ID: nht95-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Motorcycle Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. is hereby requesting an interpretation from NHTSA regarding the applicability to motorcycles of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Lamp requirements within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84.

When reviewing Table III of FMVSS 108 (Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment) and its applicability to motorcycle turn signal lamps, we are referred to SAE J588, November 1984. SAE J588 not only specifies turn signal lamp requirements but also speci fies other related requirements such as the need for a turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if the turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.

Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 indicates the illuminated turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow colored light.

All Kawasaki motorcycles designed for use on public roads and sold in the United States are equipped with turn signal lamps meeting the requirements of FMVSS 108. In addition, all Kawasaki motorcycles having turn signal lamps are equipped with an illumi nated pilot indicator lamp (yellow colored).

Table III within FMVSS 123; Motorcycle Controls and Displays, specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification. However, FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for the turn signal pilot indicator lamp.

In future model years, Kawasaki would like to change the current yellow colored light that illuminates our motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps to a green colored light. However, when reviewing SAE J588 NOV84 and FMVSS 123, we cannot determine w ith confidence if it would be allowed.

When reviewing the language within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84, it seems evident this section was written with passenger cars in mind and not motorcycles. "5.4.3.3 - If the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for exam ple on the front fenders, they should emit a yellow colored light and have a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 mm." It is our belief the color and area requirements are specified within this section to insure visibility by the driver because the l ocation of the indicator lamp would be a greater distance away from the drivers eye than a indicator lamp located inside the vehicle on the dash panel.

FMVSS 123 does not need to address distance from the drivers eye, color, or size of the turn signal pilot indicator lamp because the location of the indicator lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the drivers eye.

Motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are, in most cases, located within the main instrument panel of the motorcycle with other instrumentation such as speedometer, tachometer, oil pressure gage or warning light, fuel level gage, and transmission neutral indicator. The main instrument panel on motorcycles is usually located between the handlebars and the headlamp. In some cases, motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are located away from the main instrument panel on the fuel tank, or wit hin a separate panel between the motorcycles fuel tank and handlebars. When considering these locations and their distance from the drivers eye, we believe any pilot lamp light color would be acceptable.

When reviewing current FMVSS requirements (FMVSS 108 / FMVSS 123), we believe we are not limited to using only a yellow color for the lamp of our turn signal pilot indicators because FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for turn signal indicator lamps. However, as indicated above, we are not entirely confident our interpretation of the requirements is correct because of the yellow color requirement specified within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84. Therefore, we are requesting your assistance in resolving this matter.

Thank you in advance for your timely response to our request.

If further information is required, I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext 2456.

ID: nht94-1.31

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ramin Bogzaran -- General Manager, Remedquip International Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/1/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to John Womack; Also attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Amar Chhabra to whom it may concern; Also attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 1, 1993, in which you asked whether two trailers on which are mounted specialized equipment would be classified as motor vehicles. We are sorry we were unable to respond by your requested date of December 14, 199 3.

You stated that the trailers in question were manufactured in Greenville, TN in 1991 and Shipped to a company in Canada which is no longer in business. A transportable soil remediation plant was mounted on the trailers, but they have not been used or mo ved since their delivery. You stated that you now expect to import the trailers with their mounted equipment into the U.S. for use as a transportable soil remediation plant. You stated that the trailers will not be registered and will be moved only wit h permits because the anticipated projects for the equipment are long term and "the trailers will hardly see the road in their lifetime." You stated that the trailers will be inspected before they are moved to assure their safety, and that you will assu re the safety of the equipment on the road while transporting it from Vancouver, Canada to your shop in San Diego, CA. You enclosed with your letter a certificate of origin, pictures of the trailers with the equipment mounted thereon, a letter from the company that originally purchased the trailers, and a letter from the manufacturer of the trailers.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S. Code S1381 to S1431, as amended (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles or new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. The term "motor vehicle" is defined in the Safety Act as:

(A)ny 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 that language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or that are otherwise incapable of highway travel are clearly not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport ru nway vehicles and underground mining devices, are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicl es and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles, nor is equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spends

extended periods of time at a single job site. Those vehicles or equipment are not considered motor vehicles because their intended use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary off-road use.

Based on your representations that your trailers will be utilized on long-term off-road projects, they would not be classified as motor vehicles. Therefore, they would not be subject to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards nor the import requ irements of 49 CFR 591.5. That determination, however, does not mean that the trailers would necessarily be exempt from state motor vehicle requirements, especially the states through which you intend to transport the equipment from Vancouver to San Die go. For information on state laws in that regard, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22204, (703) 522-4200.

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

ID: nht91-5.16

DATE: August 7, 1991

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Quang Van Nguyen -- Houston Express Reprographics, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-12-91 from Quang Van Nguyen to Samuel K. Skinner

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 12, 1991, to Secretary Skinner, with reference to your invention "Emergency and Safety Lights."

You have noted that when the hazard warning signal is operating, the vehicle turn signal lamps are not. You have told us of witnessing an accident in which safety was compromised by the inability to use the turn signal lamps when the hazard signals were operating, and your invention addresses this concern. From the drawings you enclosed, this invention appears to consist of a housing with the high-mounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by two lamps which would provide the hazard warning signal function, and which are completely separated from the center lamp by triangular dividers. You have asked that the Department of Transportation support and approve your invention "for all types of automobiles."

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" safety inventions, but we can advise you of the relationship of your device to the Department's statutes and regulations. In this instance, the relevant statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), and the relevant regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Further, we must distinguish between use of the invention as "original equipment" (installed on new motor vehicles, either by the manufacturer or the dealer, before its first sale), or "aftermarket equipment" (installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, after a vehicle's first sale).

Under Standard No. 108, the hazard warning function is provided by activating all four turn signal lamps. You are correct that simultaneous operation of the turn and hazard warning functions is impossible. Although Standard No. 108 contains no explicit requirements for hazard warning systems, it contains explicit requirements for the flashers and switches that must be used in hazard warning systems. Specifically, new motor vehicles must be equipped with flashers meeting the requirement of SAE Recommended Practice J945, Vehicular Hazard Warning signal Flasher, February 1966, and switches meeting the requirements of SAE Standard J910, Hazard Warning Switch, January 1966. The definitions of flasher and switch contained in each of the SAE materials specify that when the hazard switch is actuated, the flasher causes the turn signal lamps to flash. The effect of this is that the hazard warning signal lamps must meet the photometric and minimum lens area specifications for turn signal lamps, which are explicit requirements of Standard No. 108, specifically, the requirements of SAE Standard J588 NOV84, Turn Signal Lamps. Were your device installed on a motor vehicle, the hazard function would no longer be provided through the turn signal lamps, and the vehicle would

fail to comply with Standard No. 108. For this reason, your device could not be installed as original equipment.

With respect to the aftermarket the Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from wholly or partially rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your device does not appear intended for installation by the vehicle owner, who is exempt from the statutory prohibition mentioned above. Because it would render the hazard warning system inoperative, the device, if sold in the aftermarket, could not be legally installed.

Federal law, however, would not preclude its installation on a passenger car that was manufactured before Standard No. 108 became effective, that is to say, a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1969. Nevertheless, its legality would still be subject to State and local laws. We are unable to advise you on such laws, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Although we have no data indicating that accidents such as you witnessed are frequent, we appreciate the concern you have shown. If you are interested in carrying this matter further, we suggest that you investigate the possibility of turning your device into a supplementary turn signal system that could be activated by a separate switch when the hazard warning system is in operation. If this is feasible for you, and if you intend to use the device as planned at present, we shall be pleased to provide you with an interpretation on supplementary lighting, and on the requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps.

ID: nht91-6.16

DATE: October 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: D. G. Kong -- General Manager, Certification Business Department, KIA Motors Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-3-91 from D. G. Kong to Andrew J. Sklover

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to former Special Assistant Andrew Sklover, requesting information about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and about National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) certification and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirements. You asked whether the Isuzu Amigo, a sport utility vehicle, the roof of which you described as composed half of hard top with steel and half detachable soft top with plastic or cloth, would be considered a "convertible" and thus exempt from Standard No. 216. You also asked for information about vehicle certification and VIN requirements, as well as the relationship between Federal and state regulations in the area of motr vehicle safety. I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions.

First, you asked whether NHTSA would consider the Isuzu Amigo to be a "convertible" and thus exempt from the performance requirements of Standard No. 216. The agency has defined a convertible as

a vehicle whose A-pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or another rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.

Based on NHTSA's information about the Isuzu Amigo's design, the "hard top with steel" that you described joins the vehicle's A-pillar to the B-pillar at the top, extending as a roof over the driver and front passenger seating positions. The soft top portion covers an area that may include rear seating positions. Because the A- and B-pillars are joined by a "fixed rigid structural member," the Amigo would not be considered a convertible. Accordingly, since the Amigo is not a convertible, S108 of the National Higway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397) requires that all such vehicles manufacturered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States on or after September 1, 1993 conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 216.

You also asked for general information about NHTSA certification and VIN requirements. Although I will address certification generally, I have also enclosed two information packets which discuss these, as well as other issues related to NHTSA requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. These packets explain the basic procedures manufacturers must follow to comply with NHTSA regulations, and explain how manufacturers can obtain copies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other regulations.

As a general statement about certification, manufacturers are not required to get an "approval" from this agency before selling its products. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, S114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles and items of equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. When a manufacturer has, in the exercise of "due care," determined that its product complies with all applicable standards, the manufacturer affixes a certification to the product in accordance with the applicable safety standard, and Part 567, Certification, in the case of new vehicles. The agency periodically tests certified vehicles and equipment item for compliance with the safety standards, and investigates alleged safety-related defects.

You also asked generally about the relationship between state and Federal laws and regulations related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards that establish minimum performance requirements for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also prohibits states from enacting "safety standards" that are different from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. States do, however, have substantial authority to adopt regulations that relate to motor vehicle safety. States are not prohibited from adopting, for example, requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after their first sale, or the operation and modification of vehicles by their owners. Information about state laws related to motor vehicles can be obtained by writing to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administraotrs, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht95-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs, Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors; Signature by F. Laux

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Request for FMVSS 205 Interpretation; USG 3183

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MILFORD BENNETT (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of FMVSS 205. Specifically, General Motors seeks the agency's concurrence that a vehicle equipped with a particular rear window sunshade meets the light transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 .

General Motors plans to offer a rear window sunshade in a near-future Cadillac model. The sunshade is a screen-like device that significantly reduces the light and heat load entering through the backlite. In its raised position, the sunshade covers app roximately 90% of the backlite area, and the light transmissibility through the combined backlite and sunshade is less than 70%. In its retracted position, the sunshade is stowed in the panel shelf area below the backlite, such that no portion of the bac klite is obscured. A driver operated switch on the instrument panel is used to electrically raise and lower the sunshade.

FMVSS 205 requires a minimum of 70% light transmissibility through glazing that is requisite for driving visibility. The agency has historically interpreted the backlite of passenger cars to be requisite for driving visibility. General Motors seeks the Chief Counsel's interpretation that the proposed sunshade comports with the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205. Our reasons for believing that a vehicle equipped with the sunshade would continue to comply with FMVSS 205 are summarized as follow s:

* The rear window sunshade would have no adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. As with conventional windshield sunvisors, drivers can be expected to utilize the sunshade in a way that will maximize, rather than diminish, driving safety and comfort. Wi th the sunshade in its raised position, trailing vehicles and other objects are readily visible through the screen mesh. Driver and passenger side outside rearview mirrors further provide for rearward visibility, comparable to other passenger carrying v ehicles (light trucks, vans, multipurpose passenger vehicles) which are not required by FMVSS 205 to have 70% light transmittance in the backlite area.

* The sunshade is not glazing material, nor is it in contact with glazing material. FMVSS 205 states that: "This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment."

* The rear window sunshade is fully analogous to conventional windshield sunvisors. In both cases, the driver-selectable device can be positioned in a way that reduces effective transmissibility below 70%, and then easily stowed when not needed to resto re full transmittance.

* There is a well established international precedent for rear window sunshades. European and Japanese regulatory authorities have explicitly recognized and accepted these devices.

General Motors is aware of previous Chief Counsel interpretations stating that the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 must be met with a rear window sunscreen in position. (Reference Ms. Erika Jones letter to Mr. T. E. McConnell dated September 22, 1986, and Ms. Erika Jones letter to Ms. Susan B. House dated December 22, 1985.) We believe there is a critical distinction between the products the agency has previously commented on and the rear window sunshade GM contemplates. Specifically, the e arlier products were apparently tinting materials applied to the backlite, or shade devices that physically contacted the backlite via attaching hardware. By virtue of being in physical contact with the backlite, these earlier sunscreening products coul d be interpreted as being part of the backlite. The rear window sunshade GM plans to install will not be attached to the backlite in either the raised or stowed position, and therefore is clearly not part of the backlite glazing subject to FMVSS 205.

We would appreciate a favorable response at the agency's earliest convenience. In order to accommodate our product plans for the sunshade device, we would like to obtain a response by July, 1995, if possible. If there is any additional information we ca n provide to help expedite the agency's review, please contact Mr. Philip Horton (810-947-1738), Mr. Richard Humphrey of our Washington office (775-5071), or me (810-947-0149).

Thank you.

ID: nht95-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis T. Snyder, Esquire

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/11/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS T. SNYDER TO DAVID COLEMAN (OCC 10926)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995, asking whether a client of yours is a "final stage manufacturer" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and v ehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as "a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . " (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to "all manufacturers of moto r vehicles," as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5.

The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage con sisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." The term "completed vehicle" is in turn defined in section 568.3 as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . ." Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and r oad tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3.

Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle "in such a manner that it conforms to the [Federal motor vehicle safety] standards in effect on t he date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates," and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requir ements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. @ 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehi cle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion.

Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which provides that "[a] manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or i n a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure t hat the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so.

Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. @ 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standa rd that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht71-5.44

DATE: 09/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 16 and September 1971, regarding the computation of the severity index under Standard No. 208. I apologize for our delay in replying.

Your question is whether the severity index for an acceleration time history with two(Illegible Word), one caused by initial impact and the other caused by rebound, is computed on the basis of both peaks. Our reply is that both peaks must be used, even though the accelerations may be in opposite directions and separated by a measurable interval. The severity index computation is based on the entire event from onset of acceleration until the end of motion.

SINCERELY

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

September 14, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Our letter to you dated June 16, 1971.

On June 16, 1971, I wrote a letter to you requesting clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

To date, I have not received your reply.

As we have developed a passive restraint system to meet Standard 208, your clarification is quite necessary for the evaluation of our own system.

I would very much appreciate your reply as soon as possible.

K. Nakajima Director/General Manager

attachment

June 16, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to request clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 -- Occupant Crash Protection.

Figure 1 (attached) is an example of head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in a front passenger seat which were recorded during a 30 mph barrier crash test for the evaluation purpose of passive restraint systems. These time histories indicate two acceleration peaks. The first peak occurs when the device in a passenger seat is restrained at the time of impact to the barrier by a passive restraint system which is installed in the front of the device. About 0.1 seconds after the first impact, the second peak follows when the device rebounds to strike the front seat back.

The Severity Index is calculated at 840 for the first impact to the front restraint system and calculated at 343 for the second impact to the front seat back. Therefore, the Severity Index of these two combined impacts is 1183.

Several questions on obtaining the Severity Index have arisen from the two impacts. We interpret these two

P2 impacts to be independent phenomena from each other because of the following reasons:

a. The impact areas on the vehicle's interior are different between the first and second impact.

b. The directions of the acceleration of the device are opposite, and the impact areas of the device are different. The first impact is to the front of the head, and the second impact is to the rear of the head.

c. A zero acceleration period is observed between the first impact and the second impact.

d. The time interval of these two peaks is about 0.1 seconds which seems to be enough time for the human brain to recover from the effect of the first impact.

Therefore, we believe that the evaluation of the Severity Index on the acceleration time histories should be done separately and should not be added together. In other words, the restraint system, the performance of which is shown in Figure 1, meets the requirement of Section 6.2. Is our interpretation correct?

Also, please advise us of the minimum time interval of these two impacts or the other bases of judgement which can be evaluated separately.

Your consideration is greatly appreciated.

K. Nakajima General Manager

Attachment

The first head impact to a passive restraint system. S.I. = 840

The second head impact to the front seat back.

S.I. = 343

Longitudinal accel.

Transverse accel.

Vertical accel.

Figure 1. Head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in the front passenger seat at 30 mph barrier impact.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht72-4.45

DATE: 03/24/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1972, in which you discussed some problems that you have encountered with the regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 368), as applied to the school buses of which you are the final-stage manufacturer. Since the receipt of your letter, Mr. Rumph of your company and Mr. Sweet of the Truck Body and Equipment Association met with Mr. Dyson of this office to discuss the issues raised in your letter. Also, on March 8 you sent a sample letter that you proposed to send to your customers.

As we understand the problem from your letter and the subsequent discussion, it is essentially that you are receiving chassis-cowls from school bus buyers, for mounting of your bodies as a final-stage manufacturer, which are inadequate for the purpose according to the gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings now included with the incomplete vehicles under our multistage vehicle regulations, 49 CFR Part 568. The problem as you describe it appears to have arisen in the negotiation between the school bus buyers and the dealers from whom they bought the incomplete vehicles, in that the dealers sold chassis that were too lightly equipped with tires and axles for the loaded weight implicit in the buyer's specification, under both our certification regulations and accepted industry practice. You state that your company bears the immediate burden of the problem, because you have invested in the production of several dozen bodies whose installation is held up pending resolution of the problem.

From your discussion we assume that all parties are agreed that the bodies that the customers ordered (and you have built) are the ones that are to be used, and that the chassis that have been furnished to you can be economically modified to meet the requirements of our regulations and be safe for their intended use.

With these assumptions, we suggest the following course of action on your part:

1. Complete each vehicle as planned.

2. Affix a certification label to each vehicle as you normally do, stating on the label weight rating figures that will satisfy our regulations (Part 567) and the axle capacity requirements of the vehicle.

3. Deliver the vehicle, but concurrently send a written statement by certified mail to the vehicle buyer to the effect that the vehicle must be modified in order to conform to the GVWR and GAWR figures on the certification label, both for purposes of safety and to conform to Federal regulations. The letter should advise the buyer to take the vehicle to a dealer of the chassis manufacturer for these modifications immediately upon receiving it. The sample letter you sent on March 8 will be satisfactory if you modify the second and third paragraphs to read as follows: "Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, requires Blue Bird to certify the front and rear gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of completed vehicles, and specifies a minimum GVWR based on seating capacity.

"Your vehicle may be shipped as it is, however, the values of GAWR and GVWR shown on the certification plate will be contingent on the chassis modifications indicated above. These changes must, in the interest of safety, be made before the vehicle is placed into service, and you should take the vehicle to your chassis dealer as soon as you receive it."

4. Send copies of each such statement to (a) Office of Standards Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590; (b) the manufacturer of the chassis that was delivered to you; and (c) the dealer from whom the buyer ordered the chassis, if any and where known to you.

This procedure is allowed only as to chassis that have already been received by Blue Bird as of the receipt of this letter, and it should not be viewed as precedent for future action by any other persons. In the future, Blue Bird as the final-stage manufacturer must take responsibility for the vehicle as completed by it, to the extent of its knowledge of relevant facts.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht73-4.6

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Independent Tire Dealer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1973, requesting our view of your booklet on Standard No. 117. We have the following comments.

On page 2, under the heading, "Does a Retread Have to Pass All These Tests", you refer to a lack of availability of test wheels. On page 3, under the heading, "How Expensive Could Testing Get?", you quote figures of $ 250.00 to $ 400.00. As you know, the standard no longer includes the high speed and endurance tests, and while there are other laboratory tests involved in testing strength and bead unseating, neither includes the use of the laboratory test wheel. Consequently, insofar as your statements may take into account laboratory wheel tests, they should be modified.

On page 3, under the heading, "What if One Certified Doesn't Comply?", you state, "If the tire was not produced with due care then you will have both a recall and the probability of a penalty being assessed." Notification of defects to first purchasers however, is not contingent upon a showing of due care, and must be made even if a manufacturer used due care. Whether a manufacturer exercises due care is relevant only to whether he is in violation of the Act, and to civil penalties, but not to defect notification (recall). The reason is that a retreader's exercise of due care doesn't change the fact that potentially unsafe tires will be used unless their owners are notified.

On page 4, under the heading, "Must You Submit Information On Defects and Failures?": Under section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended in 1970), each retreader must furnish NHTSA with a true and representative copy of all notices, bulletins, or other communications sent either to dealers or purchasers with regard to any defect in his tires. This requirement applies to all defects, and you should review it. It is incorrect to say that retreaders are not required to submit information regarding defects to NHTSA.

On page 4, under "What Casing Controls are Required?", you indicate that no tire may be retreaded which has exposed ply cord. However, the standard allows ply cord to be exposed at a splice (S5.2.1(b)). While you make this point later, on page 5, the way in which you do so seems more to contradict than clarify your earlier statement. We suggest you indicate that ply cord may be exposed at a splice in the earlier paragraph as well. The same thing can be said for the next section on page 4, "May Tires With Exposed Ply Cord be Retreaded?". This section is also completely silent on the exception for ply cord at a splice, and should also be modified.

On page 4, under the heading, "What are Restrictions on Good Casings?", you omit certain requirements. Casings without a symbol DOT that are to be retreaded must only be of those size designations specified in the table at the end of the standard. These casings must also have permanently labeled on them the size, and number of plies or ply rating. Both of these information items and the symbol "DOT" must also be permanently labeled on each DOT casing that is to be retreaded.

On page 5, under the heading, "Should We Use Affixed Labels or Permanent Molding On Tire?", the minimum size for permanent labeling under S6.3.2 has been changed to 0.078 inches. This change does not, however, affect affixed labels.

On page 6, under the heading, "Is Any Provision Made For Sizing Difference in Retreads?", you state a retread may be 10% over new tire physical and dimension requirements. The 10% allowance for section width is to be calculated on the section width specified in the Tables of Standard No. 109, for the tire size designation. New tires are allowed to exceed this figure by 7%. Consequently, retreads can exceed the new tire requirement by only 3%(Illegible Word) of the table figure). To say they can exceed the new tire requirement by 10% may mislead some persons into thinking they can exceed the value in the table by 17% which, of course, is not correct.

Apart from these points, your booklet appears to us to be essentially correct. It should prove helpful to retreaders.

ID: nht73-5.21

DATE: 09/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pundalik K. Kamath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of August 7 and August 23, 1973, concerning the conformity to Standard No. 121 of certain features in air brake systems submitted to you by suppliers.

Your first question is whether the volume of a supply reservoir that lacks a check valve is to be included in arriving at the required reservoir volume of 12 times the full-travel service brake chamber volume. Our reply is that S5.1.2.1 includes the volume of all service and supply reservoirs, regardless of valving, and that the volume of the supply reservoir in question would therefore be included in the combined reservoir volume.

You next ask whether a system that has no isolated emergency reservoir can rely on its service reservoirs to provide air for the two emergency stops proposed as S5.7.3 by Docket No. 73-13, Notice 1 (38 F.R. 14963). Under this proposal, the stops would have to be accomplished with a single failure of a part (other than a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing or brake chamber housing) designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid. If the system is designed so that no single failure, other than a valve, manifold, or housing failure, will cause a loss of air in both tanks, it would seem to be capable of meeting the proposed requirement even though it does not have an isolated emergency reservoir. However, if a single failure in a brake line would deplete the air in both service reservoirs, the system would be unable to meet S5.7.3 unless an emergency isolated reservoir were provided.

2

In answer to your last question, the emergency stops proposed in S5.7.3 would be conducted from an initial pressure in excess of the compressor cut-in pressure. The reservoirs would not be depleted by prior stops.

Yours truly,

August 7, 1973

Lawrence Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Enclosed are schematic copies of air brake systems provided to OTC by Berg Manufacturing Company and Bendix-Westinghouse Air Brake Division which illustrate air brake systems incorporating provision for secondary brakes per the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket 73-13, Notice 1.

Our concern is if these systems, which are essentially the same, will meet the proposed change to FMVSS 121 when effective, particularly paragraph S5.7.3 as proposed? While we see no reason they would not OTC would like an opinion from your office before we adopt either system.

We would like said opinion as soon as conveniently possible to assist in our brake program execution. Thank you.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Pundalik K. Kamath Senior Safety Engineer

Enclosures

August 23, 1973

Lawrence Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

With reference to my letter dated, August 7, 1973, regarding compliance of the air brake systems proposed by Berg Manufacturing Company and Bendix-Westinghouse Air Brake Division with FMVSS 121 per Proposed Rulemaking, Docket 73-13, Notice 1, particularly with respect to the following questions, I would like to receive clarification from you.

1. Is it correct to use the supply reservoir volume, which is not protected by a check valve, when calculating the total volume of twelve times full stroke chamber volume? Our assumption is that this is acceptable however, we would like confirmation.

2. These systems have no isolated emergency reservoir and rely on air pressure from one of the two service reservoir sources, assuming a failure in the other service reservoir source, for the minimum two stop capability in modulated emergency mode. This implies a single failure affecting only one service reservoir system, it is our understanding that this is acceptable practice per the proposed standard. Please confirm.

3. We understand that a modulated emergency stop condition implies a fully charged service reservoir, that is 100-110 psi in the functional reservoir, that no normal stops which temporarily drop this pressure to 80-90 psi immediately prior to the failure condition are considered. In the latter case two modulated emergency stops may not be obtainable due to the lowered pressure. Please confirm that the baseline condition assumes at least one service reservoir is normally charged to 100-110 psi before simulating failure.

We would appreciate your reply to these questions, as soon as conveniently possible.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

PUNDALIK K. KAMATH Senior Safety Engineer