ID: 86-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1986, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 212, Windshield Retention, apply to a passenger car that is equipped with a driver-only air bag system. As explained below, such a vehicle must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after being tested in accordance with Standard No. 212.

Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicle that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.

You noted that S4.1.3.4(b) of Standard No. 208 provides that, for purpose of calculating the number of passive restraint-equipped cars during the phase-in of passive restraints, a car with a driver-only, non-belt passive restraint will be counted as a vehicle complying with the passive restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1(a). Such a driver-only system can have a manual safety belt installed at the right front passenger position. You said that Volvo considers a vehicle with a driver-only, non-belt system to be a passive restraint vehicle and thus subject to the 50 percent windshield retention requirement of S5.1

As discussed in a July 5, 1977, Federal Register notice (42 FR 34288), one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles has because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield. In addition, there could be incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield. Because the same air bag-to-windshield and dummy-to-windshield contact is possible in a vehicle equipped with a driver-only air bag system, the agency believes that it is appropriate to apply the 50 percent retention requirement to a driver-only air bag system.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 5, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #212 Windshield Mounting

Dear Ms. Jones:

FMVSS #212 requires passive restraint equipped vehicles to retain not less than 50% of the portion of the windshield periphery on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline and vehicles not equipped with passive restraints to retain not less than 75% of the windshield periphery.

FMVSS #208 Section 4. 1.3.4(b) states, for purposes of calculating the numbers of cars manufactured under Section 4. 1.3. 1 .2, Section 4. 1.3.2.2, or Section 4.1.3.3.2 L; comply with Section 4.1.2.1. (first option - frontal/angular automatic protection system): "Each car whose driver's seating position with comply with the requirements of Section 4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type or seat belt ad whose front right seating position is equipped with a Type 2 seat belt is counted as a vehicle conforming to Section 4,1.2.1.",

During the period 1987-89MY, NHTSA has classified cars with a non-belt passive restraint on the driver's side and a Type 2 seat belt on the passenger's side as "passive restraint vehicles".

Volvo interprets that the vehicles covered under Section 4.1.3.4(b) are passive restraint vehicles ad the requirements of FMVSS #212 for those vehicles are the ones that apply to passive restraint vehicles, i.e. , minimum 50% windshield periphery retention on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline.

We would appreciate your confirmation of that position as soon as possible.

If additional information is required on this matter, don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA Product Planning and Development

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs

ID: 9479

Lawrence P. White, Acting Director
Bureau of Motor Vehicles
Department of Transportation
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, PA 17122

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter of December 13, 1993, asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follows.

1.The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between?

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates." (49 CFR Part 568.6).

2.Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front service door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door?

The November 2 final rule requires additional emergency exit area (AEEA) for some buses. The amount, if any, of AEEA which must be provided is determined by subtracting the area of the front service door and either the area of the rear emergency door or the area of the side emergency door and the rear push- out window, depending on the configuration of the bus (S5.2.3.1). These are the minimum exits required on all buses. If AEEA is required, the first additional exit which must be installed is a left side emergency door (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or a right side emergency door (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window). The number of exits may vary for buses which carry the same number of passengers, because the amount of area credited for each exit is the area of daylight opening, and because different variations of types of exits are possible. However, in the regulatory evaluation for the final rule, the agency estimated that a bus would not be required to have a roof exit (the second type of additional exit required) unless the capacity was greater than 62 (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or 77 (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push- out window).

3.The "clear aisle space" required for exit to the proposed side emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip-up type seat or a clear opening of 12", as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be considered a "flip seat"?

The November 2 final rule allowed a flip-up seat to be adjacent to a side emergency exit door "if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within" the required 12 inch aisle to the exit (S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii)). The agency did not otherwise define a flip-up seat, nor did it include any performance requirements for these seats.

4.Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the "flip seat" by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidently, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch mechanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring?

Standard No. 217 includes requirements for the type of motion and force required to release an emergency exit (S5.3.3). One of these requirements is that the motion to release a door must be upward from inside the bus (upward or pull-type for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms or less). This is intended to lessen the chance of a door accidently being opened, without unnecessarily making the exit more complicated to open in an emergency. In addition, warning alarms are required for door and window exits to notify the driver that the exit has been opened.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:3/21/94

ID: 2509y

Timothy A. Kelly, President
Salem Vent International, Inc.
P.O. Box 885
Salem, VA 24153

Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release as it applies to roof exits. You asked four specific questions which I have addressed below.

First, you asked for confirmation that the only specification in Standard No. 217 concerning the size of roof exits is the requirement that the exit be able to accommodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches pushed horizontally through the exit opening. Your understanding is not entirely correct. The ellipsoid requirement to which you refer, set forth in S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, is the only provision in the standard that specifies a minimum size requirement for roof exit openings. Although there is no maximum size limit, you should be aware that S5.2 of Standard No. 217 provides that, in determining the total unobstructed openings for emergency exit provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. Thus, if a roof exit is larger than 536 square inches, only 536 square inches will be counted for the exit in determining whether the bus complies with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 217.

Second, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 does not permit the use of escape hatches or ventilators in the roof of school buses as a substitute for any of the emergency exits required on school buses by S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. This understanding is correct. Additionally, you should be aware that the agency has a longstanding position that any emergency exits, including any roof exits, installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by S5.2.3 must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 217 for emergency exits installed on buses other than school buses. See the enclosed July 6, 1979 interpretation to Robert Kurre on this issue. Third, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 permits the use of roof exits as a substitute for the rear exit door on buses other than school buses. This statement is not entirely correct. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 requires the use of a rear exit door on all non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., except where the configuration of the bus precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. In that case, S5.2.1 requires the installation of a roof exit in the rear half of the bus in lieu of the rear exit. This substitution of a roof exit for a rear exit door is allowed only where the bus design precludes the use of a rear exit (such as on rear-engine buses). It is not an option allowing the substitution of a roof exit for the rear door in any design.

Fourth, you asked whether the addition of more than one roof exit on a non-school bus would allow a manufacturer to delete any other required exits in addition to the rear door. It is possible that increasing the total exit space on the bus by adding roof exits could enable a manufacturer to reduce the number or size of other emergency exits on the bus and still comply with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2. You should be aware that exit space provided by roof exits is not counted in determining compliance with the requirement in S5.2 that 40 percent of the total unobstructed openings be located on each side of the bus. Whether this substitution of additional roof exits could be made on any particular non-school bus would depend upon whether the bus complied with the exit space and location requirements of S5.2.1 (if the bus has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and the applicable requirements of S5.2.2 (if the bus has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:217 d:5/30/90

ID: 2626y

Mr. David J. Blackwell
Operations Manager
Liquidus Limited
37A Shorncliffe Road
Toronto, Ontario
48Z 5K2, Canada

Dear Mr. Blackwell:

This is in response to your letter asking whether a certain vehicle that you plan to export to the United States would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You state that Liquidus has "designed a system" by customizing an existing road tanker for "overhead" loading. The vehicle you plan to export would be used for "aircraft de-icing storage" and "loading of aircraft de-icing tarmac vehicles while in a fixed location." The road tanker used in your system was originally built in Canada by a firm that has since gone out of business. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, your vehicle is subject to the safety standards only if it is considered within the definition of "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are also not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., certain airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In addition, items of mobile construction equipment which use the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site are not considered motor vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered motor vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

We would apply these principles to the vehicle identified in your letter as follows. Your letter stated that this vehicle will be immobilized after it reaches the airport. Assuming this immobilization occurs, this vehicle would appear to be designed and sold solely for off-road use, just like certain other airport runway vehicles. In this case, it would not be a motor vehicle, even though it is operationally capable of highway travel before the immobilization.

However, if the vehicle were not subsequently immobilized, and were moved from airport to airport with only a limited stay at any job site, this vehicle might be considered a "motor vehicle." This conclusion would be even more likely if a significant percentage of the vehicle's purchasers were to use the vehicle by moving it from airport to airport, notwithstanding your company's intent that the vehicles not be so used. This situation would be analogous to the classification of dune buggies.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact John Rigby of this office by mail at the above address or by telephone at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:8/20/90

ID: 2635y

Mr. David J. Blackwell
Operations Manager
Liquidus Limited
37A Shorncliffe Road
Toronto, Ontario
48Z 5K2, Canada

Dear Mr. Blackwell:

This is in response to your letter asking whether a certain vehicle that you plan to export to the United States would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You state that Liquidus has "designed a system" by customizing an existing road tanker for "overhead" loading. The vehicle you plan to export would be used for "aircraft de-icing storage" and "loading of aircraft de-icing tarmac vehicles while in a fixed location." The road tanker used in your system was originally built in Canada by a firm that has since gone out of business. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, your vehicle is subject to the safety standards only if it is considered within the definition of "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are also not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., certain airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In addition, items of mobile construction equipment which use the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site are not considered motor vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered motor vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

We would apply these principles to the vehicle identified in your letter as follows. Your letter stated that this vehicle will be immobilized after it reaches the airport. Assuming this immobilization occurs, this vehicle would appear to be designed and sold solely for off-road use, just like certain other airport runway vehicles. In this case, it would not be a motor vehicle, even though it is operationally capable of highway travel before the immobilization.

However, if the vehicle were not subsequently immobilized, and were moved from airport to airport with only a limited stay at any job site, this vehicle might be considered a "motor vehicle." This conclusion would be even more likely if a significant percentage of the vehicle's purchasers were to use the vehicle by moving it from airport to airport, notwithstanding your company's intent that the vehicles not be so used. This situation would be analogous to the classification of dune buggies.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact John Rigby of this office by mail at the above address or by telephone at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:8/20/90

ID: 3244yy

Mr. James Watson
Post Office Box 153
Finleyville, PA 15332

Re: United States Customs Service File No. 866522R

Dear Mr. Watson:

This responds to your request for my opinion of whether a particular vehicle, an e-tant manufactured in Thailand by P.S.N, that you wish to import into the United States for your own use as a "farm vehicle," would be considered a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). According to materials you submitted, the e-tant has the appearance of a small flat bed truck. However, since it has a small 11.5 horsepower engine, you believe its top speed would be under 20 mph. You believe that the e-tant should be classified as a "farm vehicle," explaining that you disagree with the U.S. Customs Service classification (NY ruling 866522 dated September 11, 1991) of the e-tant as a motor vehicle. You further explained that the e-tant is generally used as a farm vehicle in Thailand. Based on the information provided in your letter, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 mph or less.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under any of these groupings. In such circumstances, we are sometimes able to evaluate factors related to how manufacturers/dealers will advertise, market, and service a particular vehicle in the United States. However, these factors are not relevant where a person is importing a single vehicle for his or her own use. I also note that an individual owner's planned use for a vehicle being imported is not determinative of whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle.

We believe that the relevant factors concerning whether the e-tant is considered a motor vehicle are as follows. First, the e-tant has a body configuration similar to a standard truck. Moreover, in the country where it is manufactured for sale, your letter indicates that the vehicle is used on rural highways to carry crops to market in nearby towns and for visiting friends. In addition, since the e-tant closely resembles a standard small truck, it is likely that states would register it for use on the public highways. The only factor you have identified which suggests that the e-tant should not be considered a motor vehicle is its slow speed, which you believe would be under 20 mph. However, NHTSA does not consider slow speed to be a sufficient factor by itself to take a vehicle which otherwise would be considered a motor vehicle outside of that category. Therefore, after considering all of these factors, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be considered a motor vehicle.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Area Director of Customs New York Seaport New York, NY 10048

Office of Regulations and Rulings U.S. Customs Service Headquarters 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20229 /ref:VSA#571 d:l2/l0/90l

ID: 3266o

Erman Jackson, Sales Manager
Trailmaster Tanks, Inc.
P. O. Box 161759
1121 Cantrell-Sansom Road
Fort Worth, TX 76161-1759

Dear Mr. Jackson:

This is in response to your letter which requested our interpretation of the applicability of certification requirements to your company. You indicate that you attached a new body to a truck chassis that has been in service for a number of years. Your customer believes that Trailmaster Tanks, Inc., (Trailmaster) should have issued a new final-stage manufacturer certificate at the time of the mounting of the new body. Trailmaster, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the final-stage manufacturer certificate is only issued when the chassis is new. You asked me whether your company was required by Federal law or regulations to certify that the new body on the used truck chassis complies with all applicable safety standards. The answer to your question depends on whether the used chassis consisted of any new components and, if not, whether the used components of the chassis came from different vehicles, as explained below.

As a general matter, our safety standards and certification requirements apply to vehicles only before the first sale of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Generally speaking, vehicles that are produced from a chassis that has already been sold to the public are not considered new vehicles, and are not subject to our safety standards or certification requirements. However, there is a special provision in our regulations for vehicles that are produced by combining new and used components. This provision is in 49 CFR 571.7(e), which provides:

(e) Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components are from the same vehicle.

This regulation means that a party attaching a new body to an old chassis is not required to attach a new certification label or make any certification under Federal law if that party simply uses the engine, transmission, and drive axle that are installed on the old chassis at the time the party receives the old chassis. Based on your statement that the truck "was not modified in any way" at the time the new body was installed on the old chassis, this would appear to be the case in your situation. If this is true, you were not required to make any certification in connection with this vehicle.

On the other hand, if you substituted a new engine, transmission, or drive axle in the old chassis when you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured under 571.7(e) and your company was required to certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567. Similarly, if you substituted used components on the old chassis at the time you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured unless at least two of the three specified components (engine, transmission, and drive axle) were from the same vehicle.

It should be noted that, even if the vehicle created when you attached a new body to a used truck chassis did not result in a newly manufactured vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR 571.7(e), your company was still subject to the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used vehicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the first instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited "rendering inoperative" violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I believe you can use the information presented in this letter to determine whether or not the vehicle your company made was considered a newly manufactured vehicle, subject to our safety standards and certification regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#571 d:l2/9/88

ID: 6972

Mr. Lance Watt
Director of Engineering
The Flxible Corporation
970 Pittsburgh Drive
Delaware, Ohio 43105-2859

Dear Mr. Watt:

This responds to your letter of February 11, l992, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to several scenarios regarding the wiring and use of optional brake retarder transmissions on city transit buses manufactured by your company.

In your current design, the retarder is designed so that it is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn illuminates the stop lamps. You have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 20. 1990, confirming that this design conforms to Standard No. 108, specifically S5.5.4 which states that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Since that time, several additional scenarios have presented themselves. First, some customers have requested that the transmission retarder be activated when the accelerator pedal is released, rather than when the brake pedal is applied. In this configuration, the stop lamps would not be illuminated, "and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed", unless the service brakes were also applied. However, some customers wishing this option would like to have the stop lamps illuminated by the retarder, that is to say, when the accelerator is released. Second, some customers have also requested a retarder cut-off switch in order to disable the retarder during icy or slippery road conditions. In such a case, the stop lamps would also be activated at the time of accelerator release "with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes." To date, your company has resisted these requests, but these customers, without a specific NHTSA interpretation on the point, threaten to declare your company a nonresponsive bidder on transit bus procurements. You have asked whether a noncompliance with section S5.5.4 would result "if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers."

The purpose of the retarder feature is to provide supplemental braking to city transit buses. This braking results in the deceleration of the vehicle. A stop lamp is defined by SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width as one that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Whenever the brake retarder is activated with the intent of diminishing speed by braking, Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated. The only mandate of the standard (S5.5.4) is that when the service brakes are applied, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

Nor does Standard No. 108 prohibit illumination of the stop lamps by release of the accelerator pedal followed by activation of the retarder. This is because the intention of the driver is to diminish speed by the braking action of the retarder. We distinguish this situation from the one in an interpretation provided Larry Snowhite, Esq. on January 25, 1990, in which a device activated the stop lamps whenever the accelerator pedal was released, regardless of the intent of the driver. Activation of the stop lamps initiated by release of the accelerator pedal is permissible only when the intent of the driver is to reduce the speed of the vehicle by an immediate subsequent act of braking, whether that is achieved through his use of the service brake system, use of retarders, or a combination of the two.

However, a configuration where the stop lamps operate in the absence of service brake application or activation of a retarder system (as appears to occur when a retarder cut off switch has been activated) would be subject to S5.1.3 of the standard. This prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In this instance, the retarder cut off feature would permit the stop lamps to send the false signal that the operator intended to stop or reduce vehicle speed when, in fact, there was no intent to do so.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:4/10/92

ID: 7066

Mr. Kevin J. Stoll
Technical Advisor
Russell Products, Inc.
21419 Protecta Drive
Elkhart, IN 46516-9704

Dear Mr. Stoll:

This responds to your letter of February 27, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions relating to center high-mounted stop lamps.

Your questions are:

"1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?"

A center high-mounted stop lamp whose illumination is provided by LEDs is legal, provided that the light meets the photometric specifications for such lamp specified in Figure 10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and all other requirements.

"2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake light on pickup trucks?

b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer?

c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?"

With respect to (a), the center lamp may be installed at any point on the rear vertical centerline of pickup trucks. Because this requirement is not effective until September 1, 1993, we have no specific knowledge as to where the manufacturers of pickup trucks will locate the lamps.

With respect to (b), NHTSA discussed the relationship of center high-mounted stoplamps to aftermarket slide-in campers or caps in the preamble to the final rule adopting the requirement. I enclose a copy of the rule (56 FR 16015) with our discussion highlighted on pages l6017 and 16018. After reading this material, if you have further questions regarding the effect on truck cap manufacturers and dealers, we shall be pleased to answer them.

With respect to (c), we assume that the situation you envision is that a truck cap has been manufactured with a center stop lamp and the dealer is installing the cap on a pickup truck. If the cap is being permanently installed, the dealer may wire the cap's lamp directly to the existing center lamp light harness, as the cap lamp is intended as a surrogate for the original lamp. If the cap is removable, the dealer may also wire in the manner you discuss, provided that when the cap is removed (and the cap lamp disconnected) the original lamp will perform in conformance with Standard No. 108. The specific connections to be made should be done in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations.

"3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck.

b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationery. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved?"

The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs. We can advise you as to whether designs appear to conform or not to conform with the applicable laws of our agency. Conformance with Standard No. 108 is determined with respect to the vehicle in its normal operating state. With respect to your question, this would be with the pickup cap window in its closed position. Thus, your design does not raise a question of conformance with Standard No. 108.

"4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated rulings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings?"

We do not maintain a mailing list of any sort. However, "rulings" are not "passed" at "committee meetings" but are published in the Federal Register, initially as proposed rules affording a minimum of 45 days in which to comment. After evaluation of comments, a final rule may be published, with an effective date no earlier than 30 days after issuance. We believe it likely that any future proposals and amendments would be publicized, and that you would be likely to hear of them. There are no current plans to amend these requirements.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:4/27/92

ID: 7135

Mr. Michael J. Sens
Researcher
S.E.A., Inc.
7349 Worthington-Galena Road
Columbus, OH 43085

Dear Mr. Sens:

This responds to your letter to me dated March 26, 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 214, Side Door Strength; and 216, Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars,, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ- 7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a "sport utility vehicle" and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., 1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3.

The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions.

While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a "sport-utility vehicle," it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of 33o, departure angle of 25o, breakdown angle of 18o, axle clearance of 7.8", and minimum running clearance of 8.1", and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation.

With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it.

Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: ". . . [C]omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard." You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571#567#206 d:4/17/92