application of the service brake control if one of the circuits of a dual circuit hydraulic braking system failed.

Volkswagen recognizes that the NHTSA may be concerned about the situation in which, with one hydraulic circuit inoperative, service brake operation is possible (at a reduced level) without stop lamp activation. However, this is a situation which has a small likelihood for occurrence, and a smaller likelihood for sustained existence.

The alternative to our proposal is the installation of a second pressure sensing switch on each vehicle such that one switch is employed in each service brake subsystem. This system would insure that, unless the switches themselves failed, stop lamp activation would continue as long as hydraulic pressure is maintained in any one of the two subsystems. However, the in-plant cost of the second switch is substantial, DM 1.80 per vehicle.

Your prompt consideration of the request for interpretation would be greatly appreciated. If you need any further information, or if you would like to discuss this topic, please contact Mr. Preuss of my staff. He can be reached at (313) 574-3784.

Sincerely

D. K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations

ID: nht79-3.10

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Scott Lyford, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office when you telephoned on June 4, 1979, on behalf of your clients who intend to manufacture auxiliary gasoline tanks, to sell the tanks as part of a universal kit with all parts necessary for installation, and in some instances to install the tanks in vehicles. You inquired as to the meaning of the word "integrity" as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75 (49 CFR 571.301-75) and the applicability of the standard to your clients' proposed activities. You also inquired as to the meaning of the phrase "render inoperative" as used in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act) and its applicability to your clients' proposed activities.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard that applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars or (2) multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. The word "integrity" as used in FMVSS 301-75, refers to the fact that compliance with the standard requires that fuel spillage from a vehicle subjected to a fixed or moving barrier crash not exceed the limits established by FMVSS 301-75, S5.5 and S5.6.

Since FMVSS 301-75 is only a vehicle standard and does not specify performance standards for fuel tanks, it does not directly apply to your clients' proposed manufacturing activities. However, as will be discussed later, it does apply when an auxiliary fuel tank is installed in a vehicle by either the manufacturer of the tank or other persons specified in the Act.

Despite the lack of a specifically applicable safety standard auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. The defect responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151-153) authorize the Secretary of Transportation (or his delegate the NHTSA Administrator) to make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer of the equipment to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. In addition, these provisions also require that a manufacturer who discovers a safety-related defect in his product notify the Secretary of Transportation (or NHTSA Administrator) and then provide notification and remedy to purchasers. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(A) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Since auxiliary gasoline tanks are items of motor vehicle equipment, as defined in section 102(4) of the Act, your clients as manufacturers of such equipment would be required to provide notification and remedy should their auxiliary gasoline tanks prove to be defective in design, materials, manufacture, or performance. (See 49 CFR Part 597).

FMVSS 301-75 would apply to your client's installation of auxiliary fuel tanks in new motor vehicles. Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with the safety standards applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone, for purposes other than resale. The purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. Any person who, prior to the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, alters that vehicle by making more than minor finishing operations, is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all safety standards applicable to it. Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act).

Under these provisions, your clients would be considered to be alterers if they installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, and they would be required to recertify the vehicle as complying with applicable safety standards, including FMVSS 301-75. With respect to FMVSS 301-75, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary tank added by an alterer must meet them also.

It should also be noted that the defect responsibilities imposed by Section 151 et seq., mentioned earlier with respect to the defective design, composition, manufacture or performance of auxiliary tanks also apply to safety defects in the installation of such tanks in new vehicles. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation. Acting, as both manufacturers and installers of the tanks, your clients would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both the production and installation of the tanks.

FMVSS 301-75 as well as the "render inoperative" provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply to your clients' activities in installing auxiliary gasoline tanks in used vehicles. After the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle (referred to here as a used vehicle) is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). Specifically, the section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....

The words "render inoperative," in the context of section 108(a)(2)(A), in essence prohibit certain listed entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards.

A listed person or entity found to have violated section 108(a)(2)(A) would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Should your clients begin producing auxiliary gasoline tanks they would be encompassed by the term "manufacturer" as that term is used in section 108(a)(2)(A) and defined in section 102(5) of the Act. Therefore, if your clients added an auxiliary gasoline tank to a used vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 and in the process knowingly reduced the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, they would be deemed in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). Such reduction of performance could occur for example, if the gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, or if the design materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.

I hope you will find this response helpful.

ID: nht79-3.11

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Education, State of Mississippi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 7, 1979, letter asking whether any Federal law (statutes, standards, regulations or guidelines) prohibits a school district in the State of Mississippi from converting the gasoline fuel system in school buses which it owns to a butane or propane powered system. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system and older school bus chassis not equipped with such a system. As explained below, none of the laws we administer would prohibit converting any school bus, regardless of when it was manufactured.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 ("the Act"), 15 U.S.C. et seq., the agency has issued Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75). This standard specifies performance requirements for the fuel system of certain new motor vehicles. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000, pounds or less or (3) school buses with a (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.

New vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold and delivered to a purchaser for purposes other than resale) manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 may be converted to propane or butane systems. Upon the conversion of the vehicles to types of fuel systems not covered by the standard, the vehicles would cease to be subject to the standard.

Similarly, used vehicles manufactured in accordance with the standard as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of the standard may be converted. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) limits tampering with the fuel systems of vehicles manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75. It does not apply at all to vehicles manufactured before the standard's effective date. The section, in essence, prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. There is no prohibition against vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(A) provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with FMVSS 301-75 if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a gasoline powered school bus (a vehicle type covered by the standard) to a propane or butane-powered school bus (a vehicle type not covered by the standard), the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to FMVSS 301-75 since this standard does not apply to butane or propane powered school buses. FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F, and propane and butane reach their boiling points at a lower temperature.

This means that a school district in your state would not be prohibited from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacturer, to propane or butane-powered school buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a motor vehicle repair business or some other person or entity listed in Section 108(a)(2)(A), that person or entity would not be prohibited from performing the work.

Please note, however, that if a propane or butane fuel system is installed in a new vehicle, the installer would be responsible for any safety defects in the manner in which the system is installed. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act provide that if vehicles are found to contain a safety defect, notification of the defect must be given and the defect must be remedied. Defects in the systems themselves would be the responsibility of the manufacturer of the systems, regardless of whether they are installed in new or used vehicles.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and you have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

State of Mississippi DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

May 7, 1979

Roger Tilton -- U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Reference is made to your conversation with Mr. Walter Corban, Supervisor of Pupil Transportation, Mississippi State Department of Education, last week regarding the use of butane and propane gas in the operation of school buses in this state. Would you please provide me with answers to the following questions?

1. Are there any laws, standards, regulations, or guidelines at the federal level which would prohibit a school district in this state from converting a new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system from gasoline to butane or propane?

2. Are there any laws, standards, regulations, or guidelines at the federal level which would prohibit a school district in this state from converting an older school bus chassis which is not equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system from gasoline to butane and propane?

Your prompt reply to these questions will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Leonard Cain, Director -- School Building and Transportation

ID: nht79-3.12

DATE: 11/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert C. Schultz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is response to your letter to the Secretary of Transportation regarding the transportation of diesel fuel in the trunk of an automobile in plastic auxiliary tanks. You asked whether it is permissible to permanently install a plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tank in the trunk of a four door passenger car. You also noted the availability of 5.5 gallon plastic utility containers that can be used as auxiliary tanks. From your description I gather that these types of containers are not attached to the vehicle's fuel system.

From your letter I got the impression that you are asking whether any law administered by this agency would prohibit an individual from using either of these types of tanks in his private automobile. With respect to small tanks that are not connected to the automobile's fuel system, this agency administers no law that would prevent an individual from carrying such a tank in his automobile. However, please note that this is a very dangerous practice that can lead to fires and explosions potentially harmful or fatal not only to the driver and passengers of the vehicle carrying such a tank but also occupants of other nearby vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a press release that the Department of Transportation issued this Spring, which describes the dangers associated with carrying gasoline, but which is also applicable to carrying diesel fuel. As noted in the press release this agency strongly discourages the use of portable fuel containers.

There is no law administered by this agency which would bar an individual from installing a plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tank in his or her own automobile or from using such a tank once installed by the individual or by a commercial installer. However, there are legal obligations imposed by the statutes and regulations under which we operate that would apply to the manufacturers and installers of such tanks. Since I am unsure as to the exact scope of your inquiry I will summarize these below.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75 Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. Under the standard's requirements, no part of a vehicle's entire fuel system can have fuel spillage beyond certain specified amounts during barrier crash tests. Specific performance requirements for individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, are not currently included in the standard. With the advent of high density polyethylene (plastic) fuel tanks, however, the current "system" performance requirements might not be sufficient to ensure the integrity of vehicle fuel systems. For this reason, the agency has published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making concerning the advisability of establishing performance standards for plastic tanks (44 FR 33441, June 11, 1979, copy enclosed).

Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to their manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. A manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, is subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151 et seg.). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer itself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.

If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle, prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, that person or entity would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, that person or entity would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor-vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, the alterer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.

If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installed an auxiliary gasoline tank in a used passenger vehicle, that person or entity would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

Thus, if one of the named persons or entities added an auxiliary tank to a used passenger vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system that person or entity would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you. If you have any further questions please feel free to address them to Ms. Debra Weiner of my office (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY, (Illegible Pages)

THANK YOU,

C ROBERT SCHULTZ

LUND INDUSTRIES INC.

(Graphics omitted)