ID: 1984-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Regional Administrator, NHTSA Region V

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Legal Opinion - School Bus Definition Change Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Regional Administrator, NHSTA Region V

This responds to your May 10, 1984, memo regarding Representative Mautino's bill, NB 3117, which would amend the Illinois Vehicle Code to exclude from the definition of "school bus" any vehicle designed to carry 15 or fewer passengers. The Illinois Department of Transportation asked what the consequences would be if this amendment were enacted into law. You referred their inquiry to this office for our reply.

HB 3117 would classify as "school buses" vehicles which are designed to carry 16 or more passengers that are owned by or operated for a school, for the transportation of students. Our Federal regulations define a bus to be a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and further define a school bus to be a bus that is sold for the purposes of carrying students to and from school or related events. The decision of Illinois not to adopt the Federal classification has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standard to that vehicle. The Federal school bus safety standards would apply to vehicles that meet the Federal definition of a school bus, regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under the state regulations. Of course, the Federal standards apply only to those vehicles that were manufactured after the effective date of the standards, April 1, 1977.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states generally that no State shall have in effect any State standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. State standards that are not identical are preempted by the Safety Act unless they impose a higher level of safety and are applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use.

Thus the preemptive effect of section 103(d) is not altered by the fact that a vehicle classified as a school bus under the Safety Act is classified as some other type of motor vehicle under State law. Regardless of how Illinois classifies a particular vehicle, if there are Federal standards regulating certain aspects of performance of the vehicle, any State standards regulating the same aspects of performance must be identical except, as already noted, when it sets a higher standard of performance for a vehicle procurred for the State's own use.

A state decision to adopt all or none of the Federal standards applicable to a type of motor vehicle has no effect on the necessity under the Safety Act of manufacturing such a motor vehicle is accordance with the Federal standards. Further, any person selling vehicles for use in school transportation which fail to comply with all applicable safety standards is violating the Safety Act and is subject to a maximum penalty of $1,000 per violation. We note further that use of noncomplying vehicles as school buses could result in potential liability problems for the users of the vehicle if the buses are involved in accidents.

The proposed State definition change also would not affect the definition of school bus used by the agency for the purposes of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17.

ID: 1984-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/84 EST.

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company -- Thomas D. Turner, Engineering Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas D. Turner Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 AC-912/825-2O21 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

This responds to your letter dated March 27, 1984 regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107 Reflecting Surfaces in which you ask for an interpretation of the term "bright metal components." You asked whether these components would include only polished metal or plated components and not painted metal components, even if painted "a shiny high gloss black." In addition, you asked whether a plastic component would be covered by the standard.

The purpose of Standard No. 107 is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces in the driver's field of view will hinder safe and normal operation of the motor vehicle. The standard sets limits on the "specular gloss of the surface of the materials" used for certain "bright metal components." The standard was based on materials commonly used in vehicle at the time of the standard issuance and thus it referred to metal components. Since the requirements apply to the surfaces of those metal components, a metal interior rearview mirror frame with a painted "shiny high glass" surface would be covered by the standard.

An all-plastic component would be outside the literal requirements of the standard. But since a plastic component could produce an unacceptable glare if located in the driver's field of view, the agency urges manufacturers to use plastic materials which will not produce glare.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 27, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing you to reference to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 107-Reflecting Surfaces. The standard specifies the specular gloss of the surface of the materials used for specified " . . . bright metal components in the driver's field of view . . polished metal or plated components and not to painted components. Thus, an inside rearview mirror frame and bracket, for example, painted black would not be subject to the requirements of the standard even if it were painted a shiny high gloss black. Likewise, a plastic component would not be subject to the standards requirements unless it was bright metal plated such as being chrome plated.

We request your confirmation of our interpretation and thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services fvc c: David James FMVSS 107 File

ID: 1984-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 3, 1984

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Schnader; Harrison; Segal & Lewis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 9, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to an emergency locking retractor designed by one of your clients. The following discussion addresses the application of those standards to the retractor.

You explained that the purpose of the new emergency locking retractor (ELR) is to facilitate the securing of a child restraint in a vehicle. The ELR would only be installed in forward-facing passenger seating positions. The new ELR is designed so if the belt is pulled all the way out of the retractor, the ELR will convert into an automatic locking retractor (ALR). Once all but 1393-1493 mm of the belt retracts, the retractor will revert automatically to the ELR mode.

You further explained that the continuous loop lap and upper torso belt used with this retractor is 380 mm longer than the belt system provided for the driver's seating position. You explained that the extra 380 mm of belt webbing is meant "to permit normal occupant movement without inadvertent actuation of the ALR mode while still rendering it convenient for manual extension when the ALR mode is desired for child restraint use."

You specifically asked whether the retractor designed by your client would be considered an ELR for the purposes of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. In addition, you asked about the retractor durability tests of S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209. As a part of that test, a retractor is subjected to "45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension." You asked whether, for the purposes of the section 5.2(k) test, the length of the driver's belt, which is 380 mm shorter than the passenger's belt, could be used to determine what constitutes 100 percent extension of the belt. You alternatively asked whether the test could be stopped before complete extension of the passenger belt.

As we understand your client's seat belt assembly, the amount of webbing in the driver's side assembly complies to the adjustment requirements of section 4.1(g) of Standard No. 209. The 380 mm's of extra webbing that is included in the passenger's seat belt assembly has been voluntarily added as a precaution to reduce the possibility of an occupant inadvertently actuating the ALR mode of the retractor. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that in normal operation by occupants covered by the adjustment requirements of Standard No. 209 the retractor functions exclusively as an ELR and thus can be used to meet the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. The agency views the 380 mm's of extra webbing as a voluntary addition not required by the standard. Therefore, for the purpose of section 5.2(k) of Standard No. 209, the agency will use the length of the driver's belt to determine what constitutes full extension of the webbing.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 9, 1984

Diane Steed -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Interpretation of FMVSS 208 & 209 re: Emergency Locking Retractors

Dear Ms. Steed: On March 19, 1984, I met with Messrs. Hitchcock, Hunter, Smith and Nelson from the Office of Rulemaking and Mr. Gilkey from the Office of Enforcement to demonstrate a new design of emergency locking retractor that one of our clients will soon introduce on a new car in the United States. This innovative design addresses the problem of fitting a child seat to a seated position fitted with a seat belt equipped with an emergency locking retractor (ELR) rather than an automatic locking retractor (ALR). Many owners (and NHTSA) have expressed concern that a child seat may not be securely restrained by an ELR, or at least the vehicle operator may be unsure of the ELR's ability to secure the seat during normal vehicle operation, such as sudden stops or quick turns.

Our client has designed a unique ELR that automatically temporarily converts to an ALR mode to facilitate the fitting of a child seat. This is accomplished by merely pulling the belt all the way out of the retractor, at which point a click is heard, and the ELR converts to an ALR mode until the belt is again retracted back into the retractor. Once all but 1393-1493 mm of the belt retracts, the retractor reverts automatically to the normal ELR mode. This seat belt assembly, consisting of a slightly longer running loop combination lap and upper torso belt and the new ELR, will be installed only in forward-facing passenger seat positions -- not the driver's seat.

Paragraph S4.1.2.3.1(a) of FMVSS 208 requires the applicable vehicle to "have a seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2." S7.1.1 requires an upper torso restraint furnished in accordance with S4.1.2.3.1(a) to "adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209." We believe that the retractor described herein and demonstrated to NHTSA on March 19, 1984 meets that requirement. That is to say that an ELR that is temporarily convertible to an ALR mode is still an ELR for the purpose of FMVSS 208.

Paragraph S5.2(k) of FMVSS 209 specifies requirements for retractor performance. As part of the durability requirements, an ELR "attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension." The subject ELR cannot be tested to exactly 100 percent extension without engaging the ALR mode. This would, of course, lock the belt when it is stopped at the 50 percent point and prevent its re-extension without retraction to within 255-355 mm of being completely retracted. An additional 380 mm of webbing is provided in this installation. This amount was selected as the optimum to permit normal occupant movement without inadvertent actuation of the ALR mode while still rendering it convenient for manual extension when the ALR mode is desired for child seat use. We feel it appropriate that this retractor be tested to the applicable portions of S5.2(k) using 50 to 100 percent of the belt length of the driver's belt, which is 38) mm shorter. Alternatively, if the 100 percent requirement is a nominal value only, the test could be stopped just before full extension to preclude unwanted conversion to the ALR mode during the retractor test.

We would appreciate your early confirmation of our understanding that this unique emergency locking retractor design complies with these paragraphs of FMVSS 208 and 209. Should for some reason you disagree with our interpretation, please treat this as a Petition for Rulemaking to amend such portions of the applicable standards as necessary to permit the use of what we believe to be an important and desirable safety innovation.

Sincerely, Donald M. Schwentker -- SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS

ID: 1984-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office seeking an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You wish to know whether the minimum effective projected luminous lens area for stop lamps and turn signal lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater is 8 square inches or 12 square inches. You cite an apparent conflict between paragraph S4.1.1.6 and SAE Standard J586d, and paragraph S4.1.1.7 and SAE Standard J588f. You have asked for an interpretation so that Wesbar may properly design a "combination tail lamp."

First, we will confirm the advice provided by "D.O.T. staff people" that the latest SAE revisions, J586d and J588f, have not been adopted.

You do not state the intended use of your proposed lamp, so we will assume that it will be sold to trailer manufacturers as original equipment, and to the aftermarket as replacement equipment. As original equipment, it must comply with the requirements specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, SAE J586c for stop lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 3.2 of each standard specifies a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches.

Paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 become relevant, however, if Wesbar intends the lamp as replacement equipment on trailers manufactured before September 1, 1978, and after January 1, 1972 (turn signal lamps) and January 1, 1973 ( stop lamps). Under paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 replacement stop and turn signal lamps for trailers manufactured within the 1972-1978 time frame may meet either J586b or J586c, and either J588d or J588e. We note that neither J586b nor paragraph S4.1.1.6 establish a minimum luminous lens area for stop lamps. However, a manufacturer who chooses to comply with paragraph S4.1.1.7 rather than J588e would have to provide the minimum specified luminous lens area of 12 square inches for turn signal lamps of trailers whose overall width was 80 inches or more, the requirement specified in J588d for Class A turn signal lamps. We view this interpretation as one of historical interest than current relevance.

In summary, if Wesbar designs its lamp to the 8-inch requirement, it would appear to meet specifications for application either as original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 16, 1984

Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Taylor Vincent, Legal Counsel

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Re: Request for D.O.T. 108 Interpretation

Wesbar is a lamp manufacturer currently designing a new submersible boat trailer lamp, which we would like to introduce this fall at the national trade show. The reason we are writing you at this time is that we find we have a need for a written interpretation clarifying a section of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding the lamps used on trailers over 80 inches wide.

The need for the interpretation arrives from several sources, which include the latest SAE Engineering Handbook, several D.O.T. staff, and the marketplace. The area needing clarification is the number of square inches actually needed (of effective projected luminous area) for a STOP LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.6 vs. SAE J586d) and a TURN LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.7 vs SAE J588f). The current SAE Handbook calls out 8 square inches of "effective projected luminous lens" area as the minimum for either a turn or stop lamp used on a trailer 80 inches or more in width. We followed this up by questioning several D.O.T. staff people. They stated the latest SAE standards revisions had not been adopted by D.O.T. and therefore the 12 square inch requirement (of effective projected luminous lens area) must still be met when the light is used on trailers 80 inches or more in width. This was consistent until one staff member learned of Peterson Manufacturing's (Anderson Marine Division) #450 series "8-in-one", which is promoted for use on over 80 inch wide trailers, that has only 8 square inches of lens -- then we were told 8 square inches would be sufficient.

As you are probably well aware, the U.S. marketplace is more price competitive and quality conscious than ever before. Therefore, while we, as a lamp manufacturer, sincerely wish to meet every letter of the law, we also need to be as up-to-date and cost competitive as possible, and this is why we have been directed to you. Is the old standard still current or is a new generation of tail lights, such as Peterson's #450 series submersible tail light, now acceptable to meet the standard?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in reviewing this matter. It is important that we receive your written interpretation as soon as possible for it will have great impact on the design and cost of our new proposed combination tail light, as well as keep us "on schedule" for its introduction.

Sincerely,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing

CIN:mk

ID: 1984-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Bruce Henderson Automobile Importer of America 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 1002 Arlington, VA 22202

Dear Mr. Henderson:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Your specific question was whether a fuse box cover must comply with the requirements of section 3.3 of the standard. As explained below, a fuse box cover does not have to comply with section 3.3.

Section 3.3 of the standard provides that each "interior compartment door" in certain vehicle locations must remain closed when subjected to the specified performance tests. Section 571.3 defines an interior compartment door as "any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects." The definition is meant to include such storage areas as the "glovebox" which has a large door which could fly open in a crash, and not a portion of the vehicle's electrical system such as a fuse box, which is not used as storage space.

Although not covered by the standard, we would urge a manufacturer carefully to design the fuse box in such a way as to prevent injuries if it is located in an area which could be struck by an occupant in a crash.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. Suite 1960 3000 Town Center Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Kano:

This responds to your letter of April 13, 1984, addressed to Mr. Roman Brooks of NHTSA's Office of Enforcement. You stated that you were submitting the letter "to assure that the Agency and Mitsubishi agree in writing as we did verbally" concerning the compliance of a proposed electronic odometer design with Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You also stated that lead time dictates an imminent decision on design plans, that the agency's "early approval/response" to your selected solution is greatly appreciated, and that if you do not hear to the contrary within 30 days, you will assume the agency's concurrence. As discussed below, your letter indicates a serious misunderstanding of both Federal statutory requirements and NHTSA policies and procedures. Moreover, your apparent interpretation of Standard No. 101 is incorrect.

First, NHTSA does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements.

NHTSA is willing to provide interpretations and opinions in response to reasonable requests. However, such interpretations and opinions are only provided in writing and only by NHTSA's Chief Counsel. The agency does not consider itself bound by verbal statements made by agency employees or by interpretations made by persons other than the Chief Counsel.

Moreover, NHTSA does not offer interpretations by remaining silent in response to letters which assert that such silence is assumed to be concurrence. The agency considers the inclusion of such purported conditions to be inappropriate and does not consider itself bound by them.

The agency regrets if Mr. Brooks' conversation contributed to the misunderstandings apparent in your letter. In the future, questions of interpretation should be addressed in writing to the Chief Counsel.

Your question of interpretation concerns a proposed design for an electronic odometer which would display either miles or kilometers. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter, the vehicle's speedometer would display, at the option of the driver, in either miles per hour or kilometers per hour. The selected unit of measure would he identified by a lighted display reading either "MPH" or "Km/h". The digits of the odometer would correspond to the units of measure selected for the speedometer, but the odometer itself would not identify its units of measure. As discussed below, such a design would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, since that standard requires an odometer that indicates kilometers to be identified by "KILOMETERS" or "km".

Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires that "each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle and truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2, shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display." Odometers are one of the displays listed in column 1 of Table 2.

Section S5.2.f references the requirements of Table 2. Footnote 3 of Table 2 specifies the following requirement for odometers:

If the odometer indicates kilometers, then "KILOMETERS" or "km" shall appear, otherwise no identification is required.

Section S5.2.3 further provides that "the identification required or permitted by this section shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies.

Standard No. 101 thus requires odometers indicating kilometers to be identified by "KILOMETERS" or "km", and such identification must be placed on or adjacent to the odometer. Since your proposed design would indicate kilometers, it would be necessary to identify its units of measure according to these requirements.

I would note that these requirements cannot be met merely by placing the odometer adjacent to the speedometer. While the identification of the selected units of measure for the speedometer could be placed adjacent to both the speedometer and odometer, the identification requirements are different for the two displays. Table 2 requires that a speedometer graduated in miles per hour and kilometers per hour be identified by "MPH and km/h" in any combination of upper or lower case letters. As discussed above, the requirement for odometers is "KILOMETERS" or "km". A single identification of units of measure cannot meet these requirements simultaneously.

Please note that this opinion is limited to the specific issue raised by your letter and does not consider whether the proposed design would otherwise meet the requirements of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 13, 1984

Mr. Roman Brooks Enforcement Operating Systems and Occupant Protection National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Brooks:

Relevant to our conversation on odometer/speedometer nomenclature during the third week of March, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation hereby submits the letter you suggested in order to assure that the Agency and Mitsubishi agree in writing as we did verbally.

Description

MMC intends to introduce a future model instrument panel which will have an electronic digital speedometer, and electronic digital conventional and trip odometers.

As in the 1983 model Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Saporro, built by Mitsubishi and sold in the U.S., the digital electronic speedometer can be displayed at the option of the driver either in MPH or Km/h, and the selected unit is shown with a lighted display. In those vehicles the odometers (conventional and trip) are mechanical units which only display miles and no units accompany the odometer as FMVSS 101 allows.

However, the new model MMC intends to introduce will be equipped also with electronic odometers (conventional and trip). Because of the versatility of electronics, MMC intends to display the digits of the odometers also in the units (either miles or Km) which correspond to the units the driver has selected for the speedometer (either MPH or Km/h). An explanation will be put in the owners Manual, as you suggested, that the odometers will display the corresponding miles or Km to the lighted display at the speedometer which the driver has selected (either MPH or Km/h), but the odometer itself will not show its units.

Furthermore, the new odometer will be in comparable compliance with Title IV insofar as accuracy, difficulty to alter mileage, etc.

Request

Since lead time for this new model dictates an imminent decision on how to handle the nomenclature, your early approval/response to our selected solution is greatly appreciated.

If we do not hear to the contrary within 30 days of the date of this letter, we will assume your concurrence.

Thank you in advance for your attention to our request.

Very truly yours,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President /sg cc: Messrs. A. H. Neill J. E. Glancy

ID: 1984-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dinkelspiel; Donovan & Reder

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

US. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Paul Escobosa, Esq. Dinkelspiel, Donovan & Reder One Embarcadero Center - 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94111

Dear Mr. Escobosa:

In reply to your letter of May 22, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my office, this is to advise you that you will find the truck air brake standard at 49 CFR 571.121, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

As Mr. Vinson informed you, the "Autostop" braking device about which you inquired is not directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle equipment or vehicle standard. However, its installation on a truck conforming to Standard No. 121 must not render the air brake system inoperative in whole or in part, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). If installation occurs before the truck is delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the installer is required to attach a label to the truck in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7 that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In any event, as an item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Autostop" is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq. in the event that either its manufacturer or this agency determines that it contains or creates a safety-related defect.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Autostop

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me the automatic truck braking device which is described in the enclosed Autostop brochure. I was relieved to learn that the device is not within Standard 121 governing air brakes and that no federal testing or other compliance will be necessary for the device to be imported and sold in the United States. I am enclosing the brochure in case this brings to mind any other relevant regulation of which you think we should be aware.

If possible, I would appreciate your sending me a copy of Standard 121 or advising me where I can find it. Again, I thank you for your courtesy.

Very truly yours,

Paul Escobosa PE:ca Enclosure cc: Herman Essen

ID: 1984-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Olson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David A. White Senior Safety Engineer Grumman Olson 70180 Centerville Road Sturgis, Michigan 49091

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to our letter of May 3, 1984, asking about Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your letter concerned requirements applicable to a proposed design for an instrument panel which would include controls for heating fan, windshield wiper and washer, and defrosting system. The controls would be identified both by the symbol specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 and the relevant word listed in that table. You asked whether the symbols are required to be illuminated or whether it is permissible instead to illuminate the identifying words without illuminating the symbols. As discussed below, your interpretation of the standard that the symbols must be illuminated is correct.

By way of background information, I would note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 101 generally requires that "any hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated n column 3 shall be identified by that symbol." The section states further that "(s)uch a control may, in addition, be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2." The three controls noted above, heating fan, windshield wiper and washer, and defroster system, are all listed in column 1 and have symbols designated in column 3. Thus, the identification required by section S5.2.1 for these controls are the symbols designated in column 3. Use of the words shown in column 2 in addition to the mandatory symbols is permissible but not required.

Section S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states:

Except for foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console, or steering column, or in the windshield header area, the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompained by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. However, control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield.... Emphasis added.

As discussed above, the identification required by section S5.2.1 for the three controls are the symbols designated in column 3. Since each of the three controls is accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, the required symbols must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. It is thus not permissible to illuminate the identifying words without also illuminating the symbols.

I would note that your letter does not provide sufficient information to determine whether the controls in your proposed design could come within any of Standard No. 101's exceptions to the illumination requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 3, 1984

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street S/W Washington, D. C. 20590

ATTN: Frank Berndt

Dear Sir;

Grumman Olson is a manufacturer of walk-in delivery vans. We have a customer who is asking us to use a special instrument panel that I question conforms to F.M.V.S.S. 101. The reason I question the conformity is that S5.2 of F.M.V.S.S. 101 requires that controls listed in column 1 of table 1 that have symbols designated in column 3 shall be identified by those symbols. Optionally the control may, in addition to the symbol, be identified by the word listed in column 2 of table 1.

S5.3 of F.M.V.S.S. 101 states that the identification required in S5.2 shall be illuminated if column 4 of table 1 requires it.

The controls on the instrument panel in question are identified both by the required symbol and the optional word. The symbol, however, is on the control and the word is on the panel itself. Provisions are made to illuminate the word and not the appropriate symbol. I am speaking here of the heating fan, windshield wiper and washer and the defroster system.

I have stated to our customer that the identification that is required is the symbol and it must be illuminated, not the word. I have not been able to convince them of this, so I seek an interpretation from you concerning this matter. The question I ask is, does the symbol have to be illuminated or may the identifying word be illuminated when it is provided with no illumination on the symbol?

I spoke with Ed Glancy of your office concerning this matter and he advised me that N.H.T.S.A. does not give out rulings verbally. He advised me to write this letter requesting an interpretation.

If there are any questions, please call me at your convenience.

David A. White Senior Safety Engineer

DAW/smf

ID: 1984-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hella North America Inc. -- Walter A. Genthe

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 23, 1984

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Westfaelische Metall Industrie KG is currently designing headlamps for several automobile manufacturers.

These headlamps are designed to comply with Safety Standards 108 as amended by Docket 81-11 (latest issue: Notice 7).

Preliminary requests by our customers mandate an inclusion of parking/front position lamps and/or turn signal lamps and/or side marker lamps in the overall headlamp design.

A standard U.S. light bulb, meeting FMVSS 108 and/or applicable SAE recommended practices, will be used for these respective functions.

We intend to incorporate these functions into the headlamp compartment, retaining the bulb in question by means of a sealed attachment, similar to the one used in the C6 capsule installation.

No degradation of the system will result, since both functions are contained in one sealed compartment, covered by one common lens. No impairment of the effectiveness of the headlamp function is anticipated, nor will the headlamp impair the function of the parking/position/side marker lamp.

All photometric and environmental specifications for such lamps will be met and no component will be used which is outside the scope of FMVSS 108.

To clarify our intent, a sketch showing the principal design has been enclosed.

We are requesting a statement concerning the agency's opinion in this matter; specifically, as it concerns the legality of the proposed system, whole or in part, and solicit any suggestions as to necessary changes should the system not be in compliance with FMVSS 108, as amended by Docket 81-11.

This matter is of considerable urgency, because of design and manufacturing lead times.

A reply at yyor early convenience coud therefore be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

HELLA NORTH AMERICA INC.

Walter A. Genthe President

WAG/1h

Encls.

cc: Dr. Ernst, K 1 Mr. Westermann, K 1 Mr. Fikus, AF

Insert artwork here.

MAY 21, 1984

Mr. Walter A. Genthe President Hello North America, Inc. P.O. Box 499 Flora, Illinois 62839

Dear Mr. Genthe:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1984, with respect to the inclusion of other lighting functions in a replaceable bulb headlamp compartment. These functions could include parking lamps, turn signal lamps, or side marker lamps. The bulb used would meet Standard No. 108/SAE specifications for the function chosen and they would be incorporated into the compartment bya a "sealed attachment." You represent that there will be no impairment of any function, and that the overall assembly will meet all photometric and environmental specifications. You have asked whether such a combination assembly is permissible under Standard No. 108.

The agency interprets Standard No. 108's specifications for replaceable bulb headlamps as allowing only one bulb in a lamp assembly to be used for headlighting purposes. It is silent as to whether additional bulbs may be used to provide other lighting functions. This means that such a bulb is permitted.

Obviously the inclusion of a second bulb can affect the characteristics of the assembly, whether through heat build up, the introduction of contaminants through the junction of the bulb and assembly, etc. These problems would appear to be minimized under the assumptions set forth in your letter. We believe therefore that, under these conditions, an auxiliary bulb could be included in the headlighting compartment, provided that the assembly meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108 for each function. Problems that may develop in service would be subject to the safety related defects authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

If Hella proceeds with a multi-bulb, design, we would like to request that it share with us the types of tests it will be developing which it deems necessary to insure adequate safety performance, so that our knowledge of state of the art lamp technology may be broadened.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

C6/C6 **INSERT GRAPH**

**INSERT GRAPH**

ID: 1984-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Marion Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road

High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your recent correspondence concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Your correspondence comprised two letters to this office. In your first letter, you asked two questions regarding the labeling requirements for emergency exits. Your second letter inquired into the provision of push-out windows in buses other than school buses.

Your first question concerns the labeling of emergency exits in non-school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Section 5.5.1 of the Standard requires labels for all emergency exits except for doors and roll-down windows.

The purpose of the emergency exit marking requirements of Standard No. 217 is to identify for occupants the location and use of specially-installed emergency exits. In the case of buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 217 permits the emergency exit requirements to be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which are manually operable to an open position that provides a specified area for egress. Standard roll-down windows generally meet these requirements. The agency has determined that the operation of standard roll-down windows and doors are generally familiar to persons who are old enough to read instructions. Thus there would be little justification for providing emergency exit markings for these exits. On the other hand, Section 5.5.1 provides that specially-installed emergency exits whose operation are not immediately obvious in such buses, such as push-out windows, are not exempted from the emergency exit identification requirement.

Your second question asked:

Would there be any labeling requirements for push-out windows, on a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, if installed in addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.1 since these push-out windows are not required by this section?

The answer to your question depends on whether the additional windows are designed or constructed as emergency exits. Standard No. 217 does not require that every exit installed in a school bus beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 must comply with the requirements applicable to school bus exits. On the other hand, additional emergency exits in school buses, beyond those required by Standard No. 217, must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses if the exit is intended as an emergency exit. These additional exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of the standard.

In your second letter to this agency you described a situation where school bus contractors utilize school buses as general transit vehicles on charter trips when the buses are not in use for school purposes. You asked, "Are these buses required to have push-out windows as mandated for non-school buses since they are manufactured and sold primarily as school buses?"

The answer to your question is no. The vehicles you described would have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards if they are sold as school buses. Thus, these vehicles would only be subject to the standards applicable to school buses. Further, even though these vehicles are not subject to the safety standards applicable to vehicles other than school buses, I would note that Standard No. 217 does not mandate push-out windows to be used for emergency exits in non-school buses. The agency determined that devices such as panels and doors which meet the emergency exit requirements would be as effective as push-out windows for emergency egress. Sliding emergency exits must, of course, comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 217. They must be capable of complying with the standard when the non-exit half of the window is either open or closed. Also, while the standard permits devices other than push-out windows to be used for emergency exits, the agency prefers the use of push-out emergency exits because they are less likely to "bind up" during a side impact than sliding emergency exits.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 21, 1984

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

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I would like to request an interpretation of a particular situation which appears to be common among school bus contractors in various states.

Many contractors will purchase school buses to be used to transport students to and from school and school related events, during normal school hours. In the evenings and during the summer the contractors will cover the school bus signs and use these buses for charter trips for various groups.

My question is, are these buses required to have push-out windows as mandated for non-school buses since they are manufactured and sold primarily as school buses?

Thank you in advance for your assistance in clearing up this matter.

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jm

Enclosure

cc: Ed Swain Bob Nelson - Wisconsin Dist.

March 19, 1984

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

Dear Sir,

I would like to request interpretations of two areas of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217.76, with regards to the labeling of Emergency exits.

1. FMVSS 217.76, part S5.5.1 appears to require the labeling of all emergency exits in non-school buses with the following exceptions:

A. Windows serving as emergency exits in accordance with S5.5.2.(b) (Push-out windows in buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.)

B. Doors in buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.

Would it, therefore, be correct to assume that a non-school bus 2 with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less has no requirements as to the labeling of emergency exits?

2. Section 5.5.3 of FMVSS 217.76 requires that each school bus emergency exit provided in accordance with S5.2.3.1 be labeled in a specified manner.

A. Would there be any labeling requirements for pushout windows, on a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less, if installed in addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.1 since these push-out windows are not required by this section?

Thank you for your assistance with these matters. Sincerely,

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jm