ID: 2856o

Mr. Wayne Apple
14738 Bronson Avenue
San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1987, in which you ask whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-turn indicator. However, a U-turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the importance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. l08 does not cover a U-turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment that was installed pursuant to Standard No. l08. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) The legality of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 120l Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the general type of crash for which U-turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-turn crashes is substantially less than the 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles. We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing our Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

ref:108 d:4/18/88

ID: 2856yy

State Representative Jim Holperin
34th Assembly District
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708

Dear Mr. Holperin:

This is in reply to your letter of January 3, l99l, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, on behalf of your constitutent LeRoy E. Mueller. Mr. Mueller is a manufacturer of trailers, and is concerned that if he builds certain tilt deck trailers to specifications they will fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. Specifically, a stationary ramp "might obscure a clear view of the trailer's tail lights from a 45 degree angle . . . ." You have asked whether his concern "regarding an obstructed view of the tail light" is a legitimate one.

As Mr. Mueller indicates, Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, incorporates by reference SAE Standard J585e, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), Sept. 1977, which applies to trailers. This standard requires that "Signal from lamps on both side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right." The SAE standard further specifies that "To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." We note that stop lamps and rear turn signal lamps must also meet this requirement.

You have enclosed a photocopy of a photograph of the rear of a trailer taken from what we assume represents a 45 degree angle to the left of the horizontal centerline of the trailer. Certain lamps, visible from another photocopy of a picture taken on the centerline, appear to be obscured at the 45 degree angle. Thus, it appears that Mr. Mueller's concern to be a legitimate one. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine whether his vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to ensure that it does before affixing a certification of compliance to it upon completion of its manufacture. If this agency has reason to believe that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment has been manufactured and/or certified in violation of the Vehicle Safety Act, this agency conducts an investigation and, if appropriate, an enforcement action.

However, we would like to point out that if trailer equipment prevents compliance of a required lamp, like a tail lamp, with any of Standard No. l08's requirements, paragraph S5.3.1.1 of the standard permits a manufacturer to install an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's requirements.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:2/26/9l

ID: 2857o

Mr. Troy C. Martin
Specifications/Inspections Chief
Texas State Purchasing & General Service
Commission
Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Bldg.
P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is a response to your letter of last year where you stated your concern respecting the installation of "latches" on the rear doors of a school bus of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR (small school bus), and asked a number of questions on release mechanisms for required rear emergency doors on these small school buses. I regret the delay in this response.

You said that the State of Texas has a school bus specification that requires "the first-closed (left-hand) door)" to have a latching mechanism at the top and bottom. Your supplier tells you that this specification conflicts with provisions of Federal safety standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (Standard 217). You go on to express your concern that a single mechanism would hold both doors closed, and that this feature increases the risk of injury from accidental or intentional opening. You believe that where a small school bus has two rear doors, if each door is secured independently, then there is a decreased risk of a student's falling through a door opened inadvertently.

Let me begin my answer with some general information on the requirement for a rear emergency door in a small school bus. As your supplier suggests, there can be instances where independently securing the rear doors on a small school bus would violate Standard 217. Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires a manufacturer of these buses to install either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) one emergency door on the vehicle's left side and one push-out rear window. Where a manufacturer chooses to meet this requirement by installing one rear emergency door, the door may be hinged on either side of the vehicle.

When a manufacturer installs more than one rear door exit, the question of whether both exits are "emergency doors" under paragraph S5.2.3.1 of Standard 217 depends upon whether one or both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of a specified parallelepiped under paragraph S5.4.2.2. The purpose of the school bus emergency exit requirements is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency. (44 FR 7961, 7962, February 8, 1979.)

Question 1: Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217?

If a manufacturer installs more than one rear door on a small school bus, and intends one door to be a rear emergency door under S5.2.3.1 and one to be a regular door for loading and unloading passengers, then the designated rear emergency door is a sufficient rear emergency exit so long as it will permit unobstructed passage of the device specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2 of the Standard. In a case such as this one, the manufacturer must label the emergency door appropriately, and otherwise ensure that the designated rear emergency door meets the performance, accessibility, and release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus.

On the other hand, if the manufacturer installs two rear doors on a small school bus, and if both of those doors must be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, then both doors constitute a rear emergency exit under S5.2.3.1. In this case, the two doors together must meet the applicable provisions of Standard 217.

There is yet another possibility that a manufacturer may install a second rear exit and designate it as an emergency exit. Assuming that at least one exit meets Standard 217's requirements for a rear emergency door exit, NHTSA would not prohibit installing this additional emergency exit. However, as the agency long has held, that "extra" emergency exit must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Question 2: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require separate, independent operation; that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

Again, the answer to this question depends upon whether one door can meet the unobstructed test measurement for a required rear emergency door. Let me begin this answer by explaining the release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus.

Under paragraph S5.3.3, a required small school bus rear emergency door generally must have a release mechanism that allows (1) a single person (2) to operate the door manually (3) from in or outside the vehicle's passenger compartment without the use of remote controls or tools (4) irrespective of whether the vehicle's power system fails. (Paragraph S5.3.3 also sets the maximum permissible magnitude of force and the permissible direction in which a force must be applied to operate the release mechanism.)

In an interpretation of March 17, 1982, this agency stated that the release mechanism is the mechanism that keeps the door from opening. In other words, the release mechanism is what you refer to in your letter as the door "latch." If the test device described in my answer to your first question passes through unobstructed only when both doors are open, then the door release mechanism must be operable for both doors from inside the vehicle passenger compartment irrespective of whether a person outside the vehicle operates the outside release mechanism. Further, this same release mechanism must be operable from outside the vehicle. In this circumstance, a separate release mechanism for each door would not comply with the Standard.

If only one door needs to be open, and the manufacturer has designated the second door as an emergency exit, then this additional emergency door still must be operable from inside the passenger compartment. In this case, independent release mechanisms may be appropriate, but a release mechanism on an additional emergency exit need not be operable from outside the vehicle. (S5.3.2.)

If only one door needs to be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, and the manufacturer neither intends the second door to be an emergency door, nor designates it as an emergency exit, then the second door is a regular door for loading and unloading passengers. Standard 217 would be inapplicable to this second door.

Question 3: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened to insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelepiped?

If both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of the specified parallelepiped, then there must be a single emergency release mechanism (or latch) for both doors. In a case such as this, there must be an audible alarm under S5.3.3 whenever the release mechanism is not closed and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." That alarm should sound if either door is unsecured.

Question 4: Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelepiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand door closed?

In your question, the manufacturer may designate either door as the required S5.2.3.1 emergency exit if the door accommodates the test device. The warning system then must sound when the release mechanism on the designated rear emergency door is open and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." For example, if in your question, the manufacturer designated the right-hand door as the required rear door emergency exit, then the warning system must sound whenever the release mechanism for that door is open and the vehicle ignition position is "on." As I stated in Question 1, the second rear door could be an "additional" emergency exit, or a regular means for loading and unloading passengers; then the additional door would have to meet such other requirements as may apply to these exits.

Question 5: Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelepiped even though the left-hand door is close by the latches of the right-hand door?

In this circumstance, Standard 217 would prohibit installing a separate release mechanism on each door. Recall that S5.2.3.1 requires on a small school bus, "one rear emergency door," or one side door and one push-out window. If the manufacturer chooses to install the rear emergency door, then under S5.4.2.2, the specified parallelepiped must pass through that rear emergency door without obstruction. If both doors must be open to accommodate the test device, then both doors constitute the single, rear emergency door which the Standard requires. Under paragraph S5.3.3, the required rear emergency door must have its own release mechanism.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:4/29/88

ID: 2857yy

Mr. Terry Rowe
President
Show Trucks U.S.A., Inc.
114 National Drive
Rockwall, Texas 75087

Dear Mr. Rowe:

This responds to your letter asking whether your company would be considered a vehicle "alterer," within the meaning of 49 CFR Part 567 Certification, and Part 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. I apologize for the delay in this response. Based on the statements in your letter that your company modifies only new vehicles before delivery to customers and that the modifications performed by your company do not affect the vehicles' gross axle or gross vehicle weight ratings, your company would be considered an "alterer," and would be subject to additional certification requirements, if the modifications involve something more than the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable" components. A more complete explanation of your responsibilities under NHTSA's laws and regulations follows.

567.7 imposes additional certification requirements on "a person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ..." You stated in your letter that your company can provide features such as a 3-piece seating system, removable headrest, custom walnut steering wheel, and tinted windows. Your company is an "alterer" subject to the requirements of 567.7 to the extent that your modifications do not involve "readily attachable" components.

A determination of whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching these components. To ascertain whether the installation involves "readily attachable" components, the agency in the past has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. Absent extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats, headrests, and steering wheels to involve "readily attachable" components. To the extent your company is involved in such modifications, then, it would have to affix an additional certification label pursuant to 567.7. Further, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and remedy for defects or noncompliances with the safety standards, and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

You should also note that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act sets forth certain prohibitions and requirements that would apply to these vehicle modifications, even if the modifications involved only "readily attachable" components. For example, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce or importation of any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This provision of Federal law means that all of the vehicles modified by your company must continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after the modifications have been made. In addition, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly "render inoperative," in whole or in 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.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. Again I apologize for the delay in this response. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of may staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#567 d:3/7/9l

ID: 2858o

Mr. Derek Nash
Artech Corporation
2901 Telestar Court
Falls Church, VA 22042

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and follows up on the April 1, 1988 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff in which additional information augmenting your letter was provided. I apologize for the delay in responding.

In your letter, you said that you are refurbishing a type of passenger vehicle that was first produced 20 years ago. Your letter raises questions about Federal requirements for persons modifying used vehicles which I will address in the latter part of this letter and about Federal requirements for the design of the vehicle's chassis.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that the manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not clear from the information which you have provided us whether the vehicle you are refurbishing would be treated as a new or used vehicle under the Safety Act. A vehicle with a new body and new chassis would be a new vehicle required to meet the standards in effect on the day that manufacture of the vehicle is completed. A vehicle with a new body and old chassis would be a used vehicle.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., persons holding themselves out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that any person in the above categories modifying a new or used vehicle must do so in a manner that ensures the continued compliance of the vehicle with applicable safety standards. This prohibition affects vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, l968, the date on which the first Federal safety standards became effective. For instance, a commercial business that installs a new fuel system in a passenger car manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of Standard No. 301) must ensure that the new system at least meets the level of safety performance required of the fuel system originally installed on the vehicle. Persons violating section 108 are subject to potential civil penalties of $1,000 per violation.

In instances in which a new vehicle body is installed on an old chassis, section 108(a)(2)(A) requires that the reassembled vehicle meet the Federal safety standards that had been in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle. I have enclosed a copy of a January 14, 1976 letter to Mr. Tom Welland that describes generally the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to refurbished motor vehicles. Please note that the first situation referred to in the Welland letter addresses the modification of a vehicle by its owner. The prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I will now address the questions you expressly posed in your letter. Your first three questions asked:

What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of a passenger-carrying motor vehicle?

What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger-carrying motor vehicle chassis?

What form or test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

As Ms. Hom informed you, our safety standards apply to new vehicles and are performance-oriented. NHTSA has not issued any design specifications that directly establish minimum static or dynamic loads for vehicle chassis. These design parameters are established by the manufacturer independently of specific criteria set by the agency and might be available from the original manufacturer of the vehicle you are refurbishing. However, manufacturers of new vehicles are required by NHTSA to determine and specify the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings of their vehicles in the manner set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 of our regulations. I have enclosed a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Chassis manufacturers must be aware, however, of the following two considerations relating to the static and dynamic load capacities of vehicles and NHTSA's regulations. First, because manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that their vehicles will perform to the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, manufacturers must ensure that chassis design is compatible with the vehicle's ability to comply. Some of our safety standards specify that the performance of requisite vehicle safety systems will be evaluated in dynamic (i.e., crash) tests which enable the agency to evaluate the synergistic effect of a range of variables on a vehicle's compliance therewith. Manufacturers of new vehicles would therefore have to ensure that the design of the chassis will have no negative effect on their vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards.

Second, as mentioned above, NHTSA has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and to require manufacturers to recall and remedy such defects free of charge. Chassis manufacturers must therefore ensure that their products contain no safety related defects, which might well include a chassis member that is incapable of carrying loads for which it is intended.

Further, the vehicle manufacturer who provides the GVWR and GAWR information required by Part 567 must ensure that the information relating to the chassis static loads is correct.

On a separate matter, your letter also asked about the requirements manufacturers must meet when installing a plastic fuel tank in a motor vehicle. The standard we issued for vehicle fuel system integrity (No. 301) sets performance requirements for fuel systems in new motor vehicles. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) specifies the test that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the requisite safety system (e.g., the fuel system) on new vehicles selected for inclusion in its compliance test program. Manufacturers are not bound, however, to use the tests specified in the safety standards for evaluating the compliance of their vehicles or equipment with our standards. Instead, a manufacturer may test in any manner it chooses, so long as it can show that it has exercised due care in ensuring that its vehicles or items of equipment comply with the applicable Federal requirements.

In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed information that provides an overview of Federal requirements applying to manufacturers of new motor vehicles and instructions on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#108#301 d:4/29/88

ID: 2858yy

Mr. J. C. Brown
President
MidAmerica Design Service
10206 Lima Road
Ft. Wayne, IN 46618

Dear Mr. Brown:

This is in reply to your letter of February 8, l99l, to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company has been asked to "develop a high mounted stop light and turn signal to be installed into the door of over the road trailers." You have not found a reference in Standard No. l08 to such a lamp, and you have concluded that, as long as you add to the trailer's existing lamps without eliminating any of its lighting devices that are standard equipment, you will be in compliance. You have asked us for our opinion on this matter.

You are correct that the requirement for a center high mounted stop lamp does not extend to trailers. Moreover, trailers are not included in the agency's pending rulemaking to extend the requirements to vehicles other than passenger cars. Although your design appears to combine the stop lamp and turn signal, a combination prohibited for passenger cars, you are under no Federal legal obligation to design a center high mounted stop lamp for trailers that complies with Standard No. l08.

As the lamp is not intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. l08, it is permissible under section S5.1.3 of the standard as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. The judgment of whether impairment exists is initially that of the trailer manufacturer, who certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will review it and inform the manufacturer accordingly.

Assuming that the trailers for which the lamp is intended have an overall width of 80 inches or more, your lamp would be mounted in closest proximity to the three-unit identification lamp cluster, which Table II of Standard No. 108 requires to be located "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." Identification lamps indicate to following drivers the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway ahead. It is possible that an activated center stop lamp or adjacent turn signal could mask the light from these lamps. However, these trailers are also equipped with clearance lamps, which serve the same purpose of identifying a large vehicle. Thus, it would appear that your device would not impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps within the prohibition of section S5.1.3.

We assume that the turn signal portion of the lamp is a supplement to others on the trailer that are located to comply with the 83-inch maximum mounting height imposed by Table II.

I hope that this is responsive to your concern.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:3/7/9l

ID: 2859o

Mr. Michael Pomerantz
38th Floor Tower
35 E. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. Pomerantz:

As you requested in a May 27, 1988, telephone conversation with Ms.Fujita of my staff, I am enclosing a copy of our November 27, 1972, letter to Mr.David Humphreys concerning paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems.

Please note that a portion of our letter to Mr. Humphreys regarding seat cushion restraints has been superseded, as explained in our September 2, 1976, letter to Mr. Tokio Iinuma. Although you were concerned only with the language of S4.3 excepting seats "having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants," I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Iinuma for your information.

I understand that you might be contacting us with further questions on Standard No. 207. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

Enclosures ref:207 d:6/7/88

ID: 2859yy

Mr. Hiroshi Ozeki
Executive Vice President
Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Dear Mr. Ozeki:

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1990 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that one of Mazda's future models has a door design in which the door moulding extends below the door itself by approximately 15 millimeters. You asked whether, for purposes of positioning the loading device used in the quasi-static test of side door strength, the "lowest point of the door" referred to in S4(c)(2) of the standard would be the bottom of the door moulding or the bottom of the door itself when the moulding extends lower than the door itself.

For the quasi-static test of side door strength under Standard No. 214, S4(c)(2) currently provides that the loading device must be positioned so that ". . . (2) Its longitudinal axis is laterally opposite the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn across the outer surface of the door 5 inches above the lowest point of the door." Under the current standard, we believe that door moulding should be considered part of the door. Therefore, the "lowest part of the door" would be the lowest part of an attached door moulding. Under the current standard, that would be the reference point to be used in making the five-inch measurement. For your further information, the agency is considering proposing for public comment a possible amendment to the standard concerning the positioning of the test device.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:2l4 d:3/l2/9l

ID: 2860o

Mr. Robert Cuzzi
Breda Transportation, Inc.
275 Madison Avenue, Suite 1711
New York, NY 10016

Dear Mr. Cuzzi:

This responds to your letter asking whether buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are excluded from coverage under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.301, Fuel System Integrity. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 301 applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and to all new school buses. The buses you manufacture for sale as municipal transit buses are excluded from Standard No. 301 because their GVWR is greater than the 10,000 pound limit established for the standard.

You asked also whether there are any other Federal standards that might apply to the fuel tanks on your transit buses. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) for their direct reply as to the applicability of any FHWA or UMTA regulations to your transit vehicles. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to see whether that agency has any requirements affecting the fuel tanks on your buses. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:301 d:6/17/88

ID: 2860yy

Mr. Billy S. Peterson
President
Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.
at TRC of Ohio, Bldg. 20
Rd. 152 & SR 33
East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, l99l, to the Office of Chief Counsel asking for a clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

One of your clients wishes to mount "two-part" stop/tail lamps "so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid." Each part of the two-part lamp is a combination tail/stop lamp. You have asked whether the minimum photometric requirements must be met by "the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted on the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements."

Your "two-part lamp" would be treated as two separate lamps. For purposes of compliance, only one of these two adjacent lamps must be designed to conform to Standard No. l08, and this conformance must be independent of any "contribution" by the adjacent lamp. Although Standard No. l08 permits either the deck or the body mounted lamp to be the complying lamp, it would be our preference that the body mounted lamp be the one that complies, so that the benefit of a conforming stop/tail lamp would be realized during those occasions when the lid may be raised.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d:3/8/9l