ID: 8513

Mr. Carl W. Ruegg
President
Carlo International, Inc.
P.O. Box 250
Selma, CA 93662

Dear Mr. Ruegg:

This responds to your letter of March 27, 1993, to Mr. Eisner of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). You intend to import "car parts" into the United States, and would like to know "the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations". You assume that "a part such as fender or other body parts do not." You have asked this question because some individual parts may arrive as part of assemblies, such as "chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, principally through the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued under its authority such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each part or component of a motor vehicle is motor vehicle equipment subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction.

The Act requires that motor vehicle equipment, whether new or used, meet all applicable FMVSS in order to be imported into the U.S. Some of the FMVSS apply to items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, whether shipped separately or as part of an assembly, equipment such as brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers must comply in order to be admitted into this country.

As your question implies, there is a point at which an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment becomes a "motor vehicle". An assemblage becomes an "incomplete motor vehicle" subject to regulation as a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) when it consists, at a minimum, of "frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle (Sec. 568.3)." As the intention is to import the vehicle without the electric power train, the assemblage you contemplate is not a "motor vehicle" and remains an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment whose individual components, as noted in the preceding paragraph, are required to comply with the applicable FMVSS.

Your letter informs us that "[t]hese parts and partial assembly's (sic) would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle." When the power train is added, the person completing the manufacture of the vehicle is considered to be its manufacturer, required to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

If you have any further questions, we would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591#568#VSA d:5/18/93

ID: nht93-3.50

DATE: May 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Carl W. Ruegg -- President, Carlo International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-27-93 from Carl W. Ruegg to Niel Eisner (OCC 8513)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1993, to Mr. Eisner of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). You intend to import "car parts" into the United States, and would like to know "the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations". You assume that "a part such as fender or other body parts do not." You have asked this question because some individual parts may arrive as part of assemblies, such as "chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, principally through the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued under its authority such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each part or component of a motor vehicle is motor vehicle equipment subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction.

The Act requires that motor vehicle equipment, whether new or used, meet all applicable FMVSS in order to be imported into the U.S. Some of the FMVSS apply to items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, whether shipped separately or as part of an assembly, equipment such as brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers must comply in order to be admitted into this country.

As your question implies, there is a point at which an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment becomes a "motor vehicle". An assemblage becomes an "incomplete motor vehicle" subject to regulation as a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) when it consists, at a minimum, of "frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle (Sec. 568.3)." As the intention is to import the vehicle without the electric power train, the assemblage you contemplate is not a "motor vehicle" and remains an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment whose individual components, as noted in the preceding paragraph, are required to comply with the applicable FMVSS.

Your letter informs us that "(t)hese parts and partial assembly's (sic) would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle." When the power train is added, the person completing the manufacture of the vehicle is considered to be its manufacturer, required to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

If you have any further questions, we would be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht74-2.26

DATE: 07/09/74

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

TO: Wanger Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 12, 1974, request for interpretation of the volume requirements for service brake chambers in S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems:

S5.1.2 Total service reservoir volume shall be at least eight times the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms.

You also requested the addition of language equating brake chamber volume with brake chamber displacement, based on nominal effective area and rated stroke.

In testing for compliance with S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2, the NHTSA will accept a manufacturer's published "rated volume" of the brake chamber with the piston or diaphragm at maximum travel. This means that the manufacturer may specify the full stroke of the piston or diaphragm and compute the "rated volume" based on the designed volume of the chamber and the full stroke he has established. This volume may be somewhat larger than "nominal brake chamber displacement" which does not necessarily account for the void ahead of the relaxed diaphragm or piston, the so-called "pre-fill volume". This volume must be included because it must be pressurized along with the displaced volume.

In the absence of manufacturer's published ratings, the NHTSA will measure the brake chamber volume with the push rod at maximum stroke.

Your request to add explanatory language to the standard of the measurement technique is denied as unnecessary in view of this interpretation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

March 12, 1974

James B. Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Docket 73-13; Notice 3 74-10; Notice 1 49 CFR 571.121

Petition for Reconsideration FMVSS-121, Air Brake Systems

Dear Dr. Gregory:

We were pleased to note in the March 1, 1974, Federal Register (39FR-7966) that the NHTSA needed further consideration on petitions for air tank volume before an answer would be published.

We apparently did not place adequate emphasis on this facet of FMVSS-121 compliance. Instead of a petition, we addressed a letter dated July 13, 1973, to the Director, Office of Operating Systems, for an interpretation. In that letter we asked only one question and it is quoted below:

Will the NHTSA accept the vehicle or chamber manufacturers' nominal value for maximum allowable stroke on each actuator when determining the minimum vehicle reservoir capacity required by S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2?

In view of the absence of any response to a fundamental question, the manufacturers of air-braked vehicles and air brake equipment have gone in divergent directions with their own "interpretations." Apparently, it is a more profound problem than we or our competitors anticipated. In defense of our commercial position in this product area, we now find it necessary to submit this letter as a Petition.

Petition (1) We petition for an answer to the question posed in our July 13, 1973, letter (as quoted above).

In support of this petition we have attached a copy of that letter as Appendix A. The unanswered question appears on Page 4.

We will risk being a little repetitious, but our concern is that too much emphasis is being placed on finite measurements of chamber volume and reservoir volumes. From a statistical viewpoint, the case of trailer reservoir volume is a classic example of compliance or certification "overkill." S5.2.1.2 reads:

S5.2.1.2 Total reservoir volume shall be at least eight times the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms.

In mathematical terms the word "eight" has a numerical equivalent of 8. For degrees of accuracy it could be 8.0, 8.00, 8.000, --- but it was just commonplace old "number eight."

In our letter of July 13, 1973, we reproduced the SAE J813 Recommended Practice for Air Brake Reservoir Volume (see Page 2, Appendix A). A truck trailer was considered to need "not less than 4 times the actuator displacement volume at maximum travel of the piston or diaphragm." The industry has accepted this 100% improvement in stored volume. Now all we are trying to do is determine whether this gross volume can be determined by simple mathematics or will require ultra-sensitive physical measurement of the actuators and the associated reservoirs.

Not only do the simple calculations benefit the designers of vehicles and brake systems, they have an obvious benefit to the NHTSA Office of Standards Enforcement.

Does the Office of Operating Systems assign the accuracy of these measurements to four significant figures necessary to the safe operation of a trailer? We see no technical justification for this. If there is, then it should be public knowledge. This is our rationale. Again using the most popular trailer as the example: It has 2 cam brakes with type 30 (30 square inch nominal effective area) chambers for actuation. These chambers have a nominal stroke of 2 1/2 in. (one source has a 2 3/4 inch stroke).

Under SAE J813 the required reservoir volume is:

4 x (Nominal Area) x (Nominal Max. Stroke) x (No. of Chambers) = Volume or 4 (30) (2.5) (2) = 600 cubic inches.

Under S5.2.1.2 of FMVSS the simple approach is

8 (30) (2.5) (2) = 1200 cubic inches.

Now we industry specialists get concerned by public statements at NHTSA meetings that it should be easy to measure --- put it (chamber) on a table, stroke it under pressure and measure the volume.

Production tolerances may allow a maximum stroke to extend to 2.65 inches or another 8 (30) (0.15) (2) = 25 cubic inches.

A further study points out that chambers have a void ahead of the relaxed diaphragm. It is there to assure good entry of unrestricted air flow to the effective area. This pre-fill volume can be at least 5 cubic inches per chamber or (8) (5) (2) = 80 cubic inches per axle.

At full stroke the defection of the non-rigid diaphragm adds another approximate 12 cubic inches per chamber or 8 (12) (2) = 192 cubic inches per axle. It is not needed at mid-stroke. Therefore, this is a superfluous requirement. There are many other more significant factors affecting chamber/brake output if we consider brake effectiveness under such an extreme condition.

The gross addition for these three factors alone is -

25 cu. inches 80 cu. inches +192 cu. inches

297 cubic inches per axle.

Note 192 cubic inches is beyond the point of useful volume and should not be a part of this measurement anyway.

To prove compliance or non-compliance using all of the added factors would require a very sophisticated laboratory contract and allied equipment. The report would be documented by instrument calibrations and certifications traced back to the National Bureau of Standards.

Did the NHTSA really want its "doctrine of adversity" to become this costly a situation? We can't believe the task force responsible for the first issue of FMVSS-121 was that conversant with the detailed construction of chambers to recognize the disparity of viewpoints in measuring technique that have evolved. We are certain there was not one iota of data in the DOT contract files to substantiate this stringent a need. From the public meetings we recall that concern for reservoir size was subordinated in seriousness because trailers are thought to have all sorts of space for reservoirs. In some cases this is true. However, random tank placement is not possible. One other FMVSS-121 requirement makes remote tank locations impractical.

That requirement is the Brake Actuation Time found in S5.3.3. To reach 60 psi in 0.25 sec. from actuation of the test rig control requires optimum system designing --- this prohibits such luxuries as -

(a) long air lines to the chambers

(b) untested hose sizes for these line

(c) remote reservoirs to contain this superfluous volume of air.

We could not predict how essential all of this would be in 1971, but we have come a long way. It was late Spring, 1973, when we became extremely concerned about contract testing to evaluate reservoir volume. We had already acknowledged that we were part of a regulated industry. On July 13, 1973, we demonstrated our intent to act like we were being regulated and posed our "simple" question. We are disappointed that an early response was impossible to develop and furnish. We are further disappointed that the 1972 and 1973 petitions filed by a competitor on this same subject matter have not resulted in positive rulemaking actions to resolve the internal problems that must exist between the Office of Operating Systems and Office of Standards Enforcement.

Perhaps this aspect of FMVSS-121 is not as vital as decisions on the effective date, but rule content does influence ability to meet effective dates. We trust this reinforcement of open petitions will prompt immediate action.

In summary, we believe an affirmative reply to our July 13, 1973, question will not adversely affect vehicle safety. If there is any suspicion in the Office of Standards Enforcement that the vehicle manufacturers or chamber manufacturers would falsify their nominal stroke or nominal areas for these components to avoid "proper" sizing of reservoirs, then that should be a subject for docket comment. We are already charged with honest manufacturing recommendations for brake adjustment, air compressor capacity, interpretation of "controlled lockup," option choices for parking brake mode, transmission gear range, tire inflation pressure, gross vehicle weight rating, gross axle weight ratings, burnish options and others not mentioned.

Our conclusion is that the following petition will reflect a simple means for calculations:

Petition (2) We petition for the addition of this sentence to S5.2.1.2 (see Page 2): "For purposes of establishing reservoir volumes, brake chamber displacement is equal to the product of the nominal effective area and nominal rated stroke."

It may be that the relative ease of chamber and reservoir measurements makes them good "compliance targets," but if the enforcement of FMVSS-121 is reduced to such attack, the goal of the NHTSA and the efforts of the industry to attain these goals will be unjustly inhibited in future vehicle safety programs.

Very cordially yours,

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION; John W. Kourik -- Chief Engineer, Automotive Products

Attachment: Appendix A

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION WAGNER DIVISION

July 13, 1973

Elwood T. Driver, Code 41-30 -- Director, Office of Operating Systems, NHTSA

Gentlemen:

As a manufacturer of brakes and air brake actuating system components, Wagner Electric Corporation is desirous of consistent and accurate interpretations of all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are encountering an increasing amount of confusion in the industry regarding the method or procedure to be used in establishing the air reservoir capacity for air brake vehicles as required by FMVSS-121 (Section 5.1.2.1 and Section 5.2.1.2). We are, therefore, requesting interpretation and/or clarification of these sections with regard to the wording ". . . the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms . . ." as found in Sections 5.1.2.1 and 5.2.1.2.

While the method of measurement of brake actuator volume may seem insignificant, in some cases it has become a major concern to decide whether an existing reservoir volume can be used or whether a new air reservoir must be made up with a slightly larger capacity. The determining factor is how the brake actuator volume requirements are measured. Therefore, a prompt response would be most appreciated so that the design and specification of air system components required to meet FMVSS-121 can be finalized.

Prior to Docket 70-17 and Docket 70-16 work by the NHTSA the recommendation for air brake reservoir volume used by some of the vehicle manufacturers was SAE J813.

AIR BRAKE RESERVOIR VOLUME

AIR BRAKE RESERVOIR VOLUME -- SAE J813

SAE Recommended Practice

Report of Brake Committee approved November 1961

Scope -- This recommended practice establishes minimum volume requirements for air reservoirs for automotive vehicles using compressed air systems essentially for the actuation of the brake. Accessories that utilize compressed air for their operation are not included in the conventional air brake system and, therefore, additional volume must be provided for their requirements. Where air operated accessories are used, a check valve or equivalent device will be required to provide protection to the brake system.

These recommendations for minimum reservoir volumes in air brake systems are based on past experience and are intended as a guide in selecting the proper size reservoirs to assure an adequate source of braking power under normal level operating conditions.

General -- The volume of the brake actuators in the air brake system, commonly referred to as brake cylinders, brake chambers, or roto-chambers, varies with the diameter and travel of the piston or diaphragm. The reservoir volume depends upon the size and number of the actuators on the vehicle and the type of vehicle service. Recommended volumes are calculated in Table 1 by multiplying the total volume of all actuators by an experience factor. Depending on traffic conditions and terrain, reservoir volumes, greater than the minimum values, should be considered.

(Illegible Table)

This recommended practice had also been endorsed in the Final Report of the Consolidated Brake Task Force of the Joint AMA-TIMA Brake Committee dated October 28, 1965. SAE J813 was reproduced above to simplify the evaluation of the comments which follow for those individuals who were not acquainted with previous (and current) recommended practice. Note that trucks or truck-tractors required only eight (8) times the actuator displacement volume and truck-trailers only four (4) times the actuator volume. We know from our experience that the maximum travel used throughout the industry in determining actuator displacement was the nominal value for the stroke of the actuator and that there was no attempt to incorporate production variations due to manufacturing tolerances. When we compare the values for the volume in J813 with the requirements of S5.1.2.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.2.1.2 (trailers) it will be noted that significant improvement in the stored air volume has been made mandatory by FMVSS-121. There is even further significance in this change to the large volume requirement in that many vehicles were built and are being built in 1973 with reservoir capacities less than the requirements specified in J813.

Perhaps it was not recognized at the time that FMVSS-121 issued that the efficiency of brake chambers has the characteristic shown in Figure 2. The performance requirements of FMVSS-121 for (1) actual stopping distance measurements and (2) timing requirements are based on brakes being adjusted to the vehicle manufacturers' recommendation. Figure 2 demonstrates that the mid stroke of most brake chambers is the point of approximate 100% efficiency. Shorter strokes are associated with higher output than would be nominally expected. In S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 the volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs is based on ". . . the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of pistons or diaphragms." As vehicle manufacturers begin to finalize the design of the variety of systems essential to the different vehicle chassis, space for air reservoirs is precious. It is advantageous for the vehicle manufacturers and the component suppliers to select a limited number of reservoir sizes for the purposes of simplicity in design, ease of procurement, and economy of using a few standard reservoir sizes.

If the most adverse characteristics are to be determined for compliance, not only must the chambers be subjected to extremely close measurement of displacement but the net displacement of air reservoirs must be measured very precisely. We believe it is advantageous for the NHTSA to recognize that the twelve (12) and eight (8) times minimum volume requirement for trucks and trailers respectively does not require the same degree of accuracy needed to measure application and release times or to measure stopping distance compliance. We are therefore proposing that chamber strokes used in these calculations be based on the nominal values established as the maximum allowable stroke for the components installed on the vehicle. It will be noted in Figure 1 that the probable variation between a nominal stroke of 2.50" and a stroke which allows for all production tolerances is only 97.1-90.0 = 7.1 cubic inches per chamber. On a tandem axle trailer or a tandem drive axle tractor this 28 cubic inch variation has been noted to warrant an increase in the number of reservoirs essential for very precise compliance to the general requirement in Sections 5.1.2.1 and 5.2.1.2. This seems to be an unnecessary expense for the manufacturers to incur since standard reservoir volumes could be used at the lower value without any real sacrifice in vehicle performance. The slight variation in stored volume will not have any adverse effect on application time. If it did, then correction in the volume would have to be necessary in order to comply with the application time requirements for a given vehicle. We do not see that this slight volumetric difference is essential for skid control systems. It is characteristic of skid control systems to exhaust air from the service line and deplete the service reservoir(s). When skid control is functioning the performance of any system becomes self-limiting at a point at which the air pressure no longer produces sufficient brake torque to generate impending skids. Once this pressure level is achieved there is no further demand for reserve capacity in the air brake system. Therefore the stopping requirements for vehicles from 60 and 20 mph can be satisfied in the road test phase of FMVSS-121 without having to be too precise in establishing the actual net chamber/reservoir measurements.

Typical of some of the problems which can be generated by the preciseness of FMVSS-121 is the Figure 1 test rig for trailers. While 2000 cubic inch reservoirs could be obtained or could be made by modification of standard reservoir sizes, the typical unit produced in the industry is 2020 cubic inches. By using inert ballast material, a reduction of 20 cubic inches in the stored capacity of the reservoir is relatively easy. This is a case where we do not feel that a 20 cubic inch variation is really a significant part of the over-all performance requirement of either the vehicle or the test rig but the strict implementation of Figure 1 requires special equipment and added expense.

We have presented this appraisal of the situation which confronts the vendor and vehicle industry in order to provide some relief that will be of mutual benefit to the public, the vehicle manufacturers, and the NHTSA by concentrating on the critical aspects of FMVSS-121. If each phase of the Standard is put into its proper perspective it will enable the NHTSA and the industry to begin implementation of good cost/benefit practices. For this reason (Illegible Word) then ask the following:

Will the NHTSA accept the vehicle or chamber manufacturers' nominal value for maximum allowable stroke on each actuator when determining the minimum vehicle reservoir capacity required by S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2?

For minor clarification, this question is directed at using (1) the middle of the three curves shown on Figure 1; (volume versus stroke at 100 psi) and (2) a volumetric requirement of 90 cubic inches at a nominal stroke of 2.50". We have encircled that point for emphasis.

Very truly yours,

John W. Kourik -- Chief Engineer, Automotive Products

Attach. Figures 1 & 2 (Graphics omitted)

ID: 1985-02.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Troy C. Martin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief State Purchasing and General Services Commission P.0. Box 13047 Capitol Station Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your January 24, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about our school bus-safety standards.

Your first question asked whether a bus manufactured to accommodate 7 passengers and 3 wheelchair positions and to be used for carrying students would be classified as a school bus. The answer to your question is yes. Whether a vehicle is a school bus depends on the seating capacity of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions, as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3, in the vehicle. "Designated seating position" is defined as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats....

Consistent with this definition, we have also counted positions designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Since your vehicle carries 10 passengers plus a driver, for a total of 11 persons, it is a school bus under Part 571.3 of our regulations.

The second part of this question asked whether this vehicle would be required to comply with the seating requirements of FMVSS No. 222. The answer is yes. Each new school bus must comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 222. Some different requirements apply to school buses having gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, than to school buses with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds. For example, the seat spacing requirements of Standard No. 222 do not apply to the lighter school buses, since these vehicles are required to have safety belts.

Your second question asked whether a vehicle manufactured to carry 9 student passengers would be classified as a school bus. The answer is no. Such a vehicle does not have the passenger capacity of a bus, and is thus not a school bus. Although the school bus safety standards would not apply to this vehicle, it would have to meet the standards set for a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Your third and fourth questions concerned side facing seats for handicapped passengers. You first asked whether seat barriers must be placed forward and rearward of a side facing seat, when the seat is positioned between rows of forward facing seats.

I assume that you are concerned with buses having GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds, since the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 222 apply only to these heavier school buses. In a preamble to a July 12, 1976, Federal Register notice (41 FR 28506), the agency determined that the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 are not appropriate for side facing seats designed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. Therefore, a restraining barrier is not required forward of a side facing seat. However, a restraining barrier must be provided rearward of any side facing seat that has a forward facing seat next to it, in order to compartmentalize the passengers in the forward facing seat.

Your fourth question assumed that S5.2 applied to side facing seats. You asked whether the back of a forward facing seat positioned in front of a side facing seat could be used to meet the barrier requirements of S5.2. As discussed above, S5.2 does not apply to side facing seats.

Your fifth question asked whether safety belts are required for side facing seats on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, and on school buses with GVWR' s greater than 10,000 pounds. For school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, Standard No. 222 requires that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 210, be met "at all seating positions other than the driver's seat." Thus each seating position in a small school bus must have a safety belt and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of those standards. Side facing seats on the heavier school buses are not required to have safety belts.

Your sixth question asked if we have information on the use of shoulder straps and harnesses with lap belts for passenger seats on school buses. NHTSA has not conducted any tests on the use of shoulder straps or harnesses with safety belts on school buses. You might want to contact school bus manufacturers to discuss how 3-point belt systems can be used in school buses.

Your last question asked whether NHTSA has any plans at the present to delete the safety belt requirements for school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less. Although NHTSA has no present plans to delete the safety belt requirement for the lighter school buses, the agency is presently reviewing the Canadian test data to which you referred in your letter. If we believe there is a need to propose to amend Standard No. 222, the public will have an opportunity to submit comments.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street SW Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

In a conversation on January 22, 1985 with Ms. Deirdre Hom of your staff, she suggested that I formally submit the following questions to you concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

My questions are:

1. If a school bus manufacturer installs on a school bus normally designed or capable of holding 15 passengers, three wheel chair positions and sufficient school bus passenger seating for an additional seven passengers, will the resulting vehicle

a) be defined as a school bus (i.e. it can carry a total of 10 passengers, exclusive of the driver),

b) be required to comply with the seating requirements or FMVSS No. 222?

2. If the above bug had only space for six additional passengers (for a total of 9), would the resulting vehicle be classified as a school bus and be required to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 222 for seating?

3. Must seat barriers be placed forward and rearward or a side facing seat on a school bus used to transport handicapped students if the side facing seat is positioned between rear of regular school bus passenger seats?

4. Would the back of a regular passenger seat, properly constructed and positioned ahead of the side facing seat, meet the requirement?

5. Would seat belts be required for occupants of the side facing seat if the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or the vehicle were a) 10,000 pounds or less, or b) greater than 10,000 GVWR?

6. Do you know of any tests or do you have any information on the use of shoulder straps or harness used in conjunction with seat belts for regular passenger seating on either small (10,000 GVWR or less) or larger school buses?

7. Preliminary reports of recent Canadian tests indicate for small school buses, that "the heads of all restrained dummies experienced forces that were judged to be life threatening or fatal" in frontal crashes with belted dummies, while the heads of all unbelted dummies "experienced forces below the limit that is judged to cause serious injury or death". Since these preliminary results indicate that the use of seat belts in all school buses would possibly cause more injuries than the absence of belts, thereby verifying the "compartmental" concept that NHTSA has held, does NHTSA have any plans at present to delete the seat belt requirements on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less?

Thank you for your consideration of these questions.

Sincerely yours,

Troy C. Martin, Chief Specification Section 512 - 475-2232

TCM/tgf

cc: Herb Gersbach

ID: 1984-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arent; Fox; Kinter; Plotkin & Kahn -- Lawrence F. Henneberger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/7/74 letter from R.B. Dyson to Engineer/Transit Technology; 7/10/74 letter from R.B. Dyson to Flyer Industries Limited; 11/12/74 letter from R.B. Dyson to The Flxible Company; 4/1/88 (est) letter to Carl Kalpan from Michael M. Finkelstein (A33; Std. 108); 3/7/88 memo to Associate Administrator for Research and Development, NHTSA from Erika Z. Jones; 11/30/81 letter to Kenneth G. Moyer from Frank Berndt

TEXT:

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn 1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C 20036-5339

This is in reply to your letter of September 26, 1983 asking for an interpretation on behalf of your client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company.

You referenced an interpretation of August 31, 1978, which we gave you, also on behalf of Jacobs. Your client manufactures a diesel engine retarder system which would be provided a means to warn following drivers when the system was in use. The specific means of warning discussed in the 1978 letter was to connect the retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system, either as original or aftermarket equipment. We concluded that this installation augmented the hazard warning system, and thus did not impair the hazard warning system within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108. We also concluded that it would not render inoperative the hazard warning system, and thus was not a violation of the "anti-tampering" provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Traffic Safety Act.

Apparently, a customer of Jacobs has asked it to wire its warning system through the stop lamps. A separate manually-operated switch will be provided. We understand that when the warning system is operational there is no difference of light intensities when the brakes are applied. You have asked us for a re-interpretation, on the basis of these new facts, that the changed retarcer warning will not violate either paragraph S4.1.3 or section 108(a)(2)(A). You believe that the warning system is still permissible, because the stop lamps when so used will nevertheless indicate that the vehicle is diminishing its speed by braking, and because of interpretations by this office that retarder controls can be incorporated with the foundation brake controls and activated with the foundation brakes.

We have reviewed the 1978 interpretation allowing use of the retarder system through the hazard warning system, and the two 1974 interpretations with reference to incorporation of supplementary braking devices with foundation controls. We agree with your interpretation that the latter interpretations impliedly require activation of the stop lamps when the supplementary braking devices are used. The agency is not prepared at this time to modify either interpretation, and you may inform your client that there is no Federal legal prohibition against its hiring the retarder to activate the stop lamps when it is in use.

However, we wish to point cut an area of potential risk which your client should weigh before proceeding to offer this option and which, if it occurred, could be viewed as an impairment of the stop signal within the prohibition of S4.1.3. Under the Jacobs plan, activation of the stop lamp when the retarder is engaged would indicate only a lessened rate of speed. Because there is no difference in intensity, a following driver would have no indication when the brake was applied to signal a normal or sudden stop, such as might be required when a child or animal runs into the roadway.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 26, 1983

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

My client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company, manufactures and distributes a complete line of retarding devices which provide auxiliary retarding capabilities independent of a vehicle's foundation brakes and permit a heavy truck to travel at normal traffic speeds on long downgrades, under full control, as well as extending the service life of the foundation brakes.

On August 31, 1978, your office provided me with an interpretation (copy attached as Exhibit A), confirming that the connection of a retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system did not violate the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, nor the anti-tampering provisions set forth in Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended. Because of customer reports that such a retarder activation device, both as a practical and legal matter, should be connected to the rear brake lights, Jacobs now requests a written interpretation that connection of the retarder activation switch to the brake light system when a retarder is installed, either at the original equipment or aftermarket level, will not violate laws and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. More specifically, Jacobs seeks the agency's confirmation that a hand-operated retarder activation switch, connected to the brake light system to provide the same steady-on warning when activated, is not legally precluded in the view of NHTSA.

As was pointed out in our earlier submission in support of our request for an opinion concerning use of the hazard warning activation means for retardation signalling, in recent years the retarding forces generated by electric retarders have become capable of producing significant deceleration of a large truck so equipped. For this reason, Jacobs believes that there must be an effective means of providing a warning to following vehicles when a retarder is in use. Using the brake lights in their regular mode as the retarder warning light does not appear to violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 or the anti-tampering clause of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for the reasons as discussed below.

In addition to the wording in FMVSS 108, a review of the applicable SAE Standard, SAE J586c (currently referenced by FMVSS 108), does not appear to preclude the use of stop lamps as a steady-burning retarder warning signal. Indeed, S 2.1 of the standard, which provides a definition of "stop lamps," strongly suggests that the warning light would be a permissible use. The definition states that "stop lamps" are "lamps giving a steady light to the rear of a vehicle or train of vehicles to indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." This is precisely the intention and effect of the retarder activation signal.

The brake light warning means has received further support in a series of formal interpretations issued by your office, to the effect that retarder controls can be incorporated with the foundation brake controls and activated with the foundation brakes. Clearly, if one can connect the retarder controls into the foundation brake controls, the application of the retarder will automatically trigger the rear stop lights. See undated letter from Mr. Lawrence Schneider, NHTSA Chief Counsel, responding to letter dated April 2, 1974, from Mr. Alden G. Olson, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle; letter of July 10, 1974, from Mr. Richard Dyson, NHTSA Assistant Chief Counsel, to Mr. A. Deane, Flyer Industries, Ltd., Winnipeg, Canada; and letter of November 12, 1974, from Mr. Dyson, then Acting Chief Counsel of NHTSA, to Mr. Stanley Frye, The Flxible Company, Loudonville, Ohio. Copies of these letters are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

The only caveat detectable in the pertinent NHTSA interpretations appears to be that use of the retarder in conjunction with the brake system and rear brake lights should not affect the rear stop lights in such a way that they no longer comply with the requirements of FMVSS 108. Use of a hand-operated switch to activate the brake lights when the retarder is in use for purposes of signalling following drivers does not raise this difficulty under applicable law and regulations.

We appreciate your consideration of our request for interpretation, and encourage you to contact the undersigned, should questions remain.

Sincerely,

Lawrence F. Henneberger

cc: Z. Taylor Vinson, Esquire (Prior interpretation letters omitted here.)

ID: nht94-8.7

DATE: February 21, 1994

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Richard Kuykendall -- 3M

TITLE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1."

In a May 17, 1993 letter, Blue Bird requested the following interpretations regarding the requirements of Section S5.5.3(c):

"Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening."

In support of this request, the letter stated --

"The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges, or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads."

Your response to our May 17, 1993 letter dated July 7, 1993 documented a telephone conversation between Mary Versailles of your staff and myself in which I provided the following additional information in support of our request:

"In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retro-reflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape." You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retro-reflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear pushout window or

rear door), for two reasons. First you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivet, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off."

Your response of July 7, 1993 provided the following interpretations:

"NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivet, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retro-reflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retro-reflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six-inches."

Blue Bird sincerely appreciated the above timely and conscientious response which recognized the real world manufacturing problems we were facing and which provided reasonable flexibility in meeting the requirements while maintaining strict adherence to the requisites of the November 2, 1992 final rule. The above response enabled Blue Bird to design and incorporate into production acceptable retro-reflective tape installations for side door, side window, and roof emergency exits.

However, the installation of retro-reflective tape on the rear of the school buses is still a major problem because of the limited amount of area on the rear of school buses and the many features required by federal and state standards. These features include taillights, stop lights, turn signal lights, backup lights, license plate holder and light, reflectors, large windows, extended rubrails, exit door or windows, hinges, handles, labels, and a multitude of fasteners to meet FMVSS 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Attached are two pages taken from our May 17, 1993 request for interpretation that illustrate these problems that require cutting, notching, and punching of holes in the tape around the rear school bus exits. Our supplier of retro- reflective tape, 3M, has been unable to provide us a product that is cut, notched, and/or punched with sealed edges that would help ensure the longevity, durability, and effectiveness of the retro-reflective tape. In order to provide ongoing safety, the retro-reflective tape must remain on the bus and retain its reflective properties. Without proper sealing of the holes and notches, the longevity of the tape is questionable.

Since January 1993, in order to enhance the conspicuity and thereby the safety of school buses, Blue Bird has been installing retro-reflective tape down the sides and around the perimeter of the rear of new school buses as part of

standard equipment. Attached are illustrations and an advertising flyer showing the standard equipment designs we have developed to minimize installation problems and maximize conspicuity of the vehicles. The materials and patterns used are compatible with the FMVSS 108 requirements NHTSA has established for large trailers. SINCE ALL SCHOOL BUSES ARE REQUIRED BY FMVSS 217 TO HAVE A REAR EMERGENCY EXIT, Blue Bird believes that outlining the rear perimeter of the buses rather than just the perimeter of the emergency exit opening is more practical, reasonable and in the best interest of safety. We, therefore, request an interpretation stating that RETRO-REFLECTIVE TAPE AROUND THAT PERIMETER OF THE REAR OF A SCHOOL BUS CAN BE USED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF S5.5.3(C). Such an interpretation would meet the intent of the November 2, 1992 final rule by allowing the retro-reflective tape to continue to satisfy the requisite of identifying the location of the rear emergency exits to rescuers while substantially improving its ability to increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. We believe such an interpretation is also consistent with your July 7, 1993 interpretation which said "....the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter." Based on the problems we are having on the rear of the school buses, we now consider the locations chosen for our standard equipment perimeter marking "AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE" to the exit perimeter.

Thank you for consideration of this request for interpretation. Our purpose in making this request is to enhance the effectiveness of the material we install to meet S5.5.3(c) and make school buses safer. The length, width, and total area of reflective tape we are proposing to install on the rear of school buses by requesting the above interpretation is significantly greater than what would be required to outline only the perimeter of the exit opening. The new FMVSS 217 requirements become effective May 2, 1994 and therefore an early and favorable response is urgently requested. We believe our request can be resolved with an interpretation because it is compatible with both the wording and the intent of the standard. If, however, it cannot be handled as an interpretation, we request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking per 49 CFR Part 552. Thank you.

ATTACHMENTS

Illustrations omitted.

ID: nht94-1.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 21, 1994

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, m eets the criteria specified in Table 1."

In a May 17, 1993 letter, Blue Bird requested the following interpretations regarding the requirements of Section S5.5.3(c):

"Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, inter ruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening."

In support of this request, the letter stated --

"The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges, or curved surfaces and/or must have re lief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads."

Your response to our May 17, 1993 letter dated July 7, 1993 documented a telephone conversation between Mary Versailles of your staff and myself in which I provided the following additional information in support of our request:

"In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retro-reflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape." You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retro-reflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear pushout window or

rear door), for two reasons. First you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivet, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off."

Your response of July 7, 1993 provided the following interpretations:

"NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivet, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retro-reflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retro-reflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six-inches."

Blue Bird sincerely appreciated the above timely and conscientious response which recognized the real world manufacturing problems we were facing and which provided reasonable flexibility in meeting the requirements while maintaining strict adherence to the requisites of the November 2, 1992 final rule. The above response enabled Blue Bird to design and incorporate into production acceptable retro-reflective tape installations for side door, side window, and roof emergency exits.

However, the installation of retro-reflective tape on the rear of the school buses is still a major problem because of the limited amount of area on the rear of school buses and the many features required by federal and state standards. These features i nclude taillights, stop lights, turn signal lights, backup lights, license plate holder and light, reflectors, large windows, extended rubrails, exit door or windows, hinges, handles, labels, and a multitude of fasteners to meet FMVSS 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Attached are two pages taken from our May 17, 1993 request for interpretation that illustrate these problems that require cutting, notching, and punching of holes in the tape around the rear school bus exits. Our supplier of retro- reflective tape, 3M, has been unable to provide us a product that is cut, notched, and/or punched with sealed edges that would help ensure the longevity, durability, and effectiveness of the retro-reflective tape. In order to provide ongoing safety, the retro-reflective tap e must remain on the bus and retain its reflective properties. Without proper sealing of the holes and notches, the longevity of the tape is questionable.

Since January 1993, in order to enhance the conspicuity and thereby the safety of school buses, Blue Bird has been installing retro-reflective tape down the sides and around the perimeter of the rear of new school buses as part of

standard equipment. Attached are illustrations and an advertising flyer showing the standard equipment designs we have developed to minimize installation problems and maximize conspicuity of the vehicles. The materials and patterns used are compatible with the FMVSS 108 requirements NHTSA has established for large trailers. SINCE ALL SCHOOL BUSES ARE REQUIRED BY FMVSS 217 TO HAVE A REAR EMERGENCY EXIT, Blue Bird believes that outlining the rear perimeter of the buses rather than just the perimeter of the emergency exit opening is more practical, reasonable and in the best interest of safety. We, therefore, request an interpretation stating that RETRO-REFLECTIVE TAPE AROUND THAT PERIMETER OF THE REAR OF A SCHOOL BUS CAN BE USED TO SATISFY THE REQUIR EMENTS OF S5.5.3(C). Such an interpretation would meet the intent of the November 2, 1992 final rule by allowing the retro-reflective tape to continue to satisfy the requisite of identifying the location of the rear emergency exits to rescuers while sub stantially improving its ability to increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. We believe such an interpretation is also consistent with your July 7, 1993 interpretation which said "....the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit p erimeter." Based on the problems we are having on the rear of the school buses, we now consider the locations chosen for our standard equipment perimeter marking "AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE" to the exit perimeter.

Thank you for consideration of this request for interpretation. Our purpose in making this request is to enhance the effectiveness of the material we install to meet S5.5.3(c) and make school buses safer. The length, width, and total area of reflective tape we are proposing to install on the rear of school buses by requesting the above interpretation is significantly greater than what would be required to outline only the perimeter of the exit opening. The new FMVSS 217 requirements become effective May 2, 1994 and therefore an early and favorable response is urgently requested. We believe our request can be resolved with an interpretation because it is compatible with both the wording and the intent of the standard. If, however, it cannot be hand led as an interpretation, we request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking per 49 CFR Part 552. Thank you.

ATTACHMENTS

Illustrations omitted.

ID: 10181

Mr. Michael Winzkowski
FABA Autoglas Produktion
c/o Farmont Sunroofs, Ltd.
2346 Success Drive
P.O. Box 981
Odessa, FL 33556-0981

Dear Mr. Winzkowski:

This responds to your letter about a manufacturer's certification responsibilities under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR '571.205; copy enclosed). You state that you are a United States-based subsidiary of a German automotive sunroof manufacturer. You are having problems explaining to the German authorities the differences between the certification requirements of the two countries and request a letter explaining that the U.S. uses a self-certification procedure.

I am pleased to provide this information. As you know, every item of glazing for use in motor vehicles that is sold in or imported into this country must be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 205. This standard sets forth both performance and labeling requirements that must be satisfied by the automotive glazing. In enforcing its safety standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver an item of the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. Instead, as required by the U.S. Congress, the manufacturer "self-certifies" that each of its items of motor vehicle equipment fully satisfies all requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Thus, each item of automotive glazing is self-certified by its manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 205. NHTSA does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the glazing or on any tests at all. Under the statute, the agency only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the manufacturer to determine what data, test results, or other information is needed to enable it to certify that the glazing complies with Standard No. 205. We do recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling its glazing

in the United States for the first time test those products, according to the test procedures specified in Standard No. 205. Once the manufacturer has determined that its glazing complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205, it certifies that compliance by marking the glazing with the symbol DOT, as specified in section S6 of Standard No. 205.

You specifically asked for verification that "no US DOT testing or certification is conducted when DOT numbers are assigned to manufacturers." The "DOT number" to which you refer is the manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by NHTSA on request of the glazing manufacturer (S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205). Your understanding is correct. NHTSA does not test glazing products or review manufacturers' compliance data prior to or as a condition for assigning a manufacturer's code mark pursuant to S6.2 of Standard No. 205.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205 d:9/21/94

ID: nht87-1.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1987, with respect to the mounting height of driving lamps and front fog lamps. Noting that these lamps are not equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, you have asked whether they need to be mounted within the range of height which the standard prescribes for headlamps, or may they be mounted, for example, at a height lower than 22 inches such as in the front bumper.

Any lamp that is not required by Standard No. 108 may be added to a motor vehicle and located wherever it appears suitable, provided that the lamp at its location does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Headlamps , parking lamps, and turn signal lamps are the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 on the front of a passenger car, and any other four-wheeled vehicle of less than 80 inches overall width. Although Standard No. 108 imposes a minimum mounting height of 22 inches on headlamps, it allows parking lamps and turn signal lamps to be mounted as low as 15 inches above the road surface, which means that they could be mounted in the front bumper, or otherwise close to the mounting location of fog lamps and driving lamps. Therefore, compliance with paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 would require a manufacturer of a vehicle equipped with fog and driving lamps to ensure that they do not impair the effectiveness of the headlamps, turn signal lamps, and parking lamps.

Because fog lamps and driving lamps are not covered by Standard No. 108, the individual States may have their own restrictions on the mounting height of these lamps. We regret that we are unable to advise you on these laws. However, the American Associat ion of Motor Vehicle Administrator (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., may be able to advise you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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,

Re : Mounting height of auxiliary driving lamps and front fog lamps

We have a question on mounting height of driving lamps and front fog lamps.

Do they need to be mounted within the range of height which is required for headlamps in FMVSS No. 108?

Although they help the function of headlamps, they are not required lighting equipments in FMVSS No. 108.

So we understand that they can be mounted in the lower position than 22 inches, the lower required height of headlamps; for example, into the front bumper, the height of which is less than 22 inches.

We would like to have your confirmation on this matter. We are looking forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Stanley Electric Co, Ltd.

T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

ID: nht87-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1987, with respect to a new headlamp design of very low profile. The height of the headlamp is less than that required by dimension A of Figure 4, of Standard No. 108, and you have asked NHTSA: "to make th e height of the headlamp lower than dimension A...on condition that the additional adaptor will be as original equipment".

You are under the impression that our interpretation to you dated March 26, 1987, relating to acceptability of a headlamp lens with a 60 degree angle was an affirmative one conditioned upon the provision of an adaptor as original equipment. In fact, we o nly advised you that such an adaptor should be provided, not that it was required. With respect to your present letter, dimension A is established by Standard No. 108 and cannot be modified except through rulemaking, whether or not an adaptor is provided .

If you wish to submit a petition for rulemaking to amend dimension A of Figure 4 we shall be pleased to consider it. The agency also intends to publish in the near future a notice asking comments on various aspects of vehicle headlamp aim and aiming meth ods which you may wish to consider in relation to your new headlamp design. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 18, 1987

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 asked you about use of 60 degrees slanted headlamp by our letter of August 4, 1986. And you replied to us by your letter of March 26, 1987 that our new developed device was permitted to use only when an adaptor is provided as original vehicle equipmen t.

We are now developing a new headlamp which has higher characteristic of aerodynamics than the above headlamp by shortening the height of headlamp. However, we have found it hard to equip the timing pads on the lens because the height of headlamp becomes lower than dimension A required by FMVSS No.108, Figure 4. (See attached drawing.)

So we are asking you following request.

- Request -

We would like to ask you to accept to make the height of headlamp lower than dimension A specified by FMVSS N0.108, Figure 4 on condition that the additional adaptor will be provided as original vehicle equipment.

As mechanical aiming of this lamp can be made only by using additional adaptor, we assure that users will not be given disadvantage even if the height of headlamp becomes lower.

We are looking forward to your reply. Yours Faithfully, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Attachment