ID: vanhool.2

Mr. Wilfried Geens
Compliance and Regulations
Van Hool N.V.
Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58
B-2500 Lier Koningshooikt
Belgium

Dear Mr. Geens:

This responds to your letter of July 23, 2004, in which you sought clarification as to whether certain identified headlamp assembly designs for one of your motor coach models would comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your letter went on to describe four potential headlamp assembly designs containing three horizontally-aligned lamps on each side of the vehicle, which reflect "European styling" that you wish to introduce to the U.S. market. To simplify the discussion, each of these proposed designs is described below, followed by our response.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our laws to your products based upon the facts set forth in your letter.

Before turning to your specific questions, I would like to clarify generally our requirements for headlighting systems of the type described in your letter. Your letter described your existing European headlamp assembly containing three projector lamps on each side, two of which provide an upper beam. These projector lamps are all at the same height, with a center lower beam projector flanked by two upper beam projectors.

An enclosure to your letter depicting one of the headlamp assemblies used in this system leads us to believe that your system uses replaceable light sources. You stated that this design is in compliance with the relevant UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Directive (ECE R48.02).

Vehicles offered for sale in the U.S. must meet all applicable requirements of NHTSAs FMVSSs, and FMVSS No. 108 prohibits a vehicle with a replaceable bulb headlamp system from having more than two upper beams and two lower beams. Specifically, paragraph S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems, subparagraph (a) provides, "The system shall provide only two lower beams and two upper beams and shall incorporate not more than two replaceable light sources in each headlamp."  Based upon your questions, it is apparent that you recognize this limitation and seek to identify lamp arrangements that meet the requirements of the standard. For the sake of analysis, we assume that your motor coaches are 80 inches or more in overall width and that the described upper and lower beams comply with the photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 1

"Keep the European look with the 3 lamps at each side, permanently disconnecting the electrical supply of the outer upper beams (See enclosure, position 4)."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1 of the standard discusses the location of required equipment, and that provision states that for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses 80 inches or more in overall width, such equipment must be located as specified in Table II of the standard. In turn, Table II provides related to buses that " each headlamp providing the lower beam [shall be located], at the same height, 1 on each side of the vertical centerline, as far apart as practicable."

Based upon your diagram showing a "disconnected" upper beam headlamp at the outboard-most position, we believe that it would clearly be practicable to locate the lower beam in that position. As a result the lower beams would not be located as far apart as practicable, so it appears that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 2

"Replace the outer upper beams (Position 4) by an amber reflex reflector, in addition to the reflex reflectors allready [sic] fitted on the front bumper."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. In this case, the amber reflex reflector would be an item of supplemental lighting equipment not required under the standard. Consequently, its incorporation into the headlamp assembly, as described, again would impermissibly prevent the lower beams from being located as far apart as practicable. (See discussion in response to Proposal 1 immediately above.)

PROPOSAL 3

"Replace the outer upper beams (Position 4) by turn signal lamps, in addition to the turn signal lamps at the top of the front lighting clusters (Position 3)."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. Table II provides that turn signal lamps in buses shall be located as follows: "At or near the front 1 amber on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable. On the rear 1 red or amber on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable." As noted above, Table II also requires lower beam headlamps (again, items of required equipment) to be as far apart as practicable.

However, for required lamps that are required to be as far apart as practicable, we have not established a hierarchy regarding which of those items should take precedence in terms of placement location. If the only turn signal lamp on the front of the vehicle were located at the outboard-most position as a substitute for that upper beam headlamp (position 4 of your diagram), such configuration might be permissible.

Nevertheless, Proposal 3 clearly demonstrates that it is practicable to include a turn signal at position 3 (already present directly above the outboard-most headlamp) and that it is practicable to include a headlamp at position 4 (currently a high beam). Thus, your current design demonstrates that it would be practicable to move the lower beam headlamp to the most outboard position (position 4). Such location would meet the standards requirement for the lower beam headlamps to be as far apart as practicable. As a result, it appears that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 4

"Replace the outer upper beams by any other device in compliance with FMVSS No. 108, S5.5.11 (e.g. daytime running lamps) without changing the European look."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. In this case, the daytime running lights would be an item of supplemental lighting equipment not required under the standard. Consequently, their incorporation into the headlamp assemblies, as described, would again prevent the lower beams from being located as far apart as practicable. (See discussion in response to Proposal 1 above.)

If you have any questions, you may contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.9/7/04

ID: 003258drn

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. You wish to confirm that portions of joints outside of the passenger compartment or that otherwise do not "enclose bus occupant space" are excluded from FMVSS No. 221. In particular, you ask about joints that are below the level of the floor line.

You described the portions of joints at issue as follows:

the top edge of the outside side panels on Blue Bird school buses start at the bottom of the side window openings and [the panels] continue down the side of the bus body, terminating with a bottom edge approximately 18 inches below the floor line. There are vertical joints between these panels and between these panels and other body components such as roof bows. The upper portions of these vertical joints are above the floor line while the lower portion of the same joint is below the floor line. [I]t is our understanding that the vertical joints between these side panels that lie above the floor line are subject to the joint strength requirements of FMVSS 221 (because the portions of the joined panels above the floor line serve to "enclose bus occupant space") while the portions of those joints below the floor line are excluded from the requirements (because the portions of the joined panels below the floor line do not "enclose bus occupant space").

You cite our April 26, 1976, and August 20, 1981, letters to Blue Bird and conclude from these letters that all joints below the "floor level" are exempt from FMVSS No. 221.

Generally speaking, joints below the floor line are excluded from FMVSS No. 221. However, in a letter of January 14, 1991, to Blue Bird, the agency clarified that the April 26, 1976, letter excluding joints below the floor line was predicated on the assumption that there is a body panel (i.e., a floor panel) at floor level that encloses the occupant space, and that is located between the occupant space and that portion of the bus excluded from the standard.Thus, the agency did not agree with Blue Birds view that stepwell-to-floor panel joints were below the floor level and excluded from FMVSS No. 221s joint strength requirements.

Accordingly, while we concur generally that joints below the floor line are excluded from FMVSS No. 221, we believe that there could be misinterpretation by a manufacturer as to whether a particular joint is considered such a joint. For example, we have enclosed two photographs on which we have superimposed the floor line on the bus exterior. The section of the circled joint above the line is subject to FMVSS No. 221; the section of the joint below the line is not. While we cannot provide you with a general response to your question, we will review more detailed information about a specific joint that might fall below the floor line of the bus to determine the applicability of FMVSS No. 221.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Should you choose to submit more detailed information for review, please submit it to Ms. Nakama.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:221
d.8/13/03

ID: kesler23584

Mr. Ray Kesler
Kesler Research Enterprises
PO Box 8104
Universal City, CA 91600

Dear Mr. Kesler:

This responds to your letter of August 22, 2001, asking if your mirror for original equipment manufacturers "is a permissible legal radius of curvature, information warning phrase, and using [sic] a FAIL SAFE reflective graphic concept permanently etched in glass mirror for day and night use." More specifically, you state that the radius of curvature of your mirror is 30-65 inches and your mirror contains a "ring indicator" and the phrase "Vehicles Larger than Ring Do Not Change Lanes." As explained below, your mirror is permitted only as a supplement to the mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards.

FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), establishes performance and location requirements for mirrors installed in new vehicles. Several of its provisions concern the installation of convex outside rearview mirrors. Under FMVSS No. 111, only those passenger cars with inside rearview mirrors having an insufficient field of view are required to have passenger side mirrors. If convex mirrors are used, they must have a radius of curvature between 35 and 65 inches and they must be marked with the warning: "Objects in Mirror are Closer Than They Appear."

In 1991, you petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a ring indicator applied to those mirrors. After reviewing your petition, the agency denied your request, finding that your suggested mirror system could, by comparison with our currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduce a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed (56 FR 42715, August 29, 1991). Subsequent correspondence from this Office (enclosed) tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited by the current requirements in FMVSS No. 111 from being installed on vehicles, as supplements to the required mirrors.

The specifications for rearview mirror in your current correspondence appear to be identical to those contained in your previous petition except that the radius of curvature is now between 30 and 65 inches. This range of curvature, however, is not within the radius of curvature (between 35 and 65 inches) required by FMVSS No. 111. Furthermore, your rearview mirror is not marked with the warning: "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear" as required by FMVSS No. 111. For these reasons and as explained in length in the denial notice, see 56 FR 42716, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.1/9/01

ID: nht95-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

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

TO: Ken Daining -- Supervisor, Vehicle Test and Development, ITT Automotive

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/18/94 LETTER FROM KEN DAINING TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 10316)

TEXT: This responds to your letter about Federal requirements applicable to an "on/off switch" for antilock brake systems (ABS). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that Chrysler Jeep owners disengage their ABS in response to the "perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations." You mentioned the possibility of designing a vehicle's gear system so that the ABS function is automatically disengaged when the vehicle is shifted into the four wheel drive-LO configuration. As e xplained below, while both manual and automatic ABS on/off switches are permitted under the current requirements, neither is required.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicl e equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its produc ts meet all applicable safety standards.

The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, which specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems. This Standard does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting ABS. Likewise, it does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting either a manual or automatic ABS on/off switch. Accordingly, either type of switch is permitted under the standard, provided the vehicle complies with the standard both when the devi ce is "on" and when the device is "off."

FMVSS No. 105 will continue to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), notwithstanding the agency's recent adoption of FMVSS No. 135 Hydraulic Brake Systems; Passenger Car Brake Systems, which applies only to passenger car brake systems (60 FR 6 411, February 2, 1995). Even though FMVSS No. 135 does not apply to MPVs, you should be aware that FMVSS No. 135 prohibits passenger cars from being equipped with ABS disabling switches. The agency stated in a July 1991 notice that "such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial." Please note that this prohibition does not become immediately effective, even for passenger cars, since manufacturers can continue to certify compliance to FMVSS No. 105 for five years after FMVSS No. 135 takes effect.

If an automatic or manual ABS on/off switch were installed in a used vehicle, such a device must not "make inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, deale r or repair business from installing such a device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. For instance, if a vehicle could only comply with the stopping distance or other service brake requirements in Standard No. 1 05 when the ABS is activated, then installation of the switch would serve to make inoperative compliance with the safety standard.

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

ID: nht78-1.12

DATE: 12/29/78

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

TO: R. E. Dietz Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 21, 1978, requesting interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

In your first set of questions, you ask about the application of the display requirements to trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more. Those requirements do not apply to such trucks. Under S5 of the standard, the only trucks required by the standard to comply with the display requirements are those with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds.

In your second set of questions, you pose various questions about the identification and illumination of controls. In the first question, you ask whether the turn signal control symbol must be placed on the control itself. The answer is "no." S5.2.1 provides that the symbol shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. You also ask if there is any size requirement. The answer is again "no." There are no size requirements for any of the control symbols.

In your second question, you ask about the size requirements for the hazard warning signal control. As indicated above, there are no size requirements. As to illumination, S5.3.1 provides that hand-operated controls mounted on the steering column are not required to be illuminated. Thus, neither the turn signal control symbol nor the hazard warning control symbol need be illuminated. With regard to the nonmandatory red lens between the turn signal control symbol, if that lens is intended to call attention to the location of the hazard warning control, we urge that it be triangular. If it is intended to call attention to the turn signal control, we urge that the shape be made less similar to the hazard warning symbol to avoid confusion.

In your third question, you asked about the relationship between the control and display requirements in FMVSS 101 and those in FMVSS 108. The agency will soon issue a notice dealing with this issue.

SINCERELY,

R. E. DIETZ COMPANY

September 21, 1978

Nelson Erickson Office of Motor Vehicle Programs

Dear Mr. Erickson:

This is a request for further information and clarification of new rule 49 CFR 571.101-80 Controls and Displays.

Our questions and concerns pertain principally to our new 16-35 turn signal switch (drawing enclosed), which went into production this year. This type of hang-on switch is used only on Class 7 trucks which are in the weight range of 26,001 to 33,000 pounds GVWR and Class 8 trucks which are over 33,000 pounds GVWR.

1. I understand that since Class 7 and 8 trucks exceed 10,000 pounds GVWR, display requirements of 55.1 in Column 1 of Table 2 do not apply. Is that correct?

2. If correct, then do Columns 3 and 4 apply?

3. If Column 3 applies, then FMVSS 108 sends us to SAE J-589 for turn signal switches which references J-588, which calls for an illuminated area (shape unidentified) equivalent to a 3/16" diameter circle. Is that correct?

4. Column 3 also sends us to FMVSS 108 which refers us to J-910 for hazard switches, which calls for an illuminated area (shape unidentified) equivalent to a 1/2" diameter circle. Is that correct?

If the above statements are correct, then 571.101-80 (in which "the agency has decided that vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR need not meet display requirements of this standard") seems to be retaining display requirements. It appears that the intent is that neither Column 3 nor 4 are meant to apply. Is that correct?

Regarding identification and illumination of controls -

1. Would you say that double arrows on the device meet the requirements? If not, is it necessary that they be printed on the lever itself? If so, can they be on the lever axis or must they be on the arc which a point on the lever travels when the lever is moved to the right or left turn position. If there any size requirement?

2. As you can see from our drawing, there is approximately 5/8" of hazard button which extends out from our lever. The thickness of the button varies from 3/16" at the bottom to 1/16" at the top. What size does the identifying symbol have to be? If we could find a plastic which would transmit some light out to the end, would that be considered meeting the specification? If we cannot find a design solution to this requirement, what recourse do we have short of a complete re-design and re-tooling?

3. Finally, I must ask again for clarification of the relationship between 571.101-80 and FMVSS 108. It appears that one could meet all of the requirements of 571.101-80 but be found failing to conform to FMVSS 108. Is it the intent of 571.101-80 to be an addition to the requirements of FMVSS 108.

Your earliest response to these questions would be appreciated since it appears that we may have some significant changes to make.

Donald W. Vescio, Sr. Director of Engineering

(Illegible Lines)

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED THE FOLLOWING (Illegible Words)

THREE PLACE DECIMALS (Illegible Word) .006

TWO PLACE DECIMALS (Illegible Word)

DIETZ (registered) R.E. DIETZ CO. SYRACUSE N.Y.

TITLE: 16+35 TURN SIGNAL SWITCH ASSEMBLIES SHEET: 016-35600

3. 16-35 TURN SIGNAL SWITCH IS DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO SAE J 589(b), SAE J 910(b) AND SAE J 588 (e) PARAGRAPH 4.5. IT CONFORMS WITH FMVSS 108 AND IS DESIGNED TO MEET NEW PROPOSED FMVSS STANDARDS FOR PILOT INDICATORS.

HAZARD BUTTON (Illegible Word) PLASTIC

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-3.16

DATE: 12/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I would like to acknowledge receipt of the Truck Body and Equipment Association's (TBEA) December 2, 1975, request that the applicability of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to fire fighting vehicles be delayed until January 1, 1977.

The NHTSA has decided to grant the TBEA request, and has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a September 1, 1977, effective date for these and several other categories of vehicles. A copy of the proposal is enclosed for your information.

You should understand that our publication of a proposal in this area does not signify that a final rule will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

I would like to remind the TBEA that a recent amendment of NHTSA rulemaking procedures provides that a request for rulemaking will only be considered as a petition for rulemaking if, among other things, it includes a heading preceding the text, that includes the word "petition" (49 CFR @ 552.4(b)).

Yours truly,

Enclosure

December 2, 1975

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

On November 11, 1975 the NHTSA proposed to temporarily withdraw certain sections of FMVSS 121 as they apply to a bus manufactured before January 1, 1975. The reasoning cited to support this proposal centered on data collected at the NHTSA's FMVSS 121 Hearings of October 27-29, 1975. These hearings resulted in the following findings:

1. Manufacturers of both transit and intercity buses do not appear prepared at this time to utilize antilock systems other than those manufacturered by Rockwell International Corporation.

2. The Rockwell antilock system currently available for bus application is characterized by malfunction the warrants its deactivation on all vehicles on which it is installed while a correction is fully developed.

3. Information furnished by Rockwell does not provide a basis to conclude that a demonstrably satisfactory correction to its antilock system defects is at hand.

4. A situation wherein purchasers of new buses are required to pay for antilock systems which are to remain deactivated for an indefinite period is inappropriate.

The compliance problem seems to be focused on the bus manufacturers sole dependence on the unreliable Rockwell International axle and anti-wheel-lock system.

We at TBEA and especially the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Division (FAMD) have taken a keen interest in the final outcome of this proposal. The custom fire apparatus industry is also effected by a singular dependence to the Rockwell System.

Fire Apparatus are generally broken down into two different categories: "Commercial Apparatus" - Those built on a commercial truck chassis ie: Ford, Chevrolet, International, and "Custom Apparatus" - Those built from the ground up. The present industry split is 60% and 40% in favor of commercial over custom apparatus. Based on a projected five thousand (Illegible Word) per year this split equates to three thousand commercial and two thousand custom pieces of fire apparatus.

Just as in the bus manufacturing market, Rockwell International has the custom fire apparatus to itself. The manufacturers of fire apparatus are presently beginning to build full FMVSS 121 equipped vehicles even though the standards effective dates for fire apparatus and special permit vehicles are three and nine months off.

There is deep concern within this industry as to the reliability of this yet to be proven anti-wheel-lock system on emergency vehicles. The operating mode of a fire truck is drastically different from a conventional truck. Rather than normal stops and starts, a fire truck must rapidly accelerate and decelerate over a short response time. Any failure of the electronic monitoring anti-wheel-lock system when used in conjunction with FMVSS 121 high torque brakes could result in a dangerously unstable vehicle.

The poor quality of anti-wheel-lock hardware available to the bus manufacturing industry has lead the NHTSA to propose a temporary withdrawal of the existing anti-wheel-lock and stopping requirements of FMVSS 121 as they relate to buses. This delay will afford those manufacturers with the time to collect real world experience with the anti-wheel-lock equipment.

The fire apparatus industry is not presently required to comply with FMVSS 121. The effective dates required for compliance range from March 1, 1976 - fire apparatus, September 1, 1976 - special permit vehicles (24,000 pound GAWR) to never - special permit vehicles (29,000 pound GAWR).

The FAMD wishes to petition the NHTSA to allow this industry the same consideration given the bus manufacturers, by withdrawing the stopping distance and anti-wheel-lock requirements for fire apparatus until January 1, 1977.

The amendment would allow the fire apparatus industry to proceed with the following: 1. Commercial fire apparatus built on FMVSS 121 truck chassis would continue to provide real world data reflecting the interaction of the commercial anti-wheel-lock systems on fire apparatus.

2. Custom fire apparatus could be built with FMVSS 121 hardware based on the availability of components. Those units produced with the Rockwell System could be carefully monitored during this grace period.

This grace period would also provide the industry with the following:

1. Opportunity to phase-in and monitor the new anti-wheel-lock equipment.

2. Reduce existing surplus inventory of non FMVSS 121 axles and suspensions.

3. A uniform effective date (January 1, 1977) would be established for fire apparatus provided that the hardware was improved sufficiently to warrant it.

We at the FAMD urge the NHTSA to consider these facts prior to the current FMVSS 121 effective date of March 1, 1976 for fire apparatus.

Very truly yours, Byron A. Crampton -- Manager of Engineering Services,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

ID: nht80-3.22

DATE: 07/23/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo USA Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning the strength and location requirements under Safety Standard No. 210 for anchorages used with automatic seat belt systems.

Your first question asked about the force loads required for testing anchorages for a Type 1 lap belt (manual belt) and for testing a single diagonal automatic belt, when the two belts are used in conjunction with one another as part of a total system. The agency has stated in the past that the anchorages for a single diagonal automatic belt should be tested with a 3,000-pound force for purposes of Safety Standard No. 210, in accordance with the test procedures of paragraph S5.2. This is the same force that is required for testing the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt system. This force requirement is applicable whether the single diagonal automatic belt is used alone or whether it is used in conjunction with an manual lap belt. The anchorages for the manual lap belt, however, would be required to withstand test forces of 5,000 pounds under paragraph S4.2.1 of Standard No. 210, not 3,000 pounds as indicated in your letter. The anchorages for the manual lap belt and for the automatic belt must separately meet their respective force requirements and would not have to be tested simultaneously since they are separate systems.

In your second question, you asked about the number of anchorages that are required for various combinations of systems. Paragraph S4.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 210 requires anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly to be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars. This is true regardless of whether the seating position is equipped with an air bag and a lap belt, with a single diagonal automatic belt or with any other system. Safety Standard No. 210 is independent of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Thus, in your hypothetical designated "A", case "A-2" is correct. Three anchorage points are required by Safety Standard No. 210, even though Safety Standard No. 208 only requires that a lap belt be installed. The presence of the Type 2 anchorages in vehicles will allow vehicle owners to install easily Type 2 belts at their own initiative if they desire to do so for whatever reason. For example, if a single diagonal automatic belt system has been damaged, an owner may wish to replace it with a Type 2 manual belt system.

Under paragraph S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages for automatic belts are exempted from the location requirements of the standard. This exception was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs to determine the optimum anchorage locations in terms of both effectiveness and comfort (43 FR 53440, Nov. 16, 1978). If, however, the anchorage points for an automatic belt do not fall within the locations specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, the manufacturer would have to provide additional anchorage points that could be used by a properly located Type 2 manual belt.

In response to your hypothetical question deignated "B", case "B-b-1" would not comply with the requirement for Type 2 anchorages since there are only two points. Case "B-b-2" would comply if all three anchorages points comply with the location requirements of the standard for Type 2 belts. Case "B-b-3" would require five anchorage points if points "1" and "2" could not qualify as properly located points of a Type 2 anchorage system.

In your question designated "B-C", cases "B-C-1", "B-C-2" and "B-C-3" would all comply with Safety Standard No. 210 if all points indicated in each example are within the locations specified for Type 2 anchorages. In case "B-C-4", the system would comply if point "1" is within the location specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, and point "4" would not be necessary if both points "1" and "2" are within the proper locations. All the anchorage points indicated in "B-C-5" are necessary if points "1" and "2" are not in the proper locations.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

MAZDA

Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office Detroit Branch

May 5, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

Subject: Question concerning the seat belt anchorages.

We have some questions concerning the strength and location of the seat belt anchorages which are used for the automatic seat belt system.

QUESTION 1 - The strength of the anchorages for automatic seat belt.

According to FMVSS No. 210, there is not a definition or a specification for the two point automatic seat belt which is called a diagonal belt. Our interpretation is shown below. We would like to know whether it is correct.

-Each belt is subjected to the load of 3000 lbs. simultaneously.

(Graphics Omitted)

Reason:

According to the current FMVSS No. 210, the 3 point seat belt system (Type 2) is required to withstand the load of 3000 lbs. for each lap and upper torso portion. In the case of the two point automatic seat belt, there are two ways to wear it. One manner is to wear it with the active lap belt, and the other is to wear it without the active lap belt.

When the seat belts are worn in the first manner, the load condition during an accident for each belt is nearly equal to the condition of the 3 point belt system.

Even if the seat belt is worn in the latter manner, the load for the diagonal seat belt is nearly the same compared to the upper torso portion of the 3 point belt system, because of the existance of the knee bolstor which is expected to support the load of the lower occupants body, and which has the same function of the active lap belt.

Therefore, we think the load condition of the anchorages for the two point seat belt system may be the same as the condition for the 3 point belt system.

QUESTION 2 - The location and the number of the anchorages for the automatic seat belt system.

According to the provision of FMVSS No. 210 Sec. 4.1.1, each forward facing outboard seating position in passenger cars is required to install the anchorages for type 2 seat belt assembly.

According to the provision of FMVSS No. 208, if we adopt the automatic belt system as the second option (Sec. 1.2.2) for the passive restraint system, we have to install the anchorages for the type 1 or type 2 seat belt. Although in this case, the location of the anchorage is exempt but the total number of the anchorages is not clear from the standpoint of No. 208, 209.

(A) When we adopt the air cushion restraint system how many anchorages are required?

Case A-1

2 lap anchorages for lap belt required by FMVSS 208 4.1.2.1.b2)

Case A-2

3 anchorages for type 2 required by FMVSS 210 4.3.

(Graphics omitted)

(B) When we adopt the 2 point automatic seat belt system, which is correct?

B-b 2 point automatic seat belt without active lap belt.

(Graphics omitted)

* Remarks

* - The anchorages marked this way, may or may not comply with the requirement of FMVSS 210 4.3.

* - The anchorages marked this way, must comply with the requirement of FMVSS 210 4.3.

(3)(4)(5) - are additional anchorages for the active type 2 seat belt required by FMVSS 210.

B-C 2 point automatic seat belt with active lap belt.

Case

(Graphics omitted)

* Remarks

The meanings of marks * and * are the same as B-b.

(4)(5) are additional anchorages for the active type 2 seat belt required by FMVSS 210.

M. Ogata Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo USA Office

cc: B. SMITH -- OFC. OF VEHICLE STANDARDS CRASHWORTHINESS DIV.

ID: 10285

Mr. Amin Ahmadi
800 South Pacific Coast Highway
Redondo Beach, CA 90277

Dear Mr. Ahmadi:

This responds to your letter requesting that the Federal government require all motor vehicles to be equipped with your mirror, which you believe reduces blind spots. You state that part of your mirror is shaped at a straight angle while another part has a three to five degree outward variance. As explained below, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), does not believe it should require all vehicles to be equipped with your mirror. Nevertheless, NHTSA does not prohibit you from marketing your mirror, provided the mirror complies with the Federal standard on rearview mirrors and other safety considerations are met.

Before I begin, I would like to reference a November 29, 1994 telephone conversation between you and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, about your request for the information in your letter be treated as confidential. Mr. Shaw explained that letters requesting interpretations of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are public information. Nevertheless, he further explained that we would only include a general description of your mirror in our response. Accordingly, we will return your sketches to you and make only the cover letter publicly available. You agreed that this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs for new vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR '571.111, copy enclosed), to set performance requirements for new vehicle mirrors. FMVSS No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.

Assuming that the straight mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 111, vehicle manufacturers could install this new mirror system on their vehicles.

However, even though your mirror may be installed as original equipment, NHTSA does not agree with you that new vehicles should be required to be equipped with a mirror system that has a portion that is at a slight variance. As explained in the enclosed notice about convex mirrors, while a convex mirror reduces blind spots by increasing a driver's field of view, such mirror systems also "increase distortion and reduce a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing distance." Like the mirror referenced in that notice, your mirror has both potential advantages and disadvantages: it would increase the driver's field of view, but it would to some extent increase the potential for confusing the driver, since it combines two different orientations.

Please note that since FMVSS No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under NHTSA's enabling statute, the agency considers the mirror to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to our statute's requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a provision in the law, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make inoperative ... 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 ...." Based on our understanding of your mirror system, it appears that its installation would not make inoperative compliance with the standard. Nevertheless, if the installation of your mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced the complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have made inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 111. The law specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of the make inoperative provision.

This provision in the law does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they desire on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror makes inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors. In addition, individual States are responsible for

regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of mirrors vehicles must have to be registered in that State.

I hope this information is helpful. For your future reference, I have enclosed an information sheet providing general information about NHTSA's regulations for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:#111 d:1/5/95

ID: nht95-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

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

TO: Amin Ahmadi

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/15/94 letter from Amin Ahmadi to Office of Rule Making

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ahmadi:

This responds to your letter requesting that the Federal government require all motor vehicles to be equipped with your mirror, which you believe reduces blind spots. You state that part of your mirror is shaped at a straight angle while another part ha s a three to five degree outward variance. As explained below, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), does not believe it should require all vehicles to be equipped with your mirror. Nevertheless, NHTSA does not prohibi t you from marketing your mirror, provided the mirror complies with the Federal standard on rearview mirrors and other safety considerations are met.

Before I begin, I would like to reference a November 29, 1994 telephone conversation between you and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, about your request for the information in your letter be treated as confidential. Mr. Shaw explained that letters requestin g interpretations of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are public information. Nevertheless, he further explained that we would only include a general description of your mirror in our response. Accordingly, we will return your sketche s to you and make only the cover letter publicly available. You agreed that this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs for new vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111, copy enclosed), to set performance requirements for new vehicle mirrors. FMVSS No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehic le. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.

Assuming that the straight mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 111, vehicle manufacturers could install this new mirror system on their vehicles.

However, even though your mirror may be installed as original equipment, NHTSA does not agree with you that new vehicles should be required to be equipped with a mirror system that has a portion that is at a slight variance. As explained in the enclosed notice about convex mirrors, while a convex mirror reduces blind spots by increasing a driver's field of view, such mirror systems also "increase distortion and reduce a driver's depth perception and judgement about another vehicle's closing distance." Like the mirror referenced in that notice, your mirror has both potential advantages and disadvantages: it would increase the driver's field of view, but it would to some extent increase the potential for confusing the driver, since it combines two diffe rent orientations.

Please note that since FMVSS No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under NHTSA"S enabling statute, the agency considers the mirror to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to our statute's requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defe cts. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective eq uipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a provision in the law, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make inoperative . . . 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 . . ." Based on our understanding of your mirror system, it appears that its install ation would not make inoperative compliance with the standard. Nevertheless, if the installation of your mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair busi ness that replaced the complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have made inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 111. The law specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation o f the make inoperative provision.

This provision in the law does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they desire on their own vehicles, regardless of wh ether that mirror makes inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors. In addition, individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of mirrors vehicles must have to be registered in that State.

I hope this information is helpful. For your future reference, I have enclosed an information sheet providing general information about NHTSA's regulations for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht90-1.94

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 30, 1990

FROM: Malcolm B. Mathieson -- Vice President,Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Michael F. Trentacoste -- Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel; Also attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3- 23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598)

TEXT:

Thomas Built Buses, Inc. has recently received a copy of your letter of August 8, 1989, to Ms. Karen Finkel, Executive Director of the National School Transportation Association, Springfield, Virginia. Thomas is vitally concerned with the opinion you ha ve expressed in your letter regarding the requirements for school buses that, by definition are engaged in "interstate commerce", to comply with the non-school bus requirements for emergency exits as specified in FMVSS No. 217, (571.217), as released on September 1, 1973.

Our concern is rooted in the fact that because of the special requirements of school bus seating, it is patently impossible, in many critical applications, to comply with these requirements.

As you are aware, the NHTSA has revised FMVSS 217 subsequent to the September 1973 issue date. We refer primarily to the revisions made effective October 26, 1976 and February 10, 1982. You are probably not aware of two letters of interpretation receiv ed by Thomas Built Buses, Inc. from the Office of Chief Counsel of NHTSA in 1977 and 1984, as well as recent interpretations received from the legal staff of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge et.al., all of which Thomas believes are in disagreement with the opi nion expressed in your letter of August 8, 1989 to Ms. Finkel. We present for your consideration the following items:

1. Prior to the revisions to FMVSS 217 (571.217) by the NHTSA in 1976 and 1982, the language of FMCSR 393.61(b) (2) requiring that "a bus, including a school bus....must conform with NHTSA's 571.217"....left no alternative but that the schoo l bus "engaged in interstate commerce" would have to meet the non-school bus requirements since, because of the exclusion of school buses by NHTSA from these requirements, only non-school bus requirements were spelled out. The 1976 and 1982 Revisions to FMVSS 217 by NHTSA removed the exclusion for school buses spelled out in the September, 1973 version of FMVSS 217 and added specific emergency exit requirements for school buses of all classes.

Currently, with no revisions to the language of section 393.61(b) (2), the reference of 393.61(b) (2) to 571.217 now points the school bus user to the school bus requirements, and not to the non-school bus requirements.

2. In response to questions from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. to the NHTSA re application of FMVSS 217 to school buses, the NHTSA Chief Counsel (Mr. J. J. Levine, Jr., NOA-30, September 29, 1977) verified that paragraph S5.2 containing the requirements for buses other than school buses does indeed apply only to non-school buses. A copy of this letter is attached.

3. In response to questions from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. to the NHTSA, again re applications of FMVSS 217 to school buses, the NHTSA Chief Counsel (Mr. Frank Berndt, letter to Mr. Ron Marion dated July 5, 1984) verified that even in the cas e of school buses that are also used for "charter buses or general transit vehicles", these buses do not need to meet the requirements of FMVSS 217 for non-school buses. A copy of this letter is attached.

4. In a separate review of the facts of this matter by the legal firm of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, N.C., Thomas Built Buses, Inc. has been advised that in their opinion, school buses are not required, in any instance of usage or travel, to comply with the non-school bus requirements of FMVSS 217. A copy of this letter is attached.

Mr. Trentacoste, in light of the information submitted herein, Thomas Built Buses, Inc. respectfully requests that your office review and revise your letter of August 8, 1989 to Ms. Finkel to bring it into agreement with these interpretations.

We appreciate your taking the time to review this material, and look forward to hearing from your office on this matter.