ID: nht87-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dwight R. Koehler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dwight R. Koehler Product Management Parker Industries P.O. BOX 37589 Omaha, NE 68137

Dear Mr. Koehler:

This is in reply to your letter of December 9, 1986, with respect to agricultural (grain) transportation vehicles which you manufacture, known in the industry as "grain buggies." You have asked whether there are any DOT lighting requirements for these ve hicles, and if so, what are they and how might you meet them.

You have described the grain buggies as designed to be towed by agricultural tractors, with a top road speed of 25 to 3Q mph. You have also told us that "the primary use for these trailers will be 'off road' in nature," although "there are times when the se units will be used on gravel roads and occasionally, highways."

The requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment apply to various categories of "motor vehicles.' A "motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufa ctured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. The manufacturer of a vehicle determines whether his product is a "motor vehicle" and therefore a vehicle that must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards inc luding Standard No. 108. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reserves the right to challenge any determination that appears clearly erroneous. On the basis of the information you have presented us, the grain buggies will be primarily used off the public roads, and u e of the public roads will be only incidental (in our experience agricultural equipment uses public roads for such limited purposes as crossing from one field to another, and delivery of produce to processing plants). Under th ese circumstances, we would not consider the grain buggies as "motor vehicles," and no Federal requirements would apply to them. They would, however, remain subject to any appropriate requirements of the State in which they are used.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

12/9/86

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 407th Street Southwest Washington D.C., 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are a manufacturer of agricultural grain transportation vehicles, also known in the industry as "Grain Buggies". We manufacture 4 different models. (ref. enclosed product literature)

Although the primary use for these trailers will be "off road" in nature, we realize there are times when these units will be used on gravel roads and occasionally, highways. They are designed to be towed by agricultural tractors, which generally have a top road speed of 25 to 30 MPH.

Since we market these units over a wide geographic area, we felt the need to incorporate a comprehensive safety lighting system, which would conform to any Department of Transportation specifications for said vehicles if there were indeed any such specif ications.

We need to know two things:

1. Are there any DOT lighting requirements for these types of vehicles?

2. If there are any requirements, what are they and how can we meet them?

I have included some general descriptions of our products for your review.

We are committed to producing quality, safe equipment for our customers. Your response to our questions will help us meet our commitments.

Sincerely

Dwight R. Koehler Product Management Parker Industries P.O. Box 37589 Omaha, NE. 68137 (402) 595-3050

ID: nht87-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: George Ziolo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. George Ziolo 16182 Arena Drive Ramona, CA 92065

Dear Mr. Ziolo:

Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1986, concerning the labeling requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Those requirements provide that each safety belt is to be labeled with the year of its manufacture. You asked whether the yea r of manufacture can be shown in code. As explained below, the answer is no, the standard does not provide for showing the year of manufacture in code.

S4.1(j) of the standard requires each safety belt to be permanently and legibly labeled with the name of the manufacturer, distributor, or importer, the model of the safety belt model, and "the year of manufacture." The standard specifically requires the date of manufacture to be provided on the belt and does not provide for the use of a code to represent that date.

The purpose of the labeling requirement is to make it possible for the agency and consumers to identify easily the manufacturer of the safety belt for the purpose of noncompliance and safety-related defect investigations and notification and remedy campa igns. In addition, having the date of manufacture clearly marked on the belt assists consumers in determining whether a particular belt complies with the latest requirements of Standard No. 209 or some earlier version of those requirements. It also assis ts the agency in compliance testing of aftermarket and other safety belts because it enables the agency to determine easily which version of the standard should be applied to that safety belt. Having the year shown in a code can complicate the easy ident ification of which safety belts are covered by an investigation or campaign and make it more difficult to determine which version of the standard applies to the safety belt.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Office of the Chief Counsel US DOT/NHTSA SEP 19 1986 400 7th St SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

FMVSS 209 requires that a seat belt be labeled to show:

Manufacturer's name Seat belt model Year of manufacture

My question is: Can the year of manufacture be shown in code? It seems to me that such interpretation was once given by your agency.

I thank you in advance for your kind response.

Sincerely,

George Ziolo

PS: Your response by informal endorsement hereon will suffice for my guidance.

ID: nht87-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/06/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BINICHI DOI -- NSK REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/14/86, TO STEPHEN L OESCH, FROM BINICHI DOI; OCC - 1437

TEXT: Dear Mr. Doi:

Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1986, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how our regulations would apply to a device intended to make it easier to reach the belt or latchplate of a safety belt system. I hope the following discussion answe rs your questions.

You enclosed a sketch with your letter that shows that the device would be attached to the vehicle by the anchorage bolt for the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder safety belt. You explained that the device, called an "arm" or "belt reacher", is made of material which "does not interfere with the general safety/comfort of passenger and is installed semi-rotationally around the shoulder-anchor point so that it can hold the tongue in a convenient position" for the occupant to reach the belt.

There are no safety standard that directly apply to the device described in your letter. However, if the device is installed as an item of original equipment on a new vehicle, then the vehicle's safety belt system would have to continue to comply with a ll of the requirements of Standard No. 208. Thus, for example, if the device is installed on a vehicle that must comply with the comfort and convenience requirement of S7.4 of the standard, it must continue to meet those requirements, such as the the re traction requirements of S7.4.5, with the device in place. Likewise, the safety belt anchorage would have to continue to comply with all of the performance requirements of Standard No. 210.

There is one further issue associated with the device shown in your letter that I want to address. The agency supports the use of equipment that will make safety belts easier and more comfortable to use. However, it is equally important that those devi ces not introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt and thereby reduce the effectiveness of that belt. You stated in your letter that the device is made of a material that makes it compliant so that it moves with the belt and does not

interfere with the "original protective function" of the safety belt. If you should implement the design depicted in your letter we encourage you to continue to make sure that the device will not introduce excessive slack in the belt.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/06/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOHN GRIFFIN -- PRESIDENT FRAZER, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/17/86 FROM JOHN GRIFFIN TO TAYLOR VINSON, OCC 1443

TEXT: Dear Mr. Griffin:

This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1986, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to the status of identification and clearance lamps on emergency medical service vehicles (ambulances).

You believe that Federal requirements often present a conflict with respect to installation of these lamps at locations specified by the Standard. As an example you have cited "a light bar above the double rear doors may be placed as high as possible an d thereby give no room for identification lights." You have asked for a clarification of Federal requirements.

You are correct that Standard No. 108 does not exempt emergency-type motor vehicles from compliance; further, it contains no special provisions for them. This means that the final-stage manufacturer of such vehicles must meet the same requirements as the manufacturers of other vehicles whose overall width exceeds 80 inches, and give priority in lamp placement to fulfilling the locational requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108. The requirements for clearance and identification lamps are expressed in terms of practicability, however, and the determination of whether a certain location is "practicable" is initially that of the manufacturer who installs them. There may be State laws governing the placement of lightbars, or practical considerations that may necessitate placing identification and clearance lamps at a position other than "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle", and in these instances the lamps may be located at a lower height than they would be were the lightbar absent. The lamps, however, cannot be omitted and the agency retains the right to review the determinations of the manufacturer.

I hope that this provides the guidance that you seek. If we may be of further help, please let us know.

Sincerely

ID: nht87-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John F. Doerr

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John F. Doerr 100 Lefferts Ave. 4D Brooklyn, NY 11225

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Secretary Dole on your "Safety Light Warning System." You have asked if your system "could legally be implemented" and for advice "how I may go about marketing this system."

The patent drawing of your device depicts a light bar mounted in the rear window area with a green lamp in the center flanked by amber lamps, with two red lamps at the end. This system would be acceptable neither as original equipment on passenger cars, nor as replacement equipment on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. As of that date, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be manufactured with a red stop lamp in the approximate location of your green lamp. There is no Federal prohibition against offering the system in the aftermarket for retrofitting on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, but the system would be subject to the laws of each State in which it would be sold or us ed. I understand that Oregon and California allow green-amber-red deceleration warning systems when the lamps are mounted on the rear of the car, but restrictions may exist as to their mounting in a vehicle's interior.

I hope this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 12, 1986

Mrs. Elizabeth Dole Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation 400 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mrs. Dole:

Subject: SAFETY WARNING LIGHT SYSTEM

I know you are concerned about rear end collisions, extra "eye-level stop light" confirms this.

I have a patent on this system which I believe will be more effective. This system consists of a small green light st eye-level which burns when you are gaining or maintaining speed. When you release the accelerator the green light goes off and the yello w or amber caution goes on, on each side warning the driver behind you to be alert which gives the driver a second or more to react, then, if you apply the brakes, caution lights goes off and normal stop light, lights go on, on each side at eye-level.

This information was sent to all auto makers in the United States and some abroad. They like the idea but are not interested in negotiating with me, as they don't accept ideas from anyone other than their own engineers.

I am interested to know if this could legally be implemented and if you could give me any advice or information as to how I may go about marketing this system.

Enclosed, is a brief description and my patent # 4,470,036.

Sincerely,

John F. Doerr Inventor

ID: nht87-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David A. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David A. White Senior Safety Engineer Grumman Olson Post Office Box 2005 Sturgis, MI 48091

Dear Mr. White:

This letter responds to your inquiry of November 17, 1986, asking this agency to approve an alternate location for the certification label of a light duty truck your company intends to manufacture for the United States Post Office. Section 567.4 of the N ational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places set out in that pr ovision. If none of those locations is practicable, S567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate place to affix the label, and to ask our approval for that alternative.

You explain in your letter that in the circumstances you describe, the S567.4 locatons are impractical. First, you explain, the vehicle's small and irregularly shaped for a label. Second, if your company places the label on the inside of the sliding door , opening the door would hide the label. Third, you assert that the instrument panel is too small for a label.

You enclose a drawing to illustrate where your company intends to place the certification label. According to your description, the certification label will be placed on a fixed panel behind the driver, and between the cab and the load compartment. This panel is one part of a three piece assembly of which the remaining two components are a center sliding door and a second fixed panel. You state that a person can see the certification label from the driver's area without moving any vehicle item.

In directing a manufacturer to put its certification label in those places set out in S567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular design, inst alling the certification label as your company proposes will facilitate seeing and reading the label, while placing the label as specified in S567.4 may not be practicable or might interfere with those activities. Therefore, on the condition that your co mpany's label complies in all other respects with S567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the forward side of the left hand bulkhead fixed panel.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 17, 1986

Administration of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Grumman Allied Industries, Inc., LLV Division would like to request approval of an alternate location for the certification label of a light duty truck to be manufactured for the U.S. Post Office. The locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4 are not practical for the following reasons:

1. The vehicle has sliding side doors making the hinge pillar, door latch post, and door edge too small and irregularly shaped to accept a label.

2. A label placed on the inward facing side of the side door would be covered up by the vehicle structure when the door is opened.

3. The instrument panel is too small to accept a label.

Grumman Allied Industries proposes to locate the label on the forward side of the left hand bulkhead fixed panel. This bulkhead is located behind the driver between the cab and load compartment. The bulkhead is a three piece assembly consisting of a cent er sliding door and two fixed panels. The door slides to the right when opened. The certification label will be in view from the drivers area without moving any vehicle item. I am enclosing a copy of drawing 85616200 to show the location we are proposing .

David A. White Senior Safety Engineer DAW/sm 03/14/87

ID: nht87-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Floyd D. Spence

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Spence:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. George Seaborn or the South Carolina Association of School Superintendents, concerning Federal regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for repl y, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In his letter to you, Mr. Seaborn expresses his concern about a Federal regulation that "excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than 10 persons from use by schools." Mr . Seaborn explains that it would be difficult for school districts to comply with a restriction on van use since large vans are extensively used for pupil transportation. He believes that schools should be permitted to use vans since those vehicles are safe for transporting passengers other than school children.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our school bus regulations. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition directed against schools or school districts which prevents them from using vans carrying 11 or more persons. Federal law does, howev er, affect the sale of buses to schools. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendm ents to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety aid apply those standards to all "school buses." The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufac tured on or after that date.

The parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are the manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federa l law, a van designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) is a "bus," and is a "school bus" if intended for transporting students to aid from school or related events.

A person way sell a new bus (including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school or school district provided that the vehicle meets our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit school districts from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. Mat ters relating to motor vehicle use are determined by state law. However, in the event a South Carolina school district decides to buy a new school bus, we would like the district to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under the Vehicle Safety not to sell complying school buses. The seller should know that he or she risks substantial penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold as a school bus.

Since Mr. Seaborn is interested in transporting students in vans, I would like to clarify a few additional matters concerning our school bus regulations. In his letter to you, your constituent expresses a belief that large vans (i.e., buses) should be sa fe for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that special measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportatio n. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent performance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exi ts, windows and windshields and seating systems.

New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may be sold to school districts to transport their pupils to school related events. School districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, because such vans are consid ered "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's) and not "buses" or "school buses" under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require then to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Instead, they mus t meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's, which also provide high levels of passenger safety.

I hope this information is helpful. We have provided similar letters to Representatives Robin Tallon and Butler Derrick who contacted us on behalf of Mr. Seaborn. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance to you and your constituents.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The Honorable Floyd Spence House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Spence:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr.

George W. Seaborn.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

February 2, 1987 Mr. Ed Babbitt

Director/Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Room 10406 400 7th Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Babbitt:

Enclosed is the copy of a constituent letter I recently received. I would appreciate it if you could review this matter and let me know its current status. Thank you for your time.

With kindest regards. I am

Sincerely,

FLOYD D. SPENCE Member of Congress

FDS/bb Enclosure

Congressman Floyd Spence Room 2466 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Spence:

You will see from the enclosed material that in 1977, the Department of National Highway Safety adopted a standard which excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than ten persons from use by schools. None of the administrators in South Carol ina were aware of this legislation until recently. I am sure that you know that there are hundreds of these vans being operated by South Carolina school districts and many thousands more by school districts across our land. We have three in our school di strict which belong to the state and are furnished to us for the purpose of transporting children to our child development program. We also have our own vans which are used to transport small groups such as golf team, cheerleaders, etc.

All of these vans were legally purchased on the open market in South Carolina. It seems to me that if these vehicles are unsafe to transport youngsters then they are unsafe to transport any citizens in our nation. On the other hand, if they are considere d safe to transport citizens in this country who are not school students, they should be safe to transport school students. This regulation implies that certain classes of our citizens are entitled to higher safety standards than other classes.

I have been asked by my colleagues throughout the state to urge your immediate attention to this matter as all it is doing at the present time is creating additional liability for our schools systems. There is no way I can tell the parents for instance i n our child development program that we can no longer transport their children to their child development classes. I respectfully await your prompt action concerning this matter.

Sincerely. George W. Seaborn, President South Carolina Association of School Superintendents

ID: nht87-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John B. Walsh -- Corporate Attorney, Manager, Legal Affairs Dept., U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/21/84 letter from Frank Berndt to U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. (Std. 108)

TEXT:

John B. Walsh, Esq. Corporate Attorney Manager, Legal Affairs Dept. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. P.O. Box 1100 Brea, CA 92621

This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You cite Table IV's requirement that the minimum edge to edge distance from a motorcycle's front turn signal to the headlamp be a minimum of inches. Referring to a similar requirement for rear lamp spacing and previous agency interpretations stating that this applies only when there are single rear lamps mounted on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and tail lamps are mounted on either side of the centerline, you have asked for an interpretation that an exception from the minimum turn signa l spacing requirement is also permissible when a motorcycle has two headlamps rather than one.

We are unable to provide the requested interpretation because of SAE J588e, September 1970. SAE J588e is incorporated by Standard No. 108 and applies to turn signal lamps in use on passenger cars, motorcycles, and all other motor vehicles. Paragraph 4.2 of SAE J588e establishes the requirement that "the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." This requirement applies reg ardless of the number or location of motor vehicle headlamps. SAE J588e did not prevent the issuance of the earlier interpretations regarding rear lamp spacing since that SAE standard does not establish requirements for minimum separation between turn si gnals and rear lamps.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

15 August 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel. NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

On November 21, 1984, the Chief Counsel confirmed a 1972 agency interpretation of FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (copy of 1972 interpretation, 1984 request, and your office's 1984 response enclosed). The 1972 interpretatio n was for a motorcycle rear lighting configuration. This letter is to request confirmation that the July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 could apply to a motorcycle front lighting configuration as well as the addressed rear lighting configuration.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 required that motorcycle front turn signals be separated by 16 inches or more (centerline to centerline). and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the headlamp be 4 inches or more.

We are exploring the possibility of using a front lighting configuration essentially comparable to current practice in passenger car front lighting configurations. This proposed front lighting configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located nea r the outer edge of each side of the front of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp unit would be the headlamp and the outboard part of the lamp unit would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would be equal to or greater than the 16 inch minimum required (see sketch attached).

We would like you to confirm, as in the 1972 and 1984 interpretations, that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and headlamp applies when single headlamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when du el headlamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

(See 11/21/84 correspondence between Frank Berndt and Suzuki)

ID: nht87-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: James R. Mitzenberg -- Project Engineer, The Flxible Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James R. Mitzenberg Project Engineer The Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43015

This is in reply to your letter of January 22, 1987, asking further questions of permissible lamp operations.

With reference to the deceleration warning system discussed previously in our correspondence, you have asked whether there would be a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 if the triple steady burning amber lamps are operated simultaneously with the steady burning rear stop lamps, or with the flashing turn signal lamps (either red or amber). In neither instance do we believe that an impairment of required lighting equipment world result, within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones

The Flxible Corporation has received your interpretation, dated December 8, 1986, concerning the operation of deceleration lights. This interpretation stated that the flashing mode of the amber deceleration lights impaired the effectiveness of the steady burning red stop lamps. Also, the amber deceleration lights must be steady burning in every mode.

Two additional issues require an interpretation from NHTSA concerning amber steady burning deceleration lights. The amber deceleratin lights would be activated steady burning when the accelerator is released and deactivated when the accelerator is depres sed. Would a noncompliance with FMVSS 108 result with the simultaneous operation of the amber steady burning deceleration lights with the following required FMKVSS 108 lights?

1. Activation of the steady burning red stop lights.

2. Activation of flashing red or amber (color depending on customer) turn signal lights.

In order to assure compliance with FMVSS 108 with an OEM installation of amber steady burning deceleration lights, we request an additional interpretation on their simultaneous operation with the normal rear stop anbd turn signal lights.

Sincerely,

James r. Mitzenberg Project Engineer

ID: nht87-1.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M.B. Mathieson -- Direcdtor of Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, L.P.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M.B. Mathieson Director of Engineering Thomas Built Buses, L.P. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261

This is in reply to your letters to Francis Armstrong, Robert Williams, and Taylor Vinson, all of this agency. I regret the delay in this reply.

In summary, Thomas wishes to mount a body of its construction to a "General Motors chassis model #G31303, certified by G.M. to have a 10,000 lbs. maximum GVWR." Two prototypes have been operating. In testing for compliance with the frontal impact require ments of Standard No. 301, the rate of fuel leakage from a pinched or broken fuel line greatly exceeded the amount permitted by the standard. The test conducted by Thomas used sandbags to simulate occupant loading, and the impact velocity was reported to be 30.4 m.p.h. You have asked the following four questions:

"1. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with the discovered fuel leak constitute a safety defect?"

"2. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with the discovered fuel leak constitute an apparent or alleged noncompliance with FMVSS 301 requirement?"

The results of the frontal barrier crash test do not constitute an alleged or apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 301 as the impact velocity exceeded the 30 m.p.h. maximum test requirement. In addition, the vehicle's test weight in your test exceede d the test weight specified in S7.1.6(b) of the standard. Further, those results do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of the vehicle. For NHTSA to find a safety related defect at 30.4 m.p.h. would be the equivalent of imposing a new standard without following Administrative Procedure Act requirements for rulemaking.

However, in our view, Thomas could not in good faith certify compliance of the completed bus with the 30 m.p.h. requirements if there was a failure when a correctly loaded bus was tested at 30.4 m.p.h and no counterbalancing data showing passes in other tests. Had NHTSA conducted a test at 30.4 m.p.h. and found a failure, it would have proceeded to conduct another test in accordance with the specifications of Standard No. 301 and test at a speed slightly less than 30 m.p.h. and with a Part 572 dummy in the driver's seat.

3. "What is NHTSA's interpretation of the correct vehicle test weight for FMVSS 301 certification testing of school buses and non school buses for vehicles in the under and up to 10,000 lbs.' class and equipped with seat belts required to comply with FMV SS 208?"

The test weight is set forth in paragraph S7.1.6(b) of Standard No. 301. That section provides that a "bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus the necessary test dummies as specified in S6., plus 300 pounds or its rated cargo load and luggage capacity weight, whichever is less,...."

4. "If Thomas Built Buses performs a certification test to the requirements of FMVSS 301 with a similar vehicle (equipped with required seat belts which are required to comply with FMVSS 208) at a test weight as noted by GM (approximately 7,500 pounds) a nd the results show full compliance, what is the legal status or implication of completing and offering for sale this type of vehicle at a GVWR of up to 10,000 lbs. and indicating that it complies with FMVSS 301 on the basis of a successful test at the l ower GVWR."

This question cannot be answered because the facts stated in your question appear to be incorrect. Our review of the documentation you enclosed shows that GM has rated the incomplete vehicle at 10,000 pounds GVWR, rather than at approximately 7,500 pound s GVWR, as stated in your letter. GM has, however, specified the maximum unloaded vehicle weight as 6866 pounds, and stated that the completed vehicle will comply if its unloaded vehicle weight does not exceed this amount. It has also stated that the max imum unloaded vehicle weight plus 634 pounds (which, when added to 6866 pounds equals 7500 pounds) cannot exceed the vehicle's GVWR, which is 10,000 pounds in this case. GM therefore has made no representation that its incomplete vehicle will meet Standa rd No. 301 at weights outside those values, and the burden of certification falls upon the final stage manufacturer who completes the vehicle in a manner outside the limits cited by GM.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 11, 1986

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington,D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

Attn: Mr. Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel

Attn: Mr. Robert Williams, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

RE: FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity

Gentlemen,

This letter is in reference to telephone conversations of June 9, 1986, with Mr. Martin Paliokas, Mr. Bob Krause, and Mr. Robert Williams regarding a possible safety defect, and/or a possible non-compliance with FMVSS 301. This instance involves a Thomas Minotour Model school bus, in the "10,000 lbs. or under" class GVWR.

Thomas Built Buses, L.P. proposes to mount the body of this model school bus on a General Motors chassis model #G31303, certified by G.M. to have a 10,000 lbs. maximum GVWR, and has, in fact, had two prototype vehicles operating in public service for som e time.

Pursuant to FMVSS 222, para. S5(b), Requirements, each of these vehicles is equipped with seat belts at each designated seating position, that meet the applicable requirements of 571.208 and 571.209, etc., as specified in para. S5(b).

Due to some proposed body structural changes, Thomas Buses elected to perform durability testing and barrier crash tests on the final configuration of the proposed vehicle. After completion of the durability testing, which comprises 4,000 miles of operat ion over a prescribed test track program at Transportation Research Center in East Liberty,Ohio, the vehicle was completely inspected, including the chassis. No deterioration or distress of any nature was found. The vehicle was then transferred to the fa cilities of Arvin/Calspan Advanced Technology Center in Buffalo, N.Y. for barrier crash testing.

For purposes of continuity and repeatability Thomas elected to use the barrier crash requirements as specified in FMVSS 301 for this portion of our test program. To determine the vehicle loaded condition to be used for the lateral moving barrier crash an d the frontal barrier crash, we noted the following requirement of FMVSS 301.

Para.S6.1 Frontal Barrier Crash:

When the vehicle, traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 mph impacts......with 50th percentile test dummies as specified in Part 572 of this chapter at each front outboard designated seating position and at any other positio n whose protection system is required to be tested by a dummy under the provisions of Standard 208 .... ..fuel spillage shall not exceed the limits of S5.5.

Para. -S6.3 Lateral Moving Barrier Crash:

When the vehicle is impacted on either side....with 50th percentile test dummies as specified in Part 572 of this chapter at positions required for testing to standard No. 208...... fuel spillage shall not exceed the limits of S5.5.

Thomas Built Buses interpreted the above requirements of FMVSS 301 as intending to require that testing of school buses "at or under" 10,000 lbs. GVWR be performed at a GVWR approximating the loaded passenger weight, as is required for school buses with GVWR in excess of 10,000 lbs. (Specified in FMVSS 301, para. S7.1.6(c).) Accordingly, since our design passenger weight for this vehicle would bring the GVWR very close to 10,000 lbs. maximum GVWR, Thomas elected to test the vehicle loaded with sand bags to simulate the final vehicle configuration with a full passenger load.

On May 28, 1986, Arvin/Calspan performed the lateral moving barrier crash per the requirements of FMVSS 301 with the vehicle at approximately 10,000 lbs. GVWR. The vehicle was again completely inspected. Other than minor sheet metal deformation in the ar ea of the fuel tank filler neck no damage was noted to body or chassis. The test successfully demonstrated compliance with FMVSS 301 to this point. (Static rollover testing was not done.)

On May 29, 1986, Arvin/Calspan performed the frontal barrier crash per the requirements of FMVSS 301. Impact velocity was reported to be 30.4 miles per hour. A significant amount of crushing was experienced at the front of the vehicle in the cab/engine a rea. Inspection revealed that just beside and behind the right front wheel the chassis frame rail had distorted severely, pinching or breaking one or more fuel lines that are tied to the frame rail in the G.M. "as delivered" configuration. Rate of leakag e from this fuel line significantly exceeded the limits of FMVSS 301, para. S5.5 and appeared to be siphoning fuel from the main tank which was positioned higher than the fuel line break. The leak was stopped by pinching the line between the tank and the leak area.

Upon contacting G.M. personnel regarding the results of our testing, we were directed by them to the Incomplete vehicle document statements regarding their certification limitations. As we understand this document, even though the chassis is certified as being able to be completed as a school bus with a 10,000 lbs. GVWR, the G.M. certification testing to FMVSS 301 requirements was limited to a GVWR of approximately 7,500 lbs., which is apparently G.M.'s understanding of the FMVSS 301 requirements.

The following items are enclosed for your assistance in under standing our questions in this matter:

a) The G.M. document for Incomplete Vehicle.

b) Pictures of the vehicle before and after frontal barrier crash testing to show the area of concern.

Thomas Built Buses, L.P. respectfully submits the following questions:

1. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with the discovered fuel leak constitute a safety defect?

2. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with the discovered fuel leak constitute an apparent or alleged non-compliance with FMVSS 301 requirement?

3. What is NHTSA's interpretation of the correct vehicle GVWR for FMVSS 301 certification testing of school buses and non-school buses for vehicles in the "under and up to 10,000 lbs." class and equipped with seat belts required to comply with FMVSS 208?

4. If Thomas Built Buses performs a certification test to the requirements of FMVSS 301 with a similar vehicle (equipped with required seat belts which are required to comply with FMVSS 208) at a GVWR as noted by G.M. (approximately 7,500 lbs.) and the r esults show full compliance, what is the legal status or implication of completing and offering for sale this type of vehicle at a GVWR of up to 10,000 lbs. and indicating that it complies with FMVSS 301 on the basis of a successful test at the lower GVW R?

Thomas Built Buses has presently stopped all further work on the development of this model. In expectation of a successful test program, considerable amount of money has been spent on tooling, prototype parts, etc. Anything that could be done to expedite answers to the above questions would be most helpful in our determination of further action. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, L.P. M. B. MATHIESON, Director of Engineering