ID: nht90-1.30

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 29, 1990

FROM: Cal Karl -- District 4700 - Commercial Vehicle Section, State of Minnesota, State Patrol Division

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-18-90 from R. E. Meadows; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl; Also attached to memo dated 11-28-8? from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's; Also attached to letter dated 11-27-90 from P.J. Rice to C. Karl (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 12-7-82 from F. Berndt to M.B. Mathieson

TEXT:

I am in charge of the school bus inspection program for the Minnesota State Patrol. In that capacity I am asking for your interpretation of 49 CFR 571.217 S5.2.3.2 regarding vandal locks.

I have become aware of vandal locks by some bus body manufacturers that I feel do not meet the requirements of 217. My interpretation is disputed by the manufacturers and therefore I ask for your interpretation.

We are finding many of the vandal locks that even though they are unlocked, and the bus can start and run, the lock may be relocked by a student while the bus is running. Granted, it would not kill the bus engine but would render the starting mechanism inoperable if the engine is shut off or would die. This situation appears loaded with potential danger if the driver finds himself in a precarious situation and kills the engine only to find it won't restart.

Some manufacturers combat that by incorporating an interlock that activates a buzzer in the driver compartment if the lock is locked. This warns the driver that lock has been locked but doesn't prevent him from getting into a predicament before he is ab le to cause the door to be unlocked.

While standard 217 prohibits a bus from starting if the vandal lock is locked, can the lock be relocked after the bus is running or should it be locked in the open position?

While standard 217 requires that a key or special information by the driver is required to unlock the device, may it then be relocked without the key or special information?

I have enclosed copies of Minnesota minimum standards and letters from Wayne Bus Co. and Thomas Built Bus Co.

I appreciate your consideration.

Attachment

Minnesota Minimum Standards for School Bus 3520.5010 Doors

The emergency door must be equipped with a slide-bar cam-operated lock. The slide bar must have a minimum stroke of one inch. The emergency door lock must be equipped with a suitable electric plunger type switch connected with a buzzer located in the dr iver's compartment. The switch must be enclosed in a metal case, and the wires leading from the switch must be concealed in the bus body. The switch must be installed so that the plunger contacts the farthest edge of the slide bar so that any movement of the slide bar immediately closes the circuit on the switch and sets off the buzzer.

The emergency door lock must be equipped with an interior handle that extends approximately to the center of the emergency door. The handle shall lift up to release the lock.

The service door and the emergency door (side or rear) may be equipped with vandal locks if the locks comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 217, Code of Federal Regulations, title 49, part 571.

MS s 169.45

13 SR 1860

3520.5020 (Repealed, 13 SR 1860)

3520.5100 (Repealed, 13 SR 1860)

3520.5110 (Repealed, 13 SR 1860)

3520.5111 FIRE EXTINGUISHER.

A minimum of one 2-1/2 pound dry chemical type fire extinguisher, with not less than a 10-B-C rating, is required. It must be approved by underwriters Laboratories, Inc. or an equivalent testing laboratory.

The extinguisher must be mounted in a bracket, located in the driver's compartment and readily accessible to the driver and passengers. A pressure indicator is required and must be easily read without removing the extinguisher from its mounted position.

MS s 169.45

13 SR 1860

3520.5120 FIRST AID KIT.

The bus must carry a removable Grade A metal, or other material of equal strength, dust-proof first aid kit, mounted in full view or in a labeled accessible place in the driver's compartment.

The first aid kit must have the following units and packages per unit:

ID: nht90-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/90

FROM: TILMAN SPINGLER -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TO: RICHARD VAN IDERSTINE -- OFFICE OF RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TITLE: TELEFAX

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-23-90 TO TILMAN SPINGLER, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; INTERP. STD. 108]; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER TO TAYLOR FROM RICH VAN IDERSTINE DATED 2-13-90; [43880]

TEXT: For some future projects I ask you to answer the following questions

1) To turn the adjusting screws of a HB2-headlamp it will be necessary to remove two snap on covers without the use of any tool. Will this be legal?

2) A combination of HB2-headlight (low- + high-beam) and auxiliary driving beam in one unit shall be equipped with only vertical adjusting screws for the driving beam. The beampattern will be so wide, that even bulbs with extreme tolerances will allow t o meet all photometric requirements without horizontal adjustment. Will this be legal?

3) When will the 9007 bulb be legal? Date of final rule?

Thanks for a quick answer

ID: nht90-1.32

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 31, 1990

FROM: Earl W. Dahl -- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company., Vice President

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-2-90 To Earl W. Dahl and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; Part 574); Also attached to letter dated 5-31-89 To Garry Gallagher and From Erika Z. Jones

TEXT:

This letter is related to the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 574. Section 574.5 defines the tire identification number, the fourth grouping of which consists of three numerals which identif y the date of manufacture. The first two numerals identify the week of the year, and the third numeral identifies the year. For example, date code "439" identifies the 43rd week of 1989. But that same date code also identifies the 43rd week of 1979. And therein lies the reason for this letter.

For various reasons, the European tire industry, including the European operations of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, believes it is necessary to be able to distinguish the date of manufacture in an interval longer than one decade. To that end, it is the intent of the European manufacturers to add a symbol immediately following the fourth grouping of the tire identification number to identify tires produced in the decade from 1990 through 1999. The predominant symbol will be an isosceles right trian gle, with the right angle pointed toward the tire identification number.

NHTSA has been consistent in allowing information to be stamped on tires, in addition to that required by the regulations, so long as the additional information did not obstruct or confuse the meaning of the information required by the regulations. Attac hed is an example serial number showing the proposed "decade symbol." In this case, the symbol is about 3/4 inch away from the last character of the date code. However, in some cases the symbol will directly follow the date code, with no more than 1/8 in ch spacing between the date code and the symbol.

We request an opinion that the addition of such a symbol is permissible. Encl. 1 (Graphics not included)

ID: nht90-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1990

FROM: HERBERT E. STOEL

TO: JOHN WOMACK -- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-8-90 TO HERBERT E. STOEL FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-30-87 TO KEN SIKKEMA FROM HERBERT E. STOEL. TEXT:

For quite some time, I have been deeply concerned about the need for greater safety on our highways. Back in August 1971, I gave a letter to former President Gerald R. Ford who was then a United States Congressman, stating the need for a change in the t aillights on all cars and trucks. The change would be green taillights and red stoplights. RED should mean only one thing, STOP.

Then on December 30, 1987, I gave a letter to Michigan State Representative Mr. Ken Sikkema (see letter enclosed), and now I feel inclined to bring this matter to your attention, because you have the authority to act on it. We have a law demanding the u se of seat belts or air bags on all cars, but it is more important to go even further and get to the origin of the problem. (A better warning of impending danger up front.)

So if we had Green taillights and Red stoplights, it would carry out the same system as our traffic lights, thus the idea would be received without confusion.

May it be found in your good pleasure and authority to enact this change before Japan or some other foreign nation forces us into it.

Enclosure

ID: nht90-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1990

FROM: SUSAN BIRENBAUM -- ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITES STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 5-25-90 TO SUSAN BIRENBAUM FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD (A35; VSA 102(4)); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-12-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM DAVID SCHMELTZER, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, AND LETTER DATED 6-29-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM. TEXT:

On July 29, 1989, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Office of General Counsel wrote to your office seeking an opinion as to whether aerosol tire inflator/sealer sold to consumers is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined by t he National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act. Our Office of General Counsel renewed the request in October. To date we have received no response.

This letter is to advise you that the Commission's Directorate for Compliance and Administrative Litigation is continuing to investigate manufacturers and sellers of this type of product. We have learned of several deaths and serious injuries resulting from the ignition of the gas from these aerosol products contained in tires that were being repaired. The injured and dead include mechanics (or other employees of a repair facility) as well as consumers.

As we investigate this product area, we are encouraging makers and sellers to seek alternate, non-flammable propellants in their tire sealing products. We are attempting to address the potential substantial product hazard we have identified as expeditio usly as possible. This is appropriate in view of our preliminary assessment of the extremely serious risk of injury to consumers using these aerosol products.

This office will seek voluntary corrective action plans from makers and sellers of the various products as the facts show to be appropriate. If voluntary action is not obtained where needed, we will consider the enforcement options available to seek to c ompel corrective measures.

If you need additional information about the product under consideration or any other aspect of this inquiry, please call Allen F. Brauninger of this office at 492-6980.

Thanks again for your assistance with this matter.

ID: nht90-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/90

FROM: JOHN GARRINGER -- INNOVATION CENTER DRAFTING DEPARTMENT

TO: TERRY M. GERNSTEIN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/18/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO JOHN W. GARRINGER; A35; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/07/90 FROM JOHN W. GARRINGER TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 4751

TEXT: You have a good idea, but some people would like it plain. If they put it in the glass later on, it would be better plain. If some people would like it with a decoration on it, after we get it on the market we can do it for them. But it is not a novel ty item, it is for safety. So for now, lets get the design patent first.

HOOD GLARE (Design)

The design is; anything that covers the glare that comes from the hood of a car, truck, boat, airplane, or anything that has a hood and windshield, that you can put it on. This will stop the suns glare from coming into the drivers eyes, so he or she can see better. It might become a law, and they will put it inside the glass; (because of being a safety item).

The reason I said plastic is because it's the best and easiest thing to use. But you can use paper, cloth, cardboard, or whatever, just as long as it covers the area, so that the suns glare doesn't hit the drivers eyes.

I have the darkness for the plastic that it will make the suns glare look like a ball, if you have sunglasses on, or a very little glare if you don't have them on. If you put the strip all the way across the windshield you can still see through it.

But if you think that its better to go with your decoration on it, you can go ahead with it, you know what's best since it is your line of work. I do think it would be a good idea to have it decorated and plain and in various colors.

Very Truly Yours,

John Garringer

[DRAWING OF HOOD GLARE OMITTED]

ID: nht90-1.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1990

FROM: Donald C.J. Gray -- Commissioner, General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-90 from P.J. Rice to D.C.J. Gray (A36; Part 571.7(c))

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request a deviation from the regulatory provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as they apply to school buses procured by the General Services Administration (GSA) for use solely by the Department of the Army. An exception to the standards is provided by 49 CFR 571.7(c) for vehicles or items of equipment manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. For the reasons stated belo w, we request that this provision be extended to the GSA Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS) for scbool buses specifically acquired for the sole use of the Army, thereby granting a deviation from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards otherwis e applicable to such procurements.

In 1985, the Army began a program to consolidate approximately 45,000 nontactical vehicles into the GSA IFMS. The program is fifty percent complete, and, as a result, the IFMS is now responsible for purchasing and leasing vehicles for the sole use of th e Department of the Army.

Prior to consolidation, the above cited provision permitted the Army to acquire vehicles manufactured to satisfy multiuse requirements. The Army acquired school buses equipped with seating designed for adults, and painted in a color other than school bu s yellow. The Army buses were utilized for their primary mission of troop movement, and, as needed, for transporting military dependents to and from school. Because 49 CFR 571.7(c) makes the standards inapplicable to vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces, the Army avoided the cost of a second bus specifically designed for use by school children.

For the Government to continue to realize this cost avoidance, a deviation must be granted from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for vehicles or items procured by the GSA IFMS for use solely by the Army. This deviation would thereby extend the exception of 49 CFR 571.7(c) to permit the Department of the Army to use GSA IFMS supplied buses for both adults and school children.

If we may provide any assistance or further information concerning this request, please contact Mr. Sean Allan of the Fleet Management Division on 557-1278.

ID: nht90-1.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1990

FROM: Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr. -- Vice President, Public Affairs, General Counsel & Secretary, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TO: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re CAFE Exemption Pursuant to 15 USC 2003(b)(3)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-1-90 from P.J. Rice to P.A. Hutchinson, Jr. (A36; CSA Sec. 503(b)(3))

TEXT:

This is to notify you that Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VWoA) is no longer manufacturing automobiles in the United States and that its exemption from 15 USC 2003(b)(1) granted on October 23, 1981 and published in 46 F.R. 54453 of November 2, 1981 has bec ome moot and is therefore effectively terminated.

On July 29, 1981 VWoA filed a petition pursuant to 15 USC 2003(b)(3)(A) seeking an exemption from the general statutory requirement that fuel economy ratings for imported passenger automobiles may not be averaged together with ratings from domestically m anufactured passenger automobiles for the purpose of determining compliance with the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended. 15 USC 2003(b)(3)(B) authorizes exemptions to be granted for a period of five years or, at the request of th e manufacturer, such longer period as the agency may specify. VWoA requested that the exemption be granted indefinitely and the agency acceded to this request subject to its right to reconsider its action "should it appear that the exemption is no longer consistent with the purposes of the Act." (46 F.R. 54453)

VWoA sought an exemption of indefinite duration because it expected to maintain a domestic assembly facility indefinitely. The exemption was intended by VWoA to remove a possible disincentive associated with the expected increase in the domestic content in US produced passenger automobiles above 75% in the event VWoA imported and domestic passenger vehicle fleets were not capable separately to comply with CAFE standards.

The exemption was granted on October 23, 1981 and made effective beginning with the 1982 model year.

For model year 1982 VWoA distributed "imported" passenger vehicles only.

For model years 1983 through 1987 VWoA distributed both "imported" and "domestic" passenger automobiles as defined in 15 USC 2003(b)(1) and (b)(2)(E) and (F). The manufacture of "domestic" passenger automobiles within the meaning of the Act ended on Jun e 30, 1987. Effective July 14, 1988 VWoA shut down its entire production in the United States so that commencing with the 1988 model year only "imported" vehicles have been offered for sale in the United States by VWoA.

15 USC 2003(b)(3)(F) provides that "Notwithstanding section 2002(1) of this title, in the case of any model year for which an exemption under this subsection is effective for any manufacturer", the manufacturer may not earn or use any credit pursuant to 15 USC 2002(l)(1)(B) and 2002(l)(1)(C).

Since VWoA discontinued all vehicle assembly in the United States effective July 14, 1988, the exemption granted on October 23, 1981 should be deemed to have been mooted at least since July 1988. It should be noted, moreover, that the exemption has prod uced no "effect" on VWoA's status of compliance of its passenger vehicle fleet with CAFE requirements, i.e. has not been "effective for VWoA" within the meaning of Section 2003(b)(3)(F) and conferred no benefit on VWoA since June 30, 1987 when the last p assenger automobile with domestic content in excess of 75% was manufactured in the United States.

Based upon the facts set forth above, VWoA maintains that the prohibition against accumulation of fuel economy credits ended on June 30, 1987 but in no event later than July 14, 1988.

Please advise us of NHTSA's position on this matter. In the interest of certainty VWoA is interested in knowing the amount of credits which have accumulated in its account.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht90-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: TRACEY POWELL -- LEGISLATIVE COORDINATOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 14, 1989 TO STEPHEN WOOD, NHTSA, FROM TRACEY POWELL, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION, [OCC-4154] AND LETTER DATED AUGUST 3, 1989 TO TRACEY POWELL FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT, MARYLAND DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ATTACHED.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1989, with respect to existing prohibitions in some States against the use of modulating headlamps on motorcycles. The apparent basis of the prohibition is that flashing lamps are generally reserved for em ergency vehicles. You point out the distinction that Standard No. 108 makes between the two types of headlamps, and ask our "assistance in attaining uniform recognition of the legal use of modulating headlights through the United States . . . ."

As you note, there is a legal distinction in Standard No. 108 between a modulating headlamp (one that goes from a higher to a lower intensity within either the upper or lower beam) and a flashing one (one that goes from either the upper or lower beam to off). Further, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 108 provides that "A headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate." The authority of States to regulate this aspect of motorcycle lighting is constrained by section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Mo tor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). This section provides in pertinent part that:

[whenever] a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State . . . shall have any authority either to extablish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard."

The effect of this provision of the Safety Act with respect to lighting is to expressly prohibit a State from enacting a law that forbids a manufacturer from installing headlamp modulators on motorcycles.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

ID: nht90-1.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1990

FROM: Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TO: Richard van Iderstine -- Rulemaking Department., NHTSA

TITLE: Request for written response - CHMSL unity.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-21-90 To Taylor Vinson and From Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann (OCC 4484); Also attached to letter dated 4-25-90 To Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann and From Stephen P. Wood (A35; Std.108)

TEXT:

One of our customers prefers to place a logo within or in between the light emitting surface of a CHMSL. The enclosed sketches show two such designs: one for inside mounting behind the rear window (encl. 1), an other for top mounting on the trunk of a convertible (encl. 2). According to ECE Regulation 48, 5 2.14.2, a signalling lamp consisting of juxtaposed elements forms a single unit if the smallest rectangle circumscribing the several light emitting surfaces is occupied by not less than 60 percent of light emitting area. E/ECE/324 E/ECE/trans/505 Rev.1/Add.47 Regulation No. 48 page 6 2.14.2. "two lamps" or "an even number of lamps": a single light-emitting surface in the shape of a band or strip if such band or strip is placed the median longitudinal plane of the vehicle, extends on both sides to within at least 0.4 m of the extreme outer edge of the vehicle, and is not leas than 0.8 m long; the llumination of such surface shall be provided by not less than two light sources placed as close as possible to its ends; the light-emitting surface may be constituted by number of juxtaposed elements on condition that the projections of the several individual light-emitting surfaces ona transverse plane occupy not less than 60 per cent of the area of the smallest rectangle circumscribing the projections of the said individual light-emitting surfaces;

In above design this requirement is fulfilled and the total area exceeds the required 4.5sq.inch. We ourself see no problem in such a design for a CHMSL since neither the signal configuration (triangle of stop lamps) nor acuity (by luminance and intensity) are affected. Since neither SAE nor FMVSS 108 yield a clear definition of signal unity if constituted of partial areas, we would like to learn whether NHTSA supports the ECE definition and can accept such CHMSL design as not violating the FMVSS requirements. A soon answer on this item is very much appreciated.

Enclosures 2 Graphics Omitted.