ID: nht93-7.26

DATE: October 18, 1993

FROM: J. C. DeLaney -- Manager, Technical Programs, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for FMVSS 123 Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to J. C. DeLaney (A41; Std. 123)

TEXT:

The Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) is a nonprofit national trade association representing manufacturers and distributors of motorcycles, motorcycle parts and accessories, and members of allied trades.

On behalf of its membership, MIC requests an interpretation of FMVSS 123 as it relates to motorcycle side stand retraction.

FMVSS 123, S5.2.4, states that "a stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward.", but makes no reference to any compliance test criteria or procedure.

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has published two recommended procedures related to side stand retraction testing - SAE J1578 "Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Test Procedure"; and SAE J1579 "Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Performance Requirements." A third SAE Recommended Practice, J1846, establishes characteristics for the test surface used for testing in accordance with J1578 and J1579. Copies of these SAE documents are enclosed.

MIC's question is: Does a motorcycle side stand comply with FMVSS 123 if it passes the SAE J1578 test procedure?

MIC would appreciate your earliest possible response to the above request. Please contact me if there are any questions or if additional information is required.

ID: nht90-3.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1990

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research and Development, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Nishibori (A36; Std. 114); Also attached to Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 104, 5-30-90 Edition), pages 21868-21876 (text omitted)

TEXT:

On June 29, 1990, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. ("Nissan"), submitted to NHTSA petition for reconsideration regarding the May 30 amendments to FMVSS 114. In that petition, Nissan requested that NHTSA amend FMVSS 114 insofar as necessary to permit the continued use of three systems on vehicles that are equipped with automatic transmissions. These systems, as described in the petition, are a transmission shift lock override, an emergency key release, and a transmission park lock system.

Nissan filed its petition within 30 days of the issuance of the final rule, as required under 49 CFR 553.35, in order to preserve its right to request reconsideration of the rule. However, based on our review of the final rule and after demonstrating the Nissan systems to agency staff on July 13, it appears that the determination of whether these systems comply with the amended rule is not entirely clear. Therefore, we request your opinion as to whether the these systems are consistent with the requirements established in the May 30 notice.

Shift Lock Emergency Override

The shift lock emergency override system is operable by depressing a button on the lower, rear portion (as viewed by the driver) of the shift lever. By depressing the button, the transmission may be shifted out of "park," independent of the ignition key position or whether the key is in the ignition switch. Nissan considers this system to be necessary to necessary to permit the towing of a vehicle having an inoperative electrical system (e.g., with a battery that failed overnight). Without the device, the electrically powered transmission could not be shifted out of "PARK," thereby complicating the process of towing of the vehicle to a repair facility.

The compliance concern with respect to this system involves the new requirement that the "key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key." See section 4.2(b).

The Nissan system prevents removal of the key whenever the transmission is in a position other than "park," consistent with this provision; the key may be removed only when the transmission has been shifted into "park" (except when using the emergency key release, described below). When the transmission is shifted into "park" and the key is removed, the transmission remains locked in "park" until it is unlocked, either by

turning the ignition key to the "on" position and depressing the brake pedal or by operating the emergency shift release override. Thus, the Nissan system appears to be consistent with the language of section 4.2(b).

Please inform us whether this system complies with the recent amendments to FMVSS 114.

In our petition for reconsideration (section 1(b)), we described an alternative shift lock system, in which the manual override would be operable only after removing a cover over the override lever. We believe that this system would also comply with the amended rule, for the reasons set forth above, with respect to our current system. It should be noted that the alternative system would prevent shifting the transmission out of the "park" position when the ignition key has been removed, so long as the vehicle is in its normal (fully assembled) operating mode. Only after the cover over the override lever has been removed and the lever has been activated can the shift lever be moved in this situation. Please inform us as to whether this alternative system would comply with the amended rule.

Emergency Key Release

The second Nissan system facilitates removal of the ignition key in the event of an electrical system failure. In that event, the ignition key lock system would prevent removal of the key. Moving the transmission shift lever to the "park" position, if the failure occurs when the transmission is in a position other than "park," would not de-activate the electrically operated key-lock, due to the absence of electrical power. Nissan's emergency key release system permits overriding the ignition key lock in this situation, so that the ignition key can be removed from the vehicle and the driver can lock the vehicle and leave to seek assistance.

In the normal vehicle operating mode, the Nissan system clearly complies with section 4.2(b), since it prevents ignition key removal unless the transmission lever is in the "park" position. The emergency key release system permits key removal only after some disassembly and manipulation of the key lock have been performed. The emergency key release override is activated by first removing a cover over the ignition switch, by using a screw driver or similar tool. Next, a hidden lever that is located inside the exposed ignition switch compartment in the steering column must be manipulated, again using an object such as a screw driver.

We believe that the emergency key release system presents no safety or theft protection concerns. For example, it would be extremely difficult to activate the emergency override while the vehicle is in motion. Similarly, we believe that it is extremely unlikely that the override would encourage drivers to leave their ignition keys in their vehicles and thereby risk vehicle theft. The relative difficulty of the override process makes either of these circumstances quite unlikely.

It should be noted that virtually any key locking system can be overriden through some form of lock disassembly and associated procedures. Thus, the Nissan system differs from others in this regard at most as a matter

of degree.

We request your opinion as to whether the Nissan emergency key release system complies with FMVSS 114.

Park Lock System

Nissan's park lock system prevents drivers from inadvertently depressing the accelerator pedal rather than the brake pedal when shifting a vehicle out of "park." The transmission shift lever can be moved from the "park" position only if two conditions are met:

1) the ignition key is in the "on" position; and

2) the brake pedal is depressed.

If the transmission is placed in "park," the shift lever locks in that position when the ignition key is turned to the "off" position.

Nissan was initially concerned that this system might not comply with section 4.3 of FMVSS 114 since, as noted above, the ignition key activates the transmission shift lock. However, under the wording adopted in NHTSA's final rule, it is only the "key-locking system described in section 4.2(b)" that may not be activated by turning "off" the ignition key. Section 4.2(b) now appears to apply only to the steering column lock and the key removal lock features (which are not activated by turning "off" the ignition), not the transmission shift lock. Therefore, we now believe that the park lock system complies with section 4.3.

It is our understanding that the agency's intent in establishing section 4.3 was to prevent the potentially dangerous situation that could result if the ignition key of a moving vehicle were turned to the "off" position and the steering column then became locked. In that situation, it would be impossible to steer the vehicle. The Nissan park lock system presents no concern of this sort.

Please inform us whether our current understanding on this matter is correct.

To the extent that you conclude that the three Nissan systems comply with the FMVSS 114 amendments, the requests made in our petition for reconsideration would become moot. For any of these systems that you determine to comply with the standard, as amended, please consider the relevant portion of our petition to be withdrawn. If you determine that any of the systems do not comply, Nissan requests that you consider the applicable portions of the petition and amend the standard to permit the use of the systems.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Kazuo Iwasaki of my staff, at 466-5284.

ID: 1984-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hino Motors Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter concerning your meeting with Mr. Oesch and Ms. Hom of my staff. As you requested, this letter confirms and clarifies the answers to the questions you asked in your meeting concerning Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

The answers to all of your questions are based on our understanding that Hino Motors would be furnishing a bare chassis to a final-stage manufacturer who adds a school bus body to complete the vehicle. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1) If Hino Motors is producing an incomplete vehicle, as that term is defined in Part 568.3, then Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, sets forth the requirements Hino must meet. Part 568.4 sets forth the specific information you must provide in an incomplete vehicle document. Part 568 does not require you to certify the incomplete vehicle as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 301. It does require you to make one of the statements set forth in Part 568.4(a)(7).

2) Part 568.4(b) requires each incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide an incomplete vehicle document. The document must either be attached to the incomplete vehicle or sent directly to a final-stage manufacturer, intermediate manufacturer or purchaser for purposes other than resale to whom the incomplete vehicle is delivered.

3) Part 568.6 requires each final-stage manufacturer to complete the vehicle in such a manner so that it conforms to all applicable standards and to attach the certification label required by Section 567.5 of Part 567, Certification.

4) As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Hino Motors need only comply with Part 568. I note that Part 568.7 permits an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to assume voluntarily all of the duties and liabilities imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act on the final-stage manufacturer. If Hino were to assume those duties, then Hino would have to affix the label required by Part 567.5(e).

5) The crash test in Standard No. 301 sets forth the procedures the agency will use in conducting its compliance tests. A manufacturer is not required to conduct crash tests, but may instead rely on such things as engineering analyses or computer modelling to determine if a vehicle complies with a standard.

6) As discussed above, Standard No. 301 sets forth the test procedure the agency will use in its testing. Section 6.5 of the standard provides that the moving barrier test for school buses may be conducted at "any point and angle" on the schoolbus. If a manufacturer is going to do crash testing, the type of testing it uses is left up to the manufacturer. The agency urges manufacturers using crash testing to conduct a test (angle and location of impact) which represents the most difficult test for the vehicle. The maximum speed in the agency's crash test for schoolbuses is 30 mph.

7) At present, there are no pending notices proposing to modify the requirements of Standard No. 301.

B) 1. and 2. The Office of Chief Counsel issues all of the agency's interpretations of the safety standards. Copies of all of our interpretations can be obtained from the Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Copies of the agency's compliance test reports can be obtained from our Technical Reference Division, Room 5108 at the same address.

Your final questions concern the requirements of S7.1.6(c) of Standard No. 301. You are correct that the test is to be performed on a completed vehicle. If Hino wishes to do crash testing of its chassis, it can be done in the bodyless condition. Since the chassis has no seats, we would suggest you attach the test weight of 120 pounds per designated seating position directly to the chassis.

Mr. Oesch and Ms. Hom have asked me to thank you for sending them a copy of the photograph you took.

Sincerely,

HINO HINO MOTORS, LTD.

Our ref. TUSA-90809

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Attention: Stephen Oesch

Thank you for your kind attentions to us during our recent visit to your place. Many thanks to your sincere reply to our questions concerning FMVSS.

We would like to confirm the content of your reply and make additive questions.

I. Confirmation of the content of your reply on that day.

1. FMVSS No. 301: Concerning Fuel System Integrity

1) In case we supply school bus chassis and the body manufacturer makes the body and completes the vehicle, we must certify this FMVSS in chassis condition (without body).

2) Moreover, we should issue to the Body mfr. "Incomplete Vehicle Document" attached to the vehicle.

3) After this Body mfr. should certify it as a completed vehicle.

4) All we have to do on this regulation is sufficient with this and nothing more is necessary.

5) The requirement of this regulation is to meet the items and value of the regulation, and the actual crash test itself isn't indispensable condition. That is to say, either by calculation or by test, we only have to certify that our vehicle meets the requirements of this regulation.

6) Test condition of Crash Test Concerning crashing speed, point, angle and etc, the manufacturer shall establish the condition judged with basis as the most strict. That is all depends on the idea of Hino. By the way, it is proper to consider that crash speed is the Max. speed; 30 MPH.

7) There is no movement of revision on this regulation for the present.

B. General Item

1) Concerning "Interpretation" and "Test Results", it is possible to read and copy (including request of copy in written form) them. By the way, "Interpretation" and "Test Results" are kept in Room 5109 and Room 5108 respectively.

2) Mr. Berndt: Chief Counsel (Tel 202-426-9511) is the proper person to inquire about FMVSS in written form from now on.

II. Additional questions

1. Judging from S7.1.6.(c) about FMVSS No. 301 S7 Test Condition, this test is supposed to be performed by completed vehicle. Please advise us about the Test Condition when we perform the test by chassis condition. For example,

Is test vehicle in bodyless chassis condition as Hino shipment?

In case the vehicle is bodyless, how will the weight loading condition as the establishment of weight condition 120 lb in design seat position of S7.1.6.(c)?

We will appreciate your early reply.

Please say hello to Ms. Deirdre F. Hom And enclosed please find your photographs taken during our stay in your office as a good memory.

Thanking you again for your kind attentions.

Takabumi Akaboshi Deputy Manager Technical Department Technical Division Overseas Operations

ID: 1984-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Walsh:

This is in reply to your letter of October 31, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for confirmation of a 1972 agency interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

In pertinent part, Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that, at a minimum, a motorcycle be equipped with one taillamp, one stop lamp, and four turn signal lamps. Table IV directs that the stop lamp and taillamp be placed on the vertical centerline, and that the turn signal lamps be placed on each side of the vertical centerline with a minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between the turn signal lamp "and tail or stop lamp." Table IV expressly permits dual stop and taillamps "symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." No express exception is made to the 4-inch spacing requirement if dual stop or taillamps are installed, raising the question whether the minimum distance must be maintained no matter what the rear lighting configuration may be.

You have called to our attention an interpretation of July 1, 1972, that Motor Vehicle Programs of this agency provided Stanley Electric Company Ltd. In that instance the proposed rear lighting configuration consisted of two combination stop, turn signal, and taillamps placed on either side of the vertical centerline. The agency opined that the minimum separation distance was not applicable to combination lamps when there was "no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline." You have asked for confirmation that this remains the agency's view.

As you have pointed out Suzuki's proposed design of a unit combining amber turn signal lamps with red stop and taillamps is similar to current passenger car practice where the minimum distance requirement does not exist. Therefore, this will confirm that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and stop and taillamps applies when single stop and taillamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and taillamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION

October 31, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Confirmation of Interpretation -FMVSS 108

As we discussed by telephone on 31 October, this is to request confirmation that a July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 applies to the motorcycle rear lighting configuration described below.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 requires that motorcycle rear turn signals be separated by 9 inches or more (centerline to centerline, and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the tail or stop lamp be 4 inches or more. These requirements contemplate the typical motorcycle rear lighting configuration of a centrally located combination tail lamp/stop lamp and separate turn signal lamps on each side of the tail/stop lamp.

For some of today's wider motorcycles, however, we are contemplating a different rear lighting configuration, shown roughly in the enclosed sketch. This configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located near the outer edge of each side of the rear of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp would be a red tail lamp/stop lamp combination, and the outboard part of the lamp would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would typically be more than 24 inches, far exceeding the 9 inch minimum required by FMVSS 108, and providing clear indication of the direction of an intended turning maneuver. In essence, this rear lighting configuration is comparable to current practice in passenger car rear lighting.

In 1972, NHTSA indicated that

the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each noneside of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline.

A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your reference. Based on this interpretation, Suzuki has designed a configuration as shown in the sketch. We would ask you to confirm that the 1972 interpretation would apply to the configuration shown, in recognition that it is meaningless to require a 4 inch separation distance where it is impossible because of the combined construction of the rear lamp units.

We would greatly appreciate your prompt attention to this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department

JW:ej

Enclosure "SKETCH INSERT HERE"

July 1972 N41-34 Mr. H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of July 5 concerning the requirements for stop and turn signal lamps on motorcycles. The answers to the questions you asked follow -- Question 1.

According to FMVSS 108 Table IV, it says, "minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail stop lamp is 4 inches." However, in the case of the above sketch where tail lamp, stop lamp and turn signal lamp are combined in one, can we ignore the above requirements of Table IV? The answer is yes; the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each side of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline. Question 2. Suppose the above lamp arrangement is acceptable, must each stop lamp meet the Class A turn signal lamp (red) -- SAE J575d, Table 1? Or, is complying the said requirements with the total of two lamps acceptable? The two stop lamps cannot be considered as multiple lamps, since it is required that the stop lamp be extinguished on the side when the turn signal is flashing. Each of the stop lamps must therefore meet the Class A photometric values specified in Table 1 of SAE J575d. Sincerely, Charles A. Baker for E. T. Driver, Director Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs

ID: 86-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: D. Moens -- Sales Engineer, Van Hool N.V. (Belgium)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. D. Moens Sales Engineer Van Hool N.V. Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58 B-2578 Lier Koningshooikt, Belgium

This responds to your October 10, 1985 letter to this agency requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. You asked whether FMVSS No. 217 allows the use of sliding roof emergency exits. The answer to your question depends on the location of the release mechanism and the direction in which the mechanism operates relative to the surface of the closed exit. As explained below, if the release mechanism falls in the area of high force application, i.e., the area of the bus in which high operating forces may be used, then the answer to your question is no.

According to your letter, you provide two roof hatches on your buses, in the front and rear of the vehicles, although the front roof hatch is not needed to meet the unobstructed openings requirement of Standard No. 217. The roof hatches would slide open rather than push out, and would be opened by a handle which is located in the region of high force application as shown in Figure 3B of the standard.

Standard No. 217 requires buses to be equipped with emergency exits and specifies requirements that all emergency exits must meet. Paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that a roof exit may be installed on buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit. The roof exit must meet the requirements of paragraphs S5.3 through S5.5. Under S5.3.2, the direction of required force application in the high force access region is straight and perpendicular to the exit surface. Since your exit is designed so that the force is applied parallel to the exit surface, it does not comply with S5.3.2.

Of course, your roof emergency exit must meet all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 217. You should note that under S5.3.1, a roof exit must provide for a release mechanism, located within the regions depicted in Figure 3B of the standard. The release mechanism must be operated by one or two force applications which comply with S5.3.2. Further, S5.5 sets certain identification requirements for roof emergency exits.

You stated that the roof exit installed in the forward half of the bus does not need to be counted to satisfy the unobstructed openings requirement of Standard No. 217. Exits that are not labeled or intended as emergency exits need not meet the emergency exit requirements of FMVSS No. 217.

You asked what consequences would follow if we determine that your sliding roof exit does not comply with FMVSS No. 217. That standard was issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act requires manufacturers to comply with all applicable safety standards. It also requires them to notify purchasers of their motor vehicles of safety-related defects and failures to comply with the safety standards, and to remedy such defects and noncompliances without charge. Violations of the Act's requirements are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum $800,000 for a related series of violations. Under the regulations set forth in Part 556 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed), manufacturers may petition NHTSA for an exemption from the Act's notice and remedy requirements if they believe that the defect or noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. However, if the agency denies such a petition, all duties relating to notice and remedy of the defect or noncompliance contained in the Vehicle Safety Act are continued in force against the manufacturer.

Mr. Sebastian Messina of the New Jersey Department of Transportation has contacted us concerning the sliding emergency exits on your buses. We are sending him a copy of this letter for his information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

NHTSA Chief Council Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller 400 7th Street SW Washington DC 20590 USA

VIA AIR MAIL

AFDELING: Eng. Dept. BIN TELEF: 419 ONZE REF: DM/cb/13.979 B-2578 LIER - KONINGSHOOIKT: 10.10.85

Dear Sirs,

Re.: Emergency roof hatch Ref: Standard no. 217, Bus window retention and release

Van Hool are Belgian bus and trailer manufacturers, with a production capacity of 1500 buses and 4000 trailers and semi-trailers a year. For your information you will find enclosed a general presentation leaflet.

After the information we got by phone from the New Jersey D.O.T. with the statement that they will not accept our sliding type emergency roof hatches anymore, we would like to make clear to you the functioning of our type of roof hatches, Please find enclosed some copies explaining the system. We do not intend to tell what is right or wrong or express our displeasure, nor do we have doubts about the objectivity of the New Jersey D.O.T. However an investigation from your side of our system and a judgement would be appreciated as we have to deal with other States which rely on the Federal decisions and Standards.

Two completely finished buses and one almost finished bus are ready to be shipped to the USA; they are still equipped with the sliding type emergency roof hatches. So if your judgement should be negative we would like to get a derogation for those 3 buses because in the meantime they will already be shipped to the U.S.A.

Please also note that, in case of a negative judgement, we have yet studied other types of American made roof hatches, for future deliveries.

We thank you for an early reply and remain,

Yours sincerely,

N.V. VAN HOOL

D. MOENS Sales Engineer Enclosures - explanation of functioning

Explanation of functioning

1. The 2 roof hatches are situated in the centre of the roof, one in the first half of the bus and one in the rear half, in the access region for high forces (magnitude of not more than 60 pounds).

In fact we only need the rear one to replace the rear exit.

But as we use them also for ventilation we are mounting 2.

2. The roof hatch can be opened manual by s single occupant and one motion, sliding backwards, parallel to the exit surface.

3. Magnitude: 56 pounds.

4. The free unobstructed opening is: 31 inches x 21 inches.

ID: nht81-1.45

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. M. Tobias and Associated, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 17 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Robert A. Langindorf Joseph M. Tobias and Associates, Ltd. Suite 911 100 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60602

Dear Mr. Langindorf:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Bob Nelson of our Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You asked several questions regarding Safety Standard No. 208. Occupant Crash Protection, in relation to a van vehicle equipped to secure wheelchairs. Specifically, you asked whether spaces on the vehicle's floor suitable for locking wheel chairs in the vehicle would be considered "designated seating positions" for which seat belt assemblies must be supplied.

A van vehicle designed to carry passengers rather than cargo would be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle. This would include a medicar van for disabled persons in wheelchairs. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle, a 1975 or 1976 van would have to comply with the seat belt requirements of paragraph S4.2 of Safety Standard No. 208. This means that the vehicle manufacturer would have to install seat belts for each "designated seating position" in the van. In 49 CFR 571.3 "designated seating position" is defined, in part, as:

"any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats..."

You can see that this definition encompasses only seats that are installed as a permanent part of the overall vehicle structure, e.g., the driver's seat in the van and any other permanent passenger seats that are bolted to the floor of the vehicle. The definition would not include spaces on the floor suitable for securing wheelchairs. Therefore, these spaces would not be required to have seat belts under the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. Only the van's driver's seat and permanent passenger seats would be required to have belts.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 15, 1980

Mr. Bob Nelson NHTSA 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Nelson:

I was referred to you or Mr. Guy Hunter by Ms. Elizabeth Lindahl of the Regional Administrator, NHTSA office in Chicago Heights, Illinois. She told me you would be better able to handle some interpretations of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, in particular seatbelts.

In reference to seatbelts, I have also talked to Mr. Madison Post of the Illinois Department of Transportation. My Questions to both Mr. Post and Ms. Lindahl have dealt with Multi Passenger Vehicles and Trucks, S4.2 in Standard No. 208 and the safety belts requirements.

Mr. Post has informed me that a medicar van would be a multipurpose vehicle in S4.2. (See enclosed letter)

Ms. Lindahl said the member of designated positions is on the metal plate on the door as put their by the manufacturer.

The questions are as follows:

1) Would a multipurpose vehicle include a medicar van for disabled people in wheelchairs, S4.2?

2) Would S54.2 or any other section cover this medicar van made in 1975 or 1976?

3) In S4.2.2(a) and S4.2.1.2(b) would "designated seating position" or "outboard designated seating position" include a space on the floor designated for wheelchairs to be locked in, so as to require either a seat safety belt or passive protection system?

4) Is a medicar van sold new by a Dodge dealer, who designs the van so as to accommodate persons in wheelchairs, subject to safety belt requirements in light of S108 in Public Law 89-563--15 USC 1381, et seq (whereas rules apply to a wheelchair or item of equipment up to its first purchase for purposes other than resale)?

I would appreciate the answers to these questions according to either NHTSA or your interpretation. If not, please either pass this letter along to someone who can answer them or tell me whom to contact.

I thank you for your cooperation in all of the foregoing.

Yours truly,

FOR JOSEPH M. TOBIAS & ASSOCIATES

RAL:idt

Enclosure

November 26, 1980

Robert A. Langendorf Suite 911 100 N. LaSalle St. Chicago, Illinois 60602

Dear Mr. Langendorf:

You inquired about application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208, Section 4.2, to a "medicar van" and seat belt requirements for such a "van".

Under federal definitions and rules a motor vehicle, including a "van", constructed on a truck chassis and designed or altered to carry 10 persons or less (as opposed to cargo, freight, equipment, etc.) is a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV--49 CFR 571.3). It must be classified MPV and must conform to Section 4.2 and other applicable FMVSS (49 CFR 567).

In general, the FMVSS and related rules apply to a vehicle or item of equipment up to its first purchase for purposes other than resale (Section 108 in Public Law 89-563--15 USC 1351, et seq).

I suggest you contact officials of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for more specific answers to your detail questions:

Regional Administrator, NHTSA Chief Counsel 1010 Dixie Highway NHTSA Chicago Heights, IL 60411 Washington, D.C. 20590 312/756-1950 Phone Safety Hot Line 800/424-9373

Michael Finkelstein Administrator for Rule Making NHTSA Washington, D.C. 20590 Phone Safety Hot Line 800/424-9373

Under current interpretations of State definitions every 1st division motor vehicle, (such as a passenger car, MPV, or "van" that is not a taxicab) becomes a bus if used for transportation of persons for compensation even though it seats 10 persons or less (IVC 1-107). The type of compensation is not restricted. The transformation to bus occurs with regular (not occasional or rare) acceptance of any type of equivalent or recompensive action or payment i.e., service or help "in kind", "favors in return", money or other fare, emolument, fee, aid, grant, or other fund(s) stemming from private or government (federal, state, or local) person or entity, vehicle in "car pool", etc. Many first division buses are operated in Illinois (IVC 1-217).

State law requires two sets of seat belts for the front seat of a first division vehicle (IVC 12-501). Of course, where the front seat provides seating for only one person, i.e. driver, only one set is needed. Seat belt installations that meet FMVSS 208 and other standards referred to therein are acceptable, since the FMVSS preempts State standards (Sec. 103, PL 89-563--15 USC 1381, et seq).

Thank you for asking about seat belt requirements.

Sincerely,

Madison Post Standards Engineer Bureau of Safety Operations

MP:mp

cc: L. Wort S. England

ID: 86-5.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Charles J. Newman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles J. Newman Vice-President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company 2600 Lanier Drive Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, asking for an interpretation regarding two proposed locations for clearance lamps. As you know, our response has been delayed because the original letter lacked one of the the drawings necessary for us to reply to your questions.

You have paraphrased S4.3.1.1.1 of Standard No. 108 as stating "in part that clearance lamps need not be mounted on the front or rear and at such a location need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." That is not exactly what that section permits. It states that "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." Your first request for an interpretation concerns a "fixed body with additional equipment mounted on the box," and depicts clearance lamps that are mounted on the front of a structure behind the cab, and yet are not visible at 45 degrees inboard. You have asked whether this meets the intent of S4.3.1.1.1. The plan view diagram in your letter indicates that the clearance lamps, if mounted on the front (i.e., the cab) would not be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. But when mounted on the structure behind the cab, they appear located so as to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. You have not mentioned mounting height, but we assume that they are "as close to the top as practicable" In accordance with the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108. Therefore the exception permitted by S4.3.1.1.1 would apply.

Your second request covers a "side mounted clearance lamp," and states that "Because of box construction and box size, a side mounted clearance lamp is a better location." In this location, the inboard visibility requirements would not be met. You asked whether this would meet the intent of S4.3.1.1.1.

The intent of S4.3.1.1.1 is that the alternate location indicate the overall width of the vehicle. If we judge compliance by the plan view of the diagram, then the location on the second diagram is acceptable. But in this location the inboard angle of visibility would be even less than in the first diagram, and the overall width of the vehicle would be less apparent to an incoming driver. Given the fact that you have presented us with alternative means by which you may meet S4. 3.1.1. 1 we cannot conclude that the location shown in the second diagram complies with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Vincent Taylor

Re: Front mounted clearance lamps

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Due to a recent interpretation of FMVSS 108 and the construction of some truck bodies several of our customers have asked for recommendations on the mounting location of the front clearance lamps.

The vehicle manufacturer has in the past mounted five lamps on the top of the cab - three (3) indentification and two (2) clearance lamps-

Section "S4.3.1.1.1" of FMVSS 108 states in part that clearance lamps need not be mounted on the front or rear and at such a location need not be visible at 45o inboard.

This brings up several questionable mountings-

1. Fixed body with additional equipment mounted on the box.

(Please insert graphics)

We have outboard visibility and straight on visibility but do not have inboard visibility.

We would consider this mounting to meet the intent of S.4.3.1.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

Do you agree?

2. Side mounted clearance lamp-

(Please insert graphics)

Because of box construction and box size, a side mounted clearance lamp is a better location. We have outboard visibility and straight on visibility but do not have inboard visibility.

We would consider this mounting to meet the intent of S.4.3.1.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

Do you agree?

Sincerely,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Charles J. Newman Vice-President, Engineering

kp

ID: nht79-3.47

DATE: 03/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 22, 1979, letter asking several questions about the application of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. These questions involve the construction of a bus with a door that is made inoperable until its user desires to install a lift gate.

First, you ask whether a door that is always operable must comply with all of the standard's requirements. The answer to this question is yes. In a related question, you ask whether the lettering and operating instructions must be removed if a user subsequently installs a lift gate and the exit no longer complies with the necessary opening dimensions of Standard No. 217.

As you know, only the manufacturer of the vehicle prior to first purchase is responsible for ensuring the compliance of the completed vehicle with the applicable safety standards. Subsequent to the first purchase, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

Any of the above-mentioned businesses may install a lift gate in a vehicle as long as they do not otherwise knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle. Accordingly, for example, a lift gate could be installed as long as sufficient other emergency exits are available in a vehicle so that it remains in compliance with the requirements. The fact that the exit in which the lift is installed no longer complies is not important as long as there continues to be sufficient exits in the vehicle to continue its overall compliance with the standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's authority over the modification of vehicles after first purchase extends to preventing the rendering inoperative of the vehicle with the safety standards. The agency does not have the authority to force a modifier of a vehicle, after its first purchase, to undertake other responsibilities. Therefore, it would not be necessary for modifiers to remove the operating instructions or lettering applicable to the former emergency exit, although the NHTSA would encourage them to do so to avoid possible confusion in the event of an accident.

If a dealer or other business installs a lift gate prior to first purchase, it becomes an alterer of the vehicle and must attach an alterer's label indicating compliance of the altered vehicle with the standards. In such a case, the alterer would be required to remove the label and operating instructions from the exit in which the gate was installed.

Finally, you ask whether a door that is constructed so as to be inoperable by either removing the operating mechanism or through the installation of a rub rail over its outside would have to comply with the requirements applicable to joints (Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength). When a door is made inoperable by a vehicle manufacturer in the manner you suggest, it becomes part of the bus wall structure. As such, any joints on the door that would fall within the ambit of the joint strength standard would be required to comply with that standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

January 22, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to request interpretation relating to FMVSS 217 - Emergency Exits.

We are receiving requests from our customers to install a door in the right-hand side of the bus. The purpose of the door is to allow for possible installation of a lift gate at a later date, to convert to handicap use. The bus could be equipped with or without a seat installed at the door location.

(1) If the door is in operating condition it is our interpretation it must meet all requirements as to size, labels, operating forces, etc. Is this interpretation correct?

(2) The door would be installed in such a manner it could not be operated. Examples could be no operating mechanism or a rub rail across the door on the outside of the body.

In this case, would the door assembly be considered a part of the body and joints of panels on the door be required to meet FMVSS 221 - Joint Strength?

(3) If the answer to number one is yea, it must comply with all operating force, labels, etc., of FMVSS 217, then if at a later date the customer or dealer installs a lift gate which blocks the opening, is it still a requirement to have the clear 20 x 13 opening, and if it does not have the opening, must the lettering operating instructions, etc., be removed?

(4) If the bus is an adult bus and the door does not serve as an emergency exit after installation of a lift, who assumes the responsibility to make sure the necessary square inch of exits are provided? (As required by S5.2 of FMVSS 217)

Your prompt reply to the above questions will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht80-4.4

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Company of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 17, 1980 letter to this office in which you posed six questions concerning Safety Standard 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). The answers are set forth below following the number you assigned to each question in your letter.

(1) No, T&RA design information is not considered part of the T&RA yearbook for purposes of Standard 119. Design information refers to future tire sizes which will soon be produced, but which are not currently on the market. Since the specifications in the design information have not been formally approved by T&RA, as the yearbook entries have, the design information has not been subjected to the same type of examination by T&RA, and is not accepted by this agency.

(2) The Plunger Energy Table (Table II in Standard 119) published November 13, 1973 is the most current table we have published.

(3) The ETRTO petition to which you refer has not been granted by this agency. Shortly after receipt of the petition, we made a telephone contact with ETRTO requesting further information which would justify setting the plunger energy specifications at the requested levels. ETRTO was informed that the petition would not be considered until we had received this additional information, and no further information has been received. Similarly, your company requested the inclusion of additional values for Table II in a letter dated August 9, 1979. Mr. Finkelstein, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, sent a letter to Mr. P. L. Lab of Bridgestone on September 12, 1979 requesting further information and justification for including these values. To date, no further information has been received.

(4) Since there is no plunger energy value specified for tubeless tires with a load range greater than "J" in Table II, there are currently no requirements for plunger energy strength that these tires must meet. It is acceptable if you choose to test these tires at the strength level specified for load range "J" tires, but that level is significantly below what would be expected for higher load range tires.

(5) When your company submits matching information to this agency pursuant to the requirements of S5.1(a) of Standard 119. it is perfectly acceptable to send duplicate copies of the information you have furnished to the dealers, and no separate letter is necessary.

(6) I am aware of only three requests for plunger energy tests for tubeless tires with load ranges greater than "J". The first came from Michelin in 1973, when the Standard was being developed. NHTSA asked Michelin to provide information on the proposed values, and Michelin never raised the issue again. ETRTO submitted the petition you referred to in question 3, and never provided the further information requested. Bridgestone submitted a petition in August 1979 and never provided the further information requested. There have been no other requests for additional plunger energy values.

If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202)426-2992.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BRIDGESTONE TIRE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

July 17, 1980

Ref. No.: HH-80-152

Office of Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

We would appreciate your comments on the following questions relative to FMVSS 119.

1) Is TRA Engineering Design Information regarded as a part of the TRA Yearbook from the approval standpoint of FMVSS 119?

2) The latest table of Plunger Energy in FMVSS 119 that we have in our file is as of November 13, 1973. If this is not the latest one available, what is the most current?

3) We understand ETRTO sent a petition to you on November 2, 1977 regarding the Plunger Energy setting of "L" at 21,000 lbs. and "M" at 23,200 lbs. We would like to know if this has been approved by NHTSA.

4) Since the highest load ranges is "J" in our table, we have been testing our 18R22.5 20PR tire at load range "J" for Plunger Energy. We would like to know if this is appropriate.

5) We understand that we are supposed to submit Matching information to you whenever we come up with a new size tire in FMVSS 119. We do distribute this type of information to our dealers and end-users. Is it satisfactory for us to send a copy of this Matching information to you or should we submit a letter to you for this purpose?

6) We believe that we are not the only one with these questions and we wonder if a similar petition has been submitted from other associations or manufacturers.

Thank you in advance for your time in answering the above questions. We will be looking forward to your reply.

Very truly yours,

Hiromi Hamaya -- Vice President, Engineering Dept.

ID: nht94-1.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 6, 1994

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation; Reference: 1. 49 CFR Part 571 - Docket No. 88- 21; Notice No. 3 Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (new); 2. 49 CFR Part 571 - Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 5 Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (new); 3. 49 CFR Part 571.217 Bus Window Retention and Release (curren t)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3/9/77 from Frank A. Berndt to W.G. Milby (Std. 217)

TEXT:

ITEM 1:

The final rule of reference 1 in section S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires "A side door installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) shall be located on the left side of the bus and as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." The supplementar y information section number 6 discusses location of emergency exits, acknowledges variables that can effect the location of doors in particular, and concludes that the states are in the best position to specify the exact locations of emergency exits on school buses. It was then stated that "The final rule, therefore, establishes general requirements for school bus emergency exit locations."

Since the majority of state school bus specifications do not address side emergency exit door locations and since those states that have in the past addressed side emergency exit door locations have not updated their specifications to accommodate the new exit requirements of the final rule and because school buses are currently being ordered and scheduled for production pursuant to the new exit requirements, the burden of selecting specific side emergency exit door locations for most new school buses fa lls on the school bus manufacturer.

Also, since there are many variables that could influence what is "as near as practicable," such as wheelhousing, fuel filler necks, seat placement, etc. Blue Bird must establish allowable limits for locating side emergency exit doors installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i). For the above reasons, we have chosen to establish limits such that the 12-inch required opening for the left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) will always be in the center one-half of the passenger compartment as defined in the final rule. (1) BLUE BIRD REQUESTS CONFIRMATION THAT LOCATING LEFT SIDE EMERGENCY EXIT DOOR AS JUST DESCRIBED MEETS BOTH THE LETTER AND INTENT OF SECTION S5.2.3.2(A)(2) REQUIREMENTS. Since NHTSA chose not to establish more specific f ore and aft location requirements for the side door in question and chose not to establish fore and aft location requirements for any additional side doors required by the Standard, we believe it is reasonable to request such flexibility in the location of the side emergency exit door required by S.5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i).

ITEM 2:

Section S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217 prior to the final rule of reference 1 in subsection (b) required the left side emergency door for this option to be in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. We find that this requirement is not retained as part o f the standard in the final rule.

Also, upon careful review of the new standard, we have concluded that other than the requirement of S5.2.3.2(a)(2) for side emergency exit doors installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i), there are no other fore and aft location requirement for any school bus side emergency exit doors. (2) WE SEEK YOUR CONFIRMATION THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS CORRECT.

ITEM 3:

There was an interpretation issued by OCC on March 9, 1977 with regard to FMVSS 217 requirements for school buses of reference 3. A copy of the interpretation is enclosed. The interpretation dealt with the requirement for side emergency exit doors that were voluntarily installed per state or customer specifications and were not required by FMVSS 217. The interpretation stated "Emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 must comply with regulations applicable to emergenc y exits in buses other than school buses." In layman's terms, the interpretation meant that side emergency exit doors that were installed in school buses voluntarily need not meet the seat placement requirement of S5.4.2.1(b) .. "A vertical transverse pl ane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency exit door" and that they were instead treated like pushout windows.

Sections S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), and (a)(2)iii) of the final rule of reference 1 and figures 5A, 5B and 5C of the technical amendment of reference 2, establish new seat and restraining barrier positioning requirements with respect to side emergenc y exit doors. Blue Bird has concluded that the March 9, 1977 interpretation does not apply to these new requirements as it did to the 1977 FMVSS 217 requirements, and that all side emergency exit doors in new school buses are now required to meet the ne w positioning requirements pursuant to the final rules of reference 1 and reference 2. (3) WE SEEK YOUR CONFIRMATION THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS CORRECT.

Since the new requirements of FMVSS 217 are effective May 2, 1997 and school buses are currently being ordered that will have to meet these new requirements, a timely response to the above three items is needed.