ID: 1985-01.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguro-Ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for three interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to motorcycle lighting.

Your first question is about the location of rear turn signals. Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires that rear turn signal lamps on motorcycles have a minimum horizontal separation distance "centerline to centerline" of 9 inches. You have asked whether this may be interpreted as filament center to filament center. The answer is no. The phrase means the distance from the geometric center of one lamp to the geometric center of the other.

Your second question concerns the permissibility of an arrangement of lamps on the rear of a motorcycle. There would be a two-compartment combination stop/tail lamp on the vehicle centerline with separate combination lamps below it on either side of the centerline. The distance between filament centers of the separate lamps would be a maximum 16 inches, and there would be the same distance between the filament centers of each separate lamp and the compartment above it belonging to the two-compartment lamp. You have asked whether this is permissible if the minimum design candlepower complies with requirements for three lighted sections in SAE J585e and SAE J586c, and the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp is at least 3 1/2 square inches. This arrangement, though unusual, appears to be acceptable. SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps and SAE J585e Tail Lamp state that if multiple compartment or multiple lamps are used, and the distance between filament centers does not exceed 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements, the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections. Your design has four lighted sections, whereas the SAE Tables provide values for only three. In our opinion, your design would be acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections.

Your final question concerns a combination stop/taillamp of four sections, two each on either side of the vertical centerline. Though no distance is given for the filament centers, they appear to be closer than 16 inches. You have asked if this design is permissible provided it meets the requirements for three lighted sections, and the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment is not less than 3 1/2 square inches. The answer is yes, this is acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 18, 1985

Att. : Mr. Taylor Vinson Lawyer

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Required Lighting Equipment for Motorcycle

Dear Mr. Vinson,

1) Location of Rear Turn Signal Lamps

1-. By Table III in FMVSS 108, it specifies, is applicable SAE Standard or recommended practice to follow SAE J588e, September 1970. 2-. by 4.2 in the above SAE Standard it reads "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." 3-. Whereas by Table IV in FMVSS 108, when rear turn signal for motorcycle, it specifies, "having minimum horizontal separation distance (centerline of lamps) of 9 inches."

Our interpretation of the above -3 is between filament center to filament center. Please confirm.

As a matter of information, please refer to 6.1 in SAE J131 83MAR, Motorcycle Turn Signal Lamp - SAE Standard.

2) Location of two (2) Multiple Lamp Arrangement including one (1) Multiple Compartment Lamp and minimum design candlepower requirements of Stop/Tail Lamp (rear combination lamp) .

1-. By Table III in FMVSS 108, it specifies as applicable Standards to follow SAE J585e September 1977 for Tail Lamp and SAE J586c August 1970 for Stop Lamp. Would an arrangement on the next page be allowed to use when minimum design candlepower requirements complies with 3 lighted section in the above SAE Standards and the effective projected luminous Stop lens area of each compartment or lamp meets at least 3 1/2 sq. inches?

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

3) Four (4) or more Multiple Compartment Lamp of Tail/Stop Lamp (rear combination lamp).

1-. Would the following lamp as long as minimum design candlepower requirements complies with 3 lighted section in the SAE Standards in the (2) on the page 1 and each effective projected luminous stop lens area of each compartment or lamp meets at least 3 1/2 sq. inches be allowed to use?

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

We would appreciate it very much having your reply as early as possible.

Sincerely,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

KW/es

ID: 1985-01.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ernest Farmer Tennessee State Department of Education

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director, Pupil Transportation Tennessee State Department of Education Office of Commissioner Cordell Hull Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5335

Dear Mr. Farmer:

This responds to your letter to me regarding our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. You asked several questions about Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. In a telephone conversation you had on February 8, 1985, with Ms. Hom of my staff, you also asked about the safety standards that apply to vans carrying 10 or less persons that are used to transport school children.

To begin, I would like to explain that the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. As you know, in 1974, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. A manufacturer or dealer who sells a new bus to a school must sell a bus that complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Under our regulations, a "bus" is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons. "School bus" is defined as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (excluding buses sold as common carriers in urban transportation). A van type vehicle, constructed on a truck chassis, carrying 10 persons or less is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV). New MPV's sold to schools need not meet the school bus safety standards, since these vehicles are not buses. However, there are many motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's. New MPV's must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with these safety standards. I have enclosed a list of the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's, as you requested.

The first question in your letter asked whether we require Type A vehicles which carry 15 to 22 passengers to comply with the provisions of Standards Nos. 222 and 301. over the telephone, you explained that these vehicles are school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

The answer to this question is yes. Standard No. 222 applies to all school buses. However, the requirements of the standard vary depending on the GVWR of the bus. Standard No. 301 applies to all school buses that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. A new school bus must be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of theses safety standards.

The first part to your second question asked, "Does NHTSA consider a 14 crash barrier installed in front of standard 39" bench seats an the right side of the aisle in these vehicles to be in compliance with FMVSS 222?"

The answer to this question is that there is no violation of Standard No. 222's restraining barrier requirements. This is because the restraining barrier requirements do not apply to school buses of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. Paragraph S5(b) of the standard lists the requirements that apply to these smaller school buses, and the restraining barrier requirements found in paragraph S5.2 are not listed in S5(b). If a manufacturer voluntarily chooses to install a restraining barrier in these buses, there is no violation of Standard No. 222 if the barrier is not as wide as the designated seating positions behind it.

The second part of this question asked, "Would seat belts on the front row of seats void the crash barrier requirement in this standard for Type A vehicles? (Wa are aware that NHTSA requires seat belts on all Type A vehicles)"

The answer to this question is similar to that given above. Restraining barriers on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less are not required by Standard No. 222. Since these smaller school buses are equipped with seat belts, the standard does not regulate seat spacing in these vehicles.

The third part of this question asked, Would the location of the gas tank between frame members also void the requirement in FMVSS 301 for a protective barrier?"

The answer is that Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements that each school bus must meet; it does not require specific designs, such as a protective barrier. A manufacturer can position its gas tank at any location as long as it can meet the performance requirements of the standard at that location.

Your third question asked, "Does NHTSA require the installation of a metal shield between the exhaust system and the gas tank when such locations are 12 or less from each other? (Note: We have some Type A vehicles with variations of 6 to 8 inches that supposedly have NHTSA approval.)"

Neither Standard No. 301 nor any of the agency's other standards set any requirements concerning the installation of metal shields between the exhaust system and the gas tank.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 3, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel NHTSA NOA-30 U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Please respond to the following questions at your earliest convenience:

1. Does NHTSA require Type A vehicles in a capacity range of 15-22 passengers to comply with the provisions of FMVSS 222 and 301?

2. If so, does NHTSA consider.

a. A 14" crash barrier installed in front of standard 39" bench seats on the right side of the aisle in these vehicles to be in compliance with FMVSS 222 requirements?

b. Would seat belts on the front row of seats void the crash barrier requirements in this standard for this type vehicle? (Note: We are aware that NHTSA requires seat belts on all Type A vehicles.)

c. Would the location of the gas tank between frame members also void the requirement in FMVSS 301 for a protective barrier?

3. Does NHTSA require the installation of a metal shield between the exhaust system and the gas tank when such locations are 12" or less from each other? (Note: We have some Type A vehicles with variations of 6-8" that supposedly have NHTSA approval.)

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer, Director Pupil Transportation

EE:if Enclosure cc: Lt. Leonard Murray

ID: 1985-01.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Philip Yale Simons, Esq. -- Freeman, Wasserman and Schneider

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Philip Yale Simons, Esq. Freeman, Wasserman & Schneider 90 John Street New York, New York 10038

I am responding to your January 24, 1985, request for confirmation that the Hagglunds Bv 206 is not subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. As you describe the Bv 206, it is an all-terrain vehicle consisting of front and rear cabs, which travels on rubber tracks. You further state that the vehicle is neither designed nor intended for use on public streets, roads, and highways.

The safety standards and regulations that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues are applicable only to "motor vehicles." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Based on your description and the specification sheets you enclosed, the Bv 206 does not appear to be suitable for use on public roads. It therefore is not considered a "motor vehicle" and is not subject to our safety regulations.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

January 24, 1985

Attention: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Subject: Ruling Request: All-Terrain Vehicle

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, ASEA Hagglunds Inc., The Woodlands, Texas ("Hagglunds"), and constitutes a request for a ruling to exclude Hagglunds Bv 206 all-terrain vehicles from the requirements of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S1381 et. seq., hereinafter the "Act"). Hagglunds purchases the all-terrain vehicles from its Swedish manufacturer and imports them into the United States.

For the reasons stated below, we respectfully submit that the vehicles in question are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of Section 102(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. S1391(3)), and are, therefore, exempt from the requirements of the Act.

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLE

The Hagglunds all-terrain vehicle is designed specifically for off the street and off the highway use. The Bv 206 vehicle is designed to traverse rocky surfaces, snow-covered surfaces, forests, mountains and similar harsh or "adverse" terrain over which "ordinary" vehicles cannot travel. The vehicle is comprised of front and rear cabs which are joined by an articulated steering unit. The front cab is powered by a 125 horsepower diesel engine. The back cab does not contain a motor and is mechanically linked to the front cab.

The all-terrain carrier travels on tracks of molded rubber which enhance the mobility and load bearing ability of the Bv 206 in two significant ways. First, the broad (620 millimeters) rubber tracks provide a low ground contact pressure (1.7 pounds/square inch) which allows the Bv 206 to maneuver over snow-covered surfaces, marshlands and other soft terrain, without sinking. Secondly, the molded rubber tracks are designed to grip the surface to enhance the carrier's hill climbing ability. (The attached brochure provides a description of the vehicles and technical data pertaining to them.)

The Hagglunds Bv 206 all-terrain vehicle is utilized for a variety of applications, all of which involve off-road uses: forestry, transmission line installation, construction work at remote sites, forest firefighting, rescue and relief work, and crew transport to remote sites. In fact, Hagglunds has, in the past, sold all-terrain vehicles to United States purchasers for use in geophysical exploration, in national parks, for the construction of the Alaskan pipeline, and ski operations. The United States government has also purchased Hagglunds vehicles for military use.

No ordinary motor vehicle can operate over the terrains that the Hagglunds Bv 206 is designed to traverse. It is clear that the Bv 206 is not designed, nor is it suitable for operation on public streets, roads, and highways.

II. APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS

Section 12.80 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. S12.80) provides that motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 which are offered for entry into the United States Customs territory shall be denied entry under the importer or consignee files documents which indicate that the vehicles conform to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. SS1392, 1407), and set forth in Part 571 of the Department of Transportation ("DOT") Regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 571).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation January 24, 1985 Page 6

vehicle has a maximum speed of 60 kilometers/hour and the Bv 206 has a maximum speed oF 50 kilometers/hour; (ii) the CROCO vehicle and the Bv 206 are used for the same civil uses (e.g. construction, forestry, ambulance duty, etc.); (iii) both vehicles have been purchased for military use; and (iv) both vehicles are amphibious.

In addition, the Bv 206 has several unique features which render its use on streets or highways more "impractical" or "unlikely" than the CROCO vehicles. The Bv 206 travels on tracks whereas the CROCO vehicle is equipped with tires. Also, the CROCO vehicle is comprised of a single unit whereas the Bv 206 consists of two sections. If the NHTSA considers a vehicle with tires and a single cab not to be a "motor vehicle", then it is obvious that a substantially similar vehicle which has tracked road contact means and is comprised of two sections is also not a "motor vehicle."

Another NHTSA ruling also indicates that the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Act. In a ruling dated March 25, 1982, the NHTSA held that a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is (i) readily usable on public roads and (ii) is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of the vehicle owners. The Bv 206 is not designed for use on public

5 Letter to Leonard A. Fink dated March 25, 1982.

roads nor is it is fact used for such purposes. The Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" as set forth in the March 25, 1982 ruling because: (i) it does not have the power (its maximum speed is approximately 50 kilometers/hour) and maneuverability (it consists of two cars) to make it effective under virtually any highway condition, (ii) it is advertised specifically for offroad use, (iii) the vehicle's manufacturer does not assist and will not assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents, and (iv) it is not marketed by dealers also selling vehicles which are indisputably classified as motor vehicles.

Accordingly, the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" because the manufacturer did not intend the vehicle to be used on the public highway part of the time and the manufacturer has no reason to expect the vehicle will be used in that way.

C. Legislative History

The legislative history of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 clearly indicates that a vehicle such as the Hagglunds Bv 206 was not the type of vehicle targeted by the legislation. In Senate Report No. 1301 the Commerce Committee stated that the subject legislation is an attempt to stem the soaring rate of death in our country's

6 Pub. L. No. 89-563, 80 Stat. 71. (1966).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation January 24, 1985 Page 8

highways.7 The legislation is not intended for off-road vehicles, especially those which are intended for use in the backwoods. Accordingly, the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Act.

IV. CONCLUSION

We respectfully request that the NHTSA issue a ruling which excludes the all-terrain vehicles imported by Hagglunds from the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Should you contemplate issuing a ruling which is adverse to our position, we request the opportunity to discuss the matter with you prior to any final action.

We appreciate your cooperation in expediting this matter.

Very truly yours,

Philip Yale Simons

PYS/JJR/hcu Enclosure

[Brochure Omitted]

ID: 1985-01.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey, Esq; Dean Hansell, Esq., Donovan, Leisure, Newton and Irvine

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/30/79 letter from F. Berndt to Alfa Romeo

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey, Esq. Dean Hansell, Esq. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071

Dear Messrs. Waimey and Hansell:

I am responding to your correspondence regarding the definitions of "convertible" and "open body type vehicle" under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) safety regulations.

Your first question concerns the definition of "open body type vehicle." Our regulations provide a definition at 49 CFR S571.3: "...a vehicle having no occupant compartment top or an occupant compartment top that can be installed or removed by the user at his convenience." The common usage of that term in our interpretations is that this term is intended to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, such as Jeep-type vehicles. Thus, neither of the automobiles in the pictures that you included with your letter (Porsche 911 Carrera Cabriolet and Porsche 911 Carrera Targa) are considered to be open-body vehicles.

You also ask whether the Porsche 911 Targa is considered a convertible. You state that there is no fixed, rigid structural member joining the "A" pillar with the "B" pillar. Despite this absence, the Targa roof, beginning behind the "B" pillar, apparently is a fixed, rigid structural member that meets Federal roof-crush standards.

You are correct in stating that our regulations do not expressly define "convertible." NHTSA interpretations, however, have consistently defined "convertible" as a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Thus, the Porsche 911 Targa is considered a convertible because it meets this definition. While the vehicle is therefore not required to meet the roof-crush standards, it is commendable that Porsche has designed it to do so.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

January 4, 1985

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We represent Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG ("Porsche") and on behalf of Porsche we seek your comments about apparent ambiguities in the regulations. These regulations are relevant to certain research and development work being done by Porsche.

Specifically, the definition of "open-body type vehicle" and the usage of that phrase and of the undefined term "convertible" in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are unclear. This leaves open questions as to (1) whether the Porsche 911 Cabriolet and the Porsche 911 Targa are "open body-type vehicles" and (2) whether the Porsche 911 Targa is a "convertible." (Pictures of both vehicles are attached to this letter). The following is our understanding of the applicable law and identifies the ambiguities as we see them.

(1) Open-body Type Vehicle. Section 571.3 of the NHTSA regulations, 49 C.F.R. S 571.3, defines an "open-body type vehicle" as "a vehicle having no occupant compartment top or an occupant compartment top that can be installed or removed by the user at his convenience." One interpretation of this definition is that the concept of a "removable" top includes a convertible top that can be folded down. However, the use of the term in NHTSA regulations suggests that the term is limited to vehicles that are usually manufactured with no doors and/or windshield or removable doors and/or windshield, such as four-wheel drive utility vehicles, and other specialty vehicles, and is this not intended to include convertible passenger cars such as the Porsche Cabriolet.

For example, in at least 3 cases, open-body type vehicles are treated separately from convertibles. Section 571.114 of the regulations exempts from the requirements of paragraph S4.5 of Safety Standard Number 114 (theft protection) only "open-body type vehicles that are manufactured for operation without doors and that either have no doors or have doors that are designed to be easily attached to and removed from the vehicle by the vehicles owner." Section 571.212 exempts "open body type vehicles with fold-down or removable windshields" from Safety Standard Number 212 (windshield mounting). Section 571.219 exempts "open-body type vehicles with "fold down" or removable windshields" from Safety Standard Number 219 (windshield zone intrusion). Conversely, Section 571.208 of the regulations exempts both "convertibles and open-body vehicles" from the requirements of paragraph S4.1.1.3.1 of Safety Standard Number 208 (occupant crash protection).* Similarly, the test conditions set forth in Section 571.208 provide (at paragraph S8.1.6) that for the frontal, lateral and roll-over tests "convertibles and open-body type vehicles have the top, if any, in place in the closed passenger compartment configuration." Finally, Section 571.205, as recently amended (at paragraph S5.1.2.4), prohibits glass and plastic glazing materials from being used in "convertibles, in vehicles that have no roof or in vehicles whose roofs are completely removable.***

Similarly, NHTSA Federal Register notices suggest that an open-body type vehicle is different than a convertible. In granting Anden Holdings Ltd. a temporary exemption from Safety Standard Numbers 104 and 201

* Section 571.208 provides (at paragraphs S4.1.1.3.2 and S4.1.2.3.2) that "convertibles and open-body type vehicles shall utilize either a Type l or a Type 2 seatbelt assembly.

** This second half of this reference appears to be a paraphrase of the definition of "open-body type vehicle."

(windshield wiping and washing systems and occupant protection in interior impact), because it is an open-body type vehicle, acting NHTSA Administrator Steed stated "the Auburn replica, as is true of many open-body vehicles, has no header and the windshield frame is too narrow to support a sun visor mounting." See 47 Fed. Reg. 34, 071 (1982). Further, discussion appears at both 46 Fed. Reg. 32,251 (1981) and 45 Fed. Reg. 85,450 (1980) about whether to exempt open-body type vehicles with readily removable or no doors from the key-in-ignition warning requirements of safety Standard Number 114 (theft protection).

Finally, use of the term "convertible" in Sections 571.210, 571.216, and 571.302 of the Regulations without the term "open-body type vehicle" suggests that a convertible is not an open-body type vehicle.

In view of the context in which the term "open-body type vehicles" has been used in NHTSA regulations, it thus appears that neither the Porshce 911 convertible nor the Porsche 911 Targa are intended to be considered "open-body type vehicles." It may be that this result is achieved because a convertible top is not completely removable (i.e., it is only folded down) and the Targa top actually leaves most of the roof in place (in the same way that a "T-top" roof does). however, because this matter is not clear, Porsche would appreciate your comments on the regulatory intent of these terms.

(2) The Porsche 911 Targa as a Convertible. You wrote a letter on August 30, 1979, to Alfa Romeo concluding that the term "convertible" is not defined in NHTSA regulations though it is apparently described or defined elsewhere. (For your convenience I attach a copy of the August 30, 1979 letter). The letter concludes:

"While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible," the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rearward support rearward of the "B" pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member."

In our research, we could not locate the source for that definition.

Also, as far as we could determine, the regulations still do not define the term "convertible." The term is, however, used four times in Section 571.208 (at paragraphs S4.1.1.3.1, S4.1.1.3.2, S4.1.2.3.2. and S8.1.6), and once each in Section 571.108 (paragraph S4.3. 1.8), in Section 571.205 (paragraph S5.1.2.4), in Section 571.216 (paragraph S3), and in Section 571.302 (paragraph S4.1). In each instance, no information about the meaning of "convertible" is given. Since the Porsche 911 Targa's "A" pillar is not joined with its "B" pillar, it thus appears that it might meet the definition of a "convertible." On the other hand, since the Targa roof (which begins at the B pillar position and continues by means of the rear glass window to the rear body deck) is a fixed, rigid structural member that provides the Targa with a roof from that point to the rear (which roof meets regulatory roof-crush standards), where the entire roof is non-structural, thus does not necessarily apply.*

* We note that there may be another undefined class of vehicles evolving, a class consisting of partially covered vehicles such as the "T"-top, cars with sun roofs and the Targa. Perhaps our focus in distinguishing between only convertibles, open-top vehicles and coupes is too narrow. For example, Section 571.205 (at paragraph S5.1.2.4) provides that glass-plastic glazing materials may not be used in convertibles. This prohibition does not apply to vehicles with sun roofs or "T"-tops, 48 Fed. Reg. 52,062 (1983), because "the probability that the plastic side of the glazing in those vehicles would be directly exposed to the sun over a prolonged period is particularly small due to the installation angle of the windshield and restricted path of the sunlight through the opening in the top of the vehicle." Id. However, because of the presence in the Targa of a fixed structural roof from the B-pillar areas rearwards, the plastic side of the glazing would not be directly exposed to the sun. Thus, in at least in this area, the Targa might more reasonably be considered as a member of a "T"-top/Targa class of vehicles.

Thank you for your courtesy and assistance.

Yours truly,

Stephen T. Waimey

Dean Hansell Enc: August 30, 1979 letter from NHTSA to Alfa Romeo. Omitted Here

ID: 1985-01.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Marion Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27267

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection. You asked whether a single, full width, 90 inch seat may be placed at the last row of the school bus and be designated as a four passenger seat. In telephone calls with Ms. Hom of my staff, you stated that these school buses have a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. Further, the next to last row of seats has two 59 inch, three passenger seats, on the left and right of the aisle.

I would like to separate your question into two parts. The first part with designating the full width seat as a four passenger seat even though, under S4.1 of Standard No. 222, the number of seating positions is six. The second part concerns the restraining barrier requirement of Standard No. 222.

We believe that designating a 90 inch, full width seat as a four passenger seat would not comply with FMVSS No. 222. Paragraph S4.1 of the standard states that:

The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 75 and rounded to the nearest whole number.

Thus, under S4.1, the number of seating positions on a 90 inch width seat is six. Labeling a 90 inch width seat as a four passenger seat amounts to a disclaimer by the manufacturer that two seating positions are not to used. This practice is prohibited since, despite the disclaimer, it is likely that passengers will use all six seating positions and, thus, each position should provide the level of occupant protection required by our standard. A manufacturer cannot escape its occupant protection responsibilities associated with a designated seating position responsibilities associated with a designated seating position simply by disclaiming that position.

The second part of your question deals with designating the 90 inch seat as a six passenger seat and the requirement in Standard No. 222 for restraining barriers. Standard No. 22 requires a restraining barrier of specified size in front of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point (SRP). From the information in your letter, we have determined that at least one of the designated seating positions in the center portion of the last row would not have the rear surface of another passenger seat within 24 inches of its SRP. A restraining barrier would have to be placed in front of these designated seating positions, and would block the center aisle. Such a barrier would obstruct access to the emergency exits.

FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, regulates the number, size, and operation of school bus emergency exits. Paragraph S2 states that one of the purposes of Standard No. 217 is "to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress." Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires each school bus to be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window. Paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 require unobstructed passage through these exits from the interior of the bus. If there is unobstructed access, as required by paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4, with the restraining barrier in place, then the buses you describe would not violate that requirement. However, even if the barrier and other aspects of the bus design would not violate the requirement, we would urge that the manufacturers of such buses ensure that the design not complicate efforts of the passengers to reach and use the emergency exits.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

July 13, 1984

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

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I would like to request an interpretation of the Federal Standard #222 - School Bus Seating and Crash Protection.

Currently, buses with the engine location in the rear, produced by this company, have been seated two-ways as follows:

1. In non-school buses the last row of seats is a single seat across the total width of the vehicle.

2. In the school bus of this type the last row of seats include two separate 39" seat, one on the right and one on the left, leaving an area between the seats for access to the rear emergency exit.

My question is, "Would it be in compliance with Federal Standard #222 to place the single, full width, 90" seat, at the last row of the school bus and designate it as a four passenger seat?"

Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jm

ID: 1985-01.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Janet M. Goodrich

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Janet M. Goodrich 870 W. Versailles Ct. Baton Rouge, LA 70819

This responds to your letter asking about regulations for automobile ignition systems and steering wheel locking systems. You asked for information concerning requirements for vehicles with automatic transmissions for the removal of the ignition key while the vehicle is in drive or any gear other than park. You specifically asked whether a driver should be able to remove the key from the ignition while the car is in drive even if the engine is no longer running.

Requirements relating to steering wheel locking systems are set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. Section S4.2 of the standard requires (among other things) that vehicles have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both. Section S4.3 of the standard requires that the prime means for deactivating the vehicle's engine shall not activate the deterrent that prevents steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle. Thus, the driver of an automobile may turn off the engine while the car is in motion without activating the steering column lock or impeding forward self-mobility.

Neither Standard No. 114 nor any other standard specifically requires that vehicles be designed so that drivers are unable to remove the key from the ignition while the vehicle is in drive. I would note that the agency has conducted rulemaking addressing the issue of inadvertent activation of the steering column lock in moving vehicles. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in May 1978 and a final rule in December 1980, the agency deleted the relevant requirements in a final rule and response to petitions for reconsideration, published in June 1981. In that latter notice, the agency stated that it had determined that the problem of inadvertent activation is not significant enough to require vehicles to be equipped with key-locking systems that provide more protection against inadvertent activation.

Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, also includes a requirement relevant to your question. Section S3.7.3 requires that the engine starter for automatic transmission vehicles be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

Copies of Standards Nos. 102 and 114 and the three Federal Register notices discussed above are enclosed for your convenience.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

870 W. Versailles Ct. Baton Rouge, La. 70819 (504) 275-0666 November 8, 1984

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Office of Standard Enforcement 400 7th Street SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir or Madam:

I need information concerning the legal regulations for automobile ignition systems and steering wheel locking systems. Specifically I would like for the information to cover what the requirements are for the manufacturers of vehicles with automatic transmissions for the removal of the ignition key while the vehicle is in drive or any gear other than park. Should the driver be able to remove the key from the ignition while the car is in drive even if the engine is no longer running.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be very much appreciated as I need the information to complete my research. Thank you. Sincerely, Janet M. Goodrich jmg

ID: 1985-01.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/85 EST

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA RULEMAKING

TO: FRED W. BOWDITCH -- MVMA TECHNICAL AFFAIRS DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/29/84 FROM FRED W. BOWDITCH -- MVMA TO DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA, PETITION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bowditch:

On October 29, 1984, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association filed a petition for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

The petition requested "removal from section 4.1.1.36(a) (2) of the limitation requiring the three aiming pads to be located on the exterior face of the headlamp lens." You have suggested the mounting flange at the lens-reflector joint as an acceptable alternative location for the aiming pads. The language suggested in the petition for amendment of S4.1.1.36(a) (2) would also allow all three legs to be adjustable on the headlamp aimers.

The agency has proposed amendments to Standard No. 108 (49 FR 47880) to delete the final sentence of paragraph S4.1.1.36(a) (2) with reference to aiming locating plates, and to delete Figures 9-1 and 9-2. Thus, this aspect of your petition has already been granted. We have filed your petition as a comment in the docket to be considered in future rulemaking action on this subject. Further, we interpret the words "The exterior face of each...lens" in paragraph S4.1.1.36(a) (2) to mean all portions of the lens face including the mounting flange which is a molded and indivisible part of the lens. Thus, no rulemaking is considered necessary to implement this item of your petition. Your request also included a suggestion that the minimum height of the lettering for the adjustment of the legs on the aimer adapter should be reduced from 0.25 inch to 4 mm. This is being addressed in pending rulemaking. Therefore, no further action is necessary at this time.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-01.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Iwase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 15, 1985 Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1985, with reference to the compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of a proposed motorcycle headlamp design. In the design shown in your letter a single housing would contain two dual-filament bulbs, each with an independently aimed reflector. You have stated that the headlamp can comply with the photometric requirements of Sae J584 when either compartment is lit, and that the assembly will meet all other requirements of J584. A dual bulb arrangement in a single housing is considered a single headlamp, and therefore its compliance will be judged when both compartments are lit to provide either the upper or lower beam. Assuming that when both compartments are lit the combined candlepower at individual test points does not exceed the maxima imposed by J584 for those test points, your design appears to comply with Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Dept., American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Gill Senior Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

This is in response to your letter of May 25, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table IV specifies that the minimum horizontal separation distance "(centerline to centerline of lamp)" for rear turn signal lamps on motorcycles is 9 inches. You have asked whether the "centerline" refers to the distance between the lens centers, between the centers of the effective projected luminous areas, or between the bulb centers.

You asked for confirmation of your belief that the proper interpretation is found in the referenced SAE Standard, J588e, which contains the language "Optical axes (filament centers)," implying that the correct distance is that between the "bulb centers" as you term it.

We find no direct correlation between the phrases "centerline to centerline of lamps" and "optical axis (filament center) ." The lamp is a device emitting light whereas "optical axis (filament center)" does not refer to the lamp but only to a portion of its light-producing component. As that phrase is used in SAE J588e, it defines the method of measuring distances between bulbs in multi-compartment lamps for the purpose of testing for photometric requirements (paragraph 3.1), or in measuring the separation of the turn signal from the headlamp (paragraph 4.2, where, incidentally, it is expressed as the distance between filament and a lamp component, the retaining ring).

Taken literally, "centerline to centerline of lamps" in our view means the distance between lens centers. In the response to petitions for reconsideration of the center high-mounted stoplamp amendment (May 17, 1984), the question was asked whether the "center" of the lamp was its geometric center, its optical center, or the center of the bulb filament. The agency replied that the center of the lamp is the geometric center. Since the purpose of the minimum separation requirement is to insure that the turn signal is perceived as such, we believe that the correct interpretation of "centerline to centerline" is a measurement from the geometric center of one lamp to the geometric center of the other lamp. The geometric center would be anonymous with the term "geometric centroid of lens" as used in SAE J1221 Headlamp-Turn Signal Spacing. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gordan Bonvallet Manager, Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. P.O. Box 2040 Cortland, New York 13045-2040

Dear Mr. Bonvallet:

This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1985, asking for an interpretation of the humidity testing procedure for replaceable bulb headlamps.

Paragraph S6.8 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that after completion of the test cycle in which the headlamp shall have been in an environment of 100oF with a relative humidity of 90+105, it shall then be in an environment with a temperature of 73oF and relative humidity of 30+10% before removal for photometric testing. You believe that this implies an instantaneous transition in temperature/humidity conditions which, in your view, is "impossible to achieve." You have set forth three alternative procedures and ask which is the most acceptable to this agency.

Under your first alternative, the temperature and humidity in the humidity chamber would be reduced to 73oF-43%;, requiring about an hour) whereupon the headlamp would be removed to a "dry box" chamber of the requisite temperature/ humidity before photometric testing. In the second alternative, there would be no such removal before the photometric testing. In the third alternative, the headlamp would be removed from the humidity chamber and immediately carried to a "dry box" with the requisite temperature/ humidity; however, in your test set up this would require three to five minutes elapsed time between chambers.

Paragraph S6.8 does not specify a humidity of 43% in any of its test conditions, and a procedure incorporating the first and second alternatives clearly would not be in accordance with paragraph S6.8. That paragraph, however, does not specify that the temperature/humidity sequences must occur in the same chamber but it does imply that the lower temperature/ humidity soak should take place directly following the higher temperature/humidity one. Therefore, your third alternative is the one that meets the intent of paragraph S6.8. To insure consistency of results, we recommend that no transfer period exceed three minutes and that the headlamp be exposed as briefly and as little as possible to the ambient temperature/humidity of the test laboratory.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

Subject: Interpretation of Testing Procedure FMVSS 108 Replaceable Bulb Headlamps

Paragraph S6.8 Humidity of FMVSS 108 states a test procedure which implies a headlamp should undergo an instantaneous transition in temperature/ humidity conditions from 100oF-90% relative humidity (tolerances have been omitted here) to 73oF-30% R.H. This, of course, is impossible to achieve. The attached discussion suggests possible testing procedures to resolve the problem. I request an interpretation on which is acceptable and if none are, please clarify how the test can and should be performed. We expect to have headlamps to test within the next couple of weeks, so prompt consideration would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division

GB/mm Enclosure

Docket No. 81-11

Replaceable Bulb Headlamp

FMVSS 108 Paragraph S6.8 Humidity The present ruling requires the headlamp to be subjected to a controlled environment of 100oF + 9o and a relative humidity of 90% + 10%. Following the 20 consecutive 6 hour test cycles, the headlamp is to be "soaked" for 1 hour at 73oF (20oC) and a relative humidity of 30% + 10% before it is removed for photometric testing.

Most environmental chambers (Thermotron, Blue M, for example) do not have the capabilities to reduce the humidity to 30% (or 40%) at the 73oF temperature. We have constructed a special chamber which is capable of about 35% RH at 73oF although this is very dependent on the room ambient temperature and humidity. This chamber is located near the Photometric test range so we can perform the following photometric test in a very short time. Unfortunately, this chamber is located a couple hundred feet from the standard environmental chamber. At the completion of the humidity test, we must remove the headlamp and carry it to the "dry box" for the one hour soak. Men the headlamp is removed from the 100oF environmental chamber, it immediately is subjected to a cooler room ambient, perhaps 65o -70oF and 60% RH.

We have experimented with a procedure which reduces the temperatures humidity of the environmental chamber following the normal humidity cycles, to a range of 73oF and about 43% RH. This procedure takes about one hour to accomplish. We cannot get the humidity any lower with prolonged operation of the chamber. Following this procedure, the headlamp is carried to the "dry box" for the one hour soak.

I know of no standard environmental chambers which can operate at 100oF - 90% RH and reduce in conditions to 73oF - 30 + 10% RH within a short enough period to allow a one hour soak at the final temperature/humidity conditions, period to allow a one hour soak at the final temperature/humidity conditions, other than s chamber designed for thermal shock and these have no humidity control.

I request an interpretation on which of the described procedures should be used.

1. Following the humidity test, reduce the temperature and humidity in the chamber to 73oF - 43% RH in a one hour period, transfer headlamp to the 73oF - 30 + 10% RH dry box for one hour followed by the photometric test.

2. Following the humidity test, reduce the temperature and humidity in the chamber to 73oF - 43% RH in a one hour period, followed by the photometric test.

3. Following the humidity test, remove the headlamp from the humidity chamber, carry it at room ambient conditions (approximately three minutes - five minutes) to the dry box and soak at 73oF and 30 + 10% RH for one hour followed by the photometric test.

If none of these alternatives is acceptable, please clarify exactly how the test can and should be performed.

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. February 4, 1985