ID: nht88-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takashi Ohdaira Isuzu Motors America Inc. 21115 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Ohdaira:

This responds to your December 16, 1987 letter asking several questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to "swivel type front seats" installed in new compact passenger vans. I regret the delay in responding. Swivel seats are not prohibited by Standard No 207. However, under Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and upper torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat in any position in which the seat would be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, including the rearward facing position.

Your letter explains that Isuzu is interested in manufacturing some of its vehicles with swivel seats for the driver and front outboard passenger. The seats can be rotated in any direction and self-locked into either a forward-facing or a rearward-facing direction. A release control is provided allowing the seat to be rotated into a new position. You state that Isuzu tentatively plans to install lap and upper torso belt assemblies with emergency-locking retractors that "meet the requirements applicable to a forward-facing front seat" since the capability of the seats to face rearward is "just a secondary function."

You first ask for confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 207 does not prohibit the installation of front outboard swivel seats. Your understanding is correct. Our standards do not require seats on vehicles other than large school buses to b e forward-facing and thus do not thereby expressly prohibit installation of swivel seats.

Your letter raises the issue of whether the swivel seat installed at the front outboard passenger seating position must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and thus provide lap and upper torso restraints only for the forward-facing position (as opposed to what you term the "secondary" or rearward position). Paragraph S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 states, in pertinent part: . . . The lap belt of any seat belt assembly furnished in accordance with S4.1.1 and S1.1.2 shall adjust by means of an em ergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th-percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th-percentile adult male and the upper torso restraint shall adjust by means o f an emergency-locking retractor or a manual adjusting device that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female to those of a 95th-percentile adult male with the seat in any position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position. . . . (Emphasis added.)

The quoted reference to seat "position" in the excerpt from S7.1.1 is not limited to the positions along the vehicle longitudinal centerline to which a seat can be adjusted while forward-facing. We interpret the term as referring also to seat orientation , including the rearward-facing position or any other direction the seat is capable of facing, provided that the seat can be placed in those positions while the vehicle is in motion. Thus, we believe that a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and up per torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat while the seat is in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. Starting September 1, 1991, light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with manual safety belts for the driver and front seat passenger seating position will have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 in a dynamic crash test. A front outboard swivel seat would have to comply with those requirements with the seat in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion.

We have limited our interpretation to positions in which a seat may be occupied while the vehicle is in motion for the following reasons. The purpose of requiring a seat belt assembly to meet the adjustment requirements of Standard No. 208 with the seat in any position is to ensure that adequate occupant crash protection would be provided to the occupant of the seat regardless of the position he or she chooses for the seat. However, the safety goal of ensuring adequate crash protection for vehicle occup ants relates only to positions in which a seat may be occupied when a vehicle is involved in a crash, i.e., the positions in which a seat may be occupied while a vehicle is in motion. If the swivel seat you plan to install for the front outboard seating position can only be used in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion, then it need meet Standard No. 208's requirements only at forward facing positions and need not conform with the standard's requirements at positions facing in other directions.

In your letter, you suggested the possible ways to limit the rearward-facing capabilities of a front outboard swivel seat. First, you suggested that the vehicle could be manufactured with an interlock system that would prevent the vehicle from starting u nless the front passenger seat faces forward. In our opinion, this system would not sufficiently ensure that the swivel seat would be used only in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion. An occupant of the seat could swivel his or her seat once the vehicle has started and could thus face rearward without the benefit of lap and upper torso restraints.

Your second suggestion has to manufacture the vehicle such that the front passenger seat could swivel rearward only when the driver seat rotated rearward or when the vehicle was "in park." This would prevent the passenger's seat from facing in any direction other than forward while the vehicle was in motion since the driver must face forward to operate the vehicle. We believe that this alternative could satisfactorily ensure that the front outboard p assenger seating position could not face in any direction other than forward while the vehicle is in motion.

In addition to the requirements discussed above, we note also that Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, would require the front outboard swivel seat to have seat belt anchorages for a Type II seat belt assembly. The anchorages would have to m eet the standard's strength requirements (S4.2), and those for their location (S4.3) provided that the safety belt will not be dynamically tested pursuant to Standard No. 208's requirements. Anchorages for a front outboard swivel seat that can be occupie d in its rearward facing position while the vehicle is in motion could be tested to the requirements of 54.2 by the agency with the seat in either the forward or rearward facing position.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December, 16, 1987

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

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subject: Swivel Type Seats - Interpretation

This letter is intended to seek your agency' s advice on the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) as they related to the swivel type front (first row) seats which Isuzu Motors is planning to use for its compact passenger vans.

This van will have two swivel seats in the first row, one for the driver and the other for front seat passenger. These seats are used as forward-facing seats when the vehicle is in motion but while in park they can be swiveled 180 degrees to face rear-wa rd. The swivel mechanism has a self-lock which locks the seat in position as it is turned every 780 degrees. The users manually manipulate a release control to swivel the seat. An example of how these seats are used is shown in the Attachment.

Since the rearward-facing is just a secondary function of these seats, Isuzu Motors is planning to design these seats to meet the requirements applicable to a forward-facing front seat and a forward-facing front outboard designated seating position. that is, FMVSS 207, 208 and 270. Therefore, Type 2 seat belt assemblies with emergency locking retractors will be installed for both the driver and front seat passenger.

The following is our understanding and questions on FMVSS compliance. I would appreciate receiving your answer to these questions along with any comments you may have.

1. FMVSS does not prohibit using swivel seats in the first row or this type or vehicles. Is this understanding correct?

2. While the vehicle is in motion, the front passenger may want to remain facing rearward. Is such a condition permissible under FMVSS?

3. If the front passenger seat were required to face forward while the vehicle is in motion. Isuzu Motors is considering either of the following arrangements. I would request your comments on these plans:

a. The vehicle does not start unless the front passenger seat faces forward.

b. The front passenger seat swivels together with the driver seat and hence faces forward while the vehicle is being driven.

I would appreciate receiving your answer or comments at your earliest convenience since Isuzu would like to start its design work soon.

Sincerely yours,

Takashi Ohdaira Chief Representative Emission & Safety

/jj c: Mr. Fukuhara, Isuzu Motors, Japan

ID: 08-007826 Testlabs May 15 09

ID: GF008126

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Mail Code 3C02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter of November 4, 2003, and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding applicability of certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201 "Occupant protection in interior impact," to sliding interior compartment doors. Specifically, you ask whether a sliding interior compartment door that does not project outward like a pivoting or hinged door would is subject to the requirements of S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201. In short, our answer is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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 prior to the initial sale of the vehicle.

FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201 specifies that doors to interior compartments must remain latched when subjected to certain forces that might be experienced in a crash. The determination of whether an interior compartment door is subject to the requirements of S5.3 is determined by both the location of the door and whether the door fits within the definition of "interior compartment door."S5.3 applies only to interior compartment doors located in the instrument panel, console, seat back or side panels adjacent to a designated seating position. We are assuming that the interior compartment in question is located in either the instrument panel, the console, the seat back or a side panel.

49 CFR 571.3(b) defines "interior compartment door" as "any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects" (emphasis added). For example, an ashtray is not normally used for storing personal effects, and therefore its cover is not considered to be an interior compartment door. [1] Similarly, the agency has also indicated that a fuse box door [2] and a cup holder door [3] are not interior compartment doors subject to the requirements of S5.3. In your phone conversation with George Feygin you indicated that the interior compartment in question is intended to store personal effects, thus making it subject to the requirements of S5.3.

The agency has never made a distinction between a sliding interior compartment doors and other, pivoting or hinged doors that project outward when opened. In your letter you assert that an open sliding compartment door does not present a potential for occupant injury because an open sliding compartment door does not project outward into the interior of the vehicle. S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201 requires that doors in the console or a side panel remain closed regardless of the method by which a manufacturer chooses to open or close them. The concern that an open door could cause occupant injury when there is a lateral or diagonal impact is not limited to a protrusion created by an open door. Rather, the concern addressed by the requirement is that a sharp or rigid surface does not expose an occupant to undue risk of injury.

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,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.2/12/04

ID: Conklin_6526

William Conklin, Esq.
410 Central Avenue
Strain Building, Suite 309
Great Falls, MT 59403-2049




Dear Mr. Conklin:

This responds to your letter in which you asked several questions about the requirements for safety belts under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.You specifically asked about the requirements for rear side-facing seats in a 1999 van. As explained below, the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 depend in part on the type of vehicle in which the seats were installed and on the vehicles gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

In your letter you asked about the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 with respect to a 1999 van used to transport criminal-detainees.You stated that the back of the van is equipped with "an expanded metal cage" that contains two side-facing bench seats.You then asked if the bench seats were required to have safety belts.

I note that we do not have sufficient information about the van in question.Therefore, I will discuss generally the seat belt requirements for side-facing rear seats in vans.

Generally, manufacturers are required to manufacture vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.49 U.S.C. 30112 provides that:

A person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title.

In general, our regulations apply to vehicles up to the point of their first retail sale.

The applicability of requirements under FMVSS No. 208 is specific to vehicle-type. The seat belt requirements for seats as you described, and the appropriate citations, were essentially the same in 1999 as those that currently apply.A vehicle originally manufactured as you described effectively would be required to have a Type 1 (lap-only) or Type 2 (lap and shoulder) belt installed at each rear side-facing designated seating position if:

• the vehicle is a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle that has either a gross vehicle weight rating which is greater than 8,500 pounds, but not greater than 10,000 pounds, or has an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 pounds and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.2.3); or
• the vehicle is a bus (i.e., a vehicle designed to carry 10 or more persons) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.4.3.2).

The vehicle would not be required to have seat belts at the rear side-facing designated seating positions if:

• the vehicle is classified as a bus and has a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds (S4.4.3.1);
• the vehicle is a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds (S4.3.2; the vehicle could instead comply with specified crash requirements); or
• the vehicle is a truck or a multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR of less than 8,500 pounds and an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 pounds.

We note that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less will be required to have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at rear side-facing designated seating positions beginning September 1, 2007 (see, 69 Federal Register 70904; December 8, 2004).

Finally, if the side-facing seats were added to a certified, completed vehicle by a dealer or distributor prior to first retail sale of the vehicle, we would consider that party an "alterer" (see, 49 CFR 567.7).Accordingly, the vehicle as altered would be required to comply with all applicable FMVSSs (see 49 U.S.C. 30112).

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.11/3/05

ID: 1984-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Marion Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road

High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your recent correspondence concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Your correspondence comprised two letters to this office. In your first letter, you asked two questions regarding the labeling requirements for emergency exits. Your second letter inquired into the provision of push-out windows in buses other than school buses.

Your first question concerns the labeling of emergency exits in non-school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Section 5.5.1 of the Standard requires labels for all emergency exits except for doors and roll-down windows.

The purpose of the emergency exit marking requirements of Standard No. 217 is to identify for occupants the location and use of specially-installed emergency exits. In the case of buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 217 permits the emergency exit requirements to be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which are manually operable to an open position that provides a specified area for egress. Standard roll-down windows generally meet these requirements. The agency has determined that the operation of standard roll-down windows and doors are generally familiar to persons who are old enough to read instructions. Thus there would be little justification for providing emergency exit markings for these exits. On the other hand, Section 5.5.1 provides that specially-installed emergency exits whose operation are not immediately obvious in such buses, such as push-out windows, are not exempted from the emergency exit identification requirement.

Your second question asked:

Would there be any labeling requirements for push-out windows, on a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, if installed in addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.1 since these push-out windows are not required by this section?

The answer to your question depends on whether the additional windows are designed or constructed as emergency exits. Standard No. 217 does not require that every exit installed in a school bus beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 must comply with the requirements applicable to school bus exits. On the other hand, additional emergency exits in school buses, beyond those required by Standard No. 217, must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses if the exit is intended as an emergency exit. These additional exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of the standard.

In your second letter to this agency you described a situation where school bus contractors utilize school buses as general transit vehicles on charter trips when the buses are not in use for school purposes. You asked, "Are these buses required to have push-out windows as mandated for non-school buses since they are manufactured and sold primarily as school buses?"

The answer to your question is no. The vehicles you described would have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards if they are sold as school buses. Thus, these vehicles would only be subject to the standards applicable to school buses. Further, even though these vehicles are not subject to the safety standards applicable to vehicles other than school buses, I would note that Standard No. 217 does not mandate push-out windows to be used for emergency exits in non-school buses. The agency determined that devices such as panels and doors which meet the emergency exit requirements would be as effective as push-out windows for emergency egress. Sliding emergency exits must, of course, comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 217. They must be capable of complying with the standard when the non-exit half of the window is either open or closed. Also, while the standard permits devices other than push-out windows to be used for emergency exits, the agency prefers the use of push-out emergency exits because they are less likely to "bind up" during a side impact than sliding emergency exits.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 21, 1984

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

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I would like to request an interpretation of a particular situation which appears to be common among school bus contractors in various states.

Many contractors will purchase school buses to be used to transport students to and from school and school related events, during normal school hours. In the evenings and during the summer the contractors will cover the school bus signs and use these buses for charter trips for various groups.

My question is, are these buses required to have push-out windows as mandated for non-school buses since they are manufactured and sold primarily as school buses?

Thank you in advance for your assistance in clearing up this matter.

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jm

Enclosure

cc: Ed Swain Bob Nelson - Wisconsin Dist.

March 19, 1984

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

Dear Sir,

I would like to request interpretations of two areas of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217.76, with regards to the labeling of Emergency exits.

1. FMVSS 217.76, part S5.5.1 appears to require the labeling of all emergency exits in non-school buses with the following exceptions:

A. Windows serving as emergency exits in accordance with S5.5.2.(b) (Push-out windows in buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.)

B. Doors in buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.

Would it, therefore, be correct to assume that a non-school bus 2 with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less has no requirements as to the labeling of emergency exits?

2. Section 5.5.3 of FMVSS 217.76 requires that each school bus emergency exit provided in accordance with S5.2.3.1 be labeled in a specified manner.

A. Would there be any labeling requirements for pushout windows, on a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less, if installed in addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.1 since these push-out windows are not required by this section?

Thank you for your assistance with these matters. Sincerely,

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jm

ID: nht74-4.33

DATE: 07/08/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 28, 1974, question whether a short neoprene connector of two steel vacuum brake lines in the Bendix Hydrovac unit is subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses.

The neoprene connector functions as a brake hose under the definition set out in the standard:

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit that transmits or contains the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

The determination of the "flexibility" of a particular brake line material is a difficult but important decision. Flexibility is required in brake lines for at least two reasons. First and most important is the flexibility required to accommodate large amounts of relative motion in service, in frame-to-axle applications for example. Less obvious but important is the flexibility required in the event a brake line is displaced during repair or alteration of the brake system or other nearby vehicle components. A mechanic's decision to bend a brake line during repairs may depend on whether it "looks" flexible, and therefore appearance becomes an important element of the determination. On this basis the NHTSA has concluded that copper and steel chassis plumbing, for example, do not invite bending during repairs because their appearance makes their relative inflexibility obvious.

In contrast, plastic air brake chassis plumbing and small sections of hose used to connect steel or copper tubing, are examples of "flexible conduits" that invite bending in order to make repairs. To ensure that these "flexible conduits" are not damaged when they are displaced, they are considered brake hose subject to the bend and deformation requirements of the standard. In the case of the Hydrovac, the presence of the neoprene connector would appear to permit flexibility to compensate for component misalignment and to permit removal and repair of the steel tubing. It therefore is considered a brake hose under this standard.

Sincerely Yours,

The Bendix Corporation

Docket Section

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

May 28, 1974

Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Clarification of Certain Portions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106

Clarification is requested concerning the requirements of FMVSS 106 (published in Notices 8 and 10 of Docket No. 1-5) as applied to the Vacuum Tube - Fig. 1 (Enclosure 1) used in our Hydrovac in-line vacuum/hydraulic brake booster. For convenience, a detail drawing of the Vacuum Tube is shown in Fig. 2 (Enclosure 2

On October 17, 1973, Bendix stated its opinion to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) regarding applicability of its regulations to the above-mentioned Vacuum Tube (Enclosure 3) and requested comments from BMCS. In reply, BMCS (Enclosure 4) concurred with Bendix' interpretation stating that "the use of 'tubing' rather than 'hose' is appropriate."

The request to BMCS was concerned primarily with BMCS' requirements for cord or duck ply in hose construction. We do not believe there is a question of construction of the tube as related to FMVSS 106; however, Enclosres 3 and 4 are included herewith only to help clarify the nature of the present request.

Reviewing the text of the Standard and the introductory comments to Notices 8 and 10, we are led to the conclusion that the definition of "Brake Hose" (S4, Paragraph 2) does not apply to the Bendix Vacuum Tube because of the lack of any requirement for flexibility. This conclusion seems to be supported by the lack of any bend requirement in Table V for hoses shorter than fourteen (14) inches in the diameter in question. On the other hand, the Bendix Vacuum Tube does "transmit or contains the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes". Hence, NHTSA is requested to verify Bendix' interpretation that FMVSS 106 is not applicable to the Bendix Vacuum Tube.

Your consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated in order to clarify the status of this part of the Hydrovac, which is a high volume component.

Respectfully submitted,

J. R. Farron

Group Director of Engineering

Enclosures (4)

FIG 1. SINGLE DIAPHRAGM HYDROVAC

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

The Bendix Corporation

October 17, 1973

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Attention: Docket Clerk

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety

Subject: Request for Clarification of Subchapter B - Motor Carrier

Safety Regulation, Part 393 - Parts and Accessories

Necessary for Safe Operation

Our review of Docket No. MC-41; Notice 73-9 has brought to our attention a need for clarification of the Part 393 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

The vacuum tubes for Bendix' Hydrovacs, an in-line vacuum/hydraulic brake booster, may fall within the provisions of Parts (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(ii) of Section 393.45 of the above reference. The item under discussion is noted as "Vacuum Tube" in Fig. 1. The cited Parts of the Regulation call for conformance of vacuum brake hose to SAE Standards which requires cord or duck ply reinforcement, whereas Bendix' tube is solid neoprene rubber. The detail drawing of the Vacuum Tube is given in Fig. 2.

One logical interpretation of the Regulation could conclude that it is intended to specify vacuum hose only between brake system components, and not specify hose where it is an integral part of a component such as the tube used in our Hydrovacs. It appears the Regulation's thrust is to avoid arbitrary selection from many types of hose which are available in bulk form, particularly in the field, and to assure sound installation of a flexible member that is formed as it is installed. This reasoning is exemplified by Part (a) of the Regulation which covers "General Requirements".

Our vacuum tube, on the other hand, is fully specified as to type, and is formed before installation, just as is any other part of the Hydrovac.

Bendix' historical experience indicates that the tube has been used in 8,000,000 Hydrovacs produced since 1947, and to our knowledge there have been no tube failures. It is not of SAE grade hose because it is used as a connector, as opposed to flexible plumbing in the vehicle vacuum system.

For purposes of clarification due to ambiguity in the language of the cited Parts, it is requested that you confirm our interpretation that the cited Sections of the Regulation do not apply to the vacuum tube used as an integral part of the Hydrovac.

If this request cannot be granted, we hereby enter a petition to change the cited sections as follows (added words underlined):

(b) (1) Change to read: "except as provided in Paragraph (c), brake hose installed on a motor vehicle for connection between brake system components on or after October 1, 1973, must conform to one of the following specifications"

(b) (2) Change to read: "except as provided in Paragraph (c), brake hose installed on a motor vehicle for connection between brake system components before October 1, 1973, must conform to either"

Your consideration and response to this request will be appreciated.

J. R. Farron

Group Director of Engineering

ID: nht76-1.1

DATE: 12/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 29, 1976 N40-30

Mr. R. E. Weil Exterior Lighting Development Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1118 Detroit, Michigan 48231

Dear Mr. Weil:

This is in reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, to Mr. Brooks of this agency on photometric test requirements of multiple compartment and multiple lamp configurations. You have asked for our concurrence on two interpretations of Standard No. 108, as discussed below.

In your "example 1", on vehicles designed with a two lamp system, parking and (or taillamp) and turn signal functions are combined in each lamp of the two lamp system. You have asked whether the second lamp in this system would be treated as supplemental and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

The answer is no. As you are aware the photometric requirements of multiple lamps or multiple compartment lamps, where a tail or parking lamp is combined with the turn signal lamp, are partially determined by Note 4 to SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps. Note 4 establishes permissible ratios of intensity between functions i.e. that the intensity of the tail or parking lamps shall not be so great as to diminish the effectiveness of the turn signal function. Where two lamps are used and the distance between filament centers does not exceed 22 inches (as appears to be the case here) the combination of the lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections. (Paragraph 3.1 of J585d; J588e). Further, the ratio of the turn signal to the tail or parking lamps must be computed with all the lamps lighted (Note 4). With reference to those vehicles designed with a two-lamp system (your example 1), your first answer is the correct one; the lamps would be photometered together to meet the two compartment requirements for the two lamp functions performed, as specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 108.

With respect to your example 2, a multiple compartment lamp with one compartment performing turn signal and parking or tail lamp functions, and the other portion the function of parking or tail lamp only, photometric requirements for the tail lamp function are determined on the basis of the output of the two compartments. The single compartment parking lamp may, however, be treated as a "supplemental" lamp, except that the candlepower ratios (with turn signal lamp) must be met with both parking lamp compartments illuminated.

Sincerely,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: Request for an Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 from Chrysler Corporation

N41-2lRBr 22 OCT 1976

FROM: Director Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs

To: Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attached is a letter dated September 16, 1976, from the Chrysler Corporation, requesting an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108, on the subject of: "Photometric Test Requirements of Multiple Cavity and Multiple Lamp Configurations."

The letter is being referred to you as a matter coming within your cognizance. It is requested that the reply be staffed through this office, prior to being transmitted to Chrysler.

This office does not concur with Chrysler's proposals concerning supplemental lamps, but considers that compliance must be determined by testing with each lamp function lighted in the same cavities, just as it actually operates in vehicles being used on the highway. To allow manufacturers to certify lighting functions to conditions other than those seen by drivers of nearby vehicles, would clearly be inconsistent with the basic intent of FMVSS No. 108. Thus, using the sketch attached to the Chrysler letter, the requirements of Note 4 below Table I of SAE J588e dated September 1970, referenced in Table III of FMVSS No. 108, would be determined by measuring the photometric properties of the parking lamp function at the optical center of the two cavities, with both parking lamp bulbs lighted, as they operate in the highway environment. Next, the photometric properties of the turn signal function would be determined with only tie turn signal bulb in cavity number 1, lighted. Based on these measurements, the ratios specified in Note 4 would be obtained.

Francis Armstrong

Attachment

September 16, 1976

Mr. Roman Brooks National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Brooks:

Subject: Photometric Test Requirements of Multiple Cavity and Multiple Lamp Configurations

Reference: 1. Telephone conversation between R. Brooks and J. B. Carrier on August 13, 1976. 2. Telephone conversation between R. Brooks and R. E. Weil on August 16, 1976.

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversations regarding the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 Multiple Lamp and Multiple Cavity Lighting Requirements applicable to the 1979 models.

Based on our discussions, we would like your concurrence with the interpretation of the standard as illustrated by the following examples.

Example 1

On vehicles designed with a two lamp system in which park and turn-signal or tail and turn-signal functions are combined, the requirements may be met in one of the following ways:

1. The lamps would be photometered together to meet the two cavity requirements for the park or tail and the two cavity requirements for the turn signal. The ratio of the turn signal to park or tail would be determined using the two cavity readings of both the turn signal and park or tail. In such cases the manufacturer should use the legal name on each lamp to designate that two lamps have been designed to meet the requirements, or

2. One lamp would be photometered to one cavity requirements and the ratio of the turn-signal to the park or tail would be determined for that lamp. In such cases the manufacturer should use the legal name to designate the lamp which has been designed to meet the requirements. The other lamp would be treated by NHTSA as a supplemental lamp and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

Example 2

On vehicles designed with a two cavity lamp in which only one cavity is a combination turn-signal and park or tail, the requirements may be met as follows:

The combined cavity would be photometered to single cavity requirements and the ratio of the turn-signal to park or tail would be determined using only the park or tail readings for that cavity. In such cases, the manufacturer should use the legal name to designate the cavity which has been designed to meet the requirements.

The other cavity would be treated by NHTSA as a supplemental lamp and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

Similarly for lamps with more than two cavities, the manufacturer should designate which cavities have been designed to meet the legal requirements.

We would appreciate a written confirmation of this understanding at the earliest possible date.

Yours truly,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

R. E. Weil Exterior Lighting Development CIMS: 416-32-27

REW/ww

cc: R. O. Sornson

ID: nht91-4.36

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: David R. Stepp -- Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- General Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Greg Long -- Escargot Motor Cars, Inc.

TITLE: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. - Reimportation of Previously Imported Automobiles

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David R. Stepp (A38; Part 591; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

On behalf of our client, Escargot Motorcars, Inc. (Escargot) of Toronto, Canada, we hereby request written approval for the reimportation into the United States of Volkswagen Beetles previously imported into the United States in their respective years of manufacture which have been sent to Mexico for refurbishment. This processing operation is prospective in nature and Escargot will not proceed until written assurances are received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

FACTS:

In the United States, Escargot intends to purchase titled Volkswagen Beetles, last available in 1979, which were previously imported into the United States by Volkswagen of America. At the time of original purchase, each automobile complied with all laws and regulations applicable to that year of manufacture.

The automobiles will be shipped to Mexico for refurbishment after having been registered by Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) at the border with the United States Customs Service by a licensed customhouse broker. In Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with an original Volkswagen replacement engine of 1,600 cc displacement. The body, all sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture. A catalytic converter will be installed to meet or surpass U.S. emission standards in effect for the particular vehicle's year of manufacture.

Upon reimportation into the United States, all applicable customs duties will be paid. During the refurbishment in Mexico, the original frame/chassis is preserved on each automobile. The original VIN, which is physically stamped onto the frame/chassis, is also preserved and is easily readable for Customs inspection. Some of the original Volkswagen as exported to Mexico will possess the manufacturer's certification disk on the door post which shows the year of manufacture and confirms the satisfaction of all requirements of that date. In other automobiles whose bodies are worn or damaged, the entire bodies may be replaced and/or painted and this manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed.

For certain vehicles with extensively damaged bodies, Escargot is contemplating stripping the bodies from the chassis in the United States prior to exportation to Mexico.

Escargot will keep detailed records of all restoration processes and will take photographs to confirm the processing performed in Mexico.

LAW & DISCUSSION:

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for passenger cars and equipment are applicable to automobiles manufactured on or after the dates of the various provisions (49 C.F.R. Part 571). Thus, any previously imported Volkswagen Beetle will be required to meet all FMVSS for its respective model year, i.e., a 1968 Volkswagen Beetle must satisfy FMVSS 101-107, 109-11, 116, 201, 203-11, and 301.

For automobiles where the FMVSS apply, a manufacturer's certification must be permanently affixed to the motor vehicle. Under 49 C.F.R. Sec. 567, this certification must contain the name of the manufacturer, month and year of manufacture, "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating," "Gross Axle Weight Rating," the VIN, the type classification of the vehicle, and a statement that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture.

In addition, an importer must file a declaration in accordance with 49 C.F.R. 591.5. In particular, Sec. 591.5(b) provides that the declaration must state that the imported vehicle conforms with all applicable safety standards, bumper, and theft prevention standards. A certification label or tag to that effect must be permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle. See also 19 C.F.R. Sec. 12.80(b)(1), where Customs states its procedures for implementing the NHTSA declaration requirements.

Against this background, the Volkswagen Beetles which Escargot proposes to refurbish in Mexico and reimport into the United States should be allowed reentry by NHTSA. The automobiles will be restored to a point which actually exceeds the standards necessary for the model years of the motor vehicles. For example, a Volkswagen Beetle imported in 1968 will be fitted with a catalytic convertor, a device originally not required for that model year. Where the manufacturer's certification on the doorpost is preserved after restoration in Mexico, the vehicles clearly should be allowed to enter the United States without further certification.

In addition, we maintain that further certification is also not necessary for motor vehicles which may require body restoration so extensive that the doorpost which contains the manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed. Since the original frame and VIN is retained throughout the restoration process, the refurbished Volkswagen Beetle will be recognized as a motor vehicle by its title which was previously imported and which complied with all applicable laws and regulations. The fact that a doorpost containing the certification is replaced or repainted should not nullify the manufacturer's certification. NHTSA, through the U.S. Customs recordation of the VIN at the border, has sufficient means to insure that a vehicle which is sent from the United States to Mexico will

be the same one returned to the United States after restoration. Similarly, vehicles which are stripped of their bodies prior to shipment to Mexico should be allowed entry without further certification since the chassis will be preserved and registered.

Although not controlling in the United States, Transport Canada's enforcement position with respect to the importation of restored Volkswagen Beetles into Canada is relevant. Under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Act, vehicles manufactured or rehabilitated on used chassis or floor pans are not subject to its provisions. This position is based on the concept that the chassis is the integral part of the vehicle and is thus the only component which must be retained.

In conclusion, NHTSA should determine that Volkswagen Beetles previously imported into the United States and restored in Mexico should be allowed entry into the United States without further certification. The proposed restoration performed in mexico is no different than that which is currently done in the United States with original Volkswagen Beetles. The original chassis of each Volkswagen is retained and the VIN is preserved throughout the refurbishment operations. The registration of the vehicles by VIN at the Mexican border provides a sufficient method to insure the integrity of the automobiles upon reimportation. Accordingly, we respectfully request NHTSA's approval for the reimportation of Escargot's refurbished vehicles.

We look forward to your earliest possible response to this inquiry. Should you need any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: 1983-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck & Body Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 2 1983 NOA-30

Mr. James E. Forrester Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body & Equipment Association P.O. Box 70409 Washington, D.C. 20088-0409

Dear Mr. Forrester:

This responds to your March 15, 1983, letter asking whether emergency doors in school buses may be marked as "emergency exits" and still comply with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Paragraph S5.5.3 states that each school bus exit shall have the designation "Emergency door" or "Emergency exit" as appropriate. The agency has previously determined that emergency doors are considered to be emergency exits and thus can be marked as either doors or exits. Emergency windows must be marked only as emergency exits.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 15, 1983

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Roger Tilton

Dear Sir:

One of our members has become involved in a difference of opinion with his customer over the labeling of Emergency Doors and Exits of School Buses, S5.5.3 of FMVSS 217-76.

The issue is that the school bus was manufactured with the emergency doors identified and marked as "doors" and the emergency exits as "exits" in accordance with S5.5.3 of FMVSS 217, now the customer wants the manufacturer to remark the emergency doors as emergency exits. The manufacturer maintains that in so doing he would violate FMVSS-217. Is the manufacturer correct in his interpretation? Your early response will enable a timely resolution to this difficulty.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

James E. Forrester Manager of Engineering Services

ID: 23815

Mr. Drew Larson
5414 Martin Road
Erie, PA 16509





Dear Mr. Larson:

This is in response to your e-mail expressing concerns about your motorcycle helmet with a plastic visor and mouth guard. In your e-mail, you state that, while you were riding a four-wheeled all terrain vehicle, you fell off the vehicle, and the helmet's visor broke. You claim that the helmet was "DOT approved" but "did not hold up to many of the standards."

Your letter describes some of the injuries you suffered as a result of your fall. I hope that you have recovered from those injuries and that you suffered no permanent injuries.

By way of background information, Federal law (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. Neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation approves motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Motorcycle helmets are subject to FMVSS No. 218 (49 CFR 571.218), which specifies performance requirements for helmets to ensure that helmets reduce the likelihood of head injuries in crashes. The DOT symbol on the helmet is a certification by the helmet manufacturer, not the DOT, that the helmet conforms to FMVSS No. 218. The standard does not specify performance requirements for motorcycle helmet visors. There currently is no FMVSS that applies to the visor.

NHTSA investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. For information about our defect programs or to file a complaint report, you can log into http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/ or call the DOT Auto Safety Hotline at 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236). A NHTSA representative will record your report.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:218
d.2/11/02