ID: nht94-7.40

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to faxes dated 2/11/94 and 2/10/94 from Jerry L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson (OCC 9661)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAXes of February 10 and 11, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You have informed us that in Canada you were able recently "to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp use." You have asked whether it is possible to do the same in the United States.

The answer depends upon whether the ECE Reg. 20 headlamp also meets FMVSS No. 108. Motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be equipped with headlamps that comply with FMVSS No. 108. This standard does not incorporate ECE Reg. 20. Therefore, importation and sale in the United States of any motor vehicle equipped with an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp that does not meet Standard No. 108 would be in violation of our law.

You have also asked whether our temporary exemption procedures, 49 CFR Part 555, would permit you to apply for an exemption for this headlamp on the grounds of "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." After one model year, you would change to a headlamp that meets FMVSS 108.

The exemption procedures are available to manufacturers of motor vehicles, but not motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the manufacturer of an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp could not apply for an exemption. The appropriate petitioner would be the manufacturer of a motor vehicle on which a Reg. 20 headlamp is installed as original equipment. We assume that Triumph Designs is associated with the manufacturer of Triumph motorcycles, and this manufacturer would be eligible to submit a petition under Part 555.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht75-4.14

DATE: 05/14/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gurley Refining Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of April 10, 1975, you ask whether a label you enclosed meets the requirements of Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 116.

The color coding requirements published on August 22, 1974, have been suspended for the present. The phrase "conforms or exceeds FMVSS 116" meets the requirements "certification that the brake fluid conforms to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116," although it is ungrammatical and the reference to "exceeding" is redundant.

Your label therefore meets our requirements.

YOURS TRULY,

April 10, 1975

(Illegible Word) Legal Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

Enclosed you will find a black and white laycut of the label we use to package brake fluid. We wish an official ruling from your department as to whether or not our label does conform to all the requirements of FMVSS 116 as amended in Federal Register, Volumn 39, Number 164 - Thursday, August 22, 1974. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Very truly yours, JIM BENNETT -- GURLEY REFINING CO.

Enclosure

CRG

SUPER HEAVY DUTY

BRAKE FLUID DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID 284 degrees F Min. Wet Boiling Point

NET 12 FLUID OZS. CONFORMS OR EXCEEDS FMVSS 116

GRC HYDRAULIC BRAKE FLUID

(Illegible Text)

GURLEY REFINING CO. MEMPHIS, TENN. 30102

CUST. GURLEY REFINING DESIGN (Illegible Words)

ENG. 2700-1

S.O. 244-3191

SIZE 211X467.5

C.E. 459X8364

B.P.

DATE 10-19-71

NO. PROOFS PROOF DATE CHANGE A 1-11-72 CHANGE B CHANGE C

ID: nht72-2.28

DATE: 09/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Zundapp-Werke GMBH Munchen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 8 and your follow-up letter of August 22 to Mr. Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standards Enforcement, concerning the lighting requirements for motor-driven cycles, were forwarded to this Office for consideration and reply.

The lighting requirements specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 are identical for a motorcycle and a motor-driven cycle (except for headbumper see SAE J584 April 1964), because the letter is defined in Part 571 of the standard (Illegible Word) "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less."

In addition, the answers to your specific questions follow --

1. Must the stop-light of a motor-driven cycle be operated by hand and foot brake?

Answer -

Yes. Paragraph S4.5.4 of FMVSS No. 103 requires the stop lamps on each vehicle to be activated upon application of the service brakes, and since both the hand and foot brakes are service brakes, the application of either must activate the stop lamps.

2. Does there exist any regulations concerning the light intensity of the brake-light?

Answer -

Yes. Currently stop lamps must conform in the photometric requirements specified in SAE Standard J575d. Paragraph S4.1.1.6 of FMVSS No. 108 also requires that vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, be equipped with stop lamps meeting the candlepower requirements for Class A from signal lamps in SAE J575d.

3. Are turn signal prescribed?

Answer -

Yes. Class B turn signal lamps (see SAE J575d) are required as motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, and should be mounted as specified in Table IV of FMVSS No. 108 (copy enclosed for your information).

NOT CONTROLLED

ID: 1982-2.40

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. M. Price; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 16 1982

AIR MAIL

Mr. Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section Ichikon Industries, Ltd. 80 Itado, Isehara City Kanagawa 259-11 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Takata:

This is in reference to your letter of June 30, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency concerning the effective luminous lens area of a front turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 with respect to three proposed designs.

We assume that you wish to know what is the effective projected luminous lens area for a front turn signal on vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width. The SAE Standard No. J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," which you quote, imposes no additional requirements for a two compartment front turn signal lamp. Thus, it appears that so long as you meet the minimum of 3.5 square inches for a single compartment lamp, your proposed designs (Case 1 and 2) meet the necessary requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Case 3 would not conform as neither of the two section compartments meets the 3.5 square inch minimum.

Sincerely,

Courtney M. Price Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

L57/30 June 30, 1982

Mr. Marx Elliott Program Manager Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Effective projected luminous area of Front Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Mr. Elliott,

We would like to inquire as follows. FMVSS 108 references SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, and SAE J588e prescribe Effective Projected Luminous Area as follows.

SAE J588e

3.2 The effective projected luminous area of a single compartment lamp measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of a lamp must be at least 8.0 sq in. for a rear lamp and at least 3.5 sq in. for a front lamp.

3.3 If a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp shall be at least 3 1/2 sq. in. provided the combined area is at least 8 sq in.

That is, in the case of front turn signal lamp, section 3.2 provide that Effective Projected Luminous Area should be more than 3.5 sq in.

But when we want to take into account of two compartments of front turn signal lamp, may we understand that the following cases are acceptable for FMVSS 108.

*Insert artwork

Condition of Effective Projected Luminous Area

Area A Area B A + B

Case 1 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2

Case 2

/3.5 in.2

Case 3 < 3.5 in.2 <>/3.5 in.2

We await your early reply.

Very truly yours, ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section

ID: GF000167

[ ]




Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter dated December 29, 2004, asking whether an LED lighting design concept for school buses being contemplated by your company could be used to comply with applicable Federal regulations.

Before I address your questions, I note that you requested confidential treatment of your letter. During a February 15, 2005, telephone call, George Feygin of my staff explained to you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not respond to confidential requests for an interpretation because our interpretations are made publicly available. However, NHTSA is able to keep your identity and that of your company confidential. You agreed to this approach. Thus, I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [ ] will be kept confidential from the public. Your incoming interpretation request will be redacted before being made publicly available.

By way of background, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

In your letter, you describe a dual function school bus signal lamp that flashes amber when the bus is slowing down and red when it has stopped. You indicate that the lamp meets all "SAE light output requirements". You ask whether using one lighting device for both functions is permitted by our standards.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to school bus signal lamps is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires each school bus to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, or four red and four amber signal lamps designed to conform to the same SAE standard (with certain exceptions for the amber lamps).

Additionally, S5.1.4(b) requires, in pertinent part, that if the bus is equipped with four amber lamps, their candlepower must be at least 2 1/2 times that specified for red signal lamps. Further, the amber signal lamps can be activated only by manual or foot operation, and must automatically deactivate when the red signal lamps automatically activate because the bus entrance door is opened.

While the language of FMVSS No. 108 contemplates separate sets of red and amber signal lamps, it is our opinion that dual function school bus signal lamps that flash both red and amber could be used to meet the standards requirements. We note that S5.4 of FMVSS No. 108 permits combining two or more lamps if the requirements for each lamp are met. In this case, the following requirements of S5.1.4(b) would need to be satisfied:

1. The candlepower of the amber lamp must be at least 2 1/2 times that specified for the red signal lamp in SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964.
2. The amber signal lamps can activate only by manual or foot operation
3. The amber lamps must automatically deactivate when the bus entrance door is opened
4. 4) The red lamps must automatically activate when the bus entrance door is opened

We also note that under SAE J887, the portion of the lamp that emits red light and the portion of the lamp that emits amber light must each provide an effective projected illuminated area of not less than 19 sq. inches.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

/s

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/17/05

ID: Yuen.1

Mr. Derek Yuen
Xtest, Inc.
16035 Caputo Drive, Suite A
Morgan Hill, CA 95037




Dear Mr. Yuen:

This responds to your recent e-mail to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you seek clarification regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, pertaining to motorcycle headlamps. Specifically, you asked whether a motorcycle (or a three-wheeled vehicle with two wheels at the front) may be equipped with a four-headlamp system (with two lower beams and two upper beams), and if so, whether it would be permissible to place one set of lamps (either the lower beams or upper beams) closer to the outer edge of the vehicle, provided that the other two lamps are within 200 mm of each other. As discussed below, FMVSS No. 108 does not permit a motorcycle headlamp system composed of more than two headlamps, so we need not consider the additional issue of spacing of a second pair of headlamps.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. As an initial matter, you are correct in that the three-wheeled vehicle mentioned in your letter would be considered a "motorcycle" under our regulations. Under 49 CFR 571.3, "motorcycle" is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contract with the ground".

The requirements for motor vehicle lighting are contained in FMVSS No. 108, with the headlighting requirements for motorcycles set forth in S7.9, Motorcycles. In particular, paragraph S7.9.6 requires that a headlighting system be located on the front of the motorcycle and, most pertinent to your proposed design, be installed in accordance with the requirements of S7.9.6.2. The requirements of S7.9.6.2 are as follows:

(a) If the system consists of a single headlamp, it shall be mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.

(b)    If the system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline.

(c)     If the system consists of two headlamps, one of which provides an upper beam and one of which provides the lower beam, the headlamps shall be located on the vertical centerline with the upper beam no higher than the lower beam, or horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline and mounted at the same height.

Because the system your letter envisions consists of four headlamps, it would not meet the requirements of S7.9.6.2 of FMVSS No. 108. (We note further that the Japan Auto Parts Industries Association submitted a petition for rulemaking in 1998, which included a request to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow four distinct headlamps on motorcycles, but the agency decided not to do so (see 69 FR 55993 (Sept. 17, 2004). ) Because such a system is not permitted under Standard No. 108, we need not analyze this system in terms of the motorcycle headlamp location requirements contained in paragraph S7.9.6 of the standard.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.1/4/06

ID: 24258.drn

Mr. Mark Perez
UniServ Director/Education Support Personnel Specialist
Georgia Association of Educators
100 Crescent Centre Parkway, Suite 500
Tucker, GA 30084-7049

Dear Mr. Perez:

This responds to your question about how Federal law would affect legislation being considered in Georgia that would require upgrades of older public school buses to meet current Federal school bus standards. Our answer is provided below.

In your letter, you state that proposed legislation in Georgia:

would call for all current buses to be modified to include such items as: cross-over mirrors on each bus which shall be adjusted such that the driver may view the front and both sides of the bus from the drivers seat; functioning parking brakes on each bus; and an extension arm or gate on the front of each bus which may be activated by the driver to prevent passengers from crossing immediately in front of the bus.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the proposed legislation would apply only to public school buses that are already owned by the schools or school districts (i.e., used school buses). You further stated that the legislation would apply only to vehicles that, when first sold, were certified by the manufacturer as meeting Federal school bus safety standards. You also asked that we discuss only the proposed legislations requirements for convex-cross view mirrors, parking brakes and crossing control arms.

Mirrors and Parking Brakes

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) require that all presently manufactured school buses have convex-cross view mirrors (Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors) and parking brakes (Standards No. 105, Hydraulic and electric brake systems and No. 121, Air brake systems). Since the school buses that are the subject of the legislation were manufactured before the effective dates of the school bus mirror and parking brake requirements, the proposed legislation would require retrofitting of older buses to meet current requirements.

One issue raised by your inquiry is whether the State legislation would be preempted by Federal law. Our answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSAs) preemption authority, specified at 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), states in part:

(1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter [49 U.S.C. Sections 30101 et seq.], a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.

We assume that you are asking about a State provision that would require that only school buses that have the specified school bus mirrors and parking brakes can be operated in the state. Generally, a State is not required to impose operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSSs. Nonetheless, there are limits on State operational requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles generally preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to the vehicles under the FMVSSs, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State. However, these preemption principles do not apply to vehicles, such as school buses, procured by a State or local governmental jurisdiction for its own use. Since the legislation you describe would apply only to public school buses, 30103(b) would not preempt the legislation you describe.

Another issue raised by your inquiry is whether NHTSA has any restrictions on the type of modifications that can be made to used vehicles. Nothing in NHTSAs laws would prohibit an owner (i.e., public or private school) from upgrading its used school buses to meet the most current Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The provision in NHTSAs statute addressing modifications of new and used vehicles is at 49 U.S.C. Section 30122(b), which states:

a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter [49 U.S.C. Section 30101 et seq.] unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

Section 30122(b) does not apply to an owner modifying its own vehicles. It does not apply to private schools, public schools or public school districts that make changes to their own used school buses in their own bus garages or repair and maintenance facilities. It does apply to other entities, e.g., motor vehicle repair businesses that, in making modifications for a school district, may do so in a way that takes a school bus out of compliance with a FMVSS requirement. For example, FMVSS No. 121 specifies requirements for the time to apply and release the service brakes via the drivers treadle control. If the modifications to achieve functioning parking brakes resulted in a longer time to apply or release the service brakes that exceeded the FMVSS No. 121 requirement, the motor vehicle repair business would be in violation of the aforementioned section.

Crossing Control Arms

No FMVSS specifies crossing control arms on a school bus. NHTSA had considered requiring crossing control arms on school buses to reduce the risk of school buses striking student pedestrians, but decided against doing so:

After reviewing these comments [public comments on an advance rulemaking notice], the agency has determined not to propose requiring these devices on school buses. The agency notes that a crossing control arm does not provide school bus drivers with a positive means for detecting the presence of a pedestrian. Instead, a crossing control arm merely offers a backup device to help keep children in areas more easily observable by the driver. The agency believes that improving mirror systems offers a larger potential benefit to improving school bus pedestrian safety. Nevertheless, States which favor this device should continue to install them on school buses.

See 56 FR 20171, at 20178; May 2, 1991, copy enclosed. Thus, a State requirement for crossing control arms on public school buses would not be preempted.

State Liability Issues

Further, you expressed concern about "potential liability" that could be associated with this proposed legislation. Since the proposed legislation would amend Georgia law, any liability issues would be determined by Georgia law. I would suggest that your organization consult with an attorney knowledgeable about this aspect of Georgia law for advice on potential liability issues.

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

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

ref:VSA#571.3

d.8/2/02

ID: nht78-2.22

DATE: 04/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1977, to the Administrator asking whether an Illinois standard applicable to school bus lighting is neither preempted by nor violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S4.1.4(b) (ii) of Standard No. 108 requires that:

"The [school bus signal lamp] system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation and, if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened."

Under the Illinois requirement (4.2.18.2) the amber signal lamps appear to be activated only by manual or foot control (4.2.18.2 (d)), and are automatically deactivated when the bus entrance door is opened (4.2.18.2 (e) and (f)). The red signal lamps are activated before the bus entrance door is opened (4.2.18.2 (e)) and remain activated when the door is opened (4.2.18.2 (f)). Thus, these portions of the Illinois requirement comply with Standard No. 108.

As for the remaining portions of 4.2.18.2, they dictate sequential operational requirements of the 8-lamp system and stop arm (an item of equipment not required by Standard No. 108). To accomplish this operation, 4.2.18.2 requires that "A separate circuit breaker and a master switch shall be provided for this signal system." You have asked whether this is preempted by Standard No. 108.

The aspect of performance involved here is that of wiring requirements for school bus warning lamps. Standard No. 108 specifies the manner in which these lamps shall operate but it is silent as to the ways this performance shall be achieved. Therefore Illinois is not preempted from requiring a separate circuit breaker and master cylinder in school bus lighting systems, a specification which is one of good engineering practice and probably used as a matter of course by most school bus manufacturers.

SINCERELY,

Illinois Department of Transportation

September 22, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

In this letter, I ask you to advise that the Illinois safety standard for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps does not violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. I also ask that you advise this Illinois standard is not preempted under provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (PL 89-563). We are asking for these statements because a representative of one school bus manufacturer has stated the Illinois standard violates a portion of FMVSS 108, as interpreted by his company.

Before going into details, I will present some background information.

School buses are defacto mobile traffic control devices. To lessen confusion and earn public respect and compliance, their signals must be displayed in a consistent and reasonable manner.

When a conventional traffic signal at an intersection changes to yellow (amber) some drivers will decelerate and stop; others will continue or will accelerate (if traffic permits), attempting to enter the intersection before the signal changes to red. Drivers usually react the same way to yellow alternately flashing school bus signal lamps -- some slow down; some continue or speed up. In addition, some drivers tend to disobey the red school bus signals even though they might tend to obey red traffic signals at intersections.

Exuberant and impulsive pupils rushing out of a school bus are likely to dash into a roadway -- without checking whether all vehicles have stopped.

Under very cold, inclement, or severe weather conditions, many pupils tend to remain in their homes or other shelter until the school bus arrives.

Police have reported that school bus drivers tend to keep the service door closed while waiting in cold, inclement, or severe weather, opening the door as each pupil arrives. This is done to prevent loss of heat and/or entrance of snow, sleet, or rain. (This tendency was mentioned in the 2nd paragraph on page 4 of "ILLINOIS COMMENT ON PROPOSED TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM STANDARD 17, PUPIL AND YOUTH TRANSPORTATION SAFETY -- DRAFT OF JUNE 30, 1970, VERSION A" which was submitted 9-30-70 in response to Traffic Safety Program Letter 42-11, dated 6-30-70.)

Studies show a significant portion of school bus related pupil fatalities and injuries in Illinois occur while the pupil is a pedestrian.

A copy of "ILLINOIS MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR TYPE 1 SCHOOL BUSES", effective July 1, 1977, a copy of Section 12-812 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (referred to therein), and a transmitting memorandum are enclosed. Please note that these Standards apply to every Type 1 school bus procured for use in Illinois. Also, the FMVSS applicable to buses are included by reference (1.2, 4.1, & 5.1). This inclusion eliminates doubts about state and local agencies with enforcement powers having authority to enforce those FMVSS.

The Illinois standard for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps is set forth at 4.2.18.2 on pages 15 and 16 of the enclosed Standards. The prescribed sequence of operations, (a) through (j), describes operations on a typical Type 1 school bus equipped with a manual service door operating mechanism, in which a signal control switch (or switches) is operated by movement of the door control handle. Of course, each of the described operations is not used deliberately by the school bus driver at every stop.

The "master switch" is moved to "off" only when complying with statutory and administrative requirements (upper portion of page 15).

After stopping on a clear roadway to load or unload pupils, the school bus driver might move the door control handle from its "secured" or "travel" position to its "door-fully-open" position in one rapid and continuous movement. In this case Operation (e) is of very short duration but, still, the signal switch(es) acts to deactivate and activate the yellow and red signals before the service door is opened.

After discharging or loading pupils, the driver might move the door control handle from its "door-fully-open" position to its "secured" or "travel" position in one rapid, continuous movement. In this case Operation (g) is of very short duration, Operation (i) is bypassed, and Operation (j) is completed. But, still, the door is closed before the signal switch(es) acts to extinguish the red signals.

There are many stops, however, where Operations (e) and (f) and/or Operations (g) and (h) are important to pupil safety, orderly traffic movement, and traffic safety.

When a school bus driver reaches a stop where other vehicles are moving on the roadway, Operation (e) allows him to hold exuberant and impulsive pupils in the bus by keeping the service door closed until all other vehicles have stopped in response to display of the red alternately flashing signal lamps. With the manual service door control, he does this by moving the door control handle, or lever, only a short distance from its "secured" or "travel" position, but not far enough to open the service door. After all other vehicles have stopped, the bus driver can use Operation (f) and allow pupils to leave the bus. Without either Operation (e) or its equivalent, which usually has not been provided with power operated doors, the school bus driver must open the service door to activate the red signals, and thereby, discharge exuberant and impulsive pupils onto the roadway before all drivers of moving vehicles react to the signal change from yellow to red.

Operation (e) also allows a school bus driver to prevent loss of heat and/or the entrance of snow, sleet, or rain during very cold or severe weather conditions by keeping the service door closed while pupils dash from their home or other shelter to the stopped, red-signalling bus.

When a school bus driver has stopped and admitted a pupil, Operation (g) allows him to maintain display of red signals without losing heat or allowing entrance of snow, sleet, or rain while waiting for the arrival of other pupil(s) during cold or severe weather. With a manual service door, he does this by moving the door control handle, or lever, far enough to close the door but not far enough to extinguish the red signals (which happens when the control is moved to its "secured" or "travel" position). With signal controls arranged as they often are on power operated service doors, closing of the door prevents display of the red signals and other vehicles move. This endangers pupils as they arrive at the school bus. When alternate opening and closing of such a door causes intermittent operation of the red signals, drivers of other vehicles become confused or frustrated and tend to lose respect for the special school bus signals.

The sequence of operations prescribed in 4.1.18.2(a) through-(j) (including ability to "skip through" Operations (e) and (g) and to "bypass" Operations (f) and (h), as desired) is either inherent in or easily provided with nearly every manually operated service door control device on Type 1 school buses. However, many power operated service door control devices in use and being manufactured do not provide for such a sequence of operations -- particularly Operations (e) and (f) and Operations (g) and (h). In the past, a typical power door has been either fully-closed-and-secured or fully-opened, with the signals controlled by those conditions and with no provision for intermediate conditions and/or Operations (e) and (g).

We have been requested to change the Illinois Standard (4.2.18.2) so as to accommodate typical power operated door mechanisms and controls as they have been designed and manufactured in the past. We have responded by stating the required sequence of signal operations must be provided whether the service door is manual or power operated and have interpreted the standard so as to ease certain apparent requirements in 4.2.18.2(e) and 4.2.18.2(g). The enclosed letter dated September 15, 1977, was sent to each school bus manufacturer.

Conditions causing traffic hazards or confusion should not be perpetuated merely to accommodate the traditional designs of a convenience such as a power operated service entrance door -- whether the bus is procured by the State, a local government, a public school district, or a religious or private organization or person. School buses that conform to the Illinois standard for alternately flashing school bus signal lamps (4.2.18.2) will provide for lessening or preventing dangers to pupils in roadways near stopped buses.

It seems clear that such buses conform to S4.1.4(b)(ii) in FMVSS 108. On such buses the yellow (amber) signals are activated only by manual or foot operation and, if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signals automatically activated when the bus service entrance door is opened.

It seems clear that the Illinois Standard (4.2.18.2) is not preempted by FMVSS 108 under provisions of Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (PL 89-563). The Illinois requirements for a separate circuit breaker and a "master switch" and for controls that provide Operations (e) and (f) and Operations (g) and (h) apply to each Type 1 school bus procured by a person, organization, or government in Illinois. They are prescribed to govern aspects and provide safety not governed or provided by FMVSS 108.

Will you please affirm that:

The Illinois standard (4.2.18.2) for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps does not violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108; and The Illinois standard (4.2.18.2) for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps is not preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

Karsten J. Vieg Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ID: gustback_doorlatch

Dr. Peter Gust
Kirchhoff GmbH & Co. KG
Oststrasse 1
58553 Halver
Germany

Dear Dr. Gust:

This letter responds to your e-mail and fax inquiries into the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. You asked a question about how a specific back door latch configuration is tested under the procedures specified in the standard. We have addressed your question below.

Your letter describes a back door that opens upward, with a single latch at the bottom of the door with a single striker on the back door sill. According to the diagrams sent with your letter, the latch is comprised of two sections. When the latch is engaged, (1) the portion of the latch that is attached to the door is oriented perpendicular to the vehicle floor plane (the "upper section"), and (2) the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker is oriented along a plane that is roughly 45 degrees to the vehicle floor plane (the "lower section"). The diagrams also show that the striker plate is parallel to the lower section, with the striker oriented perpendicular to the striker plate. You asked how the test procedures in Load Test One and Load Test Two of FMVSS No. 206 apply to your latch assembly.

FMVSS No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components including latches, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from their vehicle as a result of an impact. Under FMVSS No. 206, hinged back doors must comply with several load requirements, including:

S4.4.1.1  Load Test One. The primary door latch and striker assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) is applied in the direction perpendicular to the face of the latch (corresponding to the longitudinal load test for side door latches) such that the latch and the striker anchorage are not compressed against each other. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch and striker assembly shall not separate when a load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied in the same direction.

S4.4.1.2  Load Test Two. The primary door latch and striker assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) is applied in the direction of the fork-bolt opening and parallel to the face of the latch (corresponding to the transverse load test). Figure 1 depicts the loading direction for this test. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch and striker assembly shall not separate when a load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied in the same direction.

As indicated in S4.4.1.1 and S4.4.1.2, the orientation of the latch face dictates the direction of the loads. FMVSS No. 206 does not define latch face, but we have stated that SAE J839, Passenger car side door latch systems (JUN91), provides guidance on its meaning (see 60 FR 50124, 50128; September 28, 1995). While SAE J839 does not define latch face, it defines "latch plate" as "the main body or frame for supporting working components, appendages and transmitting or distributing loads to the door structure" (S3.1.1).

Based on the specifications in S4.4.1.1, Load Test One would be oriented with the lower section of the latch face in question. While S4.4.1.1 does not specifically address testing a latch face that aligns with more than one plane, the section does specify that the latch and striker anchorage should not compress upon application of the load. The intent of Load Test One is to apply the load such that there is no engagement of the latch face by the striker. This is accomplished with your latch assembly by applying the test load in a direction perpendicular to the lower portion of the latch face. By contrast, application of the test load perpendicular to the upper portion of the test face would result in some compression; i.e. , the striker would engage the latch face to some extent, and would thus not test the latch as specified by the standard.

Regarding the application of Load Test Two to your latch system, again the standard indicates that the direction of force should be oriented with the lower section of the latch face. Load Test Two specifies application of the load in the direction of the fork-bolt opening, parallel to the face of the latch. Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 206 illustrates that Load Test Two is applied in a direction that is parallel to the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker. On the latch face in question, this corresponds to the lower section. Testing in this manner is consistent with the intent of the standard to test the latch in a manner representative of opening the door.

Further, applying Load Test One and Two as described would test your latch in a manner consistent with the longitudinal and transverse testing specified for side door latches, respectively. Additionally, orienting the test loads to the lower portion of the latch face would permit testing in accordance with SAE J934, as intended by the agency (see 60 FR 50128).

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.11/19/04

ID: 77-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Eckert; Seamans; Cherin & Mellott

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 13, 1977, to Robert Aubuchon of this agency on behalf of your client Charles J. Sechan. Mr. Sechan has imported a 1976 Ferrari that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and you have inquired whether, as a statutory manufacturer, he may apply for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection on the basis that compliance would cause him substantial economic hardship.

In our view he may not do so. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act includes in its definition of "manufacturer" any person "importing motor vehicles . . . for resale." Your client does not appear to be a manufacturer since he has imported only a single motor vehicle personally for his own use. There is nothing in your letter that indicates he is importing motor vehicles for resale.

Section 123 of the Act was not intended to apply to the occasional importer of a motor vehicle but to business entities engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. Thus the exemptions provided are "temporary," meaning that after the date of expiration motor vehicles produced by the manufacturer must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards from which they were previously exempted. Exemptions do not provide retroactive coverage and apply only to vehicles manufactured after the effective date of the exemption's grant (See 49 CFR 555.7(f)).

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT

September 13, 1977

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Attention Robert Abuschon:

Re: N41-22CUS

In a telephone conversation with you on September 2, 1977, you agreed to provide me with an updated listing of the various exemptions from the FMVSS which have been granted to various manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles. To date, I have not received this information.

As you may recall, I represent Sechan Coal Company, Inc. which, on July 21, 1977, imported a 1976 Ferrari, BB, Serial No. 18587. Mr. Charles J. Sechan, the President of Sechan Coal Company, is presently endeavoring to bring his automobile into compliance with the applicable FMVSS. In order to do so, Mr. Sechan wanted to know whether there were any exemptions granted from the FMVSS with respect to his vehicle.

Section 123(d)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:

"No manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production exceeds 10,000, as determined by the Secretary, shall be eligible to apply for an exemption under paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section".

Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of Section 123 of the Act provides that an exemption may be granted upon an application by a "manufacturer" on the ground:

"(1)(A) that compliance would cause such manufacturer substantial economic hardship and that the manufacturer has, in good faith, attempted to comply with each standard from which it requests to be exempted".

Section 102(5) of the Act defines a "manufacturer" as follows:

"'Manufacturer' means any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale". (Emphasis added)

As you know, the Ferrari Boxer is an extremely limited production vehicle which is assembled by hand at the Ferrari plant in Italy. Moreover, it appears from the sections of the Act quoted above that "any person importing motor vehicles . . . for resale" (Section 102(5)) would be considered a "manufacturer". Accordingly, if that "manufacturer" were to import an insubstantial number of vehicles, he would be eligible to apply for an exemption from the FMVSS pursuant to Section 123(a)(1)(A) of the Act, i.e., on the ground of substantial economic hardship.

According to an itemized list of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards provided as an enclosure to Form FL-80, which was sent to my client on August 12, 1977, the 1976 Ferrari Boxer may not comply with FMVSS, Section 215, relating to exterior protection. Preliminary inquiries made by my client reveal that FMVSS Section 215, requiring the replacement of original "bumpers" with those which will comply with that standard, is incredibly expensive.

Accordingly, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to provide me with an interpretation of Section 123 of the Act relating to exemptions. Specifically, I would like to know whether my client is eligible to apply for an exemption from Section 215 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards pertaining to bumpers on the 1976 Ferrari Boxer he has imported into this country on the ground of substantial economic hardship.

Please regard this request as merely an inquiry. My client fully intends to use his best efforts to bring his vehicle into compliance with all applied standards from which his vehicle is not exempted. However, before expending the sums of money necessary to do so, he requested that this inquiry be made.

Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated.

Mark A. Willard