ID: nht90-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/90

FROM: TIMOTHY A. KELLY -- SALEM VENT INTERNATIONAL

TO: DAVID A GREENBURG -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/30/90, FROM STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA TO TIMOTHY A. KELLY; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 01/29/90 FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217

TEXT: (Illegible Word) you for the courtesies extended to the writer during my visit with (Illegible Word) Thursday afternoon January 25th, following my previous discussions (Illegible Word) Delarm. As we discussed, Salem Vent International already manufactur es a roof ventilating panel as shown on print #4220-001 attached. As (Illegible Word), the 4220-001 lacks a mounting frame which is supplied as part (Illegible Word) bus. To complete our program, we will need to design our own mounting frame and also a method by which the cover can swing free to provide an (Illegible Word) hatch. My concern was that we design the proper size to conform FMVSS 217.

(Illegible Word) said that his reading of the spec was that the opening had to (Illegible Word) an ellipsoid having 20" as its major axis and 13" as its minor (Illegible Word) and that this ellipsoid had to be able to fit through the escape (Illegible Wo rd) in the horizontal position. It looks to me that our existing tool(Illegible Word) accomodate this ellipsoid with ease.

Further discussed the specification as to what type of busses 217 (Illegible Word) covers and you pointed out that school busses were specifically covered by 217. While a roof escape hatch/ventilator is undoubtedly a (Illegible Word) option, it is not m andatory and does not allow the builder to (Illegible Word) any other methods of egress by its presence.

(Illegible Word), on other types of busses (transit, inter-city, airport, etc.) if builder elects to use an escape hatch/ventilator in the roof, they are (Illegible Word) to delete the rear exit door.

(Illegible Word) I left you I began to wonder what would happen if a bus builder put (Illegible Word) than one ventilator/escape hatch in the roof. Would the builder be (Illegible Word) to delete other specified methods of egress other, than the rear (I llegible Word) or would the additional ventilator/escape hatches really only serve purpose of additional ventilation to the bus.

2

You said that if I wanted an official opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel, that I ought to request it in writing. John Machey suggested the same thing when I talked with him this morning and so attached hereto is a formal request for your opini on on my questions. I have tried to make this as simple as possible and I would be happy to hear from you if you have any questions as to my request.

Again it was my pleasure to meet you.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gene Byrd -- Anderson Technology

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 7/20/94: Letter from Gene Byrd to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 10206)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to former Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice asking about the requirements of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses, for reusable air brake hose end fittings. You indicate that you intend to produce these end fittings for use with SAE J844 pl astic tubing. You also state that you have filed a manufacturer's designation with NHTSA, in accordance with S7.2.2(b) of Standard 106.

You asked for confirmation that seven requirements in FMVSS 106 apply to reusable end fittings. The requirements you listed were: S7.2.2 (labeling); 7.3.1 (constriction); 7.3.8 (air pressure); 7.3.9 (burst strength); 7.3.10 (tensile strength); 7.3.11 (w ater absorption and tensile strength); and 7.3.13 (end fitting corrosion). Your understanding is essentially correct, with the following clarification.

You are correct that each of these sections specifies a level of performance which is dependent on the performance of the end fitting. However, other than for S7.2.2 and 7.3.13, these requirements apply to air brake hose assemblies, and not to end fitti ngs. This is relevant for purposes of determining the requirements for which an end fitting manufacturer would have to certify compliance. If you were only manufacturing and selling the end fitting, you would be responsible for certifying only to S7.2. 2 and 7.3.13, since these requirements apply to end fittings (and not to "assemblies"). As a practical matter, however, the assembly manufacturer would probably seek assurances from you that your end fitting will perform in a manner that will enable the manufacturer's assembly to meet the air brake hose assembly requirements of the standard.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's regulation for "Manufacturer Identification" (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hose end fittings) to submit its name, add ress, and a brief description of the

items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it begins manufacture. I have also enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes other responsibilities for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equip ment. n1

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

I hope this answers your question. If you need other assistance, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht93-3.49

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: Ron D. Belk -- President, Kustom Fit

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: J. Gonzalez; B. Barras; G. Slee; E. Belk

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/16/93 from John Womack to Ron D. Belk (A41; Std. 209; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter concerning certification of FMVSS 208. Your explanation of "Self-certification" and "Due Care" is helpful in our efforts to comply with all Federal Safety Standards that apply to seating systems, especially in light trucks. However, we still need your further assistance to feel totally comfortable with our "Due Care and self-certification." Our last letter to you asked about a factory "Baseline" sled test as a comparison to our own component test. Your letter has explained NHTSA's position on that. What we don't understand yet is the relationship we have as a seating manufacturer to uncontrollable factors within the "Restraint System" to comply with FMVSS 208. In this instance, our uncontrollable factor is the "Seat Belt Payout" as it relates to (HIC) levels and (Chest "G") force. Our analysis has pointed us in a particular area which is the seat belt pay out dimension from the data we have received. I'll try to explain this. The seat belt pay out is inconsistent comparing all three tests. See our "G" van sled test comparison sheet, attached.

This data was further compared by my Engineering Manager, Mr. Jose Gonzalez and is also attached. Please read this written analysis before you go further. This comparison relates to the impact of "Seat Belt Pay Out" to (HIC) levels and (Chest "G") force. His findings show that the inconsistencies of belt pay out (2.25 inches to 4.9 inches) definitely contributes to the success or failure of these two very important injury criteria. We don't manufacture the seat belts. How do we qualify the test with belt pay out variables such as these? Does FMVSS 209 allow for this 2.65 inch variance? Are we expected to pass these injury criteria even though the belt pays out from 2.25 inches to 4.9 inches from test to test? How do I show my customer, the van converter, that I've passed these criteria? If I had unlimited funds I suppose I could keep running sled tests until the belt pays out just the right amount. But that's not what we should have to do. We need a test report that shows we passed these injury criteria. Is our comparison "Baseline to Kustom Fit test" acceptable? Furthermore, we want to know where you stand from a compliance standpoint on this issue "Seat vs. Seatbelt."

For example, If NHTSA crashes a "G" van and the belt pay out is below or above my engineer's allowable length and the (HIC) level and (Chest "G") forces are above NHTSA's standards, is NHTSA going to analyze the data as we have or will they pose the liability on the seating or seat belt manufacturer?

We need your response to this situation as soon as possible.

Attachment

(Kustom Fit test data omitted.)

ID: 77-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: The Coachette Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 18, 1977, letter asking whether the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, apply to a portion of your bus located directly above the side windows.

You enclosed a sketch which details the bus sidewall and roof structure. On that sketch, you have shaded a small area asking whether that portion of the bus constitutes part of the bus sidewall or part of the roof structure. The head protection zone requirements of the standard (S5.3.1.1) do not apply to the sidewalls of school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets your sketch to show the sidewall ending and the roof structure beginning at the point where the radius of curvature of the interior structure decreases sharply (see the point marked "A" on the sketch). Since the shaded portion of your sketch falls below that point, it is considered part of the sidewall and need not comply with the head protection zone requirements.

SINCERELY, (Illegible Words)

August 18, 1977

Joseph Levin, Chief Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A.

RE: FMVSS 222 Pora. S5.3.1.1.

A clarification of the above referenced standard is urgently needed. Due to the "tumble home" type of the side of some van-type school buses, there is no clear distinction where the side wall would end and the roof structure would start.

S5.3.1.1. of FMVSS 222 states that the head protection zones are the spaces in front of each school bus passenger seat which are not occupied by bus side wall, window or door structure . . . etc.

Please refer to the enclosed sketch and note that the outboard plane (S5.3.1.1. (c)) of the head protection zones intersects the wall at approximately the window header point. The wall extends upward and inward from that point. This leaves an area, indicated by the shaded portion of the sketch that would extend into the head protection zone. Is this configuration in compliance with the standard? There is no greater hazard to the occupant from the window header to well above the upper limits of the head protection (Illegible Word) than any where in the wall area.

It is very urgent that we get an opinion on this just as soon as possible. After you have reviewed this, we would like to phone or if necessary come to your office for the clarification.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration.

E.H. Ryan

ward

SCHOOL BUS MFG., Inc. P.O. BOX 311 HIGHWAY 65 CONWAY, ARKANSAS 72032 DATE - 8-18-77 CHK- DRAFT: DM ENGR: SCALE IN OR OUT PART ORDER NO REV CHANGE BY DATE

MATERIAL -

TOLERANCE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-1.16

DATE: 07/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Toyota's June 9, 1975, request for confirmation that S5.3.2 of Standard No. 10575, Hydraulic brake systems, requires a check of the brake system indicator lamp function only when the transmission shift lever (in the case of vehicles with automatic transmission) is in the "P" (park) position or the "N" (neutral) position. S5.3.2 specifies:

S5.3.2 All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" ("run") position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" ("run") and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

The wording of S5.3.2 requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever whenever the ignition switch is in one of the positions described. In the case of vehicles equipped with automatic transmission, this language does not reflect the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) intent that the check function occur during the process of starting the vehicle.

To incorporate the intended meaning of the requirement into the standard, the NHTSA will shortly issue an interpretative rule that modifies the language of S5.3.2 by limiting the check function to the park and neutral positions for vehicles with automatic transmission.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 9, 1975

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 105-75

Dear Dr. Gregory:

We wish to request clarification of our interpretation of S5.3.2, Check of the Brake System Indicator Lamp Function, of FMVSS No. 105-75.

S5.3.2 reads as follows:

All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" ("run") position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" ("run") and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

Our question is whether or not the indicator lamp must be activated in vehicles with automatic transmission when the neutral safety switch is open.

The neutral safety switch is installed on vehicles with automatic transmission and is designed to prevent engine starting when the transmission gear selector is in one of the positions other than P (Park) and N (Neutral).

We believe that this nonactivation of the indicator lamp when the engine cannot be started enables us to design a more reliable system without sacrificing any safety benefits.

We would very much appreciate your informing us of your opinion of our interpretation at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

K. Nakajima -- Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office

ID: nht75-3.43

DATE: 10/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 8, 1975, question whether trucks that carry specialized equipment (such as emergency medical equipment, fire fighting apparatus, or mobile power generator equipment), would qualify for exclusion from Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if they are geared down or governed so that their speeds attainable in two miles are not more than 45 mph. You state that each vehicle's empty weight is more than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

The section of Standard No. 121 that lists the vehicles to which the standard applies reads as follows:

S3. Applicability. * * * In addition, the standard does not apply to any trailer whose unloaded vehicle weight is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR, or any vehicle that meets any one of criteria (a) through (d) as follows:

(d) (1) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 45 mph; and

(2) An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR; and

(3) No passenger-carrying capacity.

From your description, it would appear that these vehicles would qualify for exclusion under category (d) of Section S3. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration assumes that your description of emergency medical vehicles does not include an ambulance equipped with air brakes.

Sincerely,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

September 8, 1975

Richard Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The recent amendment to FMVSS 121 relieving vehicles with an empty weight greater than 95% of the GVWR, no passenger or cargo carrying capacity and incapable of speeds in excess of 45 mph, from standard compliance has caused a number of questions from the truck body industry.

The questions center around a number of special duty vehicles designed and built to transport their self contained equipment rather than cargo. Examples of these vehicles would include: 1. Emergency communication vehicles

2. Emergency medical vehicles

3. Emergency electrical supply vehicles

4. Fire apparatus

Each of these vehicle types is generally completed on a commercial truck chassis with a piece or pieces of permanent equipment and its associated enclosures, i.e. large output generator sets, aerial ladder or elevating platform, mobile medical equipment. The chassis portion serves only as a means for transporting these pieces of equipment to the job site.

Where these vehicles are not designed or equipped to carry passengers or cargo, and their empty weight is always above 95% of the GVWR, are we correct in assuming that if the subject vehicles are physically restricted (governed, geared etc.) to speeds less than 45 mph then FMVSS 121 does not apply.

Byran A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: nht91-1.41

DATE: February 14, 1991

FROM: Michael L. Harmon -- President, Classic Interiors

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Console

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael L. Harmon (A38; Std. 213)

TEXT:

It was brought to my attention after having a conversation with Dee Fujita that the built in child restraint system (photo enclosed) we developed and tested to FMVSS 213 for use in multi purpose passenger vehicles may or may not comply with code 213's definition and/or application of built in child restraint systems. If you could please clarify S4. of Part 571 of FMVSS 213 defining a "build in child restraint system" as to whether or not the use as an"integral part of a passenger car" includes multi purpose passenger vehicles. If it is considered part of please advise if not what can I do to encourage the inclusion of multi purpose passenger vehicles in the code 213 test standards.

Attachment

CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM TEST RESULTS

Tests conducted for CLASSIC INTERIORS

Purchase order M. Harmon

TEST NUMBERS: HF 9003-07 Testing date: October 25-30, 1990

The University of Michigan Medical School Department of Surgery, Pediatric Surgery Section

Child Passenger Protection Research Program c/o UMTRI, 2901 Baxter Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Test methods and data limitations and use. (Text omitted)

CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM Test Number: HF 9007 TEST DATA SUMMARY Test Date: 10/30/90 Model: Hassel Free Safety Seat integrated in Classic Interiors chair, Dygert frame with stop pins, Atwood track, Monitor reinforced pedistal

Manufacturing Status: experimental

SET-UP

Part 572 3-year-old Frontal impact Forward facing 30 mph, 20 G Chair full rearward Seatback at 4th detent

RESULTS Average Velocity 30.5 mph Acceleration 20.4 G

Buckle Release Force Pre-Test NA Post-Test NA

Head Excursion 27.4 in. Knee Excursion 20.0 in.

Head Injury Criterion 343 Interval 85 to 188 ms Chest Peak Resultant 32 G Duration over 60 G 0 ms

Seatback/Cushion Angle Maximum 62 deg.

Post-Test 83 deg. (right)

Comments: No head/leg contact. Seatback latch operational after test. More seatback rotation on left side, where back of-frame slipped past stop.

Sled Profile and Head Acceleration and Chest Acceleration Graphs dated 10-30-90. (Graphs omitted)

Brochure describing the Classic Safety Seating System. (Text and photos omitted.)

Copy of Federal Register, section 571.1. (Text omitted.)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 571, dated 3-23-87, proposed rules dealing with FMVSS - Child Restraint Systems. (Text omitted.)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 571, dated 1-22-88, final rule. (Text omitted.)

Copy of Part 552.1-552.9 petitions for rulemaking, defect & noncompliance orders. (Text omitted.)

ID: 77-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's February 8, 1977, petition for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" and to add a new definition to 49 CFR Part 571.3 for "special purpose vehicle." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.

Your petition requests an amendment of the term "unloaded vehicle weight" similar to that proposed by Chrysler's December 20, 1976, petition. Both petitions recommend that, for purposes of barrier crash testing of certain vehicles, the unloaded vehicle weight be the lesser of the weight of a completed comparable model vehicle from which the particular vehicle is derived or 5,500 pounds. Further, you request an additional definition of "special purpose vehicle" that would distinguish vehicles designed for a specific work function from other vehicles produced from the same chassis. We have determined that the effect of creating such a vehicle category as special purpose vehicle in conjunction with the establishment of arbitrary weights for vehicles when undergoing compliance testing would, in some situations, undermine the effectiveness of the motor vehicle safety standards. Vehicles falling into the category could, according to your suggested scheme, be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight as equipped.

In the case of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, such a result would possibly violate Congress order in the 1974 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) that the NHTSA not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard.

To allow certain vehicles to be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight, would permit the operation of vehicles which, as equipped, could fail the requirements of the standard.

You should note that the agency intends to proceed with the rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" as recommended in a petition from Chrysler dated November 20, 1976. This amendment will incorporate changes in the definition previously made by the NHTSA through interpretation.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC

February 8, 1977

Petition to Define "Special Purpose Vehicle" and Amend the Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The Truck Body and Equipment Association (TBEA) on behalf of nearly one thousand final and intermediate manufacturers of trucks, truck bodies and allied truck equipment wishes to petition the NHTSA to add the definition of "Special Purpose Vehicles" and to amend the definition "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" to Part 571 -- Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The existing term "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" (U.V.W.) is used in several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to establish the weight (mass) of a vehicle to be barrier crash tested.

In the past, barrier crashes were only specified for passenger cars, but with the (Illegible Word) of FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity, barrier testing was extended to include trucks of up to 10,000 pounds GVWR.

The majority of the vehicles produced by our industry now are subject to the requirements of FMVSS 301 including the requirement to be able to survive a 30 mph head on barrier crash without spillage of a significant amount of fuel.

This crash test alone has necessitated the review and often total redesign of the specialized equipment produced by our industry, i.e. ambulances, dump trucks, farm trucks, utility trucks and tow trucks.

The Truck Body and Equipment Industry does not object to the intent of a fuel system performance standard but we do object to the manner in which any FMVSS requiring crash test is applied to the many final stage manufacturers of multistage manufactured vehicle.

It is apparent that the latest series of FMVSS will be much more complex than those initially issued. Even though truck production will be regulated by these standards it appears that the present definitions are directed to the passenger cars and pickup trucks but not to multistage manufactured vehicles. Our objection to the present test requirements is based on the fact that the NHTSA views both the manufacturer of an automobile and the manufacturer of a tow truck as final stage manufacturers.

By definition a "Final Stage Manufacturer" is "any person who performs such manufacturing on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle".

In the truck manufacturing industry, this procedure is commonly referred to as taking a chassis (an incomplete vehicle) and making it "road ready". The process by which an incomplete vehicle is made "road ready" may vary from mounting a farm (Illegible Words) lights, to modifying a chassis cab into a complex piece of fire fighting equipments.

The network of truck manufacturers is immense, beginning with a handful of chassis manufacturers and extending outwards through thousands of final manufacturers. The most common type of final manufacturer is the truck body and equipment distributor. A distributor takes a chassis cab and installs a body or a piece of equipment on it and certifies that this completed vehicle complies with all existing federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of manufacture. These small businesses (averaging less than 24 employees) are not in a position to do extensive engineering studies on each of their various types of vehicles. In order to comply with the numerous stands relating to their product, they rely heavily on support data from the chassis manufacturers. This component certification insures the distributor that when assembled the completed vehicle will comply with all applicable standards.

The back bone of the completed vehicle is the truck chassis. It is through this component, that the final manufacturer complies with many of the FMVSS. The chassis itself is extremely flexible allowing hundreds of body and equipment combinations to be installed on a single chassis type.

The light duty truck chassis, under 10,000 pounds GVWR, is an off shoot from the mass produced pick-up truck. Less than one in ten light trucks is scheduled for production as a truck chassis or incomplete vehicle. These low production numbers do not justify individual testing of each vocational type of truck produced, thus all available certification data is based on the pick-up truck. This is the point at which the (Illegible Word) "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" impedes our certification program.

The NHTSA defines "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" as:

The weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

This term therefore results in low test weights based on the light pick-up body weight. As an example, a typical well equipped pick-up chassis with a 10,000 pound GVWR may weigh 4,400 pounds and its body may weigh 500 pounds for a total unloaded vehicle weight of 4,900 pounds. The truck chassis manufacturer would most likely test this vehicle at 5,000 pounds to insure S301 compliance.

Although the pick-up truck in this example is equipped with a vocational body designed to transport a cargo, many of the special purpose vehicles manufactured by our industry are designed to transport a piece of equipment such as an ambulance, a cherry picker, or a wrecker. These special purpose vehicles have a much higher unloaded vehicle weight. An example of one of our special purpose vehicles would be a utility vehicle equipped with a cherry picker or manlift. The same 10,000 pound GVWR chassis used for the pick-up at 4,000 pounds would be completed with an 1,900 pound utility body and a 2,500 pound aerial device for a total UVW of 8,800 pounds.

The higher UW causes a potential problem when considering any type of barrier (Illegible Word) test. When any vehicle is impacted into a stationary barrier, the vehicles entire energy or motion must be disipated through structural deformation, or crash.

The amount of crush realized during a barrier crash is proportional to the vehicles weight (mass) therefore two identical chassis with bodies of different weight, will receive different amounts of crush, the heavier the vehicle the more the crash. With the increase of crush, the chance of (Illegible Word) or separating some parts of the fuel system also increases. At some increases test weight, compliance with the barrier test requirements becomes questionable. This break point falls somewhere between 1.500 and 8.500 pounds for the present generation of pick-up chassis. In other words a chassis loaded to 7.000 pounds and crashed into a wall at 30 mph will most likely pass a 301 test where as a chassis loaded to 9.000 pounds won't.

Again, our objection to the barrier test is not with the intent, but with the procedure. In the real world condition, the pick-up truck loaded with a cargo of 3.900 pounds will react in the same manner as a utility vehicle when subjected to an actual accident.

Several years ago, the chassis manufacturers successfully demonstrated to NHTSA that carrier crashing of pick-up type vehicles at their GVWR's was questionable if not impossible. By the use of the present UVW definition, the NHTSA is requiring the many small final manufacturers within our industry, to assume the responsibility for certifying a completed vehicle to a performance level already questioned by the Agency and the chassis manufacturers.

At present, our only solution to the crash problem is to go to a larger chassis, above the 10.000 GVWR limit. This next step in chassis size may mean an increase of several thousand dollars per vehicle, not including the 10% Federal Excise Tax that then becomes effective.

We are concerned that in order to legally produce a vehicle with the same inherent safety qualities as a loaded pick-up, we are forced to purchase a larger chassis. pay 10% FET on the entire unit and still end up with a pre 301 vehicle. Why should a utility company be forced to purchase a $ 20,000 aerial device when the same piece of equipment could be produced for $ 15,000?

In an effort to alleviate this inequity place on our industry, we request that the Agency barrier test vehicles for standard compliance with weights more closely allied to the basic pick-up trucks.

This change could be accomplished by adopting a new definition for "Special Purpose Vehicles" and adopting Chryslers proposed definition for "Unloaded Vehicle Weight".

Special Purpose Vehicle -- means a motor vehicle of less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, designed to perform a specific work function, manufactured in two or more stages, and whose incomplete vehicle portion is derived from a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Unloaded Vehicle Weight -- means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. For purposes of barrier impact testing special purpose vehicles which are derived from multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, the unloaded vehicle weight shall be either that of the completed comparable model vehicle from which the special purpose vehicle is derived or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less.

The Truck Body and Equipment Industry has always demonstrated concern when considering the design and production of road safe vehicles.

The adoption of this amended definition would allow the many conscientious final manufacturers of trucks and related truck equipment to utilize test data already available through the chassis manufacturer.

It is also our contention that the adoption of this amended definition will pose no diminished level of motor vehicle safety.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: nht80-2.47

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your letter of January 16, 1980, in which" you asked a number of questions pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. The answers to your questions are presented below and are numbered to correspond with the numbering of the questions in your letter.

1. Section 5.2.1 provides that where Table 1 of Standard 101-80 shows both a symbol and identifying words or abbreviations for a particular control, use of the symbol is mandatory and use of the words or abbreviations is optional.

2. When a manufacturer identifies a control with both the symbol shown in Table 1, Column 3, and the identifying words or abbreviations shown in Table 1, Column 2, only the symbol is subject to the illumination requirements of Section S5.3. That section states that with certain exceptions (i.e., 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 accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are actuated." Since this section refers only to the identification required by Safety Standard 101-80, it does not apply to identification which is optional under the standard.

3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8. In questions designated by these numbers, you asked whether the following controls are subject to the identification and illumination requirements of Standard 101-80:

(a) a driver comfort fan which is not a part of the windshield or rear window defrosting and defogging system or the heating and air conditioning system,

(b) hot water flow valves for heaters which are opened in winter and then closed again in summer,

(c) heater fresh air control valves used to control the ratio of fresh to recirculated air entering the heater,

(d) driver's side window defroster control,

(e) driver's fresh air vent control,

(f) fan control for an optional driver's heater which directs air at the driver's feet.

Section 5 of Standard 101-80 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of Standand 101-80 regarding the location, identification and illumination of such control. Of the controls listed above, those lettered (a), (d) and (e) are not listed in either of these locations and thus are not subject to these requirements. Items (b), (c) and (f) are part of a heating or air conditioning system indicated in column 1 of Table 1 and is therefore subject to the location and identification requirements of Standard 101-80. However, the fan control, which directs air at the driver's feet, is not subject to the illumination requirements, since section 5.3.1 states, "control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield." Likewise, if the hot water flow valves and fresh air control valves are mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, or in the windshield header area,' then section 5.3.1 does not require them to be illuminated.

9. In your question 9, you asked whether the penultimate line in Table 2 concerning malfunctions in antilocks applies only to vehicles equipped with air brakes and whether the last line concerning brake system malfunctions applies only to vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes.

The penultimate line of Table 2 applies to all vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR which are equipped with an antilock system, regardless of whether they are air or hydraulic brake equipped vehicles. The agency included the reference to Standard 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to indicate that section 5.3 of that standard permits a manufacturer to use either a yellow or red warning light depending on whether there is a separate indicator that only warns of antilock failure or there is an indicator which warns of antilock and other brake system failures.

The last line of Table 2 concerning the telltale for brake system malfunction applies to all vehicles equipped with this type of telltale regardless of the type of brake system. The agency included the reference to Standard 105 since section 5.3 of that standard specifies other requirements that brake system malfunction indicators used in hydraulic brake systems must meet.

10. This agency has never established specific size requirements for the identification symbols specified in Tables 1 and 2 of Standard 101-80. Sections 5.2.1 and 6 only require that such symbols be visible to a driver restrained by crash protection equipment. 11. None of the display requirements of Table II of Standard 101-80 apply to vehicles with a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds. Displays included in such vehicles in accordance with other standards are subject only to the provisions of those standards.

12. Section 5.3.1 provides that the illumination requirements of Standard 101-80 do not apply to hand operated controls mounted on the steering column. Accordingly, they are not applicable to a hazard control mounted on the steering column.

13. If the clearance lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch, Table 1, footnote 2, of the standard provides that the only identification required is the headlamp switch symbol.

14. Standard 101-80, section 5.2.1, states that controls must be identified with the symbol indicated in Table 1 and that such identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The agency has previously indicated that manufacturers could use a symbol that is a minor deviation from the required symbol, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard (43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978). Thus, if the wiper symbol you want to use is only a minor deviation and substantially resembles the required wiper symbol, you may use it.

15. You enclosed in your letter a blueprint showing a bank of switches which control multispeed fans and asked whether the identification shown in the print would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80. Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) requires manufacturers to certify their compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, this agency does not approve products. However, from our understanding of the information you have provided, it appears that the identification you propose to use for fan controls would comply with Standard 101-80. This opinion is based on the fact that your blueprint shows use of the fan symbol in accord with section 5.2.1 and identification of each function of the fan switch in accord with section 5.2.2.

16. With respect to air conditioning systems:

(1) Section 5.3.1 does not require illumination of the control identification if the system does not direct air directly upon the windshield.

(2) Table 1 and section 5.2.1 require the fan symbol to be used to identify the fan for an air conditioning system;

(3) If the air conditioning system control regulates temperature over a quantitative range, the extreme positions must be identified in accord with 5.2.2.

17. With respect to vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR, the requirements of Standard 101-80 concerning telltales used to indicate high engine coolant temperature or low engine oil pressure are inapplicable. With respect to vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, these requirements are applicable. In a letter to Ford Motor Company (copy enclosed), this agency stated that use of the engine symbol which Ford proposed for identification of such telltales would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 16, 1980

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 101-80

The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation of several issues related to FMVSS 101-80, discussed at a January 9, 1980 meeting of NHTSA. The issues are numbered below in the sequence discussed at the meeting:

1. In all cases where both symbols and wording are shown in Table I, the symbol is mandatory and the wording is optional.

2. In the case of optional wording accompanying mandatory symbols, which require illumination, only the symbol must be illuminated. It is mandatory for the optional wording to be illuminated.

3. There is no requirement relating to driver comfort fans. These fans are provided to direct air at the driver for his comfort as the name indicates. However, they can be adjusted to direct air on the windshield.

4. There is no requirement for hot water flow valves for heaters. Typically, these valves are opened in winter and left open; closed in summer and left closed. Heat in regulated be means of switch controls to operate air blowers.

5. There is " requirement for heater fresh air control valves. These valves are used to control the ratio of fresh/recirculated air entering the heater.

6. The fan control for an optional driver's heater must be identified but not illuminated.

7. There is no requirement for a driver's side window defroster control.

8. There is no requirement for a driver's fresh air vent control.

9. Confirmation is needed with respect to Table II that the next to last line is only applicable to vehicles with air brakes and the last line is only applicable to vehicles with hydraulic brakes.

10. The proportion of the symbols are those developed by the ISO, however, there is no requirement limiting the minimum or maximum sizes of the symbols.

11. None of the requirements of Table II apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. This is true even in the case where a display is required by another FMVSS; Example: the turn signal display required by FMVSS 108.

12. A hazard control mounted in the steering column does not require illumination.

13. Clearance lamps may be controlled by the headlamp switch. In this case, only the headlamp symbol should be used.

14. If necessary to accomodate a temporary inventory balance out, a slightly different wiper symbol may appear on the wiper knobs that is required by Table I, provided that the required symbol appears adjacent to the control and is properly illuminatted. It is also satisfactory to provide no symbol on the knob itself.

15. With respect to S5.2.2, a bank of switches which control multi-speed fans will comply if they are identified as shown in the enclosed print 0981233.

16. Air conditioning controls must be identified but not illuminated. The extreme positions of air conditioning controls must be identified. The fan symbol is required for air conditioning fan controls.

17. Any type tell tale may be used for a single display on vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR to indicate high engine coolant temperature and/or low engine oil pressure. We understand that Ford Motor Company has proposed an engine symbol for such a display. What is the status of this proposal?

We would like to go on record at this time to alert NHTSA that it may be necessary to revise the effective date of the subject standard as it applies to heavy duty vehicles to alleviate a temporary chassis shortage. This could be caused by a prolonged strike by a major chassis manufacturer which is still in effect. This may result in the mounting of bodies on chassis built after September 1, 1980, which were scheduled for chassis built prior to that date.

Your early response to these items will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, William G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Department

fvc

Enclosure

c: Wilbur Rumph Ben Newberry Jim Moorman Jim Swift Bob DuMond

ID: 10381

Mr. Ed Irvine
Midwest Conservation Systems
P.O. Box 397
Silver Lake, KS 66539

Dear Mr. Irvine:

This responds to your letter asking whether a newly manufactured commercial utility trailer must be equipped with an emergency breakaway system. You state that your customer wishes to purchase a trailer without the battery powered breakaway system that comes with the trailer. Instead, you would like to install your solar energized breakaway system. In a December 7, 1994 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the trailers in question are typically small utility trailers that do not rely on the use of air pressure. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicable requirements issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). You may also wish to request an interpretation of 49 CFR 393.43 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which is the agency that issued that regulation.

By way of background information, NHTSA and FHWA are both part of the United States Department of Transportation. Each agency has the authority to issue regulations related to your question. NHTSA, which regulates newly manufactured vehicles, has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. FHWA, which regulates the use of commercial motor vehicles, has the authority to issue Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), which are applicable to commercial motor vehicles and their operators. We have referred your letter to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Office of Motor Carrier Standards, since that agency issued 49 CFR 393.43.

While NHTSA has the authority to issue FMVSSs, the agency has not issued any FMVSS that would directly affect the braking performance of a small utility trailer, unless the trailer relies on air pressure. Therefore, if the trailers in question are not air braked vehicles, then you would not need to certify that such a trailer's braking performance complies with an FMVSS, since no applicable FMVSS exists.

Please note that your solar energized trailer breakaway system would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the statute administered by NHTSA. If this system contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. If you wish to contact someone in the FHWA's Office of Chief Counsel concerning the motor carrier standards, please call Charles Medalen at (202) 366-1354.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:121 d:1/11/95