ID: 1983-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Middletown Van Pool Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your note of May 27, 1983, attaching correspondence between yourself and a District Manager for Ford Motor Company. You requested that we investigate the Ford E-150 van (which you state is a 15-passenger van) to determine if the stated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of that vehicle is accurate.

Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required by the agency's regulations to place a certification label on the vehicle specifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations (issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966). This certification label must include information regarding the vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, as specified in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3):

"(3) "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" or "GVWR", followed by the appropriate value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds."

Thus, you are correct in your assumption that the GVWR for a 15-passenger vehicle would have to include 2,250 pounds for occupant weight. Further, if a 15-passenger vehicle has a stated GVWR of 6,200 pounds, its unloaded vehicle weight could not exceed 3,950 pounds. I cannot state whether the Ford E-150 van has an unloaded vehicle weight in excess of this figure. However, I am sending a copy of your correspondence to our Office of Enforcement so that they may review this matter.

SINCERELY,

Marriott Hotels

5/27/83

MR. FRANK (Illegible Word) CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

THE ATTACHED FILE I BELIEVE POINTS TO A PROBLEM FORD MOTOR CO. HAS AND THEY NEED TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION ON.

THANKS FOR LOOKING INTO THIS PROBLEM.

(Illegible Words) May 21, 1983

Mr. J. R. Rose - District Manager Ford Motor Company

Dear Mr. Rose

Just a note to let you know that I received your May 17 letter which contains various specific accuations that "you (refering to the writer) apparently intensified the problem of load by actually carrying an overload". Sorry to inform you Mr. Rose, but you are totally misinformed and there is some question on the facts you put forth. Consider:

1. A Ford representative, Mr. Frank Palbo, speced out the Van in question. . . .as per the attached specification sheet. He had very simple guidelines.

(a) Want a 15 passenger Ford Van

(b) Want to carry 10 passenger in Captains Chairs

(c) Want individual reading lights for each Captains Chair.

2. Frank's note of August 17, 1981 and vehicle layout (copy attached) indicate,

(a) Seats will fit

(b) Van converter will do the job

(c) Finance Company approved the lease.

3. Consider Mr. Rose, I specified a 15 Passanger Ford Van. . . .which normally contains:

(a) Two front seats . . . . equals 2

b) Three bench seats holding three persons each . . . equals 9

(c) One rear bench seat holding four people . . . equals 4

(d) If my math holds up . . . that is 2 + 9 + 4 = 15 people

(e) If your letter is correct, I quote "10 passengers possibly totally 1500 lbs" is correct . . . then your Ford 15 passenger van carries a payload of 15 times 150lbs = 2250 pounds of payload.

(f) Since we are saving 5 passengers we should be saving . . . . 5 times 150lbs = 750 pounds.

(g) Now, we added 8 captains chairs on bases verses your 4 bench seats . . . and since our seats our top quality, we'll agree they probably weigh on a two for one bases, 50 pounds each more than seats . . . so eights seats times 50lbs. = 400 pounds.

(h) O.K. - I saved 750lbs. by carrying 5 less passengers - I added 400lbs by using Captains Chairs . . . so basic subtraction says 750 minus 400 equals 350 pounds.

(i) Now the Van converter recommended we beef-up your flooring along with insulating the floor so we added 3/4" plywood to the floor in under your luxurious carpeting. Say that added 100lbs. to the Van. Let's see, I still have 350lbs. I saved and I take away 100lbs. from that and I have 250lbs. . net savings.

(j) We also added reading lights, electrical wire, front wood console, rear tire carrier . . . must all total out to at least 50lbs . . . . so I reduce my 250pounds savings by 50 and my new net savings is 200 pounds.

(k) Now our regular riders are of hearty stock and probably average 20lbs. overweight to your 150lbs. standard . . . so 10 passengers being 201lbs. each overweight equals 200lbs . . . can you believe it . . . 200 plus and 200 minus and I come out to . . . ZERO.

Now that we've finished our basic math quiz we can get down to the heart of the problem. Ford is selling a Cargo/Passenger vehicle that can't possibly meet their stated weights . . . . once again simple math says: GVW is 6200 pounds 15 Passengers -2250 pounds NVW is 3950 pounds

There is no way that vehicle or any Ford Vehicle setting on your showroom floor, equipped with bench seats and ready accept 15 passengers can weigh less than 400 pounds.

So, by your own figures, you show that you are falsely representing your product, that you are endangering peoples lives and worst of all you don't give a damn. And to prove that statement, I'll take a Saturday and in your facility, take out the eight captains chairs and bases and let you weigh the Van. And so that everyone knows things are on the up and up, let's invite the President of Ford to be the official weighing judge. He certainly has a vested interest. And just in case you don't want to accept the challenge, rest assured I'll do it on my own, having everything (Illegible Word) so that TV Stations, Consumer Organizations, FTC, and NHTSA can all benefit from this information.

So, back to you Mr. Rose and this time please do your homework and get the facts straight before you respond. I want to know why a Ford Motor Company representative speced and sold our group a Van that could not possibly conform to what we requested.

A VERY UNHAPPY FORD VAN LEASEE:

WILLIAM E. MEITER Middletown Van Pool Association

Ford Motor Company

May 17, 1983

William E. Meiter Middletown Van Pool Association

Dear Mr. Meiter:

This is in response to your recent letter to Mr. Peck in which you relate the problems experienced with replacement of brake linings and pads on your 1982 Ford E-150 Van.

While the warranty which you received with the Ford E-150 Van covers defects in material and workmanship within the first 12 months or 12,000 miles, it does not cover replacement of normal maintenance items such as brake linings (friction material). There are several factors that may effect brake life; for example: individual driving habits, road conditions, stop and go traffic into and within Manhattan and optional equipment such as 10 captian chairs causing extra load. You apparently intensified the problem of load by actually carrying an overload which is indicated in the following: Your vehicle's GVW is - 6,200 lbs. After alterations, your vehicle's net weight registered as - 5,720 ibs. Allowing you - 480 lbs. to use as load; i.e.: passengers.

By transporting 10 passengers possibly totalling 1,500 lbs., you are overloading your vehicle by approximately 1,000 lbs.

We regret that our response could not be more favorable, but appreciate having had the opportunity to review this matter for you.

J. R. Rose District Manager New York District

MANHATTAN FORD, LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC. (Illegible Words) 555 WEST 57th STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10019 (201)581-7860

PRICE BOOK DATE PAGE DATE SALESMAN: SALBO

CUSTOMER: J.C. PENNY

ADDRESS

ATTENTION: W.E. MEITER 60 WALLACE ROAD, MIDDLETOWN, N.J. 07748 PHONE: 212-957-0092. MODEL: EIEO WINDOW VAN SUPER (Illeg.) 6941.- PAYLOAD PACKAGE: #2 GVM: 6200 N/C ENGINE: 302-V8 101.- TRANSMISSION: AUTOMATIC 352.- AXLES FRONT: (TRACTION LOK) REAR RATIO: 4.75 170.- TIRES: P235 75R 15XL STD.- SPARE TIRE: P235 75R 15XL 111.- AIR CONDITION DASH [] HI CAPACITY [] 1020.- ALTERNATOR: 60 AMP INCL W/AIR. - BATTERY: HD 36.- BRAKES: POWER STD BUMPER: REAR STEP. 84.- OUT CONVENIENCE GROUP: INTER WIPERS-12" O/N MIRROR-RHVANITY MIRROR 50.- COOLING SYS EXTRA [] SUPER [] 55.- DOOR SIDE: SLIDING OR HINGED N/C FUEL TANK: AUX. TOTAL CAP. 40 GALS 112.- (Illeg.) SPEED CONTROL 135.- GLASS (Illeg.): SWING OUT REAR. 40.- GLASS TINTED [] PRIVACY [] 264.- (Illeg.): COMFORT RIDE 15.- HEATER AUX [] HI OUTPUT [] 25.- INSULATION: DELUX 362.- LIGHT (Illeg.): COURTESY SWITCHES 24- LOCK GROUP: SECURITY 51.- MIRRORS: WESTERN LOW MTG. 69.- PAINT: ONE COLOR N/C PROTECTION GROUP RADIO: AM. FM. CASSETTE (4 SPEAKERS.) 224.- SEATING: QUAD CAPTS. CHAIRS. (2 ONLY) 1100.- 550 SHOCKS: HD FRONT & REAR (Illeg.) SPRING FRONT: HD REAR: HD 62.- STABILIZER BAR: FRONT 25.- STEERING: POWER 197.- (Illeg.): OUTSIDE SWING AWAY TIRE CARRIER. 117.- (Illeg.): CIGAR LIGHTER. 17.- FREIGHT 509.- DELIVERY & PREPARATION CHARGE 75.- 1981 PRICE (Illeg.) 82 ESTIMATED INCREASE 4% 500.- 12926- BILL, THE VAN PEOPLE ON LONG ISLAND WANT X 355.00- EACH INSTALLED FOR CAPTAINS CHAIRS FIGURING ANOTHER SEVEN TX 368.00-297.50 25.00- 2.972 I STILL WANT TO SHOP THIS ITEM LIGHTS 34.35 15 TOTAL 212.45 504.00 15.286

(Illegible Words)

P.S. ALL ACCESSORIES ARE FIGURED AT COST SO ANYTHING YOU THINK YOU DON'T WANT JUST DELETE.

LENNIE (Illegible Words) - 914-638-2972 3 YR. #562 MO PLUS INSURANCE. DOWN #600 + ONE MOS. PAYMENT $ 8,500 BUY BACK

MANHATTAN FORD, LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC

8-17-81

BILL,

JUST A QUICK NOTE TO TELL YOU THE FINANCE CO. APPROVED THE LEASE.

ALSO ATTACHED IS A LAY OUT. I GOT THE SEAT PEOPLE TO DROP THEIR PRICE TO $ 297.50 AND THE READING LIGHTS INSTALLED EACH SEAT $ 34.95 EACH.

I THINK WE HAVE EVERYTHING, GIVE ME A CALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

Frank

THIS IS THE SEAT MOVES BACK & FORWARD & SWIVELS DOES NOT RECLINE.

MAIN CUT OFF SWITCH FOR LIGHTS INSTLD. IN DASH

8 (Illegible Word) SEATS INSTLD ON SWIVEL BASES W/SLIDE TRACKS AS SHOWN

SEAT INSTALLATION NOTE:

POSITION ALL SEATS APPROXIMATELY 4 (Illegible Word) FROM SIDE TO ALLOW FOR:

- SWIVEL OF SEATS

- STOREAGE OF BLUE CASES ON FLOOR BETWEEN SEAT AND SIDE WALL

WE WILL USE 8 OF THESE DRIVE & PASSENGER WILL BE FORD.

SPECIAL NOTE:

CENTER THIS SEAT (MOVE INTO AISLE) SO PASSENGERS CAN ENTER BEHIND SEAT AND (Illegible Words) AISLE TO THEIR SEATS

9 SINGLE AIRCRAFT LIGHT W/SEPARATE SWITCHES INSTLD OVER EACH SEAT AS SHOWN.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-2.25

DATE: 05/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Kupensky

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 8 to the Department of Transportation, regarding your CAUTION and THANK YOU signals which would flash simultaneously with the turn signal lamps on trucks and trailers.

Since such signs, flashing CAUTION or THANK YOU when actually "turn" is intended, may be confusing in many circumstances, they would be prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," (copy enclosed), because they would appear to impair the effectiveness of the turn signals. If these signs were manually operated by the driver, separately from the turn signals, at appropriate times, whether flashing or steady burnings, they would be considered auxiliary devices which did not impair the effectiveness of the turn signals, and would be permitted by Standard No. 108. In this situation, however, they would be subject to the motor vehicle regulations of the individual States.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

April 8, 1976

Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street, S. W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

Enclosed is a copy from my Patent Attorney of a description of Safety Signal Lights, which I would like to market. I feel these lights add safety for over the road truckers, and act as a backup system for a burned out turn signal, as explained in the attached write-up. They also indicate to the vehicle following of the drivers' intentions.

I have called on a major trailer manufacturer and found that this is creating quite an interest. But the question remains -- would these be acceptable by the Department of Transportation.

Hoping that you can advise me on the above, I thank you for your assistance and any information you might be able to forward.

Sincerely,

Thomas Kupensky

Enc.

(Graphics omitted)

VEHICLE SIGNAL LIGHT ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE

A signal light system for a vehicle. A pair of auxiliary lights are mounted, preferable, on the rear of the vehicle and operate in conjunction with the vehicle turn indicator lights. Each of the lights is a (Illegible Words) enclosure having a replaceable face plate. The removable plates carry suitable logooda which are visible when the light is illuminated.

SPECIFICATION

The present invention relates to a vehicle signal system and more particularly to a system which (Illegible Word) additional information to other drivers on the road.

The continuous increase of super highway mileage and of the volume of traffic on those highways has brought (Illegible Words) systems which rapidly convey information between the vehicle and other drivers on the road. (Illegible Word) and others who do a considerable amount of high speed driving have developed (Illegible Words). The (Illegible Word) of turn signals to indicate (Illegible Word) changes and the blinking of lights by a vehicle being overtaken to indicate that the passing vehicle has cleared and can pull back into the slower speed lane (Illegible Word) among (Illegible Words). Also, a vehicle which has completed passing will blink his lights to thank the following vehicle. However, there are many people who do relatively little super highway driving and are not aware of these conventions. There is a need for a signaling system which will clearly convey the intentions of the signaling vehicle (Illegible Words) inexperienced drivers do not become confused. (Illegible Word) the practice of blinking the vehicle lights causes the vehicle driver to be momentarily distracted from his primary function, thereby increasing the risk of accident.

It is the primary object of the present invention to provide a signaling system for a vehicle which will clearly alert the following vehicles even if the operators of such vehicles are not aware of the usual signaling conventions.

It is also an object of the present invention to provide a vehicle signaling system which permits the vehicle operator to signal to following vehicles without being distracted from the primary function of driving the vehicle.

Yet another object of the invention in the provision of a signal system which may be easily applied to existing vehicles with a minimum of modification thereof.

The above and other objects of the invention which will become apparent in the following detailed description are achieved by providing a vehicle signal system which employs a pair of auxiliary light units mounted on the rear of the vehicle with the units operating in conjunction with the right and left turn signals, respectively, and with each light unit consisting of an enclosure having a removable face plate which is provided with information conveying markings visible when the signal is illuminated.

For a more complete understanding of the invention and the objects and advantages thereof reference should be had to the following detailed discription and the accompanying drawing wherein there is shown a preferred embodiment of the invention.

In the drawing:

Fig. 1 is a rear (Illegible Word) view of a trailer equipped with the signal lights of the (Illegible Word) invention;

Fig. 2 is a perspective view of one signal light unit of the present invention;

Fig. 3 is a sectional view of the light assembly of Fig. 2;

Fig. 4 is a transverse sectional view taken along the line 4-4 of Fig. 3; and

Fig. 5 is a schematic showing of the control circuit for the lights of the present invention.

A conventional semi-trailer 10 is shown in Fig. 1. The trailer is provided with rear brake lights 12 and left and right turn indicator lamps 14 and 16, respectively, in accordance with conventional practice. These lights are controlled from the vehicle cab in the usual manner. In order to convey additional information to motorists following the trailer two illiminated signs 18 and 20 are also provided on the rear of the trailer 10. While these signs are shown as being mounted at approximately the vertical mid-point of the trailer, it will be understood that the two units may be positioned at any convenient locations.

As will be described in greater detail below, the illuminated sign 18 operation in sequence with the left turn signal 14 while the illuminated sign 20 operates in sequences with the right turn signal 16. Any suitable wording or other indicators may be provided on the two signs 18 and 20. The two signs illustrated, "CAUTION" and "THANK YOU" are considered desirable as these indications reinforce the conventional turn signal indications. Thus, when the left turn signal is operated the word "CAUTION" is flashed simultaneously thus clearly alerting the following motorist to the fact that the vehicle is about to shift to the left lane. This is particularly advantageous when the truck in one of a line of trucks as following motorists frequently cannot see the right turn signals of such a truck and may misinterpret the flashing turn signal as a flashing brake light.

The use of the word "THANK YOU" in conjunction with the right turn signal allows the overtaking vehicle to express his consideration to the vehicle which has been passed without requiring him to perform any action except the operation of his right turn signal which is conventionally done when pulling back into the right lane.

The construction of the light assembly 18 is shown in greater detail in Figs. 2, 3, and 4. It will be understood that the unit 20 is of identical construction. Each of the light units consists of a rectangular bon-like housing 22 which is open on one face to receive a plastic face plate 24 which is provided with the desired indecia. The indecia 26 may be incorporated in any suitable arrangement such as the use of contracting colors or of opaque and translucent regions. The casing 22 has a rear wall 28, and walls 30, and top and bottom walls 32 and 34, respectively. The forward wages of the top and bottom walls are bent to form (Illegible Word) 36. These (Illegible Word) 36 define a channel in which the facing plate 24 in slidably received, the end walls 30 (Illegible Word) the engage the inner face of the plate 24. If desired and depending on the material used to form the face plate 24 a ridge 40 may be provided on the inner surfaces of the upper and lower walls 32 and 43, respectively, in spaced parallel relation to the (Illegible Word) 36 to provide for additional support to the face plate 24. Suitable gaskets 38 and 41 are provided to form a fluid tight seal between the face plate 24 and the casing 22. The wire leads 43 for the lamps within the casing are routed through a suitable grommet 45 to provide a fluid tight seal between the wires and the casing 22.

A vertically extending wall 42 is provided within the casing 22 and midway between the opposite ends 30. The wall may, for example, have a tab portion 44 which is welded or otherwise secured to the rear wall 28 of the casing 22. Affixed to opposite sides of the wall 42 are sockets 46 and 48 for receiving (Illegible Word) 50 and (Illegible Word) respectively. As is shown in Fig. 4, a number of holes or apetures 54 may be provided in the plate 52 so that light can be transmitted from either bulb or both sides of the casing. This assures that even if one bulb should fail at least partial illumination of the whole sign will still be possible.

One possible circuit for controlling the signal lamps 18 and 20 of the present invention is illustrated in Fig. 5 where the vehicle power source, such as the battery 60, is connected to the conventional turn signal switch 62 through a flasher assembly 64 which is also a conventional (Illegible Word). In a first position the turn signal switch 62 causes the left front signal lamp 661, the left rear lamp 14, and the two lamps 50 and 52 of the unit 18 to flash in unison. In the opposite position the switch 62 (Illegible Word) the right forward signal lamp 66r, the rear right signal lamp 16 and the two bulbs of the unit 20. It will be noted that the two bulbs 50 and 52 of each unit are connected in parallel to one another and in parallel to the other signal lamps on the corresponding side of the vehicle. If desired, suitable means such as the double hole signal throw switch 70 may be provided for disconnecting the signaling units 18 and 20 when desired.

While only the best known embodiment has been illustrated and described in detail herein, it will be clearly understood that the invention is not limited thereto or thereby. Reference should therefore be had to the appended claims in determining the true scope of the invention.

What is claimed is

1. An auxiliary signal system for a vehicle having a conventional turn signal system which comprises:

a pair of lamp housings, each having a removable face plate carrying a distinctive legend, the housings being mounted on the rear of the vehicle and adjacent the opposite sides thereof;

at least one lamp within each housing for illuminating the face plate thereof to make the legend visible; and circuit means connecting the lamp of each housing to the actuating circuit of the respective turn signal whereby the lamp operates in conjunction with the respective turn signal.

2. The auxiliary signal system according to Claim 1 wherein each housing comprises a bon-like member having a rectangular opening in one side thereof, the face plate covering the opening.

3. The auxiliary signal system according to Claim 2 wherein two lamps are provided within each housing, the lamps being connected in parallel and positioned so as to illuminate opposite ends of the enclosure.

4. The auxiliary signal system according to Claim 3 wherein each housing has a vertically extending center wall, the two lamps being mounted to the center wall on opposite sides thereof.

5. The auxiliary signal system according to Claim 1 wherein the legend carried by the facing plate of the left housing is "CAUTION" and the legend carried by the facing plate of the right housing is "THANK YOU".

ID: nht80-2.47

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your letter of January 16, 1980, in which" you asked a number of questions pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. The answers to your questions are presented below and are numbered to correspond with the numbering of the questions in your letter.

1. Section 5.2.1 provides that where Table 1 of Standard 101-80 shows both a symbol and identifying words or abbreviations for a particular control, use of the symbol is mandatory and use of the words or abbreviations is optional.

2. When a manufacturer identifies a control with both the symbol shown in Table 1, Column 3, and the identifying words or abbreviations shown in Table 1, Column 2, only the symbol is subject to the illumination requirements of Section S5.3. That section states that with certain exceptions (i.e., foot operated controls or hand operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column or in the windshield header area) "the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are actuated." Since this section refers only to the identification required by Safety Standard 101-80, it does not apply to identification which is optional under the standard.

3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8. In questions designated by these numbers, you asked whether the following controls are subject to the identification and illumination requirements of Standard 101-80:

(a) a driver comfort fan which is not a part of the windshield or rear window defrosting and defogging system or the heating and air conditioning system,

(b) hot water flow valves for heaters which are opened in winter and then closed again in summer,

(c) heater fresh air control valves used to control the ratio of fresh to recirculated air entering the heater,

(d) driver's side window defroster control,

(e) driver's fresh air vent control,

(f) fan control for an optional driver's heater which directs air at the driver's feet.

Section 5 of Standard 101-80 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of Standand 101-80 regarding the location, identification and illumination of such control. Of the controls listed above, those lettered (a), (d) and (e) are not listed in either of these locations and thus are not subject to these requirements. Items (b), (c) and (f) are part of a heating or air conditioning system indicated in column 1 of Table 1 and is therefore subject to the location and identification requirements of Standard 101-80. However, the fan control, which directs air at the driver's feet, is not subject to the illumination requirements, since section 5.3.1 states, "control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield." Likewise, if the hot water flow valves and fresh air control valves are mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, or in the windshield header area,' then section 5.3.1 does not require them to be illuminated.

9. In your question 9, you asked whether the penultimate line in Table 2 concerning malfunctions in antilocks applies only to vehicles equipped with air brakes and whether the last line concerning brake system malfunctions applies only to vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes.

The penultimate line of Table 2 applies to all vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR which are equipped with an antilock system, regardless of whether they are air or hydraulic brake equipped vehicles. The agency included the reference to Standard 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to indicate that section 5.3 of that standard permits a manufacturer to use either a yellow or red warning light depending on whether there is a separate indicator that only warns of antilock failure or there is an indicator which warns of antilock and other brake system failures.

The last line of Table 2 concerning the telltale for brake system malfunction applies to all vehicles equipped with this type of telltale regardless of the type of brake system. The agency included the reference to Standard 105 since section 5.3 of that standard specifies other requirements that brake system malfunction indicators used in hydraulic brake systems must meet.

10. This agency has never established specific size requirements for the identification symbols specified in Tables 1 and 2 of Standard 101-80. Sections 5.2.1 and 6 only require that such symbols be visible to a driver restrained by crash protection equipment. 11. None of the display requirements of Table II of Standard 101-80 apply to vehicles with a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds. Displays included in such vehicles in accordance with other standards are subject only to the provisions of those standards.

12. Section 5.3.1 provides that the illumination requirements of Standard 101-80 do not apply to hand operated controls mounted on the steering column. Accordingly, they are not applicable to a hazard control mounted on the steering column.

13. If the clearance lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch, Table 1, footnote 2, of the standard provides that the only identification required is the headlamp switch symbol.

14. Standard 101-80, section 5.2.1, states that controls must be identified with the symbol indicated in Table 1 and that such identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The agency has previously indicated that manufacturers could use a symbol that is a minor deviation from the required symbol, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard (43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978). Thus, if the wiper symbol you want to use is only a minor deviation and substantially resembles the required wiper symbol, you may use it.

15. You enclosed in your letter a blueprint showing a bank of switches which control multispeed fans and asked whether the identification shown in the print would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80. Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) requires manufacturers to certify their compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, this agency does not approve products. However, from our understanding of the information you have provided, it appears that the identification you propose to use for fan controls would comply with Standard 101-80. This opinion is based on the fact that your blueprint shows use of the fan symbol in accord with section 5.2.1 and identification of each function of the fan switch in accord with section 5.2.2.

16. With respect to air conditioning systems:

(1) Section 5.3.1 does not require illumination of the control identification if the system does not direct air directly upon the windshield.

(2) Table 1 and section 5.2.1 require the fan symbol to be used to identify the fan for an air conditioning system;

(3) If the air conditioning system control regulates temperature over a quantitative range, the extreme positions must be identified in accord with 5.2.2.

17. With respect to vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR, the requirements of Standard 101-80 concerning telltales used to indicate high engine coolant temperature or low engine oil pressure are inapplicable. With respect to vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, these requirements are applicable. In a letter to Ford Motor Company (copy enclosed), this agency stated that use of the engine symbol which Ford proposed for identification of such telltales would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 16, 1980

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 101-80

The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation of several issues related to FMVSS 101-80, discussed at a January 9, 1980 meeting of NHTSA. The issues are numbered below in the sequence discussed at the meeting:

1. In all cases where both symbols and wording are shown in Table I, the symbol is mandatory and the wording is optional.

2. In the case of optional wording accompanying mandatory symbols, which require illumination, only the symbol must be illuminated. It is mandatory for the optional wording to be illuminated.

3. There is no requirement relating to driver comfort fans. These fans are provided to direct air at the driver for his comfort as the name indicates. However, they can be adjusted to direct air on the windshield.

4. There is no requirement for hot water flow valves for heaters. Typically, these valves are opened in winter and left open; closed in summer and left closed. Heat in regulated be means of switch controls to operate air blowers.

5. There is " requirement for heater fresh air control valves. These valves are used to control the ratio of fresh/recirculated air entering the heater.

6. The fan control for an optional driver's heater must be identified but not illuminated.

7. There is no requirement for a driver's side window defroster control.

8. There is no requirement for a driver's fresh air vent control.

9. Confirmation is needed with respect to Table II that the next to last line is only applicable to vehicles with air brakes and the last line is only applicable to vehicles with hydraulic brakes.

10. The proportion of the symbols are those developed by the ISO, however, there is no requirement limiting the minimum or maximum sizes of the symbols.

11. None of the requirements of Table II apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. This is true even in the case where a display is required by another FMVSS; Example: the turn signal display required by FMVSS 108.

12. A hazard control mounted in the steering column does not require illumination.

13. Clearance lamps may be controlled by the headlamp switch. In this case, only the headlamp symbol should be used.

14. If necessary to accomodate a temporary inventory balance out, a slightly different wiper symbol may appear on the wiper knobs that is required by Table I, provided that the required symbol appears adjacent to the control and is properly illuminatted. It is also satisfactory to provide no symbol on the knob itself.

15. With respect to S5.2.2, a bank of switches which control multi-speed fans will comply if they are identified as shown in the enclosed print 0981233.

16. Air conditioning controls must be identified but not illuminated. The extreme positions of air conditioning controls must be identified. The fan symbol is required for air conditioning fan controls.

17. Any type tell tale may be used for a single display on vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR to indicate high engine coolant temperature and/or low engine oil pressure. We understand that Ford Motor Company has proposed an engine symbol for such a display. What is the status of this proposal?

We would like to go on record at this time to alert NHTSA that it may be necessary to revise the effective date of the subject standard as it applies to heavy duty vehicles to alleviate a temporary chassis shortage. This could be caused by a prolonged strike by a major chassis manufacturer which is still in effect. This may result in the mounting of bodies on chassis built after September 1, 1980, which were scheduled for chassis built prior to that date.

Your early response to these items will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, William G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Department

fvc

Enclosure

c: Wilbur Rumph Ben Newberry Jim Moorman Jim Swift Bob DuMond

ID: nht68-1.10

DATE: 04/11/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Hadden, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1968, in reference to an inquiry from Mitts and Merrill, Incorporated, concerning the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to their brush chipper.

The brush chippers as shown in the brochures you enclosed are less than 80 inches in width; therefore, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not apply at present. However, after January 1, 1968, Table No. III of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, will apply to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles.

We are enclosing a copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as per your request and trust they assist you in this matter.

Sincerely,

mitts & merrill, inc.

March 14, 1968

Honorable James Harvey, M. C.

Sir:

REFERENCE: Your Letter of March 6 and Wire of March 11 1968

We have studied the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and also reviewed your wire.

With regard to the above Act, the Federal Safety Standards were not sent with it. The establishment of these standards is stated in the Act under Title I, Section 103, paragraph (h) concerning issuance of Federal Safety Standards and subsequent revised standards. Please have copies of these standards sent(Illegible Word) immediately or advise at once where we may obtain same. We must know if our Brush Chipper falls under this Act.

Concerning your wire, enclosed are two copies each of our specification sheets and outline drawings of our Brush Chipper. You will note that no models are over 80" wide which will not bring them under the trailer lighting standards. Our units do require license plates.

Thank you for your efforts in our behalf.

Very truly yours,

Norman E. Hess -- Chief Engineer

enclosures

MITTS & MERRILL CHIPPER SPECIFICATIONS

MODELS -- M7, M8, M9

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 160 (16 INCHES) TRAILER: Frame All tubular steel, welded construction. Draw Bar Pintle eye-standard. Ball and socket-optional. Axle Coil spring torsion type, 2" O.D., tubular construction - 61-1/2" track. Wheels Two (2) - Semi-drop center. Tires Two (2) - 15" 8-ply rated - commercial Fenders Two (2) Safety Chains Standard. Parking Wheel Screw action to raise and lower. Rear Stand Folding type.

Combination tail light and license plate holder furnished.

CHIPPING UNIT: Housing Steel Plate, welded construction. Feed Opening 10" x 16" Cutting Bar 7/8" x 2-7/8" x 16-1/2" - Special steel and heat-treated. Dia. of Cylinder 16" Length of Cylinder 16" Cylinder Material Flame cut steel plate. Dia. of Shaft 3" Bearings Two (2) 2-15/16" Dia., single row, piloted and flange mounted. R.P.M. of Cylinder 3000 Number of Knives Twelve (12) Knife Dimensions 4-1/4" x 2-3/8" x 1/2" Type of Knife Double-edged, special knife steel, heat- treated, and with positive lock arrangement.

Cylinder is dynamically and statically balanced. Flywheel and auxiliary blower not required.

POWER UNIT:

Ford Industrial Engines-Standard. Available in the following models:

Model "300", 6-cylinder. 149 B.H.P. with either torque converter, or heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

Model "330", 8-cylinder, 155 B.H.P. with heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

EQUIPMENT-STANDARD WITH ALL MODELS:

Swing-away Feed Chute. Telescoping discharge chute with deflector bonnet, adjustable for height, with 360 degrees rotation for complete control for discharging right, left, or into a truck. Hinged Cover for easy access to cylinder. Matched set of high capacity "V"-Belts. Covered Battery Box. Tool box containing Knife Wrench, Sharpening Stone, Grease Gun and Operating Manual. Mechanical Governor. Paint - Color (customer option) either highway yellow Kem-Lustral F65YQ317, orange Kem-Lustral F65E1, or green Kem-Lustral F65G7.

WEIGHTS - (APPROXIMATED): M & M MODEL NO. POWER UNIT & DRIVE WEIGHT M-7 "300" with Clutch 3675 lbs.

M-8 "300" with Torque 3725 lbs.

M-9 "330" with Clutch 3825 lbs.

OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT: Tachometer Directional Signals Brakes Solenoid Throttle Control Engine Hour Meter Flashing Warning Light Engine Side Panels Fuel Gauge

WARRANTY

Machine & Parts -- 1 year

Service -- Ninety Days

Purchased Parts -- Subject to Original Manufacturer's Warranty.

The Company reserves the right to change the list price of its products without notice. It shall have the right to discontinue the manufacture of any model or type of product, and change design or add improvements at any time without incurring any obligation to install the same on M & M products previously purchased.

For further information, contact your nearest M & M Chipper Dealer, or contact the factory direct.

MITTS & MERRILL will engineer units to suit your needs and requirements.

168 BC-12

MITTS & MERRILL CHIPPER SPECIFICATIONS

MODELS M2, M3, M4, M11, M12, M13

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 120 (12 INCHES)

TRAILER: Frame All tubular steel, welded construction. Draw Bar Pintle eye-standard. Ball and socket-optional. Axle Coil spring torsion type, 2" O.D., tubular construction - 61-1/2" track. Wheels Two (2) - Semi-drop center. Tires Two (2) - 15" 8-ply rated - commercial Fenders Two (2) Safety Chains Standard. Parking Wheel Screw action to raise and lower. Rear Stand Folding type.

Combination tail light and license plate holder furnished.

CHIPPING UNIT: Housing Steel plate, welded construction. Feed Opening 10" x 12" Cutting Bar 7/8" x 2-7/8" x 12-1/2" -- Special steel and heat-treated. Dia. of Cylinder 16" Length of Cylinder 12" Cylinder Material Flame cut steel plate. Dia. of Shaft 3" Bearings Two (2) 2-11/16" Dia., single row, piloted and flange mounted. R.P.M. of Cylinder 3000 Number of Knives Nine (9) Knife Dimensions 4-1/4" x 2-3/8" x 1/2" Type of Knife Double-edged, special knife steel, heat- treated, and with positive lock arrangement.

Cylinder is dynamically and statically balanced. Flywheel and auxiliary blower not required.

POWER UNIT:

Ford Industrial Engines-Standard. Available in the following models:

Model "172", 4-cylinder, 59 B.H.P. with torque converter. Engine is calibrated at 2500 RPM.

Model "240", 6-cylinder, 124 B.H.P. with either torque converter, or heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

Model "300", 6-cylinder, 149 B.H.P. with either torque converter, or heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

Model "330", 8-cylinder, 155 B.H.P. with heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

(Graphics omitted) Mitts & Merrill Brush Chipper

engineered for years of maintenance-free service

improved to do all jobs(Illegible Words)

[] telescoping discharge chute

The new telescoping discharge chute gives the operator maximum flexibility in getting jobs done easier and in less time. The chute is adjustable to various heights, and rotatable . . . a combination that means dump boxes can be filled quickly from corner to corner with minimum spill. An adjustable bonnet at the end of the chute also permits discharge to either side, or forward, providing complete freedom in cases such as road right-of-way maintenance where chips may be left on the ground.

[] swing-away feed chute

Knife removal and throat bar adjustments are made relatively easy by the swing-away feed chute. The cutting cylinder is completely exposed when the chute is moved to the side and the hinged cover is lifted. These two features are exclusive with Mitts & Merrill Brush Chippers.

[] staggered knife pattern

The staggered knife pattern, found only on Mitts & Merrill Brush Chippers, provides more cuts per revolution. This results in smoother, more efficient cutting action that reduces material by shaving action rather than the conventional chopping motion. The double-edged knives are securely held in place by a wedge-lock which can be easily disengaged for knife reversal.

[] More outstanding features

Safety-lock pin

The double-edged knives have a positive safety locking pin between the wedge block and the special tool steel knife. This safety feature prevents throw-out of knives not properly tightened.

Easy loading

The feed chute is low to the ground and designed to permit wide-angle loading of brush and free limbs. No pushing is required . . . the cylinder draws the material into the cutting chamber quickly and safely.

All-steel cylinder

The solid steel plate cylinder is supported by a heavy-duty flange mounted ball bearing assembly. The cylinder, rotating in an all-steel welded cutting chamber, has a built-in flywheel and blower arrangement, eliminating the need for any optional equipment for blowing material into the discharge chute.

Excellent roadability

The low profile, strong tubular frame and torsion spring axle assure better roadability over any type of terrain. The certified 100-pound weight at the trailer hitch reduces wear and tear on towing vehicle and adds to the over-all strength and rigidity of the equipment.

Over 70 years of experience . . .

Mitts & Merrill has over 70 years of experience in producing and improving wood reduction machinery. The equipment offered today by Mitts & Merrill is the highest quality, best performing . . . first choice of municipalities, public utilities, highway departments, tree surgeons and others who seek economy in equipment operation through many years of maintenance-free service. The Mitts & Merrill Brush Chipper is the standard by which all brush chippers are judged. You buy it with confidence.

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 120 (12 INCH) Total Approximate Pounds Shipping Model Engine Drive Chipping Capacity Weight M-2 Ford "172" Torque Converter Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3350 M-3 Ford "240" Clutch Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3480 M-4 Ford "240" Torque Converter Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3530 M-11 Ford "300" Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3500 M-12 Ford "300" Torque Converter Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3550 M-13 Ford "330" V8 Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3675

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 160 (16 INCH) Total Approximate Pounds Shipping Model Engine Drive Chipping Capacity Weight M-6 Ford "240" Torque Converter Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3700 M-7 Ford "300" Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3675 M-8 Ford "300" Torque Converter Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3725 M-9 Ford "330" V8 Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3825

All trailers are equipped with tires, fenders, taillight, license plate holder, rear support jack, covered tool box, covered battery box, choice of ball or pintle eye hitch on telescopic draw bar, and adjustable front landing wheel. Machines are painted with prime coating plus hi-gloss enamel with color choice optional.

WARRANTY

Parts -- One year; Service Adjustments -- 90 days: Purchased parts are subject to original manufacturers guarantees.

Mitts & Merrill reserves the right to discontinue the manufacturer of any model, to redesign and to add improvements to existing models without incurring any obligation to install same on products previously furnished.

. . . then note how many features are exclusive with Mitts & Merrill Brush Chippers Mitts & Merrill General Brush Chipper Specifications Specifications Trailer frame All tubular steel, welded construction Suspension * Coil spring, torsion type Feed chute * Swing-away type Cutting chamber cover Hinged type Cylinder * 16-inch diameter, dynamically balanced with staggered knife design Cylinder material Flame cut steel plate RPM of cylinder 2,800 to 3,000 Type of knife * Self-adjusting, double-edged, positive-lock type Diameter of shaft 3 inches Feed opening * 10-inch by 12-inch, or 10-inch by 16-inch Bearings 2-15/16 inch diameter, single row, piloted and flange mounted Flywheel * Unnecessary Power Ford 172, 240, 300 or 330 cubic-inch displacement Drive * Torque converter or clutch Blower Standard equipment

ID: nht78-2.22

DATE: 04/06/78

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

TO: Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

SINCERELY,

Illinois Department of Transportation

September 22, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will you please affirm that:

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

Karsten J. Vieg Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ID: nht95-7.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Standard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a determination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Enclosure

ACTION: Issuance of Federal Register Notice Granting Cantab's Petition for Temporary Exemption From Standards Nos. 208 and 214 John Womack (K. WEINSTEIN) Acting Chief Counsel

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards

Attached for your signature is a Federal Register notice granting the petition by Cantab Motors for a temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, and the side impact protection requirements of Standard No. 214. The basis of the grant is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to meet the standards.

Cantab imports shells of Morgan sports cars from England, and installs propane engines and drive trains in the US; for this reason, we consider Cantab rather than Morgan as the manufacturer. In the year preceding the filing of its exemption petition it produced only 9 such cars. It has cumulative net losses approaching $ 93,000 for the last three fiscal years. It has been working with Morgan to develop vehicles that will be equipped with airbags meeting Standard No. 208, and provide side impact protection meeting Standard No. 214.

Because the components that must be modified for conformance are under the control of Morgan rather than Cantab, the company is dependent upon Morgan's efforts. Cantab asked for only a 2-year exemption from Standard No. 208, indicating that it is optimistic that its cars will conform in less than the 3 years it could have asked for. However, it appears to require the full 3 years for Standard No. 214.

Any threat to safety that would be presented by an exempted vehicle would be minimal because they are few in number, and are represented as conforming to earlier versions of the two standards.

No comments were received on the application.

Attachment

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Docket No. 95-53; Notice 2

Cantab Motors, Ltd.

Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and 214

Cantab Motors, Ltd., of Round Hill, Va., applied for a temporary exemption of two years from paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, and for three years from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection. The basis of the application was that compliance will cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application was published on July 14, 1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 36328).

The make and type of passenger car for which exemption was requested is the Morgan open car or convertible. Morgan Motor Company ("Morgan"), the British manufacturer of the Morgan, has not offered its vehicle for sale in the United States since the early days of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the nine years it has been in business, the applicant has bought 35 incomplete Morgan cars from the British manufacturer, and imported them as motor vehicle equipment, completing manufacture by the addition of engine and fuel system components. They differ from their British counterparts, not only in equipment items and modifications necessary for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but also in their fuel system components and engines, which are propane fueled. As the party completing manufacture of the vehicle, Cantab certifies its conformance to all applicable Federal safety and bumper standards. The vehicle completed by Cantab in the U.S. is deemed sufficiently different from the one produced in Britain that NHTSA considers Cantab the manufacturer, not a converter, even though the brand names are the same.

Morgan itself produced 478 cars in 1994, while in the year preceding the filing of its petition in June 1995, the applicant produced 9 cars for sale in the United States. Since the granting of its original exemption in 1990, Cantab has invested $ 38,244 in research and development related to compliance with Federal safety and emissions standards. The applicant has experienced a net loss in each of its last three fiscal (calendar) years, with a cumulative net loss for this period of $ 92,594.

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 208

Cantab received NHTSA Exemption No. 90-3 from S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208, which expired May 1, 1993 (55 FR 21141). When this exemption was granted in 1990, the applicant had concluded that the most feasible way for it to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 was by means of an automatically deploying belt. In the period following the granting of the exemption, Morgan and the applicant created a mock-up of the Morgan passenger compartment with seat belt hardware and motor drive assemblies. In time, it was determined that the belt track was likely to deform, making it inoperable. The program was abandoned, and Morgan and Cantab embarked upon research leading to a dual airbag system.

According to the applicant, Morgan tried without success to obtain a suitable airbag system from Mazda, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and Lotus. As a result, Morgan is now developing its own system for its cars, and "[as] many as twelve different sensors, of both the impact and deceleration (sic) type, have been tested and the system currently utilizes a steering wheel from a Jaguar and the Land Rover Discovery steering column." Redesign of the passenger compartment is underway, involving knee bolstering, a supplementary seat belt system, antisubmarining devices, and the seats themselves. Morgan informed the applicant on May 2, 1995, that it had thus far completed 10 tests on the mechanical components involved "and are now carrying out a detailed assessment of air bag operating systems and columns before we will be in a position to undertake the full set of appropriate tests to approve the installation in our vehicles."

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 214

Concurrently, Morgan and the applicant have been working towards meeting the dynamic test and performance requirements for side impact protection, for which Standard No. 214 has established a phase-in schedule. Although Morgan fits its car with a dual roll bar system specified by Cantab, and Cantab installs door bars and strengthens the door latch receptacle and striker plate, the system does not yet conform to the new requirements of Standard No. 214, and the applicant has asked for an exemption of three years. It does, however, meet the previous side door strength requirements of the standard. Were the phase-in requirement of S8 applied to it, calculated on the basis of its limited production, only very few cars would be required to meet the standard.

Safety and Public Interest Arguments

Because of the small number of vehicles that the applicant produces and its belief that they are used for pleasure rather than daily for business commuting or on long trips, and because of the three-point restraints and side impact protection currently offered, the applicant argued that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with safety. It brought to the agency's attention two recent oblique front impact accidents at estimated speeds of 30 mph and 65 mph respectively in which the restrained occupants "emerged unscathed."

Further, the availability "of this unique vehicle . . . will help maintain the existing diversity of motor vehicles available to the U.S. consumer." Finally, "the distribution of [this] propane-fueled vehicle has contributed to the national interest by promoting the development of motor systems by using alternate fuels."

No comments were received on the application.

In adding only engine and fuel system components to incomplete vehicles, the applicant is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles in the conventional sense. It does not produce the front end structural components, instrument panel, or steering wheel, areas of the motor vehicle whose design is critical for compliance with the airbag requirements of Standard No. 208. These are manufactured by Morgan, and the applicant is necessarily dependent upon Morgan to devise designs that will enable conformance with Standard No. 208. The applicant has been monitoring Morgan's progress, and that company is engaging in testing and design activities necessary for eventual conformance. The fact that the applicant is requesting only a two-year exemption, rather than three, indicates its belief that complying operator and passenger airbags will at last be fitted to its cars by the end of this period.

Similarly, the applicant is dependent upon the structural design of its vehicle for compliance with Standard No. 214. As with Standard No. 208, Morgan and the applicant are working towards conformance, though apparently it will not be achieved within two years. In both instances, however, the applicant is conscious of the need to conform and has been taking steps to accomplish it. Although the company's total expenditure of $ 38,244 in the last five years to meet emission and safety requirements is low, the small number of cars produced for sale in the United States in the last year, nine, would not make available substantial funds to the company, and its cumulative net losses of $ 92,594 indicate an operation whose financial existence is precarious.

Applicant's cars are equipped with manual three-point restraint systems and comply with previous side impact intrusion requirements. Because applicant produces only one line of vehicles, it cannot take advantage of the phase-in requirement. Given the existing level of safety of the vehicles and the comparatively small exposure of the small number of them that would be produced under an exemption, there would appear to be an insignificant risk to traffic safety by providing an exemption. The public interest is served by maintaining the existence of small businesses and by creating awareness of alternative power sources.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that to require immediate compliance with Standards Nos. 208 and 214 would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has in good faith attempted to meet the standards, and that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, the applicant is hereby granted NHTSA Exemption No. 95-2, from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, expiring September 1, 1997, and from 49 CFR 571.214 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection, expiring September 1, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on SEP 7 1995

Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator

BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P

ID: nht95-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Sta ndard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a dete rmination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Enclosure

ACTION: Issuance of Federal Register Notice Granting Cantab's Petition for Temporary Exemption From Standards Nos. 208 and 214 John Womack (K. WEINSTEIN) Acting Chief Counsel

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards

Attached for your signature is a Federal Register notice granting the petition by Cantab Motors for a temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, and the side impact protection requirements of Standard No. 214. The basis of the grant is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to meet the standards.

Cantab imports shells of Morgan sports cars from England, and installs propane engines and drive trains in the US; for this reason, we consider Cantab rather than Morgan as the manufacturer. In the year preceding the filing of its exemption petition it produced only 9 such cars. It has cumulative net losses approaching $ 93,000 for the last three fiscal years. It has been working with Morgan to develop vehicles that will be equipped with airbags meeting Standard No. 208, and provide side impact prote ction meeting Standard No. 214.

Because the components that must be modified for conformance are under the control of Morgan rather than Cantab, the company is dependent upon Morgan's efforts. Cantab asked for only a 2-year exemption from Standard No. 208, indicating that it is optimi stic that its cars will conform in less than the 3 years it could have asked for. However, it appears to require the full 3 years for Standard No. 214.

Any threat to safety that would be presented by an exempted vehicle would be minimal because they are few in number, and are represented as conforming to earlier versions of the two standards.

No comments were received on the application.

Attachment

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Docket No. 95-53; Notice 2

Cantab Motors, Ltd.

Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and 214

Cantab Motors, Ltd., of Round Hill, Va., applied for a temporary exemption of two years from paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, and for three years from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No . 214 Side Impact Protection. The basis of the application was that compliance will cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application was published on July 14, 1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 36328).

The make and type of passenger car for which exemption was requested is the Morgan open car or convertible. Morgan Motor Company ("Morgan"), the British manufacturer of the Morgan, has not offered its vehicle for sale in the United States since the e arly days of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the nine years it has been in business, the applicant has bought 35 incomplete Morgan cars from the British manufacturer, and imported them as motor vehicle equipment, completing manufacture by the addition of engine and fuel system components. They differ from their British counterparts, not only in equipment items and modifications necessary for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but also in their fuel system compon ents and engines, which are propane fueled. As the party completing manufacture of the vehicle, Cantab certifies its conformance to all applicable Federal safety and bumper standards. The vehicle completed by Cantab in the U.S. is deemed sufficiently di fferent from the one produced in Britain that NHTSA considers Cantab the manufacturer, not a converter, even though the brand names are the same.

Morgan itself produced 478 cars in 1994, while in the year preceding the filing of its petition in June 1995, the applicant produced 9 cars for sale in the United States. Since the granting of its original exemption in 1990, Cantab has invested $ 38, 244 in research and development related to compliance with Federal safety and emissions standards. The applicant has experienced a net loss in each of its last three fiscal (calendar) years, with a cumulative net loss for this period of $ 92,594.

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 208

Cantab received NHTSA Exemption No. 90-3 from S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208, which expired May 1, 1993 (55 FR 21141). When this exemption was granted in 1990, the applicant had concluded that the most feasible way for it to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 was by means of an automatically deploying belt. In the period following the granting of the exemption, Morgan and the applicant created a mock-up of the Morgan passenger compartment with seat belt h ardware and motor drive assemblies. In time, it was determined that the belt track was likely to deform, making it inoperable. The program was abandoned, and Morgan and Cantab embarked upon research leading to a dual airbag system.

According to the applicant, Morgan tried without success to obtain a suitable airbag system from Mazda, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and Lotus. As a result, Morgan is now developing its own system for its cars, and "[as] many as twelve different sensors, of b oth the impact and deceleration (sic) type, have been tested and the system currently utilizes a steering wheel from a Jaguar and the Land Rover Discovery steering column." Redesign of the passenger compartment is underway, involving knee bolstering, a s upplementary seat belt system, antisubmarining devices, and the seats themselves. Morgan informed the applicant on May 2, 1995, that it had thus far completed 10 tests on the mechanical components involved "and are now carrying out a detailed assessment of air bag operating systems and columns before we will be in a position to undertake the full set of appropriate tests to approve the installation in our vehicles."

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 214

Concurrently, Morgan and the applicant have been working towards meeting the dynamic test and performance requirements for side impact protection, for which Standard No. 214 has established a phase-in schedule. Although Morgan fits its car with a dua l roll bar system specified by Cantab, and Cantab installs door bars and strengthens the door latch receptacle and striker plate, the system does not yet conform to the new requirements of Standard No. 214, and the applicant has asked for an exemption of three years. It does, however, meet the previous side door strength requirements of the standard. Were the phase-in requirement of S8 applied to it, calculated on the basis of its limited production, only very few cars would be required to meet the st andard.

Safety and Public Interest Arguments

Because of the small number of vehicles that the applicant produces and its belief that they are used for pleasure rather than daily for business commuting or on long trips, and because of the three-point restraints and side impact protection currentl y offered, the applicant argued that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with safety. It brought to the agency's attention two recent oblique front impact accidents at estimated speeds of 30 mph and 65 mph respectively in which t he restrained occupants "emerged unscathed."

Further, the availability "of this unique vehicle . . . will help maintain the existing diversity of motor vehicles available to the U.S. consumer." Finally, "the distribution of [this] propane-fueled vehicle has contributed to the national interest b y promoting the development of motor systems by using alternate fuels."

No comments were received on the application.

In adding only engine and fuel system components to incomplete vehicles, the applicant is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles in the conventional sense. It does not produce the front end structural components, instrument panel, or steering wheel, ar eas of the motor vehicle whose design is critical for compliance with the airbag requirements of Standard No. 208. These are manufactured by Morgan, and the applicant is necessarily dependent upon Morgan to devise designs that will enable conformance wi th Standard No. 208. The applicant has been monitoring Morgan's progress, and that company is engaging in testing and design activities necessary for eventual conformance. The fact that the applicant is requesting only a two-year exemption, rather than three, indicates its belief that complying operator and passenger airbags will at last be fitted to its cars by the end of this period.

Similarly, the applicant is dependent upon the structural design of its vehicle for compliance with Standard No. 214. As with Standard No. 208, Morgan and the applicant are working towards conformance, though apparently it will not be achieved within two years. In both instances, however, the applicant is conscious of the need to conform and has been taking steps to accomplish it. Although the company's total expenditure of $ 38,244 in the last five years to meet emission and safety requirements is low, the small number of cars produced for sale in the United States in the last year, nine, would not make available substantial funds to the company, and its cumulative net losses of $ 92,594 indicate an operation whose financial existence is precario us.

Applicant's cars are equipped with manual three-point restraint systems and comply with previous side impact intrusion requirements. Because applicant produces only one line of vehicles, it cannot take advantage of the phase-in requirement. Given th e existing level of safety of the vehicles and the comparatively small exposure of the small number of them that would be produced under an exemption, there would appear to be an insignificant risk to traffic safety by providing an exemption. The public interest is served by maintaining the existence of small businesses and by creating awareness of alternative power sources.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that to require immediate compliance with Standards Nos. 208 and 214 would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has in good faith attempted to meet the standards, and that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, the applicant is hereby granted NHTSA Exemption No. 95-2, from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, expiring September 1, 1997, and from 49 CFR 571.214 Motor Vehicle Safety St andard No. 214 Side Impact Protection, expiring September 1, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on SEP 7 1995

Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator

BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P

ID: 77-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ward School Bus Mfg., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 7, 1976 and January 8, 1977, questions whether 53 described intersections of bus body components qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. This also responds to your question whether the seating reference point in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, can be located using nominal seat cushion deflection.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 53 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that the areas corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs of your letter are bus body joints and therefore must meet the 60-percent joint strength requirements: 1 through 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 51. Additionally the joint described in your January 8, 1977, submission must comply with the standard.

The illustration accompanying paragraph 16 shows a second joint between a door post and exterior trim panel with the notation that this joint is "Not Required To Meet Std." The agency concludes that this joint also must meet the requirements of the standard, because it is a connection of a body component with a body panel that encloses occupant space.

The lower skirt section described in paragraph 35 is not a body panel that encloses occupant space, because it is located entirely below the level of the floor line and, therefore, is excluded from the standard's requirements.

In the control console area, the interior side panel described in paragraph 38 and the shoulder cap (wire cover) described in paragraph 43 are considered maintenance access panels, whose joining with the bus body is excluded from the requirements only if a wire is installed behind them.

The turn signal housings described in paragraph 40 and 41 are not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and are therefore not considered body components for purposes of the requirements.

The front and rear headers described in paragraphs 47 and 48 are considered primarily structural and have only an incidental role in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered "body panels" for purposes of the requirements.

The rubrail described in paragraph 49 is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, is not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which it is fastened, it should be modified as necessary to prevent it from affecting testing of the underlying joint.

Because the plywood described in paragraph 50 is attached to a floor panel and is only added to some buses for insulation purposes, it is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

The NHTSA concludes that parts A, E, and F of paragraph 52 describe joints between maintenance access panels and the bus body. The heater ducts in parts B, C, and D are the type of ventilation space that is not subject to requirements for joint strength.

In response to your question concerning the effect of seat cushion deflection on the location of the seating reference point, the NHTSA has determined that the definition of seating reference point contemplates some deflection of seat cushions to simulate compression of padding material under the weight of a human torso and thigh. As noted in the preamble of the second proposal for a school bus seating standard (39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974), "It can be seen that the manufacturer's freedom to locate the point is sharply restricted by the definition which specifies that it actually simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh, following SAE placement procedures." However, since the seating reference point is an approximation of the pivot center, the NHTSA permits the manufacturer to locate the point based upon nominal seat cushion deflection.

SINCERELY,

Ward SCHOOL BUS MFG., INC.

December 7, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength

We have interpreted FMVSS 221 and are currently working on design changes which will enable us to meet this specification in the future. Since there is some latitude for interpretation in the specification, the purpose of this letter is to convey to you exactly our interpretation of FMVSS 221 as it relates to our body design and request that you review the interpretation.

We ask that you reply to each item as to the validity of our interpretation. This review is being requested in order to eliminate the possibility of erroneous designs due to incorrect interpretation of the standard.

We have chosen a format which we feel is concise and will minimize the paperwork involved. The subject joints are numbered consecutively with the first group being those which we have determined must meet FMVSS 221. It should be noted that there are a few compound joints in this group which contain areas which we feel are not required to meet the standard. These situations are noted on the drawings.

The second group is those joints which we have determined as not being required to meet FMVSS 221. Our reasons for the classification are included with this second group. Drawings and photographs have been used to illustrate each joint. The drawings are not necessarily to scale but were drawn in a manner designed to best illustrate the joint configuration. Individual joint drawings and photographs have been numbered to correspond with the joint descriptions contained herein.

If you need any additional descriptive information, please let us know.

We ask that the drawings and photographs be given confidential treatment.

It should be noted that it is our understanding that any components which are completely below the bus floor level or forward of the windshield are not required to meet the provisions of FMVSS 221.

BY OUR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 221, THE FOLLOWING JOINTS (NUMBERS 1-34) ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE 60% JOINT STRENGTH STANDARD.

1. Front cap joint to upper front cowl.

2. Upper front cowl joint to lower front cowl.

3. Rear cap joint to header and rear outside panel.

4. Rear panel (interior and exterior) joints to emergency door frame.

5. Rear exterior panel joint to rear bottom frame.

6. Rear cap inside lining joint to header.

7. Rear inside lining joint to header.

8. Rear interior lining joint to frame bottom channel.

9. Rear emergency door drip trough joint to header and end cap.

10. Rear inside lining joint to bow.

11. Side skirt joint to floor.

12. Skirt section joints.

13. Center skirt section joint to wheel well.

14. Floor section joints.

15. Wheel well joint to floor.

16. Exterior trim panel (immediately adjacent entrance door) joint to bow and side sheet.

17. Interior trim panel (immediately adjacent entrance door) joints to entrance door frame and bow.

18. Interior side sheet joint to rear interior lining and rear frame corner post.

19. Interior sheet joint to exterior side panel and sill.

20. Interior sheet joint to skirt and back-up angle.

21. Interior side sheet overlap and joint to bow.

22. Interior top lining joint to bow.

23. Interior front header lining joint to header.

24. Interior front header lining joint to interior top sheet and bow.

25. Side window header joint to inside and outside lining.

26. Exterior front cap joint to top skin and bow.

27. Top skin joint to top skin and bow.

28. Exterior side sheet joint to skirt.

29. Rear sheet joint to aft edge of exterior side sheet and reinforcing channel.

30. Exterior rear sheet joint to bow.

31. Left front exterior panel---top section joint to bottom section.

32. Left hand exterior panel forward edge joint to front cowl and post.

33. Left front exterior panel to driver window sill.

34. Aft edge of left front exterior panel joint to side sheet and bow.

BY OUR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 221, THE FOLLOWING JOINTS (NUMBERS 35-52) ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 60% JOINT STRENGTH STANDARD.

35. Lower center skirt section joint to upper center skirt section.

Reason: In view of the joint configuration, the lower section does not act to enclose occupant space. The joint between the upper center skirt section and the floor is required to meet the standard.

36. Exterior bow cover joint to sill, side sheet, and bow.

Reason: This is a small panel which is insignificant in enclosing occupant space. The vertical edges of this panel are also curved around the bow edges and do not present a flat edge.

37. Exterior trim panel at driver's window joint to "Z" bar and bow.

Reason: This is a small panel which is insignificant in enclosing occupant space. The vertical edges of this panel are also curved around the bow edges and do not present a flat edge.

38. Control console area interior side panel joint to front framework.

Reason: This is considered a maintenance access panel because the bus body wiring passes through it and the control console is installed against it.

39. Front cowl leg, left and right hand, joint to front framework and cowl.

Reason: These legs are structural members.

40. Rear turn signal housing joint to rear panel.

Reason: The turn signal housing is not considered a panel and it does not join the rear panel at a panel edge.

41. Front body mounted turn signal housing joint to front cowl.

Reason: The turn signal housing is not considered a panel and it does not join the cowl at a panel edge. Also, these turn signals are optional items which are not installed on every bus.

42. Inside lining joint to outside lining at rear visibility windows.

Reason: The grazing rubber for glass mounting is installed along this joint. The window area is excluded from the 60% requirement in Section S4 of Standard 221. Also this is not a panel edge but rather a hole in the panel. The edges of the panel are required to meet the standard.

43. Shoulder cap (wire cover) joint to interior side sheet and window sill.

Reason: In most cases, bus body wiring is routed inside this cap thus making it a maintenance access panel and excluding it from the joint strength standard. It is understood that in cases where there are no wires beneath the cap, the subject joints are required to meet the 60% joint strength requirement.

44. Exterior side sheet forward end cap joint to side sheet and doorway trim panel.

Reason: As seen in the photo, this is a small piece which provides the transition from the formed body fairing to the flat doorway area and plays no significant role in "enclosing occupant space."

45. Interior "brite-kote" aluminum panel joint to side sheet (no photo available).

Reason: This is an optional decorative item which is furnished on only a limited number of buses.

46. Interior bow cap joint to bow.

Reason: This panel must be removed in order to replace the window, thus it is considered a maintenance access panel.

47. Rear header joints to bow.

Reason: The rear header is a structural member with only a small amount of surface area exposed to the inside of the bus occupant space.

48. Front header joint to upper front cowl and posts.

Reason: The front header is a structural member with only a small amount of surface area exposed to the inside of the bus occupant space.

49. Rub rail joint to side panel.

Reason: These exterior rails do not serve to "enclose occupant space."

50. Plywood floor on standard metal floor.

Reason: This is an optional insulating material.

51. License plate inset panel joint to exterior rear sheet.

Reason: The license plate inset panel is welded into a hole which is cut in the rear body panel, thus the edge of the rear body panel is not included in the joint.

52. Several items located primarily in the forward section of the bus are designed for functional purposes and are thus excluded from the standard. These items include the following (see photographs):

A) Left hand control console;

B) Left hand heater;

C) Heater duct;

D) Right hand heater;

E) Instrument panel;

F) Transmission cover plate.

We believe that these categorized lists illustrate the fact that we have tried to objectively interpret FMVSS 221. Your review of those items and subsequent reply will serve to indicate the accuracy of our interpretation.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Raymond Titsworth, Project Engineer

ID: nht90-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 16, 1990

FROM: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- VICE PRESIDENT, INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

TO: ROBERT F. HELLMUTH -- DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE, NHTSA

TITLE: NEF-31 GEN/NCI 3092

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-15-90 TO SATOSHI NISHIBORI FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; [A35 REDBOOK; STD. 120]

TEXT: This responds to your October 31, 1989, letter regarding the compliance of 1989 Nissan pickup trucks with FMVSS 120. In my December 19th letter to you, I confirmed an extension until January 16, 1990, to respond to your request.

Nissan's responses to your questions regarding the 1989 Nissan truck are set forth in the Attachment. We wish to emphasize, however, that, based on our reading of FMVSS 120, it is not clear that the vehicles in question fail to comply with that stand ard. Nissan has followed a procedure whereby tire inflation pressures specified on FMVSS 120 tire/rim information labels are determined based on the tire's ability to support their share of the vehicle's gross axle weight rating (GAWR). The load carryi ng capacity of the tires at various pressures is determined by reference to data in tire industry standarization manuals; such as the Tire and Rim Association (TRA) Yearbook. Once a minimum pressure that is adequate to carry the GAWR is determined, Nissa n considers other factors, such as vehicle ride characteristics, to select the recommended pressure. This process results in the selection of a recommended pressure that will permit the tires to carry safely GAWR loads and will provide good vehicle ride characteristics. Nissan believes that the procedure it followed resulted in the recommendation of a tire pressure that is consistent with safe vehicle operation and is permitted under FMVSS 120.

Based on our reading of the Agency contractor's test report on this matter, it appears that the contractor has interpreted FMVSS 120 in a manner different from Nissan. However, we believe that our own reading of FMVSS 120 is consistent with the langu age used in that standard. In particular, based on our reading, we conclude that:

1. the tire label need not show the tire's maximum inflation pressure; and

2. the 1.1 adjustment factor in section 5.1.2 of the standard applies for tire selection purposes only. Nothing in FMVSS 120 requires that the relationships between tire inflation pressure and load, as specified by tire manufacturers in standardizat ion manuals or otherwise, must be universally adjusted by use of this factor. We read FMVSS 120 to require, in practical terms, that when a passenger car tire is to be used on a truck, a slightly larger capacity tire must be selected than would be the c ase if the tire were to be used on a similar size passenger car. Based on Agency statements in Federal Register notices regarding FMVSS 120, the standard apparently requires this difference in tire selection due to the greater potential for off-road use and heavy load operation (perhaps above the vehicle's rated load capacity) for trucks than for passenger cars, and not due to any inherent difference in load-pressure relationships for the vehicles.

It is our understanding that the Agency's test report concludes that the 1989 Nissan truck that was inspected by the Agency's contractor does not conform to S.5.3.5 of FMVSS 120. Section 5.3.5 specifies that the vehicle's tire/rim selection label mus t show the "cold inflation pressure for [the] tires". This provision does not specify how the "cold inflation pressure" is to be determined, or for which driving conditions the pressure must be appropriate. FMVSS 120, as originally proposed, specified t hat the label must show the "maximum cold inflation pressures of the tires with which the vehicle is equipped, as marked on the tires. . ." See 36 Federal Register 14273-4, August 3, 1971, emphasis added. In a subsequent proposal, the requirement was re vised to specify that the label must show the "maximum tire inflation pressure", deleting the reference to the tires actually on the vehicle at the time of sale. See 39 Federal Register 19505, 19507, June 3, 1974. This revision was made to recognize and continue to permit the practice of dealers changing tire sizes prior to delivery of trucks to the purchaser. 39 Federal Register 19505. The final rule establishing FMVSS 120 adopts the current language of

section 5.3.5 (as paragraph 5.3(c)), i.e., "cold inflation pressure", but the preamble does not explain the deletion of the term "maximum" with regard to the inflation pressure. See 41 Federal Register 3480, January 23 1976. Nevertheless, the change in wording suggests that the tire label must reflect some pressure other than the maximum pressure.

We believe that the context of section 5.3.5 may provide some additional guidance as to which pressure must appear on the label. Section 5.3.1 specifies that the information required under section 5.3.3 through 5.3.5 must appear either "after each GA WR" in the case of a certification label or must be "appropriate for each GVWR-GAWR combination", if a combined certification/120 label format is used. Thus, the "cold inflation pressure" selected should be consistent with the GAWR of the vehicle. This conclusion is supported by a subsequent NHTSA preamble, which states that the section 5.3.5 pressure need not be the maximum pressure, "but, the pressure specified by the tire manufacturer as sufficient to carry the load specified by the vehicle manufac turer as the tire's share of the assigned GAWR". 42 Federal Register 7143, February 7, 1977.

The 1989 Nissan truck inspected by the Agency is equipped with Firestone WR-12, P 195/75R14 M+S tires. The tires have a maximum load rating of 1400 pounds. The certification label on the vehicle specifies a cold inflation pressure of 34 psi for the rear tires and a GAWR of 2544 pounds for the rear axle. The key issue raised by NHTSA is whether the 34 psi pressure on the label is a pressure "specified by the tire manufacturer as sufficient to carry" half the GAWR, or 1272 pounds.

The regulations do not specify a procedure by which the tire manufacturer must articulate whether the tire, inflated to 34 psi, will support a 1272 pound load. For example, we believe this information could be obtained from tire industry standardizat ion manuals or from direct discussions between the vehicle and tire manufacturers.

Data in the 1989 Tire and Rim Association (TRA) yearbook show that the tires in question will support a load of 1279 pounds at 29 psi, with higher loads supportable at higher pressures. Therefore, the 1989 Nissan truck would appear to comply with sec tion 5.3.5. Moreover, the manufacturer of the tires used as original equipment on the vehicle has confirmed that the tires inflated to 34 psi, will carry 1383 pounds (which is more than half the GAWR) on this vehicle (see Enclosure 1).

However, NHTSA has apparently interpreted the required calculation procedure differently. As we understand the procedure used by NHTSA's contractor in its test report, it first calculated a "tire load limit" at 34 psi by interpolating between the loa d limits at 32 psi and at 35 psi, as specified in the TRA tables. Assuming that a linear interpolation is appropriate, the 34 psi maximum load would be 1381.67 pounds. NHTSA's contractor then proceeds to divide the interpolated load by 1.1, yielding 125 6.06 pounds. Since this figure is less than the tire's share of the GAWR (1272 pounds), the contractor concludes that a violation has occurred. Assuming that linear interpolation between the table values is appropriate and the contractor's procedure is correct, a pressure of 34.956 pounds would be required to support 1272 pounds.

We believe that the procedure followed by the contractor is not specified in FMVSS 120. In particular, we object to the contractor's application of the 1.1 adjustment factor to intermediate tire loads and for purposes other than tire selection, since the standard does not specify these procedures.

The use of a 1.1 factor is specified in section 5.1.2 of the standard for tire selection purposes. That section provides that the sum of the load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle must be not less than the GAWR. Prior to calculating the sum, th e tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing by 1.1 if the tire is listed in Appendix A of Standard 109 and is installed on a truck, bus, MPV, or trailer. However, no specific tires are listed in Appendix A of Standard 109. It is our understanding that prior to the early 1980s, that Appendix did list certain tire sizes for use on passenger cars. Therefore, section 5.1.2 may suggest that when passenger tires are used on trucks, the tire's load rating must be reduced by the 1.1 factor prior to det ermining whether the tires are adequate to support the GAWR. According to the 1977 preamble, the purpose of applying the 1.1 factor is "to account for the generally harsher treatment (impulse and surge loading in the case of MPV's off-road) to which the tires of a vehicle other than a passenger car are exposed that is not accounted for in passenger car tire rating". Supra. Thus, it appears that the purpose for the 1.1 factor is not to deal with a difference in the ability of a tire to support a given load at a particular pressure when the tire is used on a car as compared to use on a truck. Rather, the stated intent seems to be to deal with the greater off-road use (or possibly more frequent overload situations) to which vehicles other than passeng er cars are subjected. n1

n1 It is important to note that the 1989 Nissan truck meets the tire selection criteria of section 5.1.2. If the tires' maximum load rating (1400#) is divided by 1.1, and the adjusted sum (2545#) of the two tires' load ratings exceeds the GAWR (2544# ).

The use of the 1.1 factor for tire selection purposes only is also suggested by the language of section 5.3.3. That provision references section 5.1.2 (and, thereby, the 1.1 factor) in determining whether the tire size is appropriate for the GAWR. H owever, the absence of the parenthetical reference to section 5.1.2 in section 5.3.5 suggests that the application of the 1.1 factor is not required for determining whether the tire pressure on the label is appropriate for the GAWR.

To summarize, the language used in FMVSS 120 to describe the process to be used in determining the cold inflation pressure under section 5.3.5 is ambiguous at best, and contrary to the procedure used by NHTSA's contractor at worst. These deficiencies are exhibited with regard to the following determinations:

1. Whether the 1.1 adjustment factor is to be used for purposes other than tire selection;

2. Which tires are subject to the 1.1 factor (Appendix A, standard 109);

3. The source of information on the tire manufacturer's load limit for the tire, at various pressures; and

4. The procedure for interpolating information derived from the TRA tables.

Of these factors, we believe the first to be the most significant, but all contribute to the ambiguity of the standard.

It is our understanding that at least one other vehicle manufacturer has interpreted section 5.3.5 in a manner inconsistent with NHTSA's contractor. This suggests that a problem may exist with the wording of the standard and that more is involved than a single party's misreading of clear regulatory language. If the contractor's interpretation were the only acceptable interpretation, approximately 700,000 Nissan vehicles produced as far back as 1983 could be implicated (see Attachment).

Response 5 in the Attachment lists additional vehicle/tire combinations where Nissan's specified tire pressure differs from that determined under the contractor's procedure. Nissan is now conducting additional tests to verify that these tires will su pport higher test loads. We expect that the results of this testing will demonstrate that the tires used on Nissan's vehicles have

sufficient load capacity to support their share of the vehicles' GAWR at the recommended inflation pressures. The procedure being followed involves testing the tires to FMVSS 109 procedures, but increasing test loads by multiplying them by an overload f actor. The overload factor is calculated by multiplying the GAWR by 0.5 and dividing the product obtained by the tires' load rating at the pressure shown on the vehicle's tire label (calculated according to NHTSA's contractor's procedure, i.e., using th e 1.1 factor).

The results of this testing should be available by January 31st. However, one of the affected tires (7.00 x 14) is no longer in production; therefore, a special batch of those tires is being produced. The test results for this one tire size should b e available by mid-February.

Nissan wishes to work cooperatively with NHTSA to resolve this matter. However, we believe that the language of section 5.3.5 does not clearly provide a basis for finding the 1989 Nissan truck to be in noncompliance, or for conducting a notification a nd remedy campaign under the the Safety Act.

We request that NHTSA consider the issues raised above and the results of our ongoing testing, and that the Agency concur that the Nissan vehicles comply with FMVSS 120. We request the opportunity to meet with you after you have considered the matter s raised in this letter, so that we can answer any questions you may have and discuss a resolution of the matter.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Kazuo Iwasaki of my staff, at 202/466-5284.

Sincerely,

ENC.

ID: Ms Buley