ID: 1985-03.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

This responds to your two letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. We apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your December 6, 1984 letter asked about paragraph S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217 and the ellipsoid used to measure the unobstructed opening of a pushout window or other emergency exit. To simplify matters, I will refer to the illustration you attached with your letter. You asked whether you may rotate the ellipsoid in such a way that axis C-D may be horizontal instead of axis A-B.

By way of background information, I would like to explain that NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letters.

Paragraph S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217 states that:

After the release mechanism has been operated, each push-out window or other emergency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall...be manually extendable by a single occupant to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches.

Since the language of section S5.4.1 requires only that "a major axis" of the ellipsoid to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the emergency exit, you are not prohibited from positioning the ellipsoid with only a single major axis, such as C-D, horizontal. If there is unobstructed access of the ellipsoid through the opening, with major axis C-D horizontal, then the emergency exit meets the requirement of S5.4.1 as that section is written.

Even if the design of the exit would not violate S5.4.1, however, we urge you to ensure that the design would not complicate efforts of the passengers to use the emergency exit. It appears that the intent of the agency was for the plane generated by the major axes to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the exit. Otherwise, since a major axis of the ellipsoid will at all times be horizontal, no matter how the ellipsoid is passed, the benefit of such a requirement would be reduced. Further, the opening to the emergency exit could be significantly reduced when the only horizontal major axis is C-D.

The agency issued an opinion in April 1977, stating that S5.4.1 and S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 require the long side of a rectangular roof exit to be parallel to the center line or the side wall of a bus. That opinion interpreted S5.4.1 as requiring the ellipsoid to be passed through the exit with more than one of its major axes horizontal. That interpretation relied on the intent of the standard, but not the language of S5.4.1.

This letter reconsiders the 1977 opinion and holds that the language of S5.4.1 requires only one major axis of the ellipsoid to be horizontal.

The two questions in your December 13, 1984 letter dealt with an outside release mechanism for pushout rear emergency windows. In a telephone call to this office on February 25, 1985, you said that the rear emergency pushout windows would be on school buses and buses other than school buses. You also asked whether an outside release mechanism may be installed on rear emergency doors on buses other than school buses.

Your first question was whether the following interpretation was correct:

FMVSS 217 does not require emergency exits to have outside release mechanisms, except for school bus emergency doors. Therefore, if we provide an outside handle to operate a pushout rear emergency window, it does not have to meet any force level or type of motion requirements.

You are correct that Standard No. 217 does not require emergency exits on school buses to have outside release mechanisms, with the exception in S5.3.3 for school bus emergency doors. We assume that there are release mechanisms for the pushout rear emergency windows located within the bus which meet all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. If the emergency exit meets all applicable requirements of the standard, an outside release mechanism for a pushout rear emergency window, that is provided in addition to the release mechanisms required by the standard need not meet any force application and type of motion requirements.

Your second question was whether the outside handle on the pushout rear emergency window could be equipped with a key operated mechanism that disengages the handle from outside the bus for security purposes. The handle, even when locked from the outside, does not ever prevent operation of the window's release mechanisms from inside the bus. The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 217 does not prohibit the type of handle you described when all applicable requirements of the standard can be met.

Our answers given above apply to outside release mechanisms on pushout rear emergency windows on school buses and buses other than school buses.

An outside release mechanism on rear emergency doors on buses other than school buses would likewise not have to meet any force application and type of motion requirements, if the emergency door meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. The outside release mechanism can be equipped with the locking device you described, provided that Standard No. 217's requirements are met.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CPR Part 517.217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Dear Mr. Berndt:

For purposes of FMVSS 217 the unobstructed opening a pushout window or other emergency exit, not required by S 5.2.3, must provide is defined as follows:

"...an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches."

When applying this requirement to a side pushout window with an adjacent seat, as shown in Figure 1 attached, we initially interpreted this requirement to mean the major axis A-B which is parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the major axis that must be kept horizontal. This interpretation required placing of the adjacent seat so that a 20 inch horizontal opening was maintained at the height the ellipsoid passed out the opening.

In certain body/capacity combinations, it requires uneven spacing of the seats to provide this clearance at pushout window locations required in certain states. Upon restudying the requirements, we have realized that the requirement is for a major axis to remain horizontal at all times. Since the ellipsoid is generated by rotating an ellipse about its minor axis, it is a circle in the top or bottom plan view and, therefore, has a multitude of major axes including A-B, C-D, E-F, as shown in the top view of Figure 1. Based on this, it is allowable to rotate the ellipsoid about axis C-D as shown in the side view of Figure 2 as long as axis C-D is kept horizontal at all times.

We feel rotating the ellipsoid about any major axis is allowed by the standard's wording as long as a major axis is kept horizontal, and that lt meets the intent of the standard and does not compromise safety in any way. We seek your confirmation of this interpretation as it will permit us to better meet our customer's needs by providing more flexibility in positioning seats adjacent to pushout windows.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and your early reply.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

dh/2057 Attachment

c: FMVSS 217 Correspondence File Jim Moorman David Carter

"INSERT GRAPHIC"

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CFR Part 571.217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to make a correction in our December 6, 1984 letter discussing unobstructed opening requirements of FMVSS 217 and to request other interpretations regarding this standard. First, the reference in our December 6 letter should have been to 49 CFR Part 571.217 instead of 517.217. Please make this correction and accept our apology for any confusion this error may have caused.

Second, we request your confirmation of two interpretations regarding pushout rear window release mechanisms as follows:

1. FMVSS 217 does not require emergency exits to have outside release mechanisms, except for school bus emergency doors. Therefore, if we provide an outside handle to operate a pushout rear emergency window, it does not have to meet any force level or type of motion requirements.

2. Since an outside handle is not required on a pushout rear emergency window, we could provide a handle, with a key operated mechanism that allows the outside handle to be engaged or disengaged with the pushout window release mechanisms. Disengagement of the outside handle allows locking of the bus for security purposes but does not ever prevent operation of the release mechanism from inside the bus. We feel such a device therefore, meets the letter and intent of FMVSS 217.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Very truly yours, Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

fvc c: FMVSS 217 Correspondence File Jim Moorman David Carter

ID: 86-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rich Demski

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 1986 Mr. Rich Demski Federal Motors Inc. P.O. Box 5000 Ocala, Florida 32678 Dear Mr. Demski: This responds to you request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked about the identification requirements applicable to a coolant temperature telltale. According to your letter and an accompanying drawing, you are currently identifying the telltale with the identifying symbol for the coolant temperature telltale specified by Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, and the words "ENG WATER TEMP". Noting that some of your vehicles have engines which are air-cooled rather than water-cooled, you asked if FMVSS No. 101 permits you to delete the word "WATER" while otherwise continuing to identify the telltale as described above. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer has the responsibility to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 101 states in relevant part: Except for informational read-out displays, any display located within the passenger compartment and listed in column 1 of Table 2 that has a symbol designated in column 4, shall be identified by that symbol. Such display may, in addition be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column3.... Informational read-out displays may be identified by the symbol designated in column 4 of Table 2 or by the word or abbreviation shown in column 3. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity... The coolant temperature telltale is a display listed in Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, and the symbol pictured in your letter is the identifying symbol for that telltale specified in column 4 of the table. Therefore, under section S5.2.3 of the standard, your use of that symbol to identify the coolant temperature telltale is sufficient identification regardless of what, if any, identifying words you provide for the purpose of clarity. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: GF003064

Mr. Christopher H. Willison
General Manager
Americarb
5151 Wooster Road West
Norton, OH 44203

Dear Mr. Willison:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 2004, and subsequent conversations with George Feygin of my staff. You ask a series of questions regarding DOT regulations related to a pressure vessel used for tire inflation located inside a hollow semi-trailer axle.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

There is no FMVSS regulating pressure vessels located in hollow semi-trailer axles as described in your letter. In fact, the agency does not have any regulations covering tire inflation systems for heavy vehicles. However, if your system is tied into the vehicles air braking system, it may affect compliance with other safety standards.

Specifically, FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, may have implications for your product, especially if your device is an integral part of the brake system. We do not have sufficient information about your device to discuss FMVSS No. 121 implications. However, in a previous letter of interpretation (copy attached) we stated that a tire inflation device would not be considered a part of the braking system if it was separated from the vehicles main braking system by a pressure protection valve in such a way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device.

Further, the air supply line between the air supply tank described in your letter and the pressure vessel could be considered a brake hose subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses. In a previous letter of interpretation, we stated that if a failure of a hose or a supply line would result in a loss of pressure in the brake system, that hose or supply line are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 106 (copy enclosed).

For your reference, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:121
d.6/8/04

ID: nht93-8.29

DATE: November 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe Takacs -- Director of Engineering, Kinedyne Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/93 from Joe Takacs to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-9173)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 21, 1993 in which you referred to this agency's final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, dated September 3, 1993 (58 FR 46873). You requested our interpretation of that notice as to whether the following is acceptable:

1. The webbing Kinedyne uses in its wheelchair strap assemblies is industrial-type 1 or 2-inch polyester webbing that meets the strength and other requirements of S4.2 of FMVSS 209.

2. The hardware Kinedyne uses on its wheelchair strap assemblies are industrial-type 1 or 2-inch overcenter, ratchet or cam buckles; wire hooks; snap hooks and track fittings, all of which meet the strength and other requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS 209.

With regard to the webbing used in your strap assemblies, paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches in width "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position ...." That means that seat belt webbing must be 1.8 inches in width only where it touches the person of the occupant. The width of webbed belts or straps which secure a wheel chair to the bus floor and do not touch the person of the occupant is not specified in any standard. Accordingly, Kinedyne is free to use belts of 1 inch or some other width, so long as such belts do not touch the person of the occupant and meet the other requirements of S4.2, FMVSS 209.

S4.3 of FMVSS 209 addresses a number of requirements for seat belt hardware, including corrosion and temperature resistance, attachment hardware, buckle release, adjustment force, retractor requirements (if applicable), etc. If the hardware Kinedyne uses in fact meet all those requirements, then it would be acceptable.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9173

Mr. Joe Takacs
Director of Engineering
Kinedyne Corporation
3701 Greenway Circle
Lawrence, KS 66046-5442

Dear Mr. Takacs:

This responds to your letter of September 21, 1993 in which you referred to this agency's final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, dated September 3, 1993 (58 FR 46873). You requested our interpretation of that notice as to whether the following is acceptable:

1. The webbing Kinedyne uses in its wheelchair strap assemblies is industrial-type 1 or 2-inch polyester webbing that meets the strength and other requirements of S4.2 of FMVSS 209.

2. The hardware Kinedyne uses on its wheelchair strap assemblies are industrial-type 1 or 2-inch overcenter, ratchet or cam buckles; wire hooks; snap hooks and track fittings, all of which meet the strength and other requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS 209.

With regard to the webbing used in your strap assemblies, paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches in width "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . ." That means that seat belt webbing must be 1.8 inches in width only where it touches the person of the occupant. The width of webbed belts or straps which secure a wheel chair to the bus floor and do not touch the person of the occupant is not specified in any standard. Accordingly, Kinedyne is free to use belts of 1 inch or some other width, so long as such belts do not touch the person of the occupant and meet the other requirements of S4.2, FMVSS 209.

S4.3 of FMVSS 209 addresses a number of requirements for seat belt hardware, including corrosion and temperature resistance, attachment hardware, buckle release, adjustment force, retractor requirements (if applicable), etc. If the hardware Kinedyne uses in fact meet all those requirements, then it would be acceptable. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:222#209 d:11/23/93

ID: 571-108--backup lamps of truck tractor cab--Daimler Trucks

ID: 1982-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K-D Lamp Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION

NOA-30

Mr. Chris Tuerck Assistant Chief Engineer K-D Lamp Company 1910 Elm Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45210

Dear Mr. Tuerck:

This responds to your letter asking whether your sample turn signal and hazard switch design complies with the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Your letter states that the switch is used primarily on Class 7 and Class 8 trucks and truck tractors. We therefore assume that it would only be used on trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more. We make that assumption because Standard No. 101-80 includes requirements for a vehicle's displays in addition to its controls if it has a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, it is our opinion that the sample switch does comply with the labeling requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

The sample turn signal and hazard switch is designed to be clamped onto a vehicle's steering column to the left of the driver and looks something like a box. We assume that the box is to be installed so that the side of the box which has two pushbuttons on it, marked 'R' and 'L,' is on the left. Pressing the 'R' pushbutton, which is located toward the back, activates the right turn signal. Pressing the 'L' pushbutton, which is located toward the front, activates the left turn signal. Both buttons must be pushed simultaneously for the hazard warning signal.

Most of the identification for the switch is located on top of the box. Just above the right turn pushbutton is a thick black arrow pointing to the right. Just above the left turn pushbutton is a thick black arrow pointing to the left. Above each pushbutton there is also a triangle outlined in black, i.e., the hazard warning symbol specified by Table 1 of Standard No. 101-80. Between those identifications is located a pushbutton, identified by the use of both words and symbols, which clears the turn signals or hazard warning signal. The top of the box also includes three jewel-type pilot indicators which indicate when the turn signals or hazard warning signal are activated and additional labeling explaining the method of operation for the hazard warning signal.

Section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 101-80 states in relevant part:

Vehicle controls shall be identified as follows:

(a) Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand-operated control listed in column 3 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol. Such a control may, in addition, be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Any such control for which no symbol is shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The identification shall, under the conditions of S6, be visible to the driver and, except as provided in S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.2, appear to the driver perceptually upright.

Both the turn signal and the hazard warning signal are listed in column 1 of Table 1 and have symbols designated in Column 3. Therefore, Standard No. 101-80 requires that those controls be identified by the designated symbols.

The primary issue raised by your design is whether the turn signal control symbol specified by Table 1, a pair of arrows, may be split where there are independent controls for the left and right turn signals. As explained below, it is our opinion that the pair of arrows may be split in that particular circumstance.

The symbol for the turn signal control is the same as the symbol specified by Table 2 for the turn signal display. A footnote to Table 2 explains that while the pair of arrows is a single symbol, the two arrows will be considered separate symbols when the indicators for the left and right turn operate independently and may be spaced accordingly.

Table 1 does not include that footnote for the turn signal control. A turn signal control would normally be expected to consist of one button or lever and would be required to be identified by the pair of arrows as one symbol. It is our interpretation, however, that the two arrows may be considered separate symbols where there are independent controls for the left and right turn signals, as in your sample switch. Separating the two arrows in such an instance has the advantage of indicating the direction of the signal activated by each pushbutton.

Table 2 also includes a footnote that indicates that the framed areas of the turn signal display symbol may be filled in. While Table 1 has a footnote that indicates that the framed areas of several symbols may be filled in, the turn signal control is not among those listed. It is our interpretation, however, in light of the footnote in Table 2, that a manufacturer may fill in the framed areas of the turn signal symbol whether it is used for a control or a display.

Thus, the symbols used on the sample switch for the turn signal controls are those specified by Standard No. 101-80.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 13, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

ATTH: Mr. Frank Berndt-Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is a request for a legal opinion regarding compliance of our Model KD723 Turn Signal and Hazard Switch with FMVSS 571.101-80 Controls and Displays. It is a push button switch of the clamp on style (see attached Instruction Sheet) and is used primarily on Class 7 and Class 8 trucks and truck tractors. This switch has been manufactured by K-D Lamp Co. for approximately twenty years and is specified by the McLean Trucking Co. on all their new truck tractors.

The push button design had led to some problems in marking the switch to meet 571.101-80 requirements. We had tried and discussed various designs of labels which would properly identify the various switch functions and had arrived at a design which we felt would be satisfactory. At about the same time an order was received from GMC Truck and Coach for their version of this switch. We discussed the label with their engineers and they in turn submitted the label design to their legal department for review. Their legal department was of the opinion that the label would bring our Model 723 switch into compliance with FMVSS 571.101-80.

There are three jewel type pilot indicators in the center of the cover. The two (2) outer indicators are green and meet the size (area of 3/16" dia. circle) and functional requirements of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps which is a part of FMVSS 108. The same green indicators also meet the requirement of flashing simultaneously when the hazard system is turned on as specified in SAE Standard J910 Hazard Warning Switch. This standard is also a part of FMVSS 108. This latter function agrees in part with Note 2 under Table 2 of FMVSS 571.101-80. The center pilot indicator is red and serves only as a delineator between the two green indicators.

Early this year I visited with Mr. John Carson, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Edward Glancy of your office to discuss the subject switch. They, quite properly did not offer any solutions for bringing the switch into compliance. They suggested that, when we developed a method and design for marking the switch, we send you all the pertinent information along with a print of the label and switch (print attached) and a sample switch with label to show the color scheme. They felt that the print and the sample switch would provide sufficient data so that your office could determine if the switch is in compliance with FMVSS 571.101-80. Under seperate cover we are sending the switch via UPS to your attention.

We apologize for being so late in requesting your opinion and respectfully ask that this matter be handled as expeditiously as possible since the final dead line of September 1,1981 is very near.

Sincerely,

Chris Tuerck Ass't. Chief Engineer

ID: nht91-6.12

DATE: September 30, 1991

FROM: W.R. Kittle -- Director, Automotive Safety Planning and Compliance, Product Strategy and Regulatory Affairs Office, Chrysler Corporation

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Petition for Temporary Exemption; Low Emission Motor Vehicle; 49 CFR 555

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to D.E. Dawkins (A39; Part 555)

TEXT:

Chrysler Corporation, a Delaware corporation, with offices at 12000 Chrysler Drive, Highland Park, Michigan 48288-1919, hereby petitions the NHTSA for a temporary exemption from certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the Chrysler TEVan, an electrically driven version of the Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager multipurpose passenger vehicle. The exemption is sought for a one year period.

The Chrysler TEVan has been developed in cooperation with the Electric Power Research Institute, Southern California Edison Company, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the United States Department of Energy. The acronym, TEVan, is derived from the expression, "T-115 Electric Van", where T-115 is the engineering model code for the Caravan/Voyager vehicles. TEVan is pronounced as if it were two words, "Tee Van".

The basis for this petition is the facilitation of the development of low-emission engine features. The TEVan is a low-emission motor vehicle as defined by section 123(g) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The TEVan does not have an internal combustion engine. Instead, it has an electric motor propulsion system powered by nickel-iron batteries. As a result, it will emit air pollutants in amounts significantly below new motor vehicle standards applicable under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 f-1) at the time of its manufacture, and with respect to all other pollutants, it will meet the new motor vehicle standards applicable to it under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act at the time of its manufacture.

The TEVan is a Dodge Caravan in which the internal combustion engine, transmission, coolant system, manifold-vacuum-assisted power brakes, gasoline fuel system, and engine-driven hydraulically-assisted power steering system have been replaced by an electric drive motor, a nickel-iron battery pack, a micro-processor based battery management system, a controller-convertor-charger unit, a two-speed manual or three-speed automatic transmission, and electric-motor-driven pumps for the vacuum power brakes and the hydraulically-assisted power steering. In addition, the original hot water heater/defroster unit has been replaced by a diesel fuel-burning unit. Since their manufacture, those that were equipped with the automatic transmission have been refitted with the manual transmission.

Based on certification testing of the Caravan, and the anticipated effect of the modifications above upon the vehicle, the TEVan complies with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with the considerations or exceptions indicated below.

FMVSS 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect.

S3.1.2; TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT. The requirement for transmission braking effect is met by regenerative braking, in which the electric motor becomes a generator, recharging the batteries and dissipating energy in the process. Regenerative braking can be switched off at the option of the driver to restore steering control on slippery surfaces.

FMVSS 105 - Hydraulic Brake Systems

S5.1; SYSTEM BRAKE SYSTEMS. The performance of the service brake system is predicated on the use of the regenerative characteristic of the drive motor to augment the power-assisted hydraulic wheel brakes. The motor, driven through the transmission by the mass of the coasting vehicle, functions as a generator to dissipate energy through charging the drive batteries. In the performance tests of S5.1.1 - Stopping Distance, however, the transmission must be in neutral, and in the TEVan, that would preclude the contribution of regenerative braking. No tests have been conducted with the TEVan, however, it is our opinion that with regenerative braking, the stopping distance requirements would be met.

Further, in the test for evaluation of S5.1.4 - Fade and Recovery, the distance between the starting points of successive brake applications at 60 mph is 0.4 miles. The TEVan will not accelerate from 5 to 60 mph in that distance, so the test cannot be conducted as prescribed. Then too, the TEVan is considerably heavier than the parent vehicle. Nonetheless, we believe that if the test could be conducted as prescribed, and with regenerative braking, the fade and recovery requirements would be met or nearly met.

FMVSS 207 - Seating Systems

S4.2(a)-(c); GENERAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS. The right end floor pan anchor sockets for the removable two-passenger second seat have been reduced in height below the floor pan to provide space for a portion of the battery pack. While the modified sockets are believed to be equivalent in strength to the original, compliance tests have not been performed.

FMVSS 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages S4.2; STRENGTH. The modified right end floor pan anchor sockets discussed in FMVSS 207 - Seating Systems, above, must also transmit seat belt forces to the vehicle structure through seat-mounted anchorages.

Again, while the modified sockets are believed to be equivalent in strength to the original, compliance tests have not been performed.

FMVSS 212 - Windshield Mounting, and

FMVSS 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion

S5; REQUIREMENT. Windshield mounting and zone intrusion performance are ultimately determined by vehicle front structure crush characteristics.

The front structure of the base Caravan/Voyager, modified to support the

electric drivetrain components, is believed to be materially equivalent in strength to the original, however, a 30 mph barrier impact test has not been conducted to confirm compliance.

FMVSS 301 - Fuel System Integrity

S5.5 - FUEL SPILLAGE: BARRIER CRASH, and S5.6 - FUEL SPILLAGE: ROLLOVER. A 1.6 gallon tank has been provided just behind the rear axle for the fuel used in the diesel fuel-burning heater/defroster. The integrity of the diesel fuel system has not been evaluated with fixed and moving barrier impact tests, however, it is believed that the system would comply with the spillage requirements if the vehicle were so tested.

If exempted, the TEVan would differ from the 1989 model Year Dodge Caravan vehicle from which it was derived in that the internal combustion engine, drivetrain, and engine-driven vehicle subsystems have been replaced by an electric traction motor, a complement of nickel-iron batteries, an electric controller, and certain electrically-driven vehicle subsystems. Changes have also been made in structural elements to accommodate the latter components. To assist in the review of this petition, a brochure describing the TEVan in greater detail has been provided as Attachment 1. The probable effect on the performance of the modified vehicle with respect to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is described above.

Chrysler is not presently manufacturing the TEVan, but is manufacturing an improved version of the Dodge Caravan upon which it is based. The latter vehicle meets all applicable Federal Safety Standards.

Chrysler is not aware of any tests conducted with the TEVan in which it failed to meet a Safety Standard. Since only four vehicles have been or will be modified for field evaluation of this initial design, no testing for compliance is planned or anticipated.

While destructive compliance testing has not been conducted on any of these vehicles, Chrysler believes that their safety performance will be very like that of the Caravan/Voyager vehicle from which they were derived. While vehicle weight is much greater because of the batteries for the drive system, hydraulic brake system performance is augmented by regenerative braking. The internal combustion engine is no longer in place to share or transfer front impact forces, however, the electric motor and its controller take the place of the engine, at least in part. Similarly, the potential for fuel-fed fire is greatly reduced, first because of the nearly tenfold reduction in the size of the fuel tank, and secondly because less volatile diesel fuel is used instead of gasoline.

The exemption of these vehicles from the requirement to confirm performance with respect to the braking, crashworthiness, and post-crash standards will facilitate the development of the electric motor, controller, and battery for the next generation of the TEVan. That vehicle will be designed to comply with all Federal safety standards, to the extent that an electrically-powered vehicle can so comply.

The four vehicles that are the subject of this petition will not be brought into compliance with the Federal standards applicable to them in the 1989 model year by Chrysler. Provided an exemption is granted, one or more of the vehicles will be titled and sold for ongoing endurance evaluation.

Not more than 2,500 exempted, first generation TEVans will be sold in any 12-month period for which an exemption may be granted. In fact, only four such vehicles were manufactured for test and evaluation.

The grant of the requested exemption would be in the public interest because it would:

o facilitate the field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle without unreasonably degrading the safety of that vehicle;-

o facilitate the development of a vehicle which could be very fuel-efficient in terms of its use of fossil fuels;

o accelerate the development of electrically-driven vehicles and related technology which could help to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Please direct all questions regarding this petition to Howard Willson of my staff at 313-956-6037.

ID: nht94-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald F. Lett -- Lett Electronics Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/19/94 From Donald F. Lett To Department Of Transportation (OCC-9590)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lett:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether any "pre-necessary authorization" is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume "pre-necessary authorization" means this agency's prior approval or permis sion to modify the tires in the manner you propose.

You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 1/2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a "D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire" into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self-certification system, neither NH TSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSS s. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure t o

2

comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance.

It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 1/2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Th erefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the ti re. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer wo uld constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle rep air business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously- complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate @ 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above.

Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters "DOT" appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire compli es with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section

3

will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties.

In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely a ffected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems.

Finally, I note that you used the term "previously D.O.T. approved" tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation "approves" tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the "DOT" code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: 07-001583as