ID: nht69-1.23

DATE: 08/20/69

FROM: WARREN M. HEATH

COMMANDER ENGINEERING SECTION

TO: ROBERT BRENNER --

ACTING DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: GEORGE GAUDAEN -- SAE

TITLE: REF: 81.A215.A1575

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brenner:

We have a copy of a letter to Mr. Charles W. Heyer of Electrical Testing Laboratories from Mr. Charles A. Baker regarding photometric test procedures. That letter quite clearly points out the method in which the National Highway Safety Bureau desires multicompartment turn signal lamps to be(Illegible Word). However, it raises additional questions concerning procedures to be used both by a laboratory in determining compliance of a device with the Federal standards and by a manufacturer in designing a lamp to meet these standards.

The photometric requirements in SAE(Illegible Word) were developed several years ago before multicompartment lamps were in common use. These standards reasonably well fulfilled the need in upgrading the performance of single-compartment lamps at that time. Later, experience with some of the original multicompartment lamps and complaints about excessive brightness of the taillamps and stoplamps on vehicles brought about a need for revising the standards.

At that time, each section of a multicompartment lamp was treated in the same manner as an individual lamp, since their performance was little different than that of individual lamps set side by side. Therefore, each compartment of a three-compartment lamp had to meet the(Illegible Words) for a taillamp and the 80 candlepower minimum for a turn signal lamp. In addition, each compartment was allowed to have a maximum intensity of 15 candlepower at or above horizontal for the taillamp and 300 candlepower in red for the turn signal lamp.

The above maximum values were reasonable when only one or two lamps were used on each side of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the first three-compartment lamps were built with such high light output that each compartment barely complied with the

maximum. This meant in some cases that the combined taillamp output on each side of the vehicle was over 45 candlepower and the combined turn signal output was barely below the total maximum of(Illegible Word) candlepower, thereby being annoyingly bright to following drivers.

The manufacturers and the(Illegible Word) Lighting Committee recognized this problem and alter a number of demonstrations of systems and rewriting of proposed crafts developed the multicompartment rear lamp specification in(Illegible Words). The original brightness problem appeares to be quote simple and could have been solved merely by reducing the maximum intensities allowed multicompartment lamps; however, the manufacturers were concerned that they would then be squeezed between a high minimum value for each compartment and a low maximum value which did not allow sufficient(Illegible Word) for normal design and production.

The SAE studies indicated that with the types of multiple compartment lamps(Illegible Word) were in use about three years ago, the values in SAE(Illegible Word) applying to the total light output of the multicompartment lamp were reasonable. This standard did not cover every combination of brightness and lens area that might be involved in providing anytime effectiveness while limiting nighttime brightness to reduce annoyance, but it was a first step in this direction.

Manufacturers who have attempted to comply with both(Illegible Words) and SAE(Illegible Word) have differences in interpretation of your requirements. We would like to have the following points clarified so we do not cause the manufacturers unnecessary difficulties when we test devices for compliance with Federal and State standards:

1. Section(Illegible Words) specifies in part that the photometric requirements "shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps".

(a) Does this mean that if one compartment or lamp meets the minimum and maximum requirements, the other compartments or lamps can have photometric output either below the minimums required or above the maximum permitted?

(b) Does this mean that one lamp may be used to meet the minimum requirements with the others adding stray light, provided the maximum requirement of 15 candlepower in the case of taillamps and(Illegible Word) candlepower in the case of turn signal lamps is not exceeded when all lamps or compartments are lighted simultaneously?

(c) Does the manufacturer have the choice in interpreting this section as to which method is most favorable to him for his particular design?

2. Mr. Baker's letter of May 12 states that "The sums of the measured candlepowers at the test points of separately photometered lamps or compartments of a combination shall not be acceptable", whereby implying that all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously.

(a) What was the purpose of stating in Section 3.1.1.7 that photometric requirements shall be provided by "one" or a combination of compartments if individual tests are not permitted to determine whether one compartment actually does comply?

(b) If it is the intent that the compartments shall be measured simultaneously, should not the above section be(Illegible Word) to eliminate the implied alternative of having only one of the lamps comply?

3. FMVSS No. 198 makes no mention of the method of testing multicompartment and multilamp taillamps and steplamps, as Section 3.1.1.7 applies only to turn signals.

(a) Do the standards require each compartment of a taillamp or steplamp to be tested separately to show compliance with(Illegible Word), or are they to be tested simultaneously as required of turn signals?

(b) Must each separate lamp or individual compartment meet the taillamp-to-steplamp ratio, or is it sufficient that the compartments when lighted together meet the ratio even though a particular lamp or compartment does not comply individually.

4. The California Vehicle Code contains a Section(Illegible Word) which prohibits a motor vehicle from being equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not specifically required or permitted by the Code. The manufacturers would like to interpret Section(Illegible Words) as permitting any number of additional taillamps and stoplamps on each side, provided only the lamp meets the requirements of J575c. The only limitation they propose is that all of the lamps taken together do not exceed the maximum candlepower requirements(Illegible Words), as an example of nonimpairment of the effectiveness of the single required lamp. They would also use photometric data showing that the total stoplamp to total taillamp output complies with the ratio requirements of J575c; again, to prove nonimpairment.

(a) Do the Federal standards preempts states from enforcing present requirements that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and to approved for that function?

(b) Are all of the separate lamps in the multiple rear lamp arrangement considered by the Bureau as comprising one lamp and(Illegible Word) to be taken as such by the states in enforcing identical standards?

(c) Does the Federal standard merely require the minimum of one stoplamp and taillamp on each side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of(Illegible Word), with the additional optional lamps to be provided at the manufacturers discretion regardless of whatever standards the states may have for any such supplemental lamps?

5. Some modern designs of multicompartment lamps have three compartment configurations where the large(Illegible Word) compartment is a backup lamp and on each side of it is a taillamp-stoplamp combination. Other configurations include a three compartment lamp centered on the rear of the vehicle where the middle compartment as a taillamp-stoplamp combination and the compartments on each side of it perform only taillamp functions.

(a) Where one rear lamp compartments are separated by a backup lamp compartment, as the entire lamp to be tested as a single unit as though the rear lamp sections were adjacent to each other?

(b) With respect to the device where a taillamp is on each side of a center-mounted stoplamp, are the taillamps considered a part of the physically integral three-compartment center lamp for the purposes of determining compliance with minimum and maximum specifications and ratio requirements? Or, is the taillamp on each side of the stoplamp to be tested simultaneously with the other taillamps on that particular side of the vehicle for the purposes of determining compliance?

The manufacturers have been quite ingenius in developing different variations of multiple lamps and multicompartment lamps and each has his own interpretation as to how his particular arrangement might be considered as complying with a specific Federal or SAE standard. We have been asked a number of questions such as those above as a result of our program of purchasing and testing devices for conformance to the standards.

We would very much appreciate your giving consideration to this problem and providing us with specific information that we can use in answering inquiries from foreign and American manufacturers and on using the correct test procedure for determining compliance of a specific device with the requirements.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Durham & Associates, P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert R. Keatinge, Esq. Durham & Associates, P.C. Suite 1750 950 17th Street Denver, CO 80202

Dear Mr. Keatinge:

This is a response to your letter of December 1, 1987, making this agency to clarify your understanding of 49 CFR S571.7(e). That section reads in part as follows:

Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured ...unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

You referred to my August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Parmer, and expressed concern that my having discussed only one aspect of S571.7(e) in that letter has led to some confusion. My letter to Mr. Parmer states that 'a modified school bus or truck is n ot considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.' You stated that while my statement is 'correct,' my response did not address the first clause of this provision: 'When a new cab is used In the assembly of a truck...' you asserted that, a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis.' Your assertion is correct with respect to S5 71.7(e), but there is another regulation that specifies a vehicle is 'new' if an old body is combined with a new chassis.

By its own terms, S571.7(e) applies only in situations where a new body is combined with either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used components from different vehicles. You were correct, then, in asserting that 5571.7(e) applied only to situations involving a new body. For the purposes of the Parmer letter, it Has understood between Mr. Parmer and a member of my staff that the bus bodies in question were new, so that letter did not purport to address the question of combining an old bu s body with new and or/used chassis Components.

Many of our prior interpretations have stated that a person who adds a new or used body to a new chassis to produce a school bus is considered the manufacturer of a new school bus, and must certify that the new bus conforms with all applicable safety sta ndards, just as every other school bus manufacturer must. In this case, the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle. 'Incomplete vehicle' is defined in 19 CFR 5568.3 as:

an assemblies consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing o perations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis is used to produce a vehicle, the person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, within the meaning of 49 CFR 5568.3. Final-Stage manufacturers are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The date of manufacture for these buses cannot be earlier than the date on which the chassis manufacturer completed its work on the chassis and cannot be la ter than the date the final-stage manufacturer completed its manufacturing operations. See 49 CFR S567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Note that neither S571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to certify that a school bus complies with all applicable safety standards, if that person merely rebuilds or replaces an engine, drive axle, or transmission in a bus, or if that person plac es a used bus body on a used chassis.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel December 4, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation 700 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20890

Re: Your letter of August 11, 1987 to Ernest Farmer

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter is to confirm my understanding of 49 CFR S571.7(e) as interpreted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA'). In your letter of August 11, 1987 to Mr. Ernest Farmer, the Director of Pupil Transportation for the Tennessee Department of Education, you twice (at the top of page 2 and in the first paragraph of section 3 on page 3) make reference to the portion of 5571.7(e) which says that a bus will not be considered 'new' if the engine, transmission and drive train are not new and at least two of these components are from the same vehicle.

While this statement is a correct statement of part of the test under 5571.7(e) it does not address the part of the regulation which states that a truck (or, here, a bus) will be considered new only if the cab (or, here, a body? is replaced. The descrip tion of the regulation contained in your letter may have been in response to an Inquiry which assumed the replacement of the bus body (as did FR Docket No. 85-22646).

On Friday, December 4, 1987 I discussed this point with Joan Tilghman of your office. She confirmed what appears to be the clear reading of S571.7(e) to the effect that the replacement of the engine, transmission and/or rear axle only becomes an issue 'W hen a new cab (here, body) is used in the assembly of a truck (here, bus)...". In other words, a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis.

Unfortunately, there has been some confusion as a result of the letter indicates that the NHTSA is changing the regulation to provide in effect that whenever a new or rebuilt engine, transmission or rear axle is put in a bus the bus must be brought into conformity with current standards regardless of whether the body has been replaced. As discussed above, and as confirmed by Ms. Tilghman, I don't think that was your intention.

If the foregoing accurately describes the NHTSA's position, I would appreciate your confirming this to me so that we can correct the misunderstanding. Until this ambiguity is resolved, my client is in a difficult position inasmuch as the governmental age ncies are unsure how to proceed. Your prompt response would therefore be greatly appreciated.

If there are any questions in this regard or If I am incorrect in my understanding, I would appreciate your contacting me as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration in this regard.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Keatinge

ID: nht89-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/89

FROM: T. CHIKADA -- MGR., AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING, ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: INSTALLATION OF DECORATIVE EXTRA LIGHTING DEVICES ON MOTORCYCLES, WHICH ARE NOT SPECIFIED IN FMVSS NO. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-20-90 TO T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; STD. 108]

TEXT: We have an idea of producing two decorative extra lighting devices which are not specified in FMVSS No. 108.

As shown in the attached sheet, these decorative devices will be installed on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively. The distance between center of light source of device A and B is 290 mm.

The light source of device B is incandescent bulb, and that of device A is LED. Color of emitted light of both devices (A and B) is red. Both devices (A and B) are energized when tail lamp is on. And they (A and B) are so designed as to have the maximu m intensity less than that minimum intensity of tail lamp C. (It is a matter of course that the minimum and maximum intensities of tail lamp C satisfy the requirement of FMVSS No. 108.)

Please let us have your answers for the following questions.

Q.1 Is it permitted to equip a motorcycle with the above mentioned accessory lamps?

Q.2 If the answer to the above question is "YES",

1) is it acknowledged to use LED as the light source of device B?

2) should maximum intensity of each lamp (A or B) separately be less than the minimum intensity of tail lamp C? or should combined maximum intensity of both lamps (A and B) be less than the minimum intensity of tail lamp C?

We are looking forward to your advice.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 86-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Marshall D. Carter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking two questions with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to electric vehicles, you have asked "is there a standard regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?" There is no such standard. The vehicle must be equipped with a hazard warning signal operating unit designed to conform to SAE J910, January 1966, and a hazard warning signal flasher designed to conform to SAE J945, February 1966, but there is no requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, that the hazard warning signal flashers perform for a minimum specified period of time in service.

You have also asked "Is there a requirement that the vehicle be equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection?" We are unable to confirm your conclusion that there is no such requirement under Standard No. 101. Paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions or patterns be permanently displayed in front of the driver. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 requires illumination of the "gauges" listed in Column 1 of Table 2 that are accompanied by the word "Yes" in Column 5. The last "gauge" listed is "Automatic gear position", and the word "Yes" appears in Column 5. The automatic gear position is a "gauge" as defined by paragraph S4 of Standard No. 101, "a display that is listed in . . . Table 2 and is not a telltale". Thus the Federal standards do require illumination of the gear positions of automatic transmissions, but not of manual ones.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

SINCERELY,

Whisper Electric Car AS National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Att: Erika Jones, Office of the Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones,

I am writing to obtain confirmation that the FMVSS do not regulate certain specifications and parameters of automobile performance and design.

First, I should explain that our vehicle is exclusively battery powered, with 12 X 6-volt traction batteries, plus a service battery for the auxilliary functions (lights, windshield wipers, etc.). The service battery is charged at the same time as the traction batteries. In addition, the service battery is charged while driving through a converter between the 72-volt system (traction batteries) and the 12-volt system (service battery).

Now comes an engineer with the following hypothetical: The vehicle is unable to drive because of mechanical breakdown, therefore the converter between the 72-volt and 12-volt systems cannot recharge the service battery. There is no supply of electricity nearby to recharge through the main charger. The hazard lights are engaged, running only on the service battery. The characteristics of the hazard light design and intensity aside, is there a standard regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?

In the absence of NHTSA direct regulation or past practice with respect to this situation, may we suggest that fulfilling the European standard is this regard also be sufficient to the U.S. market.

A second question involves illumination within the passenger cabin. Is there a requirement that the vehicle be equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection? I do not see that SN 101 requires either a display or illumination, but we request your comments.

SINCERELY,

Marshall D. Carter

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

MARCH 18, 1986

Dear Ms Jones,

I am also enclosing some guidelines which one of our people found by chance. I understand these to be requirements for the electric vehicles for which the Fed. Gov. has granted funding or subsidies and requirements for vehicles which the Fed. Gov. might purchase, but, while useful guide-lines, not requirements which apply generally to electrical vehicles. I would ask you to please confirm this interpretation.

WHISPER ELECTRIC CAR A/S

Marshall D. Carter

encl.: FR Part 475

Whisper Electric Car AS

ID: nht89-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 28, 1989

FROM: DENNIS D. FURR

TO: DIANE STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-2-90 TO DENNIS D. FURR FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; A35; STD. 222; HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE 17

TEXT:

The following is to serve as a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in regards to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and its lack of enforcement on the school bus manufacturers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for new school buses as a condition of sale.

The following is also to serve as a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in regards to Highway Safety Program Standard 17, (3) Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating, which directs the States to use the passive restraint system/ bench seat by a seating position that is less than the 15 inch seating position required in Standard 222, S4.1 as directed by the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

If this is not the correct format, and or procedure, please advise me of the correct format, and or procedure.

The reason for this petition stems from the fact that school bus manufacturers are rating some, but not all school buses for 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat, and in doing so has nullified the safety feature s of the passive restraint system, and by their rating of the school bus has placed one third of the school buses rated capacity outside of the head, and leg impact zones of the passive restraint system.

The rating of some, but not all school buses for 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat by the school bus manufacturers has also encouraged the States/school districts to order school buses from the manufacturers that are not in compliance to the Federal Standards for the passive restraint system as a condition of sale when following Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a violation of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act for the States/school districts.

Understanding that in order for the occupant to be protected by the protective compartment of the passive restraint system, the occupant must be seated inside of the impact zones of the head, and legs, and the rated capacity of the school bus has to be a reflection of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat.

In considering this petition two things has been kept in mind.

The first is the Standard for the passive restraint system is the minimum specifications.

The second is Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. : 1392 (f);

Safety Standard 222, S4.1; "The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W" and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number."

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Section 103 (d); "Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a state shall have any authority either to establish, or to continu e in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard. Nothing in this secti on shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable standard."

The school buses that are rated at 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat is those school buses equipped with bench seats that when divided by the figure 15 in S4.1, ends in a decimal of point five or more, and is carried to the next whole number.

As an example, the 39 inch bench seat is being rated for 3 passengers, but when following S4.1, and the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the 39 inch bench seat is designed for only 2 passengers.

By the school bus manufacturers rating the 39 inch bench seat for 3 passengers, this gives each passenger a 13 inch seating position.

The number of seating positions in S4.1 is considered by the figure 15, and not by the figure 13.

It is quite true that the figure "15" in S4.1, FMVSS 222 is not defined as a seating width, minimum or otherwise.

It is my understanding that the specifications in FMVSS 222 is minimum specifications by direction of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and following the instructions in S4.1, there should not be any doubt what the figure "15" is.

"The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W".

The symbol "W" is the product of division, and the answer to the two part formula.

"And calculated as the bench width in inches."

The bench width in inches is the first part of a two part formula, and is a variable.

"Divided by 15" is the instructions to divide, and the figure "15" is the second part to the two part formula, and is the only known fact.

Since the purpose of the formula is to find the number of "seating positions", it is obvious that the only known fact which is the figure "15" has to be the width of "a" seating position.

"And rounded to the nearest whole number" is additional instructions to ensure that any seating position less than 15 inches is not included in the product of the formula.

It is common practice to carry any decimal 5 tenths and over to the next whole number.

However the instructions in S4.1 says "and rounded to the nearest whole number.", and for the 39 inch bench seat, I understand that to mean 2, understanding that any decimal is not a whole number.

Also understanding that S4.1 does not say rounded to the "next" whole number, which would have included the decimal.

To be sure that a decimal part of the figure "15" can not be rounded to the "next" whole number as a condition of sale, you only have to understand the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Section 103 (d);

"Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a sate shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor v ehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Safety Standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable standard ."

Understanding the decimal part in the product of the formula is not identical to the figure "15: in S4.1, and can not be considered as "a" seating position, but is currently being counted as a whole seating position when rating some, but not all of the p assive restraint systems as a condition of sale by the school bus manufacturers.

Again, the purpose of the formula is to find the number of "seating positions", and the figure "15" is the specification in S4.1 The number of seating positions is a variable, dependent upon the length of the individual passive restraint system/bench sea t, and is not a specification.

As a result, the number of seating positions in a bench seat as a condition of sale must reflect the number of 15 inch seating position, or the number of seating positions that is greater than the 15 inch seating position that

is in the individual bench seat, and the rated capacity of the school bus must reflect that number.

I have been told the use of the figure "15" in the FMVSS 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (for a 38 inch wide seat.), and for a 39 inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger tha n the hip width of a 5th percentile adult female.

(Refer to your letter to Congressman Wolpe, dated February 23, 1989.)

In order to get the figure "15" in S4.1 to produce a minimum seating position of 13 inches in a 39 inch bench seat you would have to divide the 39 inch bench seat by 15, round the 2.6 to the next whole number to get 3. Then divide the 39 inch bench seat again by the 3 to get the 13 inch seating position.

I do not see that formula in S4.1, and do not understand the provisions in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act to permit the NHTSA, or the school bus manufacturers to reword S4.1 to obtain the exceeded number of seating positions in a bench seat for ra ting the school bus as a condition of sale.

Understanding that the NHTSA can exceed the number of designed seating positions in the 39 inch bench seat for testing, (their use), and can provide their own formula for doing so.

However, as a condition of sale, FMVSS 222, S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act has to be followed.

For the NHTSA to permit the school bus manufacturers to rate the school bus by the NHTSA's formula for testing the bench seat, and as a condition of sale, is a deliberate distortion of FMVSS 222. S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

By the manufacturers of the passive restraint system borrowing the 3 to the 39 inch bench seat that the NHTSA has used for testing, the manufacturers have not followed, or complied by FMVSS 222, S4.1 as a condition of sale.

I have also been told that the 13 inch seating position in the 39 inch bench seat is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female.

HSPG means Highway Safety Program Guideline, and its recommendations is to the states for operating their school buses, and is not enforceable by the NHTSA because it is only a guideline, recommended, and directed to the States, and is not a Safety Stand ard that the manufacturers have to comply to.

FMVSS means Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, and is requirements for the school bus manufacturers to follow, and be in compliance with, before the school bus can be sold to the public, and is enforceable by the NHTSA.

If anything is to be consistent, Highway Safety Program Guideline 17 should be consistent with Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and not vice versa.

Any seating position less than the 15 inch seating position in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1 is pre-empted under the provisions of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The NHTSA has in an elective guideline given directions to the States to use a seating position that is less than required in the enforceable FMVSS 222 when following the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act clearl y states;

Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, (no State or political subdivision of a state) shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard.

Understanding if a State did elect HSPG 17 either by law, or history of use by the 13 inch seating position by the school districts, the States/school districts has established a safety standard that is not identical to the applicable Federal Standard, a violation of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Also understanding that if a State requested a school bus manufacturer to deliver a school bus with a rated capacity based on the 13 inch seating position, and the school bus manufacturer complied to the State, the school bus manufacturer has not complie d to the applicable Standard as a condition of sale.

To understand that only a seating position greater than, or equal to the 15 inch seating position can be specified either as a states specification, recommended in another Safety Standard, or used for rating a new school bus you only have to follow the s ame logic in the Preamble to Amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, Docket No. 73-3; Notice 6.

You can also see that the seating position of the 5th percentile adult female in HSPG 17 is a contradiction to the NHTSA's own opinion for the requirements of a states specification.

Understanding that the seating position of the 5th percentile adult female does not meet, or exceed the requirements in FMVSS 222, S4.1.

The Physicians for Automotive Safety (PAS), requested that the seat back height be raised from the 20 inch level specified by Safety Standard 222 to a 24 inch level. While PAS's request was denied, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gave this opinion, in part;

"Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seat back height (S5.1.2) which manufacturers many exceed as long as their product conforms to all other requirements of the standards applicable to school buses. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra tion's opinion that any State standard of general applicability concerning seat back height of school

bus seating would also have to specify a minimum height identical to the Federal requirement.

Following this same logic for the minimum seating position, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's opinion "would have read".

Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seating position (S4.1) which manufacturers may exceed as long as their product conforms to all other requirements of the standards applicable to school buses. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 's opinion that any State standard of general applicability concerning a seating position width of school bus seating would also have to specify a minimum seating position identical to the Federal requirement.

In consideration of the above, I respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to amend Highway Safety Program Standard 17, (3) Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating, to reflect the 15 inch seating position as required in Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and as directed in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require the school bus manufacturers to rate their school buses by the actual number of 15 inch seating positions in the individual passive restraint system/bench seat that is on the school bus as a condition of sale, and as required in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and as directed in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to provide me with the formula that was developed that provided the pounds of force/inch-pounds of energy in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 that is indicated by the Symbol "W" being the force of 700W pounds in S5.1.3.2, the 350W pounds in S5.1.3.3, the 4,000W inch-pounds in S5.1.3.4, the 2,200 pounds of force in S5.1.4 (a), the 50 pounds of force in S5.1.4, (b), and the 2,800W inch pounds in S5.1.4.1.

Since there is a relationship between the symbol "W" and the pounds of force, and or the inch pounds of energy applied to the passive restraint system in testing, what percentile is the pounds of force/inch pounds designed to protect?

I would also like to know the source of the data for the percentiles listed in S7.1.3 in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

ID: 10715

Mr. Mark Warlick
Four Winds International Corporation
791 C.R. 15 P.O. Box 1486
Elkhart, IN 46515-1486

Dear Mr. Warlick:

This responds to your fax asking about the meaning of "designated seating position" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You noted that the RVIA Handbook, dated April 23, 1991, states that "it is the NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many [designated seating positions] as there are sleeping accommodations." You asked whether this statement is still in effect, and, if so, where you can find it in the Code of Federal Regulations. You also asked what defined area makes up one sleeping position.

This will confirm that it continues to be NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations. This position is based on the definition of "designated seating position," which is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Under that definition, the question of whether a position in a vehicle constitutes a designated seating position is dependent in part on whether the position "is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion." If a manufacturer designs a vehicle to sleep a particular number of persons, e.g., six persons, it is logical to assume that those six persons will ride in the vehicle to their sleeping destination. Therefore, there must be at least six designated seating positions in the vehicle. A more complete discussion of this issue is presented on p. 23234 of the enclosed Federal Register notice (Final rule amending the definition of "designated seating position," April 19, 1979).

We do not have a definition of what area makes up one sleeping position. NHTSA would consider all available information to determine the number of sleeping positions in a vehicle. This would include the size of the sleeping accommodations, e.g., whether an area is large enough to accommodate more than one person, and advertising by the manufacturer and dealers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:4/24/95

ID: nht90-3.92

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David G. Dick Acts Testing Labs, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from D.G. Dick to NHTSA (OCC 4452)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the head impact protection requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.3.2(a) of Standard 213, Child restraint systems. I regret the delay in responding.

Paragraph S5.2.3.2(a) states that certain energy absorbing material used to cover child seat surfaces must have a 25 percent compression-deflection resistance of not less than 0.5 and not more than 10 pounds per square inch (psi). You ask whether a valu e slightly less than 0.5 (such as the 0.47 psi example you provided) would be rounded to 0.5 psi. If rounding were permitted, you point out that the rounded value would meet the 0.5 psi requirement of S5.2.3.2(a).

The answer to your question is no, NHTSA would not round the value to 0.5 psi when testing the child seat. Rounding is generally not used in the safety standards. The standards expressly specify when rounding is appropriate. Standard 222, School bus p assenger seating and crash protection, specifies that the number of seating positions in a school bus bench seat (S4.1) is determined by rounding. In view of the express reference to rounding in some safety standards, and since S5.2.3.2(a) does not expr essly state rounding is appropriate, the value for the compression-deflection resistance would not be rounded.

You also ask whether there is any situation in which a value of less than 0.5 psi would be acceptable. The answer is "no." The minimum of 0.5 psi is required by S5.2.3.2(a) for restraints (other than a harness) recommended for children weighing less th an 20 pounds. Any value less than the minimum required value is a noncompliance.

Your last question asks about the reasons for the 0.5 psi minimum. In the agency's notice adopting the compression-deflection requirements, the agency indicated that those requirements would allow the use of a wide range of materials which should enable manufacturers to provide protective padding without cost increases. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information.

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

ID: 2349y

AIR MAIL

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

Re: Decorative Supplemental Lighting Devices Not Specified by Standard l08 (Motorcycles)

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to two types of decorative lighting devices intended for installation "on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively." I regret the delay in responding.

Type A and Type B would be installed on the same motorcycle. Type A would be installed at the top of the trunk. It consists of an elongated device, illuminated by LEDs when the taillamp is on. Type B is installed on the motorcycle itself. It is a rectangular device, illuminated by an incandescent bulb, which is mounted on the vertical centerline and is flanked by the tail and stop lamps. The distance between the center of the light sources on the two devices is 290mm. (approximately ll 1/2 inches). Both devices emit red light, and their maximum intensity is less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp.

You have asked whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the Type A and Type B accessory lamps. If the answer is affirmative, you have asked whether an LED could be used as the light source for Type B. You have also asked whether the maximum intensity of each device separately should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp, or whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 (formerly S4.1.3) permits the installation of these lamps if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. In this instance, the question to be asked is whether the devices, activated with the taillamps, impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, or the stop lamps. The devices are, in effect, supplemental taillamps, and as such, arguably do not appear to impair the effectiveness of the taillamps required by the standard no matter what their intensity is.

The diagram of Type B indicates that the stop lamps and taillamps are in the same compartment, presumably incorporating a dual filament bulb. Although the stop lamps when activated are brighter than the taillamps, their proximity to the supplemental devices Type A and Type B, each of which are emitting a red light, leads to the possibility that the stop signal would not be as effective as it would be were there no other red lights in the vicinity, and hence impaired within the meaning of S5.1.3. A stop signal must be instantly perceived so that a following driver may determine appropriate action to take. However, we note that this configuration is similar to other stop/taillamp configurations on many vehicles in use on the highways. This would indicate that such configurations do not result in impairment. Thus, the answer to your first question is that both Types of devices are permitted under the standard.

Your second question is whether LEDs are acceptable light sources for Type B. Since there is no restriction on light sources for a lighting device not required by Standard No. l08, you may use the LEDs as light sources.

Your third question is whether the maximum intensity of Type A and Type B, separately, should be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp. Even though Type A and Type B are optional devices, in the configuration depicted where Type B is immediately flanked on both sides by a taillamp, the appearance of the three lamps would be that of a multicompartment lamp, even though they may actually be separate. To help assure that impairment of either the taillamp or stop lamp does not occur, the intensity of Type B should be identical with that of the taillamps. Otherwise, observers may assume that Type B (which you intend to have an intensity less than a taillamp) is actually the taillamp, and the actual taillamps (which you intend to have an intensity greater than Type B) might appear to be stop lamps that are continually on. This would be deemed impairment since there would be three intensity levels, increasing the possibility of confusion of the intent of the lamps.

As for Type A, its vertical separation decreases the possibility for confusion. If the light sources are LEDs, the color would be a different shade of red that the stop and taillamps. Thus, the intensity is less important. However, it functions as an auxiliary taillamp and should be within the same intensity range as the original equipment taillamps. Finally, you asked whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices would be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamps. Again, this would create three levels of intensity, and could cause confusion in understanding the intent of the lamps. As noted above, the individual intensities should be similar to the intensity of the taillamps.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:3/20/90

ID: 24256ogm

Doris Schaller-Schnedl, Homologation Engineer
Magna Steyr Engineering
Steyr Daimler Puch Fahrzeugtechnik AG & Co KG
Liebenauer Hauptstrasse 317
A-8041
Graz, Austria




Dear Ms. Schaller-Schnedl:

This responds to your electronic mail message in which you indicate that your company would like to install Type 2 seat belts equipped with load limiters for use in the rear outboard seating positions of a passenger vehicle. Your message notes that you would like to employ load limiters as you believe that the devices would help reduce the possibility of injury in a crash. You indicate, however, that if you equip the seat belts in question with load limiters, the belts will not comply with the minimum performance requirements for belt elongation found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Your message also indicates your belief that S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that belts equipped with load limiters need not meet the elongation requirements if these belts are installed in any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As your message observes that S5.1 applies only to front outboard designated seating positions, you ask if load limiters that do not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may only be installed in front outboard designated seating positions. Finally, if it is the agency's position that load limiter equipped belts may only be installed in the front outboard seating positions, you ask if belts equipped with these devices may be installed in rear outboard seating positions if the belts meet the performance requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 when tested with a dummy placed in the rear outboard seating position.

For the reasons explained below, load limiters that cause a seat belt to not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may not be installed in seating positions other than the front outboard seating positions.

Standard No. 209 establishes minimum performance requirements for seat belts and contains a number of provisions relating to elongation in seat belts and seat belt assemblies. The elongation of belt webbing is governed by S4.2(c), while the elongation performance of Type 1 and Type 2 belt assemblies is controlled by S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4) and S4.4(b)(5).

Load limiters are intended to manage the forces imposed on an occupant when the occupant moves forward against the belt during a crash. To achieve this purpose, load limiters allow the belt to yield, in a controlled fashion, to the forces generated by restraining an occupant. In order to allow the use of load limiters while ensuring that belts equipped with the devices continue to provide a minimum level of safety, S4.5 of Standard No. 209 provides as follows:

S4.5 Load-limiter.


(a) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter is not required to comply with the elongation requirements of S4.2(c), S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4) or S4.4(b)(5).

(b) A seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles at any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 ( 571.208).

As you observe in your message, S4.5 provides that a seat belt equipped with a load limiter is not subject to the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 if that belt is installed at a designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. S5.1 establishes the minimum performance standards for occupant protection in a frontal crash and includes, in S5.1.1, the requirements for performance in a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal crash test employing a 50th percentile male dummy secured by a Type 2 belt in a front outboard seating position. Because the requirements of S5.1.1 provide assurance that seat belts will provide a minimum level of safety in a frontal crash, S4.5 of Standard No. 209 excludes belts with load limiters from meeting the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 for any seating position that is tested under S5.1. As S5.1 applies only to front outboard seating positions, belts with load limiters installed at rear outboard seating positions must meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your message also asks if a manufacturer wishing to install belts with load limiters in a rear outboard seating position may comply with S4.5 of Standard No. 209 by verifying the performance of the belts through testing the belts by performing testing as set forth in S5.1 on the rear outboard seats. The answer is that belts installed at rear seating positions are subject to the elongation requirements and must meet them.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel


ref:209
d.9/19/01

ID: nht88-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Technical Administration Dept. Roito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Ritawaki Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1988, with respect to photometric values for stop lamps and taillamps on motorcycles, and the spacing required between them and turn signal lamps.

You have asked two questions with respect to two types of motorcycle rear lighting devices, which you call "Structure 1" and "Structure 2". Although a single lamp located on the vertical centerline may be used to fulfill rear lighting requirements on mot orcycles, each of your Structures features two bulbs, symmetrically placed on each side of the vertical centerline. Each Structure is a single lighting device, featuring a turn signal bulb at each extremity. In Structure 1 a chamber containing a tail/sto p lamp bulb is directly inboard of the chamber containing a turn signal bulb. The two chambers on each side are separated by a central portion of the device which is decorative in nature. Unlike Structure 1, Structure 2 is a three-chamber device, with se parate chambers at each end for the turn signal bulbs, and a central chamber incorporating two tail/stop lamp bulbs.

With respect to each Structure and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 you have asked:

"(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure 1b of S4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamp on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S4.1.1.11." Figure 1b specifies the minimum and maximum allowable candlepower values for lighting devices with one, two, and three lighted sections. However, the number of lighted sections is calculated with respect to each lamp, not the total number of lighted sect ions used for a specific purpose, or lit at a given time. We consider Structure 1 to comprise two separate tail/stop lamps, each consisting of a single chamber. Similarly, Structure 2 incorporates a single tail/stop lamp consisting of a single chamber in which two bulbs are used. Therefore, for both Structures and for both (a) and (b) the lamp should be designed so that the single chambers meet the photometric values for single compartment lamps.

Your second question for each Structure is whether the specified minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signals and tail/stop lamps is required. The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to c omply with this requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

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

Subject: Tail & Stop Lamp for Motorcycle (1) photometric values (2) Spacing with Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones:

The photometric values which are required for tail & stop lamp for motorcycle are specified in S. 4.1.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108, and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp is specified in Table IV.

We would like to ask you the following questions concerning photometric values of tail g stop lamp for motorcycle and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp in the cases of Structure-(1) and -(2) which are shown in the attached drawing.

Question-1:

In Structure-(1) and -(2), which of the following cases shall be applied for the photometric values required for tail & stop lamp?

(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure lb of S. 4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamps on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photo-metric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S. 4.1.1.11.

Attn: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date: Jan. 25, 1988

Question-2; For each case of Structure-(1) and-(2) as illustrated in the attached sheet, shall the specification of 4 inch minimum spacing between tail & stop lamp and turn signal lamp be required or not:

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Mr. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)