ID: nht76-2.39

DATE: 12/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 29, 1976, asking whether the "47 Series Tite-Lite," in our opinion, has an "'optically combined' clearance lamp function." The lamp in question is represented as having "two lights [that] provide 15 functions" and you have advised us that "there are no partitions inside the multi-function lens of this lamp."

Paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the optical combination of clearance lamps with tail lamps and identification lamps. This means that a single bulb in the 47 Series Tite-Lite may not provide both tail lamp and clearance lamp functions. It also means that the light emitted by one bulb must not be perceived as performing the function of the other in addition to its design function. You have neither identified the function performed by both bulbs nor provided us with their candle-power output and we are unable to determine whether the lamp complies with Standard No. 108.

SINCERELY,

Trailer manufacturers association

October 29, 1976

Frank A. Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. Weber has sent me a copy of your letter to him of October 7, 1976 (reference N40-30).

With respect to paragraphs one and two of your letter, we wish to know if DOT considers the 47 Series Tite-Lite as described inside and on the cover of the enclosed brochure as having an "optically combined" clearance light function, and with respect to this question only, if the lamp is considered to comply with FMVSS No. 108. There are no partitions inside the multi-functions lens of this lamp.

Director of Engineering DONALD I. REED

TITE-LTE

(Graphics omitted)

At last, a Submergible Light System for Boat Trailers . . .

ID: nht76-2.4

DATE: 02/25/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 10, 1976, concerning the definition of "daylight opening" (DLO) as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, 49 CFR 571.219, and concerning the procedure used by General Motors to determine DLO.

Your letter states that General Motors is concerned about the definition of DLO as stated in Standard No. 219, and "believes that the wording is not easily understood." The definition of DLO as stated in the Standard is based upon the definition found in paragraph 2.3.12 of Section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Areospace Automotive Drawing Standards, September, 1963. The SAE definition was slightly modified to reflect the particular characteristics of Standard No. 219. The last phrase of the SAE definition was changed to read "as measured parallel to the outer surface of the glazing material," because there was concern that there might be some confusion if the definition directed measurement by means of a "vertical projection".

Your letter describes General Motors' procedure for obtaining DLO, and asks if this procedure is consistent with the definition of DLO as specified in Standard No. 219. The answer to your question is yes. Your illustration (Figure 1) shows that you are measuring "parallel to the outer surface of the glazing material". Your Figure 1 is a simplified illustration, of course, since nearly all windshields are curved.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

ID: nht76-2.40

DATE: 10/22/76

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

TO: ACUTEK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1976, to Mr. Lewis C. Owen, Safety Standards Engineer, concerning an interpretation of the words "optically combined" as they apply to your Acutek 301 combination rear lamp.

In the Acutek lamp, the data you submitted indicate that when the taillamp bulb is activated independently from the clearance lamp bulb, and vice versa, there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp. The amount of light "spill" appears to be so small that it would not be interpreted (by a driver following the vehicle on which it is installed) as illuminating the lens of the taillamp when operated in the clearance lamp mode, and vice versa.

Accordingly, the Acutek 301 combination rear lamp appears to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment."

SINCERELY,

Acutek

October 13, 1976

Louis C. Owen

NHTSA

Subject: Acutek 301 light

Since our telephone conversation in which you stated that in the opinion of your office you feel the Acutek 301 tailight and clearance light is optically combined therefore it is not in strict compliance with standards.

I have had time now to consider Acutek's position and feel the design of the lamp does not conflict with S4.4.1 of MVSS 108 which states: "two or more lamp, reflective devices or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met except that no clearance lamp may be COMBINED OPTICALLY with any tail light or identification lamp.

I think the key words are "COMBINED OPTICALLY". It would seem to me that in order for a lamp to be combined optically you would either have to use the tail light lens or the 2 candlepower filament of the bulb for tail light or both to have a lamp that is optically combined tail and clearance. In reviewing the engineering and the Acutek light I find that we are not using either the tail light filament for the tail light lens to accomplish the clearance function. In fact the clearance function is combined with the side marker lens and uses the side marker bulb to accomplish the clearance function. The lamp will not pass for clearance side marker using only the tail light filament also it will not pass for a tail light using only the side marker bulb. In my opinion the Acutek 301 light does not conflict with S 4.4.1 as the clearance light is not optically combined with the tail light and in fact is completely separated from the tail light by a section of reflex reflector.

It is true there is some very small amount of bleed over light from one section of the lamp to the other. This feature does not in any way decrease the effectiveness of the lamp, but rather is an added safety feature.

For some reason there has been an unusually large amount of controversy concerning this lamp design and feel it is unwarranted. Frankly the controversy has been a deterrent to the sales program and I would like to resolve the question of whether or not the light does in fact comply with MVSS108.

I would like for your office to reexamine the Acutek 301 tail light, keeping in mind that to be optically combined the lamp would use the tail lamp section to accomplish the clearance requirement. Since the lamp does not do this there is not doubt in my mind upon re-evaluation you will agree the lamp does meet requirements and will be in aposition to send me a letter so stating.

At the Chicago Boat Show I had the opportunity to look at the new Truck Lite combination lamp, in my opinion this light does not meet MVSS 108 as they are using the tail light lens to accomplish the clearance function.

Enclosed with this letter is the ETL test reprt which indicates the Acutek 301 rear lamp does comply with all requirements for tail, stop, turn, rear reflex, side marker and reflex, clearance and license illuminator including photometric, lens warpage, color, corrosion, vibration, moisture, dust and bulb socket.

In order to reactivate the sales program, I need a letter form you indicating compliance or what needs to be done to the lamp to bring it into compliance. It is important that this be done as soon as possible for the manufacturers of boat trailers are now placing orders for next years requirements and if there is much more delay on my part then my competitors will have succeded in keeping me out of the market. I do not intend to let this happen.

Upon your re-evaluation of the Acutek 301 lamp I am sure you will agree the clearance lamp is not optically combined with the tail lamp but is combined withthe side marker lens and bulb.

I thank you for your consideration.

Kenneth C. Ploeger President

Report Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Order No. 97552-L

Date August 30, 1976

REPORT NO. 436523 "*ACUTEK 301 DOT SAE A.I.S.T 76" COMBINATION REAR LAMP (WITH OR WITHOUT LICENSE PLATE ILLUMINATOR) AND COMBINED WITH "ACUTEK 201 DOT SAE APC - 76" LENS - CLEARANCE, SIDE MARKER LAMP AND REFLEX REFLECTOR

RENDERED TO

ACUTEK INC.

INTRODUCTION

This report contains the results of examination and test of the above device to demonstrate compliance with the applicable test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, effective January 1, 1976 and current indicated SAE Standards as requested by the client. Marks of identification comply with the requirements of CAC, Title 13, California Highway Patrol.

[Report Omitted]

ID: nht76-2.41

DATE: 10/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is a reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, referencing an opinion letter to you dated October 21, 1969, and asking whether it conflicts with an opinion letter to Ford Motor Company dated "December 5, 1975". (The true date of the letter is July 7, 1975, we do not know why your copy is dated otherwise).

The 1969 letter informed you that "if one compartment or lamp [in a multicompartment lamp] meets the photometric requirements [of Standard No. 108] the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore not regulated by . . . Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.". The letter also stated that "lamps on a vehicle and not required by this standard are generally subject to regulation by the States." Our 1975 letter to Ford, on the other hand advised the company in effect that the performance of the entire multicompartment assembly was covered by Standard No. 108, and that section 25950(b), of the California Vehicle Code was preempted by it. You have asked whether our letter to Ford conflicts with our earlier letter to you.

There is no present conflict. In an amendment to Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1973, (copy enclosed) the agency adopted paragraph S4.1.1.12 and figure 1 which established minimum photometric requirements that must be met by multicompartment tail, stop, and turn signal lamps. The act of establishing requirements for the additional compartments in a multicompartment lamp thus voided the 1969 letter to you and the interpretation to Ford is the correct one.

The Monarch taillamp, therefore, must meet the requirements of Table 1 of standard No. 108 and is not a lamp that is "in addition to the minimum required number" as that term is used in California Vehicle Code section 25950(b), which appears to have been amended in an effort to include it.

We appreciate your suggestion on an amendment to Standard No. 108 on lens color.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 16, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A3107

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We recently received a copy of Mr. James C. Schultz's opinion of December 3, 1975, to Ford Motor Company regarding the color of unlighted taillamps. This interpretation appears to conflict with the enclosed interpretation of October 21, 1969, we requested from NHTSA on a similar subject.

In answer to a question we raised on multicompartment lamps, Dr. Robert Brenner informed us that, "if one compartment or lamp meets the photometric requirements, the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore, not regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2". He also stated that "lamps on a vehicle, and not required by this standard, are generally subject to regulation by the states". These statements appear to mean that once a manufacturer meets the minimum requirements for taillamps for FMVSS No. 108, any additional lamps he chooses to add do not fall under that standard. With respect to the unlighted color of the minimum required lamps, we agree that we are preempted. However, in the case of the Ford lamp, the taillamp section in question was an additional one to which Ford, as an afterthought, attached an amber filter. This lamp was not needed to comply with the federal standards for taillamps, and was an additional lamp not governed by the federal standards as stated in the October 21, 1969, NHTSA interpretation. We, therefore, request that you reconsider whether the interpretation in your letter to Ford Motor Company was overly broad.

The color requirements of the Vehicle Code were amended last year and Section 25950(b) referred to in Ford Motor Company's letter now reads as follows:

"All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear."

"This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot-candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps, and turn signal lamps that are visible to the rear may be white when unlighted () and, with respect to vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1974, only such lamps that are in addition to the minimum required number and are visible to the rear may be white or amber when unlighted."

Until 1961, the Vehicle Code color requirements applied to all lamps, whether lighted or unlighted. In that year, the Legislature amended the Code to permit rear lamps to be white when unlighted in view of the General Motors and Chrysler taillamps which, for styling purposes, had white lenses to blend in with the chrome trim on the rear fenders and bumpers. At that time, the visibility problem with the white lenses was not initially apparent. It was then found that, in at least one design, the white lens reflected so much sunlight during the daytime that it washed out much of the effectiveness of the red stoplamp and turn signal. The white lenses were not objectionable on lamps that supplemented the regular red lensed rear lamps, but they were not satisfactory as a total replacement for those lamps.

Even though we recognize NHTSA's preemption in allowing a manufacturer to use any unlighted lens color he wishes for the minimum required rear lamps, we have a strong objection to that position. Observations of stoplamps in the daytime have shown that those with white lenses are less effective in attracting another person's attention than a lamp of the same output with a red lens. It might be argued that this problem of reduced signal effectiveness does not apply to taillamps, since they are only lighted at nighttime. However, during high brightness day-time fog when lights were required on vehicles, the red taillamps are so dim that the white or amber lens covers become a safety hazard due to the high brightness masking of the red light.

We have no technical objection to a rear lamp lens being any color darker than red, because this would improve the contrast of the red signal against its background. We are highly concerned about the use of lenses that are lighter than the required red because of their effect in washing out the signal in daylight. Standard No. 108 already acknowledges this difference with respect to turn signals where amber is required to have more candlepower output than red for equivalent daytime effectiveness. You might wish to make observations yourself in comparing the daylight effectiveness of the red lens on the Monarch with that of the amber lens when the taillamps are turned on. Daytime observations of the white lens on the various Cadillac year models illustrate varying degrees of effectiveness depending upon the slant of the lens and the taillamp intensity.

We would appreciate hearing from you with respect to a clarification of the two interpretations. We also ask that NHTSA consider amending Standard No. 108 to prohibit taillamps and stoplamps from having a lens cover of white, amber, or any other color that has a lighter contrast with the signal than the red lens.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: nht76-2.42

DATE: 12/01/76 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1976, regarding questions on Docket No. 75-8; Notice 5, for a two-lamp rectangular headlamp system. The answers are provided in accordance with the paragraph numbering of your letter.

1) The two-lamp rectangular headlamps must meet the requirements of SAE J579c.

This is an improved performance lamp over the requirements of SAE J579a and, therefore, must meet the requirements of SAE J579c.

2) The maximum permissible candela for the Type 2B headlamp is 75,000 as specified in SAE J579c. The lower limit for other types of headlamps is retained awaiting future rulemaking action.

3) SAE J580b as specified in the 1976 edition of the SAE Handbook is the correct reference specification for the Type 2B Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly.

3-1) Answered above

3-2) Answered above

3-3) Appropriate revisions to subreferenced SAE standards have at this time not been made for the Type 2B headlamp. In the case of SAE J580b, conducting the tests with a modified deflectometer to fit the Type 2B lamp would be sufficient. It is anticipated that revisions will soon be made to the appropriate subreferenced SAE standards for the Type 2B headlamp.

Your suggested revisions for the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards to incorporate the Type 2B headlamp, including a modified design of deflectometer, may be sent directly to:

Society of Automotive Engineers Detroit Office, Suite 206 2100 West Big (Illegible Word) Troy, Michigan 43084 ATTENTION: Mr. James Tishkowski

We hope this clarifies the questions contained in your letter. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

ID: nht76-2.43

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1976, asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 205.

Paragraph S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires, as you noted, that lamps and reflective devices be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. You asked "whether or not flexible mount clearance and sidemarker lamps should be permitted for use on motor vehicles." Your question appears directed towards replacement equipment. The answer is that California may regulate mounts for replacement lighting equipment in the manner it deems appropriate. S4.3.1 applies to the mounting of lighting equipment on new motor vehicles, and does not establish a specification for replacement equipment mounts. The replacement clearance and sidemarker lamps themselves are, of course, subject to Standard No. 108.

You also asked whether there was a provision in Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, that would exempt "Item 3" [AS 3] glazing (to be used for glass partitions and rear side windows of van-type vehicles) from the requirements of ANS Z26 Tests Nos. 1 and 18.

The answer to your question is no. Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 205 specifies that glazing materials for use in motor vehicles shall conform to the requirements of ANS Z26. The ANS Z26 specifications require "Item 3" glazing materials to comply with Test No. 1, "Light Stability," and Test No. 18, "Abrasion Resistance," regardless of where the "Item 3" glazing is to be used in the vehicle. Thus, there is no provision by which manufacturers of such glazing may be exempted from the test requirements.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

June 22, 1976

File No.: 61.A2781.A3107

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We would appreciate your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 205 with regard to the following situations:

1. FMVSS No. 108, Section S4.3.1 requires, in part, that lamps and reflective devices be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. For several years, clearance or sidemarker lamps have been available which have a rubber strap between the mounting plate and the lamp housing that allows the lamp great freedom of movement when attached to "a rigid part of the vehicle".

Each of the lamps we have examined has a small degree of rotation between the mounting plate and the lamp. In addition, when the mounting plate is held against an appropriate mounting surface, the lamp axis is neither parallel nor perpendicular to the planes normally associated with lamp orientation. When a truck with this type of lamp installed is in motion, the wind currents cause the orientation of the clearance lamps to be further distorted and the ones used for the sidemarker function are in constant motion.

We assume that the intent of the regulation is to ensure that the device will maintain a fixed orientation. Since this lamp cannot comply with that requirement, we request your opinion as to whether or not flexible-mount clearance and sidemarker lamps should be permitted to be sold for use on motor vehicles.

2. Due to the increasing popularity of glass partitions in van-type vehicles, we have received many requests for our approval of AS-3 glazing manufactured with one or both sides textured to render it translucent or with designs etched or sand-blasted upon it. This glazing is also used in the rear side windows of vans and bathroom windows in buses and recreation vehicles. Several of the manufacturers have asked to have this type of glazing exempted from ANSI Test Number 18, Abrasion Resistance, because such resistance has no safety value in this application.

Since the purpose of the abrasion test is to ensure that the driver will have an undisturbed view in the areas requisite for driving visibility, it appears unreasonable to require Tests Nos. 1 and 18 to be performed on glazing that is not used for driving visibility. We would like to know if there is a provision which would allow these manufacturers to be exempt from these tests for this type of glazing.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

CC: AAMVA; VESC

ID: nht76-2.44

DATE: 02/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: H. A. Heffron, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 13, 1976, asking for a confirmation of your understanding that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not apply to lighting equipment intended as replacement equipment on motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972.

You are correct in your interpretation. The effective date of Standard No. 108 in its current form is January 1, 1972. Therefore, the term "any vehicle to which this standard applies" contained in S4.7.1 means a motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, and school bus signal lamps intended as replacements for similar lamps on pre-1972 buses are not required to conform to Standard No. 108. This also means, of course, that the manufacturer has no obligation to certify conformance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As motor vehicle equipment, however, its manufacturer would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in the event of the determination of a safety related defect.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

February 13, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This inquiry concerns the applicability of MVSS 108 to school bus replacement lighting equipment.

MVSS 108 provides with respect to replacement equipment as follows: (S4.7.1)

"Each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform with this standard."

I note that as originally issued the amendment to MVSS 108 which extended its applicability to requirements for replacement lighting equipment was to be effective on July 1, 1971 (35 Fed. Reg. 16840) and this effective date was subsequently changed to January 1, 1972. (36 Fed. Reg. 1896)

My specific question is with respect to school buses manufactured prior to January 1, 1972. As I read MVSS 108, its requirements do not apply to replacement equipment for these older vehicles manufactured prior to January 1972 and, therefore, replacement lighting equipment for such pre-1972 school buses, including replacements for the signal lamp required of school buses in S4.1.4, are not required to conform to MVSS 108.

Would you please advise whether any understanding of the applicability of MVSS 108 is correct.

Very truly yours,

Howard A. Heffron

ID: nht76-2.45

DATE: 03/17/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

COPYEE: HERLIHY; ARMSTRONG; HITCHCOCK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to several questions raised by Blue Bird Body Company concerning the applicability of school bus safety standards to certain bus types under the newly-issued redefinition of school bus (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The new definition (effective October 27, 1976) reads:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

In your February 24, 1976, letter you ask whether buses utilized to transport athletic teams and school bands to and from athletic events quality as school buses under the definition that becomes effective October 27, 1976, and, if so, whether they must therefore comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

From your description of the use of an "activity bus" to transport students to and from athletic events related to the students' school, it would be included as a school bus under the new definition if it were sold for this use. It appears clear that the manufacturer and dealer in these cases would both be aware that the purchasing school intended to use the bus to transport students to events related to their school, such as athletic events involving school teams. In close cases, the knowledge of parties to the sales transaction would be determinative of whether the bus was "sold . . . for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events . . . ." Any bus determined to be a school bus under the new definition would be required to meet all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture.

Your December 16, 1975, letter asks whether transit buses that are based on a basic school bus design must meet the requirements of Standard No. 217, Emergency Exits, that apply to buses other than school buses. Since receipt of your letter, the redefinition of school bus has been issued and Standard No. 217 has been amended by the addition of requirements for school buses. In answer to your question, only a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school qualifies as a school bus. A bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation would be required to meet the requirements of Standard 217 for buses other than school buses.

Your separate question regarding the configuration of emergency exits has been answered in an earlier interpretation of the provision you question. A copy of that interpretation is enclosed.

Your March 4, 1976, letter asked whether the new definition of school bus includes buses that are sold for transportation of college-age students. You argued that an intent to include buses other than those for the transportation of preprimary-, primary-, and secondary-school students would go beyond the statutory definition added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14)), and apply the standards to a broader variety of vehicles than those for which they were developed. The NHTSA finds this argument to have merit. It therefore withdraws its discussion of the breadth of the regulatory definition of school bus that appeared in the December 31, 1975, preamble. The agency will not consider buses sold for the transportation of college-age students to be school buses.

You also asked if any motor vehicle safety standard requires that school buses be painted yellow. No motor vehicle safety standard requires yellow paint. At this time however, standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires installation of warning lights, and this would entail the use of yellow paint by the operator under Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17.

In an area unrelated to school bus definition, you asked in a February 20, 1976, letter whether the description of vehicle roof appearing in S5.2(b) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, applies to determination of roof size under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b). The description is intended to apply to roof measurement under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b).

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 24, 1976

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 75-24; NOTICE 02, REDEFINITION OF "SCHOOL BUS"

We frequently have orders for "activity buses" which are owned by schools for such trips as may be taken by the school band, football or other athletic teams. These buses often have recliner or headrest seats and more than average leg room to make the students comfortable for longer trips. Equipment such as warning lamps would probably never be used on this type bus since it usually departs from the local school or other designated sites and doesn't pick up and discharge students like a daily school bus. Schools also like to paint these buses with their own colors rather than NSBC.

Will it be legal for Blue Bird to fulfill market demand for buses as described above or must this type bus be NSBC in color, have school bus warning lamps, FMVSS 222 seats and barriers? Who is responsible for saying if this bus is a "school bus" or not?

Thanks for your help in this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY March 4, 1976

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: DOCKET 75-24, NOTICE 2, REDEFINITION OF "SCHOOL BUS"

Additional questions regarding this subject have arisen since my letter of February 24, 1976 to you on the same subject. Therefore, please consider this letter to be an addendum to my letter of February 24, 1976.

We are assuming that buses owned and operated by parochial schools for the use of transporting students to or from school are "school buses" as well as buses owned and operated by public schools. Is this assumption correct? We understand that if these buses are "school buses" then they must meet all standards which apply to school buses. However, we are not sure if it must be painted NSBC yellow as described by Pupil Transportation Standard #17.

Specifically, if a customer such as a private school orders a bus and states on the purchase order that it will be used as a school bus, may we paint it a color other than NSBC yellow?

Public Law 93-492 defines a "school bus" as " . . . . a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than ten passengers in addition to the driver, and which the secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools;".

Based on this definition, we are assuming there is no intent for college buses to be defined as "school buses". This conclusion seems to be further substantiated by the fact that college buses do not pick up and discharge students in such a way that they need to control traffic by the use of warning lamps. They are usually not NBSC yellow and their passengers would probably average more than the 120 lb. passenger weight which is required to be used as a basis for gross vehicle weight rating certification of school buses. Also, FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, was obviously designed for 120 lb. passengers since it effectively limits the maximum knee clearance to approximately 25". This seat spacing is entirely inadequate for college students.

Based on these facts, we are assuming that college buses are not "school buses" and are, therefore, not subject to any standards which apply to school buses. Is this assumption correct?

We are in urgent need of the answers to each of these questions since they affect decisions we must make immediately regarding seat tooling and orders which are currently being solicited. Your early response will be greatly appreciated.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY December 16, 1975

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

REFERENCE: 1. N40-30 (MPP) Letter to Mr. James Tydings from R. B. Dyson dated September 25, 1973.

2. N40-33 (MPP) Letter to Mr. George R. Seamark from R. B. Dyson dated October 31, 1973.

The above references say that vehicles which share the same design as school buses but which are not used as school buses are considered to be school buses for the purposes of Standard 217 and they are therefore exempt from the emergency requirement of that standard.

We are currently evaluating the city bus market potential. The vehicles which we anticipate using for that application share many of the same design features and components as school buses. On the other hand, there are many areas of dissimilarity.

Our question is whether or not such a bus intended for city transit type usage must meet the requirements of paragraphs S5.2 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS 217.

The enclosed photograph shows a sliding window type emergency exit which we would like to propose as a potential alternative to push-out type emergency windows. Are we correct in assuming that such a configuration qualifies as a valid emergency exit provided that it meets the emergency exit release requirements of paragraph S5.3 and the emergency exit identification requirements of S5.5?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 20, 1976

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 220 - SCHOOL BUS ROLLOVER PROTECTION

In S5.2b the vehicle roof for vehicles of GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less is described as "that structure, seen in the top projected view, that coincides with the passenger and driver compartment of the vehicle."

In S5.2a which addresses vehicles of GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., the same detailed description of the vehicle roof is not given. This detail is necessary for locating the force application plate.

Are we correct in assuming that we may locate the force application plate for vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. in accordance with the definition of the "vehicle roof" which is given in the S5.2b?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

ID: nht76-2.46

DATE: 01/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 8, 1975, asking four questions, the answers to which would provide an interpretation of Standard No. 108 with respect to separation distance of a turn signal lamp from the nearest edge of a Type 2 headlamp.

SAE Standard J588d, Turn Signal Lamps, June 1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires in pertinent part that "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam . . . ." We agree with your opinion that the reference to filament center may have been added because of the difficulty of determining the location of the optical axis in certain instances. In the vast majority of cases, however the filament center is on the optical axis, and the addition of the provision assists in determining compliance with the requirement.

You have asked:

"1. Is the filament center always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?"

The answer to this question is no. In some instances the filament center will not be on the optical axis. When this is the case the standard is ambiguous as to whether distance is measured from the optical axis or the filament center. While we prefer the optical axis, under the present wording either must be viewed as legally supportable.

"2. Is the center of the emitted light always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?"

The answer is yes.

"3. If the answers to the above two questions are no, does the vehicle manufacturer have the choice as to which method is most favorable to him?"

Yes, because of the ambiguity the manufacturer may choose either the optical axis or filament center as the point of measurement.

"4. What is the optical axis of a two- or three- compartment lamp?"

The optical axis of a multi-compartment lamp is the center of the light emitted by the array, treated as a single complex light source. The "half-value" method you described in your letter is a valid method of finding the optical axis of a complex light source as well as that of a simple one.

Finally you have asked whether, if we agree with the need for clarification, the letter can be considered a petition for rulemaking or whether a formal petition should be submitted.

We agree that clarification is needed and accordingly plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 8, 1975

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

When inspecting 1976 passenger cars, we discovered a problem in measuring the distance of a front turn signal lamp from the nearest edge of the Type 2 headlamp. Federal Standard No. 108 requires that turn signal lamps meet the 4-inch minimum spacing in SAE J588d. Standard No. 108 also permits lamps to be mounted closer than the 4-inch interval if they emit 2-1/2 times the minimum candlepower otherwise specified.

SAE J588d clearly states that the distance shall be measured from the optical axis of the turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring from the headlamp providing the low beam. It then, unfortunately, makes the requirement ambiguous by a parenthetical reference to the filament center.

The SAE wording was satisfactory when it was adopted a number of years ago, because lamp designs then had the optical axis coincident with the filament. More recent designs have kept the filament 4 inches from the headlamp but have used the ambiguity as a loophole to allow the optical axis to be unreasonably close to the headlamp.

The 4-inch separation was adopted by SAE after a number of complaints about the lack of effectiveness of some turn signals that were snuggled up against the headlamps. The brightness of the adjacent low beam headlamps washed out the turn signals so they would not attract an oncoming driver's attention unless he was looking almost directly at them. The SAE Lighting Committee made nighttime demonstrations of turn signals at various distances from the headlamps in view of a proposal that the edges of the lamps be separated by a minimum distance such as 2 or 2 inches. A jury-type judgment indicated that the present requirement was barely acceptable usually and would allow vehicle manufacturers sufficient design freedom in placing the lamps on vehicles.

The attached drawing illustrates the absurdity of the "filament center" interpretation for modern-day turn signals (and incidentally the skill and ingenuity of lamp designers). Figure I shows a current lamp with a filament center meeting the 4-inch requirement but with an optical center much closer to the headlamp. Figure II illustrates a left-hand version of the same lamp with a filament center that does not meet the 4-inch requirement but with an optical center farther removed from the headlamp. The second lamp provides a more effective signal from an opposing driver's viewpoint, but it would be illegal if measured from the filament center.

The filament center reference apparently was added to the SAE standard because of an assumed difficulty in determining the location of the optical axis. An axis of any object usually passes through a point of symmetry. In the case of a symmetrical light beam meeting turn signal photometric requirements, the optical axis falls in a plane on either side of which is one-half of the total light output. The optical axis is easily located by measuring the intensity of the lamp at HV and then sliding an opaque card with a straight edge across the face of the lens until the photometer reading is one-half the HV value.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we would appreciate your interpretation of Standard No. 108 with respect to the following questions:

1. Is the filament center always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?

2. Is the center of the emitted light always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?

3. If the answers to the above two questions are no, does the vehicle manufacturer have the choice of which method is most favorable to him?

4. What is the optical axis of a two- or three-compartment lamp?

If you agree with the need for clarification, can this letter be considered a basis for your initiating a proposed change in Standard No. 108 or must this Department submit a formal petition for a rulemaking?

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEATH -- Commander, Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

cc: Lou Owen, NHTSA; Francis Armstrong, NHTSA

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-2.47

DATE: 02/12/76

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

TO: F. A. McNiel

COPYEE: HON. J. J. PICKLE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your petition of November 7, 1975, "for the correction of subsection S4.5.4 and S4.6(b) as set forth by existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108."

It is your opinion that S4.5.4, which requires activation of stop lamps upon application of the service brakes, is design restrictive, and "leaves no opportunity for innovation by the private sector for other solutions for the activation of a motor vehicle's stoplamps". You have suggested that S4.5.4 be amended to include at its end "or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle".

Any performance standard is design restrictive to some extent; it must restrict manufacturers to designs that meet the desired performance requirements. Its validity as a performance standard depends on whether the restrictions of the standard are only as narrow as reasonably necessary to achieve the desired safety performance. In this case we have found that the requirement meets this test. A signal to other drivers that the service brakes are being applied is precisely the performance being sought in S4.5.4. A signal based on some other condition (e.g., vehicle deceleration, might not be as timely, or might fail altogether to operate at the critical moment (as where it is based on lifting the accelerator pedal). Since the requirement is limited to the desired safety performance, we find it valid, and your petition in this area is denied.

You also ask for an amendment of S4.6(b) to include "rearlamps" among those that may be flashed for signalling purposes, since you believe that conventional wiring circuits presently allow these lamps to be flashed when headlamps are flashed. When the headlamps are flashed by means of the on-off switch, it is true that rear lamps will flash. But that type of flashing is in no way restricted by the standard. The flashing intended to be regulated by S4.6(b) is by automatic means (see S3 definitions) and, except for rear turn signal lamps, these automatic devices would not be connected to rear lamp circuits. Thus, there appears to be no need for the amendment you suggest and your petition is accordingly denied.

We appreciate your continuing efforts on behalf of traffic safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

F. A. McNiel 611 Bouldin Avenue Austin, Texas 78704

NOVEMBER 7, 1975

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: A petition for the correction of sub-sections S4.5.4 and S4.6(b) as set forth by existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Gentlemen:

Quoting from a letter date of Jan. 29, 1968, from William Heddon Jr., Director of the Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau, in answer to a letter that Congressman J. J. Pickle had forwarded to the Department of Transportation in my behalf, - Director Haddon states:

"under the law the Congress directed us to set 'performance' standards and not standards requiring specific devices or designs. The Congress chose this approach to give the private sector the greatest opportunity for innovation and to permit a variety of solutions in meeting specific performance requirements".

The 'performance' standards as established by FMVSS No. 108 for the functioning of a motor vehicle's stoplamps are as follows;

Except for the size, location, lens type, and candlepower, the only standard 'set' for stoplamp functioning that is covered by FMVSS No. 108 is sub-section S4.5.4, which states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes".

Sub-section S4.5.4 is in direct conflict with Director Haddon's letter on two seperate counts, i.e.

1. Said section as worded constitutes a mandate of intendence that a 'specific design' (use of the service brakes) shall be the only means used to activate a motor vehicle's stoplamps.

2. Also, as worded sub-section S4.5.4 leaves no opportunity for innovation by the private sector for other solutions for the activation of a motor vehicle's stoplamps.

In order to comply with Director Haddon's interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, I propose that sub-section S4.5.4 be expanded to read as follows:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon the application of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle".

Under Section S4.5 'special wiring requirements'

Sub-section S4.5.7 states - (a) "When the parking lamps are activated the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated", - and (b) "When the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated". - Thus, the said section stipulates that it is mandatory that the side marker lamps be in-circuit with the taillamps and license plate lamps.

Under Section S4.6 'when activated'

S4.6 states, - (a) "Turn signal lamps, hazard warning lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall flash", - and (b) "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes".

Contextually, S4.5.7 (a) and (b), and S4.6 (b) make it unlawful to flash headlamps and side marker lamps by use of the conventional lamp activating means, as this act would also flash taillamps and license plate lamps.

The only manner by which headlamps and side marker lamps could be flashed and still leave taillamps and license plate lamps steady-burning would be to isolate headlamps and side marker lamps from the conventional wiring circuit by means of auxiliary wiring and switching means which would operate indipendent of the conventional lighting system.

Installation of such auxiliary wiring and switching means would tend to be costly, - and to what avail? In what instance could the flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes enhance traffic safety, - and at the same time, the flashing of taillamps and license plate lamps be detrimental to traffic safety?

To make S4.6(b) credible, and to prevent perhaps millions of motorists from unwittingly breaking the letter of the law by flashing a vehicle's lights with the conventional light switch, I propose that the word 'rearlamps' be inserted after the word 'headlamps' to make the sub-section read -- "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps, rearlamps, and side marker lamps for signaling purposes".

In order to bring FMVSS No. 108 more into line with the apparent intent of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, I respectfully petition the Department of Transportation for rule making to re-phrase sub-sections S4.5.4 and S4.6 (b) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to include the wording that I have proposed.

Such re-phrasing would establish a standard against which any beneficial means for activating a motor vehicle's stoplamps could be tested.

Such a standard would provide an opportunity for the private sector to innovate means for improving the 'performance' of a motor vehicle's conventional stoplamps in a manner that could materially reduce the toll of "10 percent of the fatal motor vehicle accidents and 49 percent of all motor vehicle accidents" ascribed by the National Highway Safety Bureau as resulting from rear end collision type accidents.

Such re-phrasing would also remove the current restriction that now makes it unlawful under any circumstances for a motorist to flash a vehicle's lamps by the use of the conventional lamp activating switching means.

Respectfully,

Fred A. McNiel Traffic Safety Advocate

copy: Hon. J. J. Pickle