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

ID: nht87-1.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. l.Daihatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. regret the delay in this response. We will be resp onding to each of your questions concerning the other two standards in separate letters.

Your questions about Standard No. 219 concerns the requirement of S5 of the standard. That section provides as follows:

When the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 mph impacts a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, under the conditions of 57, no part of the vehicle outside the occupan t compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, affixed according to 56, to a depth of more than one-quarter inch, and no such part of a ve hicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the DLO, below the protected zone defined in 56. (Emphasis added.)

Your specific question concerns a situation in which a windshield wiper penetrates the protected zone template during a crash test because, for example, the wiper was pushed rearward by the deformation of the cowl or the wiper switch was contacted by the test dummy during the crash, thus turning on the wiper. You noted that the wiper blades are normally in contact with the windshield, but that the wiper arms only contact the windshield through the wiper blades. You asked whether the agency would conside r the penetration of the wiper blade and arm into the protected zone template to be a violation of the standard. As discussed below, the answer is no, the penetration of the wiper blade and arm would not be a Violation of the standard.

As you observed in your letter, the wiper blade is designed to be normally in contact with the windshield and is thus exempt from the requirements of the standard. While the arm Hill not be in direct contact with the windshield, the blade attached to the arm does contact the windshield. Also, the wiper arm is a small, light structure which, while not in direct contact with the windshield, is mounted only h fraction of an inch above the surface of the windshield and should pose little or no penetration h azard. Thus, the agency will consider the wiper arm, which is an integral part of the exempted wiper blade, to be exempted as well.

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

Sincerely,

Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dec. 24, 1986

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

Dear Ms. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3)

cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (3)

FHVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion Paragraph 55 of FMVSS No. 219 provides When the vehicle .. no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...." In the case that the wi ndshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template ( by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the vehicle is deemed in complia nce or not: (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision. SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: nht87-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas R. Fahl

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas R. Fahl, Esq. Brendel, Flanagan, Sendik & Fahl, S.C. 6324 West North Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53213-2099

Dear Mr. Fahl:

This responds to your letter to Dr. Richard Strombotne, the chief of our Crashworthiness Division. In your letter, you posed three questions about child restraint systems. I will answer those questions in the order you presented them.

1. Does NHTSA have information as to where a family with two children 3 years of age or under should put the second of two child restraint systems, assuming that the safest place for one is the middle of the rear seat?

NHTSA has not specifically addressed this topic in any of our regulations or recommendations. We believe, however, that in this situation both child restraint systems should be placed in the rear seat. This belief is based on the generally greater distan ce from the rear seat to the interior surface in front of that seat and the fact that the interior surface in front of the rear seat is primarily the rear of the front seats. The rear of the front seats tends to be a less hostile surface than the dashboa rd. Additionally, crash data show that all vehicle occupants (both adults and children) suffer fewer injuries and fatalities in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions.

2. Has NHTSA developed any rules or regulations suggesting or requiring that manufacturers of child restraint systems advise the consumer where to put a second child restraint, assuming that two children under 3 years of age will be occupying a motor veh icle at the same time and also assuming that neither child restraint system is a backward facing system?

No, NHTSA has not imposed any such requirements. With respect to child restraints manufactured before August 12, 1986, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213) specified that: "The instructions shall state that the re ar center seating position is the safest seating position in most vehicles for installing a child restraint system." For child restraints manufactured on or after August 12, 1986, section S5.6.1 requires: "The instructions shall state that, for maximum s afety protection, child restraint systems should be installed in a rear seating position in vehicles with two rear seating positions and in the center rear seating position in vehicles with such a seating position."

NHTSA has somewhat modified its position about the rear center seating position being the safest place to install a child restraint system in a recent rulemaking action amending Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Please no te that this standard applies only to vehicle manufacturers, and not to child restraint manufacturers. However, in an August 19, 1986 rule (51 FR 29552; copy enclosed), section S6(b) of Standard No. 210 requires the owners manual for vehicles manufacture d after September 1, 1987 to state that "according to accident statistics, children are safer when properly restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions." We are currently considering whether Standard No. 213 should be ame nded to include similar language. However, neither of these requirements specifically addresses the situation where two child restraints are to be installed in the same vehicle.

3. Has NHTSA done studies to determine that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system and, if so, what are the results of those studies?

No study of which we are aware, whether done by this agency or any other party, suggests that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system. In fact, those studies of which we are aware indicate that a properly i nstalled child restraint system in the right front passenger seat will afford the child occupant a high level of safety protection in a crash situation. The safety protection can be maximized by properly installing the child restraint in a rear seating p osition, but we are aware of no basis for stating that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

September 17, 1986

Mr. Richard L. Strombotne Chief, Crashworthiness Division U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Strombotne:

In conjunction with a matter upon which I am presently working in this office I am in need of information relative to child restraint systems and pose the following inquiries to you

1. Does the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have information as to where a family with 2 children 3 years of age or under should put the second of 2 child restraint systems assuming that the safest place for one is the middle of the rear s eat?

2. Has the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration developed any rules or regulations suggesting or requiring that manufacturers of child restraint systems advise the consumer where to put a second child restraint system assuming that 2 children u nder 3 years of age will be occupying a motor vehicle at the same time and also assuming that neither child restraint system is a backward facing system?

3. Has the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration done studies to determine that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system and if so what are the results of those studies?

In the event the Administration has developed background information pertaining to any one of the three areas about which I am making an inquiry I would appreciate your directing me to that information or sending copies to me.

Very truly yours,

Thomas R. Fahl

TRF:mhs

ID: nht87-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada -- Manager, Automotive Lighting, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, with respect to a new headlamp and aiming adaptor design. The lens of the headlamp will be tilted 60 degrees from vertical. Although this is too extreme an angle - for use of mechanical aimers for headla mps, you have developed an adaptor for use with the aimer whereby the new headlamp may be mechanically aimed. You have asked whether mechanical aim using the new adaptor is permissible.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does prescribe the types of aimers to be used with replaceable bulb headlamps, but not the adaptors. As you have noted, the standard does require such headlamps to be capable of mechanical aim by incorporatin g on the lens face three pads which meet the requirements of the Standard's Figure 4. You have informed us that your headlamp design complies with this requirement, and furthermore meets the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.

However, there are some practical considerations that are important if you intend to market this headlamp. Although providing an aimer adaptor is not required by Standard 108, no adaptors for your unique lamp have been provided to service facilities. The only adaptors which exist today are those designed to accommodate sealed beam headlamps replaceable bulb headlamps with lens angles up to 50 degree for smaller lamps and 40 degrees for larger ones. Neither of these can accommodate the lamp you have prop osed.

In summary, the standard does not appear to preclude use of your new designs, and although not specifically required by the standard, an adaptor should be provided as original vehicle equipment since suitable adaptors do not exist in the service communit y.

Subsequent to August 4, we received your request for confidential treatment of the letter. We replied that it is our policy that substantive interpretations be made publicly available but informed you that we would be willing to delete all identifying re ferences to you and your company. You replied that this was agreeable to you. However, because this headlamp is the subject of SAE Technical paper 870064 Development of MR (Multi-Reflector Headlamp) and was discussed at SAE and was discussed at SAE meeti ngs in February 1987, Stanley has waived all considerations of confidentiality through its public disclosure of the matter. Consequently, this letter will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 4, 1986

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

Dear Ms. Jones,

We have asked you an advice about permissibility of mechanical aiming with the additional adaptor by the letter dated August 4, 1986.

As for the above mentioned letter, we would like to ask a favor of you. We would like you to deal with this matter in strict confidence.

Since this headlamp is being developed as our new idea for customer satisfaction, we are trying to keep this information inside of our company. Therefore we would like you to maintain the secrecy of this information strictly against any other third party .

Your kind cooperation will be highly appreciated and as well we are looking forward to your reply to our problem.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.