ID: nht95-6.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 15, 1995

FROM: Glenn J. Vick -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GLENN J. VICK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 221; PART 567; PART 568)

TEXT: Attention: Office of Chief Council.

This is to request your assistance in providing me with clarification on FMVSS 221 (Body Joint Strength).

Our engineering staff is in the process of introducing a new E-350 super duty for the school bus industry. The GVW rating of this unit will be 14,050 lbs. Ford Motor Company will manufacture the the E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab to be delivered to various body companies for after market installation of the school bus body . . . ie, Collins, US Bus, etc . . . I am confused as to how [Illegible Word] FMVSS 221 standard will apply to our chassis.

Please provide me with a written clarification regarding FMVSS 221 and how it applies our E-350 cut-away chassis. If you need additional information or have any questions, you may contact me at (313) 323-9617.

ID: nht95-3.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 15, 1995

FROM: Glenn J. Vick -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GLENN J. VICK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 221; PART 567; PART 568)

TEXT: Attention: Office of Chief Council.

This is to request your assistance in providing me with clarification on FMVSS 221 (Body Joint Strength).

Our engineering staff is in the process of introducing a new E-350 super duty for the school bus industry. The GVW rating of this unit will be 14,050 lbs. Ford Motor Company will manufacture the the E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab to be del ivered to various body companies for after market installation of the school bus body . . . ie, Collins, US Bus, etc . . . I am confused as to how [Illegible Word] FMVSS 221 standard will apply to our chassis.

Please provide me with a written clarification regarding FMVSS 221 and how it applies our E-350 cut-away chassis. If you need additional information or have any questions, you may contact me at (313) 323-9617.

ID: nht90-1.85

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 26, 1990

FROM: Malcolm B. Mathieson -- Vice President-Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Application of FMVSS 217 non-school bus emergency exit requirements to School Buses.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacoste; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel; Also attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to le tter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3-23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M. B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217)

TEXT:

This letter transmits a copy of correspondence from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. to the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carrier Standards regarding the application of FMVSS 217 non-school bus emergency exit requirements to school buses.

Thomas believes that we have correctly interpreted the application of FMVSS 217 in this instance. We would appreciate your office having the appropriate personnel review this matter and comment on the interpretations involved.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

ID: 10035

Ms. Doris Hull
Owner
Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.
Route 2, Box 2291
Sikeston, MO 63801

Dear Ms. Hull:

This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, addressed to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, whom you identified as Chief Counsel. For your future information, Mr. Hellmuth is Chief of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance of this agency. I am the Acting Chief Counsel.

Your letter referred to a May 13, 1994 telephone conversation that you and Mr. David McCormick had with Walter Myers of my staff concerning new and used tires on trailers. You asked for confirmation of your understanding of what was said during that conversation, as follows:

(a) That as a trailer manufacturer you can sell to a dealer new trailers that are stacked one on top of the other, with new tires on the bottom trailer but no tires or wheels on the stacked trailers;

(b) That you can sell used tires and rims but not installed on the new trailers; and

(c) That you can separately sell used tires and rims to the purchaser of a trailer, then install them on the new trailer if the purchaser so requests.

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed) provides that vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements either of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Other Than Passenger Cars. Both those standards specify requirements for new tires. As an exception to those requirements, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No.120 provides that:

[A] truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of the purchaser be equipped

at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, . . . Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol (emphasis added).

With that background in mind, your understanding (a) above is correct. You stated to Mr. Myers that it is common practice in the industry to stack completed trailers one on top of another for shipment, with the bottom trailer being equipped with new tires. This office stated in a letter to Mr. Steve Thomas dated April 14, 1993 (copy enclosed), that new trailers may be sold without tires and wheels. Accordingly, it is permissible to ship trailers without tires and wheels, with new tires on the bottom trailer that is carrying the others.

Your understanding (b) is also correct, but with a caveat. No provision of Federal law or regulation prohibits you from separately selling used tires and wheels that you own to anyone you want, including dealers. However, the practice you describe implies that the dealer will be installing the used tires you've provided on the new trailers, which would amount to a violation of Standard No. 120. The standard specifically provides that used or retreaded tires may be installed on new vehicles only at the place of manufacture; the dealer is not permitted to install used tires on new trailers, whether or not owned and requested by the purchaser. Further, a manufacturer that includes used tires with new vehicles, even though not installed on the new vehicle, could be considered to be contributing to a potential violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards by the dealer.

With respect to understanding (c), S5.1.3, as noted above, requires that used or retreaded tires installed on a new vehicle be owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle. The standard, however, does not specify any length of time that the used or retreaded tires must be owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser, nor does the standard specify the source(s) from which the purchaser must have acquired the used or retreaded tires. Therefore, there is no prohibition against the purchaser of a trailer purchasing used or retreaded tires from a trailer manufacturer or from any other source, then requesting the manufacturer to install them on the new trailer. However, we have the following observations about the practice. The used/retreaded tire exception in S5.1.3 was included in the standard to accommodate bus and truck fleets who either purchase or lease tires on a mileage contract basis or who maintain tire banks. A mileage contract purchaser or lessor is one who purchases or leases tires on a per-mile basis. A tire bank is composed of serviceable tires that have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. Mileage contract purchases and tire banks are standard practices in the transportation industry and the agency assumed that those purchasers would select only safe, serviceable tires from their inventories for installation on their new vehicles. The agency also assumed that those purchasers would have owned and used those tires for some length of time prior to their being selected for installation on new vehicles. Thus, the practice of a new vehicle purchaser purchasing used tires from a trailer manufacturer and then asking the manufacturer to install them on the new vehicle was not envisioned by this agency when issuing Standard No. 120.

None of the above would relieve trailer manufacturers from their responsibility to attach the required labels with the recommended tire and rim sizes and inflation pressures in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:#109#119#120 d:8/12/94

ID: 1984-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: PACCAR, Inc. -- Kenneth R. Brownstein, Counsel, Law Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein, Esq. Counsel, Law Department PACCAR, Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue, Washington 98009

This is in response to your letter of October 16,, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it applies to the location of turn signal lamps on truck tractors.

The requirements imposed by Standard No. 108 (Table II, with the exception provided by S4.1.1.1 ) are truck tractors be provided with turn signal lamps mounted on the rear; they are excused from this requirement if the turn signal lamps at or near the front are so located and constructed (double faced) that they meet the requirements for double-spaced turn signals specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970.

The drawing which you have enclosed, for which confidential treatment is requested, shows a truck tractor with turn signals mounted at the front, and proposed optional locations for the others . The first proposed location does not meet the requirement that the lamp be located on the rear; the second location is not even on the truck tractor. Thus, neither location appears under Standard No. 108.

Nothing your references to SAE J588f, we would like to point out that the SAE standard incorporated in Standard No. 208 is J588e.

After carefully reviewing your letter and the attached during, I have detemined that they are not entitled to confidential treatment. While the Agency has designated blueprints and engineering drawings as a class of documents which are generally entitled to confidentiality (49 CFR S512.9), this is a rebuttable presumption. Your drawing does not contain the kind and amount of detail whose release would cause substantial competitive harm to Paccar. The Agency's regulation on confidential business information states that substantial competitive harm is likely to occur from the release of blueprints or engineering drawings where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints except after significant reverse engineering. No significant reverse engineering would be required in order to locate turn signals at the positions indicated on the attached drawing. Additionally, the letter does not provide any further detail as to the location or design of the proposed turn signals and should not be treated confidentially.

In view of the above, your request for confidentiality is denied. If you disagree with this determination you must submit, within 10 days of your receipt of this letter, additional information showing specifically how the release of the letter and drawing will substantially harm the competitive position of Paccar. If no information is received by the end of that period, I will place these documents in the public viewing file.

Sincerely.

Frank Berndt

Chief Counsel

October 16, 1984

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

PACCAR Inc, as a manufacturer of Class 8 motor vehicles under the Kenworth nameplate, respectfully requests an interpretation of FMVSS 108 as applied to proposed turn signal locations for application on Kenworth conventional truck tractors which have been optimized for low aerodynamic drag.

In FMVSS 108, section 4.1.1. 1, it states that truck tractors need not be equipped with turn signal lamps mounted on the rear if the turn signal lamps at or near the front are double-faced and meet the requirements for double-face turn signals in SAE Standard J588f, "Turn Signal Lamps." The rationale in permitting double-faced signals is acknowledgment that (1) turn signals on the rear of a truck tractor are not conspicuous when the tractor is hauling a trailer and (2) combining front and rear turn signals into one double-faced lamp provides acceptable signalling indication to the rear during bobtail operations while providing some signalling information to the side. Considering the truck tractor driver's restricted vision and reduced maneuverability when hauling one or more trailers, turn signal side conspicuity becomes an important element in accident avoidance during lane changes or turns to the right. Both double-faced turn signals and Kenworth's proposed rear turn signal locations (depicted as Option 1 and Option 2 in the enclosed drawing) provide signalling indication to the tractor's rear and sides. PACCAR believes that the proposed rear turn signal locations meet the intent of the present FMVSS 108 and therefore asks that the proposed locations be approved as being compliant with the standard.

October 16, 1984

Additionally, in SAE Standard J588f, referenced above, section 3.9.1 reduces the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal when it is included in a double-faced lamp. As with double-faced turn signals, illumination toward the rear and outboard of the proposed rear turn signal lamps provides adequate signalling indication; illumination inboard of the lamps is unnecessary. PACCAR believes that the proposed turn signal designs meet the intent of SAE Standard 588f.

In the two rear turn signal locations proposed in the enclosed drawing, Kenworth has maintained the side conspicuity of double-faced turn signals without sacrificing aerodynamic performance. Kenworth believes that both proposed designs are superior in safety to turn signals mounted on the front and rear.

PACCAR requests that the information contained in this letter and drawing remain confidential.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Very truly yours, Kenneth R. Brownstein Counsel KRB:MMS:rts INSERT CHART

ID: 1985-01.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

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

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Chikada:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 18, 1985

Att. : Mr. Taylor Vinson Lawyer

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

Re: Required Lighting Equipment for Motorcycle

Dear Mr. Vinson,

1) Location of Rear Turn Signal Lamps

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

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

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

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

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

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

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

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

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

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

Sincerely,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

KW/es

ID: nht87-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John B. Krueger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John B. Krueger Staff Engineer Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 3001 West Big Beaver, Suite 602 Troy, MI 48084

Dear Mr. Krueger:

This is in reply to your letter of February 10, 1987, asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to define the term "optically combined" as used in paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Presently, the SAE is circulating for comment its own proposed definition of the term, to be incorporated into SAE J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting.

For many years paragraph S4.4 (your referenced S4.4.1 which was renumbered recently) has contained a prohibition against optically combining a clearance lamp with a taillamp or an identification lamp. NHTSA has provided written interpretations to those w ho have asked whether specific designs are "optically combined" within the meaning of paragraph S4.4, but the agency has not added a definition to paragraph S3, the definition section of the standard. If a definition is to be provided, it must be incorpo rated into the standard, and the agency is unable to do that without first formally proposing the definition and offering the public an opportunity to comment upon it. I can say, however, that the SAE's proposed definition is not inconsistent with the in terpretations of the agency.

These interpretations are available in the NHTSA docket room (Room 5109, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.) for your reference should you or other SAE staff or committee members wish to examine them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 10, 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 205590

Attn: Ms . Erika Z. Jones. Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

FMVSS 108 in paragraph 54.4. 1 includes the following statement ". . .no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamp". SAE standard J592, which is referenced by FMVSS 108, also contains this same prohibition against optically combining a clearance lamp with a tail lamp or an identification lamp.

There is a need to define the term "combined optically", and we respectfully request this definition from your office.

While this term has been a part of SAE documents for many years, unfortunately, there has never been a definition, and this is now needed to prevent abuses in the combining of these various lamp functions.

Canada has been concerned about the definition of this term for quite some time and has requested the assistance of the SAE Lighting Committee. Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mr. J. G. White of Transport Canada on this subject and this includes the definition which Canada proposed in the July 12, 1986 issue of the CANADA GAZETTE on page 3244.

The SAE Lighting Committee is currently circulating the attached proposed definition for this term, and you will note that it is almost identical to the Canadian proposal.

A clear definition from the NHTSA would be appreciated by the SAE as well as the lighting industry.

Sincerely,

John B. Krueger Staff Engineer

Enclosure JBK. co

PROPOSED DEFINITION FOR ADDITION TO SAE J387 TERMINOLOGY - MOTOR VEHICLE LIGHTING

OPTICALLY COMBINED

A lamp shall be deemed to be "optically combined" if both of the following conditions exist:

A. It has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two filament bulb).

B. Its optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.

LABORATORY GUIDELINE - If two separate light sources each contribute some luminous flux to the function being tested, then both sources must be operating during a photometric test procedure.

Rationale: O In FMVSS 108, paragraph S4.4.1 , it is stated that ". .. .no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamp...." Similar wording occurs in subsection 14 of CMVSS 108.

For lack of this definition, lamps are being manufactured and installed on trailers that combine the tail and clearance lamp functions under one lens, with two closely-spaced bulbs. This clearly violates the spirit and intent of these safety standards.

O This definition harmonizes well with ECE Regulation 48, page 2, paragraph 2.6.5, " Reciprocally Incorporated Lamps."

O The following icons of the lighting fraternity have participated in the preparation of this definition: Paul Scully, Jim Wright, Warren Heath and Gordon Bonvallet.

SS3330-7-5 (DTSR/S)

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A ON5, October 28, 1986.

Mr. Paul Scully, Vice President, Peterson Manufacturing Company, 4200 East 135th Street, Grandview, MO 64030, U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Scully:

Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter

of August 5 to Bob Vile concerning the definition of "optically combined".

I think your proposal would do nicely. A definition much the same as the one you suggest in your letter has been included in the Canadian daytime running lights proposal, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.

I hope that "optically combined" can be included soon among the terms defined in SAE standards, and that producers of lamps with wrongly-combined functions will take note and correct their bad practices.

Yours very truly,

J.G. White, P. Eng., Head, Crash Avoidance Standards, Standards and Regulations, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate.

Encl. cc: R. Vile - N.A. Philips G. Wright - Fisher Guide A. Burgett - NHTSA

(SEE ATTACHMENT)

ID: 1985-03.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of FMVSS 101; Controls and Displays

The Daimler-Benz AG (DBAG) Petition for Reconsideration dated August 22, 1984 was denied. The rationale behind the Agency's decision for denial was that DBAG did not adequately address the concerns raised in the Preamble to the final rule of July 27, 1984.

Daimler-Benz AG respectfully petitions the Agency to reconsider its decision in view of the following:

1. Horn Control Symbol:

While we concur with some of the arguments set out by the Agency, we would like to draw attention to the importance of the driver's responsibilities. This would respond to the Agency's concern that certain drivers may have difficulties in locating the horn control in an emergency situation when manufacturers place the horn control in areas other than the traditional location in the steering wheel hub.

Location of controls and displays is specified in paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS 101 in that each required control and display must be visible (when activated) to a driver who is restrained by the crash protection provisions required by FMVSS 208.

From the above it follows that the location of control and displays - even if identified by symbol or words - may vary significantly between manufacturers or even models.

Examples:

- The windshield washer and wiper control may be located either on the right or left side of the steering column and may or may not be combined with the turn signal control.

- The hazard warning signal control may be found anywhere on the dashboard, the steering column or the transmission tunnel.

- Lights may be activated by dashboard controls or separate stalks.

- Even gear shift patterns may be varying.

DBAG firmly believes that the identification of controls by symbols or words can only assist either to distinguish between otherwise similar controls or to locate their position if there is sufficient time left for searching. It will not, however, produce shorter driver reaction times in situations where he is required by circumstances beyond his control, to act immediately and intuitively as long as he is not aware of the general location and operating direction of any one control.

Hence, it follows that it is imperative for a driver, prior to using a car that he is not familiar with, to verify the location and function of every control and display, if necessary with the aid of the owner's manual. If he fails to undergo this learning process it must be assumed that he will also fail to correctly operate the appropriate control in a critical moment - regardless of whether or not that control is labeled.

The above considerations lead us to be convinced that the main distinctive features of the most essential controls in a car - as far as the problem of intuitive operation is addressed - are the variations in location, operating direction and shape, rather than their marking with different symbols. Yet, we would not go so far as to request that the hitherto required control symbols be omitted provided such distinctive features are maintained. We feel, however, that a horn control in such a prominent location as in the steering wheel hub - i.e. closest to either hand of the driver -, with such a simple and unequivocal operating mode -i.e. pressing of a usually adequately large area - can, even if not identified by a symbol, be at least as safely and intuitively operated as any other customary control having a symbol.

On the grounds explained above, DBAG reiterates its petition that the exemption of horn control identification be extended and footnote 4 to table 1 be modified to read: "provided there are no other controls incorporated, identification is not required for horn controls in, or on, the steering wheel hub, or for narrow ring-type controls and air-horns".

2. Brake Symbol

Our request to permit the ISO brake failure symbol has also been denied by the Agency. We would like to comment on the arguments presented in the June 4, 1985 Federal Register as follows:

The rationale of adopting certain ISO symbols, according to the NPRM of November 4, 1982, is that they convey information more quickly and are easily and immediately recognizable. DBAG fully supports this opinion. On the other hand, the Agency mentions the results of a SAE investigation, according to which the percentage of recognition of the ISO brake symbol is only 26 and 21 per cent, respectively, vs. 87 and 52 per cent, respectively, of the word "Brake". This leads the Agency to conclude that it is not appropriate to adopt this particular ISO symbol.

However, in order to fully appreciate the meaning of the above-mentioned percentages, it has to be kept in mind that the ISO brake symbol has not been permitted in the USA so far. Therefore, it is to be assumed that the persons interviewed by the SAE have been confronted with a symbol that they had never seen before. Given this fact, a 21-26 percent recognition of statement and function is not, as the Agency suggests, "extremely low", but has, in fact, to be considered as remarkably high.

Moreover, we would like to emphasize that there is a very strong general trend to replace words by symbols or pictograms, e.g. in public buildings, airports, railway stations, etc. It can be stated that people become very quickly accustomed to such symbols and pictograms even if they are not internationally standardized.

For this reason, we again petition to permit the use of the ISO brake failure symbol instead of the word "Brake".

ID: 1984-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; NONE; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Cars Inc. -- C. Diane Black, Legislation and Compliance

TITLE: NHTSA RESPONSE TO PETITION

TEXT:

February 9, 1984

RE: FMVSS 101 Docket 1-18, Notice 23 7-27 Notice 24

Dear Ms. Steed:

On December 22, 1982, BL Technology Limited submitted a petition to your predecessor regarding a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Controls and Displays.

We are nearing the point of no return with a new model where "substantially resemble" and ISO parking brake symbol become extremely important.

I have attached one copy of our 1982 request and need to know if you and your staff require any other information from us to allow a decision on this request.

Sincerely,

C. Dianne Black Manager-Engineering Legislation & Compliance

CDB:as Attach.

22nd December 1982 Mr. R. Peck, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street SW, WASHINGTON DC 20490, U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Peck

FMVSS 101 Controls & Displays Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Dockets 1-18, Notice 23 70-27; Notice 24)

The following petition is submitted on behalf of BL PLC (Cars Group) manufacturers of Austin, MG, Jaguar, Rover and Triumph cars.

We refer to the NHTSA proposal to update FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, by adding or modifying several symbols to bring the standard into harmony with the latest documents promulgated by the International Standards Organization.

As manufacturers of automobiles for markets throughout the world, we strongly support proposals that lead to the harmonization of vehicle standards. Notwithstanding this principle, we also feel that vehicle standards should not impede the introduction of new technology into the automobile.

The size and shape of symbols for controls, indicators and telltales is constrained by the ISO grid pattern, and in general, the shape of symbols is defined by a template in the display, the shape and continuity of which can be readily controlled. However, with the introduction of Informational Readout Displays and their associated 'dot matrix' character generation system, exact reproduction of smooth continuous curved shapes or lines may not be possible. The drivers recognition of such displays is not adversely affected and the ability to present additional information selectively, whilst not saturating the driver with an array of individual displays, has distinct economic advantages.

In Docket 1/18 Notice 13 the Administration recognized that minor deviations such as we have described should be permitted, provided the symbols so produced substantially resemble those in Table 2. To give effect to the Administration's position we therefore petition that S.5.2.3 be amended by the addition of a final sentence:-

'The provisions of this Section shall be considered to have been met if the symbols displayed substantially resemble those designated in Column 4 of Table 2.'

With regard to the specific NHTSA request for comments on the use of a parking brake symbol, we request that the ISO symbol should be permitted as an alternative to words when a separate parking brake indicator lamp is provided.

Yours sincerely,

M. W. Lewis, Chief Engineer, Admin. & External Affairs

MWL/KD/VLS/A70/2e

C. Dianne Black Manager-Engineering Legislation and Compliance Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in response to your letter in which you request information on the status of your Petition for Rulemaking on Controls and Displays submitted December 22, 1982, and granted on December 12, 1983.

Your petition along with several others is being reviewed by a Task Force set up by the Administrator. Its purpose is to rewrite FMVSS No. 101 to reflect changes in technology which impact the control and display systems planned for future production.

A number of the petitioners have requested modifications to permit various Informational Readout Displays or combinations of telltales and displays which are currently not permitted by one or more sections of the standard. Your petition asks for inclusion in the standard of this statement. "The provision of this section shall be considered to have been met if the symbols displayed substantially resemble those designated in Column 4 of Table 2." While providing manufacturers great latitude for interpretation, this addition would make the standard unenforceable without some design or performance boundaries on the words "substantially resemble."

We do not know how to set these performance limits and thus are retaining the policy established in the preamble to Notice 13 which asked manufacturers to produce symbols which substantially resemble those in the Tables. This approach allows thc agency to treat each symbol noncompliance on a case by case basis by weighing the impact on safety produced by the noncompliance.

To date all symbols have complied with the standard regardless of the technology used to make them visible to the driver. We note that you have not described the limitations of your dot matrix display in quantifiable terms and suspect that, like us, you have not found an easy way to define the relationship between density, color, distance from the driver, etc, vis a vis the perceived shape by the driver.

We have decided to terminate rulemaking on this subject at this time and, thus, will not be placing the words you recommended in the text of the standard. However, although the specific words are not included in the standard, the agency's intent should be clear from Notice 13 and this letter.

ID: nht79-2.36

DATE: 11/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/91 letter from Paul J. Rice to Richard Cahalan (A37; Part 567); Also attached to 8/20/90 letter from Oscar W. Harrell, Jr. to NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC 5073); Also attached to 7/25/90 letter from George C. Shifflett to Oscar Harell (Harrell) Jr.; Also attached to 9/4/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Vincent Foster

TEXT:

November 26, 1979

Mr. W. G. Milby Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your October 3, 1979 letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to permit the production of a limited number of school buses that do not comply with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The buses would be designed to transport severely handicapped students.

As you know, Standard No. 222 permits side-facing seats for handicapped students. However, the standard does not permit other variations of seating for the transportation of the handicapped. The agency's notice of July 12, 1976 (41 FR 28506) specifically limited its action with respect to handicapped student transportation to the provision of side-facing seats.

In your letter, you state that you intend to have forward and rearward facing seats surrounded by a cubicle to restrain children that are severely handicapped. Since only side-facing seats are acceptable as a variation from the standard's required seating, the standard cannot be interpreted in such manner that would permit the type of seats that you propose to install in your bus. Further, according to our regulation governing exemptions from the safety standards, it would appear that you would not qualify under any of the criteria that have been established. Therefore, it would not be useful to seek an exemption or waiver from the standards.

The agency has been confronted with the special problems for the handicapped many times and in a variety of vehicles. The NHTSA realizes the special needs of these individuals and further understands that these needs require the agency to be flexible in the enforcement of standards applicable to vehicles used by the handicapped. As a result the agency has stated in the past, that it will overlook some noncompliances in vehicles that are serving the special needs of the handicapped. The agency concludes that compliance with Standard No. 222 will not be enforced in certain circumstances for buses designed to transport the handicapped.

The above exemption from enforcement of compliance with Standard No. 222 is limited. The seating in such special buses must be distinctly different from that of typical school buses. For example, your placement of the seats in cubicles would provide such a distinction from normal school bus seats. The mere increase of seat spacing with the use of traditional school bus seats, on the other hand, would not qualify for freedom from compliance with the standard. With respect to your bus, the agency concludes that all other passenger seats beyond these constructed in the cubicles must comply with the standard. The agency further notes that the use of this type of bus is appropriate only for the most extreme cases of handicapped transportation and is not necessary for the transportation of all handicapped school children.

Although it would not be required by regulation, manufacturers should label these unique buses for the handicapped in some manner that will identify them as appropriate only for the transportation of handicapped students and not as a regular school bus. Such a label would be important in alerting both the Federal and State government officials to the fact that this is not a regular school bus and thus might be subject to different considerations with respect to the enforcement of compliance with safety standards. You should also check with State officials to ensure that they will permit the use of such buses.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 3, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

REF: Telephone conversations of October 2, 1979, with Mr. Roger Tilton and Mr. Taylor Vinson

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Public Law 94-142 is precipitating requests for specially built buses to transport handicapped passengers. Some of these buses, because of their special needs, cannot meet certain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We currently have a request to build two buses which are described by the enclosed sketch. These buses would have plexiglass shields in the front to protect the driver and special seating cubicles in the center portion of the bus with back to back seating and padded walls. These seats would also be equipped with seat belts. In the rear of the bus would be seating provisions for a matron and also a cabinet sink to be used for cleaning and caring for passengers who do not have control of bodily functions.

Our immediate need is to get an interpretation for these two buses which would render them to be in compliance with FMVSS 222. We feel the intent of this interpretation is established in paragraph S4 of FMVSS 222 wherein an exemption is provided for seating to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers.

Beyond the immediate need for these two buses there is a long range need to provide more flexibility for FMVSS exemptions or waivers for buses built to accommodate passengers which will be transported under the provisions of Public Law 94-142.

We will appreciate your early response to this immediate need and your comments concerning what action might be appropriate in handling more requests of this nature.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services