ID: nht94-1.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: Adam A. Freund -- Manager, Testing Services, Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Table II Minimum Static; Breaking Energy (inch pounds) D.O.T. 119

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from John Womack to Adam A. Freund (A42; Std. 119)

TEXT:

Further to our telephone conversation of this date, please find enclosed a copy of subject matter for your perusal. As we had discussed I believe there is a typo in the highlighted columns marked respectively MOTORCYCLE and ALL 12 INCH OR SMALLER RIM SI ZE. If I am correct the first column MOTORCYCLE should show a plunger diameter of 5/16" and the column marked ALL 12 INCH OR SMALLER RIM SIZE should show a plunger diameter of 3/4".

I would appreciate your qualifying my interpretation of above subject matter. If my interpretation is incorrect, please advise me how the respective columns should be marked.

Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. would greatly appreciate any expedited consideration you may allow us on this request.

ATTACHMENT

(Table omitted.)

ID: nht75-6.33

DATE: 07/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cooney Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of June 17, 1969, to Mr. Donald Morrison of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, concerning switching arrangements for running lamps, has been transferred to this Office for consideration and reply.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on lighting requirements for motor vehicles. This standard is applicable to new vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of January 1, 1969. Special wiring requirements, such as lamp switching arrangements, are included in paragraphs S3.4 through S3.4.7 of the standard.

We do not completely understand your usage of the term "running lights." If you are referring only to tail lamps, your attention is invited specifically to paragraph S3.4.3 of the standard which is quoted as follows: "As a minimum the tail lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated except when the headlamps are being flashed." The switching arrangements for other "running lights," such as clearance lamps and identification lamps, are at the option of the vehicle manufacturer.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht80-1.14

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 18, 1979, requesting an interpretation as to whether the VIN plate samples you enclosed with your letter comply with the requirements of Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

You enclosed two proposed VIN plates in your letter, one for automobiles and one for motorcycles. The VIN plates themselves and the preprinted lettering which appears on them seem to conform to the requirement of Standard No. 115. The lettering is clear and indelible, as required by S4.3, in that it cannot be removed without damage to the surface on which it is printed. Further, the plate when riveted to the vehicle would be considered to be permanently affixed in that it cannot be removed without damage (S4.3). The type face utilized for the lettering consists of capital, cans characters with a minimum height of 4 mm as required by S4.3.1.

The letters stamped on the automobile VIN plate, "SL5322AS000001", can hardly be seen, and would not appear to meet the requirements of S4.3 and S4.4.

ID: nht87-2.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director, Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Office of Commissioner Nashville, TN 37219-5335

This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking how our regulations apply to the refurbishment of used school buses. I would like to apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter, you explained that the Tennessee Department of Correc tions plans to use prison labor to "refurbish" used school buses. The refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. You are concerned that this undertaking might conflict in some way with our regulations applicable to school buses, and posed five specific questions as to how our regulations would apply to your planned refurbishment.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. gives this agency the authority to regulate the manufacture and sal e of new vehicles. Thus, all new school busses must be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to school buses. Additionally, the Safety Act prohibits commercial establishments, such as repair businesses or school bus dealers, from performing modifications to school buses after they have been sold, if those modifications cause the used bus no longer to comply with the safety standards. As a general rule, however, vehicle owners are not subject to this p rohibition, and are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the modified vehicle complies with the safety standards.

It is possible that a vehicle owner's modifications would be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle instead of just a modified vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified as complying with all applic able safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when a modified truck or school bus has been so substantially altered that it is considered a new vehicle, we have set forth specific criteria in 49 CFR @571-7(e) of our regulations. In past interpretations of our regulations, NHTSA has applied @571.7(e) to school buses that are assembled combining new and used components, because school buses are typically manufactured with a truck chassis. Under @571.7(e), a modified school bus or truck is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new an d at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.

I will now address your specific questions in the order they were presented:

1. Has NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of school buses?

Yes, we have. As explained above, we have set forth specific criteria to allow refurbishers to determine whether a refurbished school bus is a new bus, subject to all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, or a refur bished used bus.

Further, while we encourage effective school bus maintenance programs, we would be concerned if a refurbishment program has the effect of avoiding the replacement of obsolete school buses. The school bus safety standards do not apply to school buses that were manufactured before April 1, 1977. It is possible that a refurbishment program could be used to continuously recondition these old buses that do not comply with any school bus safety standards, and use them for pupil transportation. We believe that school buses complying with the Federal school bus standards are one of the safest means of transportation, and that school bus safety will improve as complying school buses replace older non-complying school buses. We certainly hope that school bus own ers will ensure that their fleets are replenished with complying school buses. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a Federal Register notice we published on September 23, 1985, (5O FR 38558 ), which denied a petition for rulemaking from the Blue Bird C ompany concerning the remanufacture of school buses. In this notice, we expressly encouraged school bus operators to consider voluntarily meeting Federal school bus safety standards when they refurbish their school buses.

2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer' s certification?

The original school bus manufacturer's certification means that the school bus as sold was manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification does not mean that a school bus continues to comply with the safety s tandards after it is sold, since that obviously depends on many factors beyond the manufacturer's control, such as maintenance, any accidents, any modifications, and so forth. Since the original manufacturer's certification is limited to the vehicle's co ndition at the time of sale, it cannot be "voided" by any subsequent actions of the vehicle owner.

If you were asking whether a refurbisher is required to make a separate certification in addition to the original manufacturer's certification, the answer depends on whether the refurbished school bus is considered "new" or simply refurbished, according to the criteria set forth in @571.7 (e). If the refurbished school bus is new according to those criteria, the refurbisher is required to certify that the school bus complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and affix its own certification label to the school bus. If the refurbished school bus is not considered new, the refurbisher is not required to affix another certification label. Instead, the refurbisher simply allows the original manufacturer's certificati on label to remain on the school bus.

3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to recertify all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?

The answer to this question depends on whether the refurbished buses are considered new under @571.7(e). If the buses are not new according to those criteria, no additional certification is necessary as explained above. However, the specification sheet f or the refurbishment that has enclosed with your letter indicates that the refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. Every school bus that is equipped with a new engine or dr ive axle would be considered a new school bus, according to @571.7 (e). Additionally, each school bus on which the engine, transmission, and/or rear axle are replaced with used components will be considered a new school bus, unless two of those three com ponents came from the same vehicle. If your refurbishing constituted the manufacture of a new vehicle, the State of Tennessee would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles.

As explained above, each refurbished school bus that is new, according to the criteria of @571.7(e), must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. However, the manufacturer d oes not make any certification directly to the agency. Instead, the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to furnish a certification with the vehicle. We have promulgated a regulation that sets forth how each vehicle must be certified as complying which t he Safety Act (49 CFR Part 567: copy enclosed). As you will see, this regulation requires that the manufacturer permanently affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed for your information an information sheet that describes generally the responsibilities of manufacturers of new motor vehicles.

4. Is the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTSA standards?

As explained above, the refurbishment program is permitted, provided that it complies with the applicable requirements.

5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by the Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?

If the State of Tennessee engages in operations during school bus refurbishing that make it a manufacturer of new vehicles, according to @571.7 (e) , the State would be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Safety Act itself and this ag ency's regulations issued pursuant to the Safety Act. The State would also be responsible for remedying any vehicles that either do not comply with applicable safety standards or that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not provi de advice on the State's potential liability under State law for manufacturing and refurbishing school buses. Therefore, you might wish to consult an attorney familiar with Tennessee law for information on these matters.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions on this program.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Diane Steed NHTSA - U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed,

The Tennessee Department of Correction is planning to construct a refurbishment facility that will be relying on prison labor to supply the work force required to keep it operable. We have no problem with their wanting to keep inmates busy but we are som ewhat concerned about their intent to keep them busy by working on our older school buses, especially when such may be in conflict with certain standards in your agency.

Your prompt response to the following questions will be appreciated. 1. Has the NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of school buses?

2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer's certification?

3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to re-certify all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?

4. Id the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTSA standards?

5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by the Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?

Thank you for any assistance you may provide.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer, Director Pupil Transportation

EF/lr

Enclosures omitted (Specification sheet for refurbishment.)

ID: nht87-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. l.Daihatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I have previously responded to your r equests for interpretations of the other two standards. I regret the delay in this response.

Your questions concern the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard, which provides that "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area." You expressed concern about determining whether several different armrest designs comply with that requirement. Specifically, you provided three examples and asked how the requirement would apply to each example. Your example I11 .1 is an armrest that, when viewed in side elevation (i.e., a view in which a person is looking from in front or behind an armrest to determine how the armrest projects from the door surface) has a flat surface. Example I11.2 is an armrest that has a sli ghtly curved surface. Example I11.3 is an armrest with a surface that is steeply angled inward toward the door. Because of the angling of the armrest, it has a sharp projection at its top.

You believe that examples I11.1 and I11.2 comply with the requirement of S3.5.1(c). You also believe that example I11.3 would not comply because of its sharp projection. However, you expressed concern about what criteria should be used to distinguish example I11.2 from example I11.3.

S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201 does not set any radius of curvature requirements for armrest surfaces. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to provide an armrest with a flat surface. The only requirement is that the armrest provides at least two inches o f coverage within the pelvic impact area. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce potential injuries to an occupant by ensuring that the armrest has a minimum surface area that will spread the force resulting from an occupant impacting the armrest in a crash. Thus, for this requirement to have a meaningful effect, an armrest should be designed to ensure that there is at least two inches of contact between the surface of the armrest and the pelvic impact area of an occupant. If your examples I11.1 an d I11.2 provide two inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area, they would appear to comply, since they present an essentially flat surface. Based on your drawing, it appears that the steep inwardly sloping angle of the armrest shown in example I11 .3 may not contact a minimum of two inches of the pelvic impact area. One method of determining the degree of occupant contact would be to measure the amount of contact between a test dummy and the armrest in a static push test or in a dynamic side impac t test. We share your concern that an armrest not have sharp projections which could concentrate potentially harmful forces on an occupant striking the armrest.

Finally, you provide a drawing of an additional armrest. Briefly described, the armrest has a slightly curved surface with a decreasing radius within the pelvic impact area. At the top of the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area there is a small indentation. The agency has previously said, in an interpretation letter of July 1, 1983 to MMC Services, Inc., that bezels and other indentations are not precluded by the standard. However, the area of the indentation will not be measured in det ermining whether the armrest provides two inches of coverage if the indentation is so deep that it cannot be contacted. Based on your drawing, the indentations shown in your proposed armrest is shallow and would be contactable by an occupant. Thus, the s urface area of the indentation would be counted in determining whether the vehicle complied.

Finally, I would point out that S3.5.1(c) is one of three optional means of compliance that manufacturers may choose. A manufacturer may also meet the requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with either S3.5.1(a) or S3.5.1(b), in which case it is n ot necessary to provide two inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear MS. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3)

cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (1)

FMVSS No. 101 ; Controls and Displays

Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that; "Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for night time conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the h eadlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph." However the applicable items (illuminations) of the above provision are not necessarily definitely for us. we believe that these provisions are applied only to the illuminations for the controls or gauges which are somehow regulated otherwise in FMVSS No. 101, and are,not applied to the illuminations which are optionally equipped and are not otherwise mentioned in the standard, such as following illuminations in Concrete; (1) Digital clock using liquid crystals (2) Radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals (3) Miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio control switches, etc. which are lightened only when the headlights (parking lights) are activated.

We would like to confirm that the above items are not applied the variable illumination requirements. Please advise us in detail in this matter.

QUESTIONNAIRE (2)

FMVSS No. 201 ; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Paragraph S3.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201 provides the dimensional requirements for armrests as follows;

"Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically inside elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area."

Our concern, however, centers on how to measure the armrest vertically in side elevation.

We believe that this provision does not necessarily require completely plain area of 2 in. x 2 in. on the armrests such as I11.1 below, and that the armrests which have, to some extent, rounded inside surface, such as I11.2, shall be deemed in compliance with this provision.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

And we also believe that, no matter how the armrests have more than 2 in. side elevation, considerably sharply projected armrests such as 111.3 shall be deemed in noncompliance with the provision.

However, we can not be sure the criteria for distinguish 111.2 from 111.3. Though we think the most important point to be concerned is its contactability by the occupant, we can not necessary surely know the procedures to prove the contactability. Theref ore we would like to ask your kind favor of showing us the guideline to how to measure armrests to decide the compliancy to S3.5.1(c).

And further, as we are designing a little more complicated shape such as shown on the next page, we wish you would advise us about the compliancy of the armrest. INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

QUESTIONNAIRE (3)

FMVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion Paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 219 provides; "When the vehicle ......, no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...." In the case that the windshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template (by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl, or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the vehic le is deemed in compliance or not. (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

ID: nht71-4.40

DATE: 11/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1971, to Mr. Lewis Owen of this Office concerning an interpretation regarding your Truck-Lite No. 127 License plate light.

The requested interpretation concerns the 8 degree incident light angle specified in SAE J587, "License Plate Lamps," as follows:

"When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg to the plane of the plate."

Since the 8 degree incident light angle is also a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, all license plate lamp designs must conform to it. It is our position that the angle be measured from the optical center of the lens; therefore, the Electrical Testing Laboratories' position is valid. That is, the incident light angle of your lamp, without the paint shield and when mounted as it will be installed on the vehicle, is below the 8 degree minimum requirement.

ID: nht71-3.10

DATE: 05/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Ideal Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of May 4, 1971, to Francis Armstrong you request permission to conduct testing of turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers pursuant to SAE Standard J823b, "Flasher Test Equipment," April 1963.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers," October 1965, and SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966, both of which specify test circuitry and equipment according to "SAE J823." It is my understanding that the major difference between J823 and J823b, which becomes the appropriate sub-referenced standard on January 1, 1972, is the specification in the latter that "The required voltage tests [for variable-load flashers] with maximum bulb load shall be conducted without readjusting each corresponding power supply voltage, previously set with minimum bulb load." It appears that J823 was written before variable load flashers were in general use and that this is the reason for omission of this specification from J823. Since J823b includes all the requirements of the presently referenced SAE standard, you may proceed to implement it immediately.

ID: nht70-2.54

DATE: 10/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: TVR Engineering Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1970, to the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau forwarding information sheets on the TVR Vixen. I am enclosing copies of the Bureau's Consumer Information Regulations (49 CFR Part 575). The substantive provisions, @ 575.101 on vehicle stopping distance, @ 575.102 on tire reserve load, and @ 575.106 on acceleration and passing ability, require the furnishing of specific information in a format which is in the form set out in the regulations. The information sheets which you have provided fall short of these requirements in both form and substance. For example, @ 575.101 requires furnishing information on the minimum stopping distance, expressed in feet, for the particular vehicle, from a particular speed, at specified loads, with the braking system in a specified condition. The information provided by you in this regard is incomplete, and is not in the form specified. In addition, the regulations require the information to describe and be valid for each of the vehicles with which it is provided.

Please study the enclosed regulations carefully and forward to us complying consumer information within the near future. Let us know if you need further assistance.

ENCLOSURES

ID: 9792

Eric T. Stewart, Engineering Manager
Mid Bus
3555 St. Johns Road
P.O. Box 1985
Lima, OH 45802-1985

Dear Mr. Stewart:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5.3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:217 d:4/l/94

ID: nht91-5.51

DATE: September 17, 1991

FROM: Jeffrey P. Shimp -- Engineer, Fleet Engineering & Q.A., Transportation Department, Baltimore Gas and Electric

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeffrey P. Shimp (A38; VSA S108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

In order to better serve our customers, we have found it necessary to increase the size of our work crews from two men to three men in one of our departments. Due to the amount of material required for these crews, we have typically utilized (two passenger) cargo vans for this operation. In view of the above, we would like to install a third seat in our cargo vans (mini and/or short wheel base), which are delivered by the manufacturers as a certified completed vehicle.

We would greatly appreciate it if you could provide a written response advising us on this issue so that we can be in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and any other governing regulations.

If I can be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me (301/281-3630).