NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: nht80-2.43OpenDATE: 06/02/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Brown Motors Volkswagen TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne TEXT: Mr. Robert Slagle Parts Manager Brown Motors Volkswagen 5 West 18th Street at National City Boulevard National City, California 92050 Dear Mr. Slagle: This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the Federal requirements that would be applicable to the manufacture and installation of auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in passenger cars. I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issued last August which discusses the general implications of such installations under Federal law. Your letter asked whether it will be necessary for you to crash test vehicles that have the auxiliary tanks installed. As indicated in the enclosed interpretation, if the tank is added to a new vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person making the alteration will have to certify that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 301-75. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a manufacturer (including an alterer) to exercise due care to assure that a vehicle certifies is in fact in compliance with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the manufacturer to determine how he will establish due care and, in this case, whether he will crash test a vehicle or use some other method to ensure the compliance of the vehicle. The test procedures in Safety Standard No. 301-75 are not obligatory, only the performance requirements. The test procedures do, however, state how the agency will test a vehicle to determine compliance. In answer to your question number 4, I can state that it will not be necessary for you to crash test each vehicle which has a tank installed in order to establish due care. If by your question you meant one car of each car "model," once again, it is up to the manufacturer how he establishes due care.
In answer to your question number 3, the information contained in the enclosed interpretation includes discussions of all the Federal safety requirements that would be applicable to your company's activities. There may, of course, be other general Federal laws regarding the conducting of a business which would be pertinent. For example, Federal Trade Commission regulations regarding advertising could affect your activities. You are probably aware of these general regulations, however, since you are already an established business enterprise. Regarding your final question, all vehicle manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, have performed crash tests to determine compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. Since your company is a Volkswagen dealership, I suggest you contact Volkswagen regarding its compliance testing program for Safety Standard No. 301-75. If you have any further questions after reviewing this information, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992). Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure [8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted] April 24, 1980 Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation National Hwy. Traffic Safety Adm. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Berndt: We are in the process of having auxiliary diesel fuel tanks made of aluminum for us by a company who makes many items, such as ducting, vents, water tanks, fuel tanks, etc. These tanks are for automobiles that use diesel fuel only, not gasoline. We make up a kit including all necessary parts and installation instructions for this to be installed in diesel driven vehicles only. These auxiliary diesel fuel tank kits will be sold to automobile dealers for sale over the counter or may install in their own shop; also sold to repair shops, auto parts stores, etc, We will install these auxiliary tanks in our agency also. Our tanks are constructed of 12 gauge non-corrosive aluminum-Heliarc welded and each tank is pressure tested. Some are made to fit in to the spare tire well and some fit in the trunk of the car. Each tank is secured by (4) four or more bolts thru specially welded brackets on each tank. We are prepared to notify customers if necessary, should we find a defect, also should a leak occur, we will replace the tank. I would appreciate a response to the questions listed below: 1. Will federal motor vehicle safety standard FMVSS No. 301-75 apply to our company's activities? 2. Will it be necessary for us to crash test a car? 3. Will any other federal law apply to our company's activity? 4. Will it be necessary for us to crash test each car we make diesel tanks for? 5. Can you furnish any information to us on manufacture's that performed crash tests as to federal standards FMVSS 301-75? Our desire and intent is to build a safe auxiliary diesel fuel tank and maintain fuel system integrity. I would appreciate any response to this letter and any suggestions you might have for this project. Sincerely, Robert Slagle Parts Manager |
|
ID: nht78-4.12OpenDATE: 11/20/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA TO: Volkswagen of America Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1978, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number. Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard are enclosed. In confirmation of your meeting with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, and Schwartz, you are correct in stating that vehicle description section (VDS) informational content can change from model year, to model year even though the actual characters in the VDS remain the same. All changes in the informational content of the VDS must, of course, be submitted to the NHTSA as required in S6 of the standard. As you point out in your letter, "dividers" which would appear at the beginning and the end of the VIN would not be considered part of the VIN and, therefore, would not be regulated by the standard. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the dividers are neither alphabetic nor numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN. In your meeting with NHTSA staff, you requested clarification concerning which manufacturer identifier should be used when the vehicle assembly is carried out by one company on behalf of another. In this instance, the manufacturer identifier of the company under whose authority the assembly is carried out and which maintains responsibility for the vehicle's compliance with safety standards should be used. You have also asked for a definition of the term "transfer document." A "transfer document" will vary in content from manufacturer to manufacturer, but means the document(s) given to the owner of the vehicle for use when the vehicle is being titled. We would also call to your attention proposed changes to the standard contained in the enclosed notice of proposed rulemaking. If the proposed changes are adopted, the check digit would be placed in the fourth position of the VIN, and the first and second characters of the VDS, which immediately follow the check digit, would be alphabetic. Sincerely, ATTACH. Volkswagen of America, Inc. September 8, 1978 Joseph J. Levin, Esquire -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RE: VW/NHTSA Meeting on Vehicle Identification Numbers Dear Mr. Levin: On September 8, 1978, representatives of Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagenwerk AG met with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, Parker and Schwartz of the NHTSA to discuss FMVSS 115, the Final Rule on Vehicle Identification Numbers as published in the Federal Register of August 17, 1978. VW explained that the vehicle identification numbering system it adopts must be compatible with the new NHTSA VIN rule, various international regulations and its own internal purposes. VW indicated that the NHTSA Final Rule had furthered compatibility by changing the position of the VIN check digit from the third to the second section. VW presented to the NHTSA representatives its proposed concept for fulfilling the requirements of FMVSS 115 including the reporting system (see attachment). NHTSA agreed that the same five digit code within the second section could be used, even if the characteristics of the specific attributes change, for example horsepower or displacement increases from one model year to a new model year. NHTSA also observed that the key used for reporting and deciphering the attributes will consist of the WMI, the five characters of the second section and the model year. VW described the Common Market directive requiring the use of so-called "dividers" at the beginning and end of the vehicle identification number. These "dividers" are characters which are not part of the VIN and would be in the nature of a star, asterisk or company logo. NHTSA indicated that dividers can be used for vehicles sold in the U.S. provided the VIN is distinct and the divider could not be confused as part of the VIN. VW requested a clarification as to the meaning of "transfer documents." NHTSA informed VW that "transfer documents" were the official documents needed for titling a vehicle in accordance with state requirements. VW described the manufacturing process involved in production of its Type 2 Camper vehicle and Scirocco. The Camper's final stage and the Scirocco are assembled by other companies. VW assumes full responsibility for both of these finished vehicles. Therefore, NHTSA agreed that VW's WMI should be used for these vehicles. We appreciate the willingness of NHTSA to meet with us in order to clarify several aspects of the final VIN rule. It is our intent to institute VIN and reporting systems in accordance with these interpretations by NHTSA. Sincerely, Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr. Washington Representative [Attachment Omitted] |
|
ID: nht79-1.21OpenDATE: 08/31/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Vesely Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: August 31, 1979 NOA-30 Mr. David Gibbard Vesely Company 2101 N. Lapeer Road Lapeer, Michigan 48446 Dear Mr. Gibbard: This is in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office on August 6, 1979, and the previous telephone conversations between Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Arnold, formerly of your company, and Mr. Erickson of our Office of Rulemaking and Mr. Arnold. It also serves to supplement the letter from Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, to the president of your company, Mr. McCollough. Barring an order of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, we anticipate no changes in the rule beyond those made in Notice 8. Further, the contract with the Society of Automotive Engineers to act as the NHTSA's agent in distributing manufacturer identifiers, which Mr. Arnold was advised the agency was negotiating, has been entered into. We are therefore able to confirm the answer to your company's remaining questions with certainty. The technical questions you raised will be answered first, as we understand you would prefer to have these answers in writing also. 1. You have asked whether Vesely can use the first two characters of the sequential number (the 12th and 13th characters of the VIN if one includes the check digit) for internal company purposes as the number of vehicles produced is more than 500, but never exceeds 9,999 of a particular model annually. There is nothing in the standard which precludes utilizing the 12th and 13th characters for internal purposes so long as the agency is advised which characters are to be used and that they are to be disregarded. 2. You have also advised us that Vesely desires to use several manufacturer identifier the codes beginning with the letter V. When the NHTSA published its rule establishing the manufacturer identifier system on August 17, 1978, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) immediately submitted a list of approximately 500 identifiers on behalf of vehicle manufacturers. These identifiers had been previously assigned to manufacturers by the SAE in their role as assigner of world manufacturer identifiers on behalf of the International Standards Organization. Unfortunately, the configuration Vesely proposed was reserved by the SAE at that time. Because of the substantial experience the SAE has had in this area, the NHTSA has contracted with them to assign the remaining manufacturer identifiers. If you would write to the SAE at the address given below, advising them of the types of vehicles you are now producing or intend to produce, they will assign your manufacturer identifiers at no charge. Please write to: Society of Automotive Engineers 400 Commonwealth Avenue Warendale, Pennsylvania 15096 Attention: Leo Ziegler I trust this information answers the questions you have concerning the VIN. Please contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel March 28, 1979 Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Jr. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Schwartz: With issuance of Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8, relating to Vehicle Identification Numbers I must assume the NHTSA is getting closer to "finalizing" FMVSS No. 115 notwithstanding the VIN litigation upcoming in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As such, and in follow-up to my several letters and telephone conversation with you on January 9, 1979 I am again requesting official NHTSA written replies to these as soon as possible to enable our small company to try and comply with the Federal requirements. To date, I have not received approval of our requested first three digit assignments (letter of October 30, 1978) as required by the standard and I have not received written permission to utilize digits 12 and 13 for our own in-house use (letter of December 11, 1978). Further, I have never received an official answer to my letter to President Carter other than a post card from Secretary Adams saying he will be replying. All in all, not much action to help our company comply with these Federal mandates. If our company is going to be able to meet the effective date of September 1, 1980 we must have some answers now! Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8 has done nothing to alleviate or reduce this company's burden as I interpret the impact of it. Since we not only manufacture motor homes (MPV's) but recreational trailers as well, we must institute this 17 digit system even though the chassis manufacturer would assign his VIN. We cannot stay with our current VIN system for one product and change to a completely different VIN system for our other products. Your replies will be anxiously awaited to enable us to continue the necessary work to comply with FMVSS 115 as it now stands by the effective date of September 1, 1980. Very truly yours, D. J. Arnold Director of Product Development th |
|
ID: nht74-4.3OpenDATE: 06/07/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Engineer/Transit Technology TITLE: TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your April 2, 1974, request for a ruling on whether trolley and motor buses equipped with air brake systems and dynamic electric or hydraulic devices are required to be equipped with antilock equipment. Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, requires stopping distance performance which must be met by any bus equipped with air brakes, whether or not it is equipped with supplementary dynamic braking means, and the stops must be made with only controlled wheel lockup over 10 mph. Although the standard does not require antilock devices, many manufacturers have indicated they will use antilock devices to meet this requirement. In evaluating a vehicle's compliance with the stopping distance performance requirements of S5.3 and S5.7.2.3, auxiliary braking devices may be utilized in making the stops provided such devices are engaged by means of the same service brake pedal or parking brake control that operates the air brakes. It should be noted, however, that these stops must be made with the transmission selector control in neutral or the clutch disengaged (S6.1.3). It can be foreseen that at least one difficulty may arise in testing with supplementary brake systems. S6.3 requires that the transmission be in neutral or the clutch be disengaged during deceleration, which might eliminate the torque from your dynamic brake. Please write again if this or other difficulties arise in the certification of your buses. Sincerely, April 2, 1974 National Highway Traffic Administrator Dear Sir: The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle has recently written a specification for the purchase of more than 600 motor and trolley buses. The first draft of this specification is presently in circulation to potential bidders, transit properties, governmental agencies, consultants and other interested individuals for their comments. These comments must be received by the Municipality by April 30, 1974, for evaluation and possible implementation into the final specification which is scheduled for release about the middle of June, 1974. In a telephone conversation with Assistant Chief Counsel Richard Dyson on March 26, 1974, I brought up a question related to bus brakes and FMVSS 121. The Municipality has a specification requirement for dynamic brakes on our new trolley buses in addition to the standard air brakes. We also have a specification requirement for an electric or hydraulic retarder on two of our new larger types of motor buses in addition to the standard air brakes. The question, as asked of the Municipality by an interested foreign manufacturer, is whether it is still necessary to provide anti-skid equipment or brake equalization with dynamic braking on the trolley bus, and whether it is necessary to provide anti-skid equipment or brake equalization with an electric or hydraulic retarder on the motor buses. The electric retarder operates off the gear box, drive shaft or differential and the hydraulic retarder operates off the transmission. Mr. Dyson advised me to put the question with supplementary background in written form and address it to you for an interpretation and ruling. I have enclosed a copy of the letter regarding the brake question, a copy of the bus specification of the buses for the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, a copy of the information on the electrical retarder and a copy of the information on the hydraulic retarder. We shall look forward to your reply so that we can advise potential bidders of this decision. Very truly yours, Alden G. Olson Engineer/Transit Technology Enclosures TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT CO. MARCH 14, 1974 John Aurelius Mgr., Transit Technology SEATTLE METRO 410 West Harrison Street Seattle, WA 98119 SUBJECT: FMVSS QUESTIONS Arne Lindqvist and I finally caught up with each other in New York so we had an opportunity to discuss our mutual problems as they relate to bus production for the U.S. market. As he told you, meeting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is a bit of a thorn for European producers inasmuch as there is a somewhat different approach to safety in Europe. There is one important point which, to our knowledge, has not yet been clarified. This is the question of brake equalization in a trolley coach. With dynamic braking, is it still necessary to provide anti-skid equipment or brake equalization? Is it possible to obtain an exception? This same line of thinking would lead us to similar questions relating to motor coaches. All new motor coaches in Switzerland are equipped with dynamic braking as are a high percentage of the new commercial vehicles in other countries. The Telma retarder would be recommended for the second and third axlesof the HESS articulated motor coach. Can you secure a ruling on these points? Perhaps you have already explored this subject and can advise us. Very truly yours, H.T. HAWKES---President |
|
ID: nht88-2.16OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/04/88 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Patricia Bicking TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mrs. Patricia Bicking 1132 Chestnut Avenue Woodbury Heights, NJ 08097 This is a response to your letter of last fall in which you asked a number of questions concerning seat-belts and large school buses. apologize for the delay in responding. In your correspondence, you enclosed a letter of January 19, 1984, from this offi ce to Thomas Built Buses, Inc., (Thomas), and the incoming letter from Thomas that was the basis of our interpretation. Your first question references the January 1989 letter, and asks why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decided that when school bus manufacturers install seat-belts or seat-belt anchorages on large school buses (over 10,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating the manufacturers do not have to certify that the belts or anchorages meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards 208, 209, and 210. The answer to this question is that NHTSA does not require a school bus manufacturer to install seat-belts on large school buses. Our regulations require a motor vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance to allapplicable standards. You ask whether this decision stillstands. The answer to that question is "yes" for the reason just stated. The agency does not require large buses to have seat-belts because the "compartmentalization" concept (to which you allude in your letter) supplies adequate protection for passengers in large school buses. Let me give you some background information on our school bus regulations that I think will help address your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 req uires large school buses to have passenger crash protection through "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include h igh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.) You also asked whether there have been and improvements in school bus seating compartments since 1977, and whether the improvements are mandatory. The answer to your question is that there have been no major changes in the school bus safety standards sin ce they became effective in April, 1977. However, the agency continuously reviews school bus safety standards to assess whether it is appropriate to add or amend a requirement. You may be interested to know that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant' s exposure to injury-threatening crash forces): the drivers' training and experience: and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Chief Counsel I am writing to you in behalf of the compartmentalization concept for large school buses. I have a copy of a letter written from the NHTSA and addressed to Mr. Ron Marion of Thomas Built Buses, dated 1-19-84. This letter states it was decided that school bus manufacturers were allowed to install seat belts for passenger seats (without) having to certify that the belts and anchorages apply with (standards) #s 208, 209 and 210. Could you please explain why this decision was made? And does this decision still stand today? I also have information from the National Transportation Safety Board Safety Recommendations; H-83-39 through 41. In 1977 there were recommendations for large school buses to de designed in the way that they will support the installation and use of a seat belt. The NHTSA response states, "Improving the seating compartments eliminates the need for seat belts and provides sufficient crash protection." A truly excellent response but, could you please explain what, if any type improvements have been made since this date of 1977? Have any of these improvements become mandatory? Could you also please explain what the FMVSS 222 is? And what are the major requirements for the FMVSS 222. Thank you so much for your time. Mrs. Patricia Bicking of Woodbury Hts. N.J. |
|
ID: 09-003935 217OpenMr. Jonathan Weisheit Project Engineering J.K. Technologies, L.L.C. 3500 Sweet Air Street Baltimore, MD 21211 Dear Mr. Weisheit: This responds to your question asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You ask about S5.2.3.2(b) of that standard, as it applies to an open top double decked bus that your client Ensign Bus, a bus importer, wishes to import into the United States. As explained below, it appears that the bus does not comply with certain provisions of FMVSS No. 217.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Description of the Double Decker Bus In your letter, you write that the double decker bus that Ensign Bus wishes to import has two stairways that access the open top upper deck of the bus. You describe one stairway as midway between the center of the bus and the front of the bus, to the left of center. You describe the other stairway as midway between the center of the bus and the rear of the vehicle to the right of center.[1] Because of the engines location, there is neither a rear emergency window exit nor a rear emergency door exit on the lower deck. You provided schematics, showing the seating positions on both the upper and lower decks of the bus, and the locations of the stairways in relation to the seating positions. The schematic of the bus states that the lower deck has 30 seating positions (apparently not counting the drivers seat) and that the upper deck has 46 seating positions. You also provided photographs of the interior of the lower deck. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the double decker bus is over 10,000 pounds (lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). S5.2.3.2(b) Requirements Under S5.2.1 of the standard, manufacturers of buses other than school buses may meet FMVSS No. 217 requirements for the provision of emergency exits by meeting either S5.2.2, Buses other than school buses, or S5.2.3, School buses. You seek confirmation that the bus at issue would satisfy the requirements of S5.2.3.2(b) of FMVSS No. 217 (the school bus requirements) with the two stairway exits to the roof/upper deck. S5.2.3.2(b), Emergency roof exit, states, in relevant part: (1) Each emergency roof exit shall be hinged on its forward side, and shall be operable from both inside and outside the vehicle. (2) (3) In a bus equipped with two emergency roof exits, one shall be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the foremost limit of the passenger compartment and the other shall be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the rearmost point of the passenger compartment. (4) (5) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, each emergency roof exit shall be installed with its longitudinal centerline coinciding with a longitudinal vertical plane passing through the longitudinal centerline of the school bus. (6) In a bus equipped with two or more emergency roof exits, for each roof exit offset from the longitudinal vertical plane specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, there shall be another roof exit offset from that plane an equal distance to the other side. A question presented by your inquiry is whether S5.2.3.2(b) requires a cover or hatch of some sort for the roof exit. If these school bus roof emergency exit requirements require a cover, your exits (the staircases) would not meet the requirements, since they are not covered.
After consideration of the standard and its history, our conclusion is that S5.2.3.2(b) does not contemplate this particular kind of roof exit (uncovered stairways to the roof of a double decker bus). In stating that the roof exit shall be hinged on its forward side, and shall be operable from both inside and outside the vehicle, S5.2.3.2(b)(1) assumes the existence of a cover or hatch. We do not construe the language of S5.2.3.2(b)(1) as an indirect requirement that a roof exit consisting of a staircase to the upper level of a double decker bus be covered. Covering the staircase poses challenges for a double decker bus, given how passengers are intended to move between the lower and upper levels of the vehicle. (If the staircase had a cover, the cover must meet the requirements in the standard for emergency exit covers, including their release.) With regard to other provisions in S5.2.3.2(b), it appears from your enclosures that the roof exits would meet them. One roof exit appears to be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the foremost limit of the passenger compartment and the other appears to be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the rearmost point of the passenger compartment, as specified in S5.2.3.2(b)(3). From your enclosures, it also appears that for each of the roof exits offset from the longitudinal vertical plane specified in paragraph S5.2.3.2(b)(5), the other roof exit is offset from that plane an equal distance to the other side. Thus, S5.2.3.2(b)(6) appears satisfied. However, there are other requirements in S5.2.3 with which it appears the bus does not comply. These are discussed below. Other Requirements in S5.2.3
S5.2.3, the section of the standard you have elected to meet, states: S5.2.3 School buses. Except as provided in S5.2.3.4, each school bus shall comply with S5.2.3.1 through S5.2.3.3. S5.2.3.1. Each school bus shall be equipped with the exits specified in either S5.2.3.1(a) or S5.2.3.1(b), chosen at the option of the manufacturer. (a) One rear emergency door that opens outward and is hinged on the right side (either side in the case of a bus with a GVWR or 10,000 pounds or less), and the additional exits, if any, specified in Table 1 [of Standard No. 217]. (b) One emergency door on the vehicles left side that is hinged on its forward side and meets the requirements of S5.2.3.2(a), and a push-out rear window that provides a minimum opening clearance 41 centimeters high and 122 centimeters wide and meets the requirements of S5.2.3.2(c), and the additional exits, if any, specified by Table 2 [of Standard No. 217]. * * * * * In order to comply with S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, the bus must meet either all of the requirements in S5.2.2 or all of the requirements in S5.2.3. Based on the schematics of the bus you have provided, it appears that the bus does not have a rear emergency door or an emergency door on the vehicles left side. Thus, the bus does not appear to comply with S5.2.3.1 and, as a result, would not satisfy S5.2.3. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 4/27/10 [1] Based on the photographs and schematics provided, the staircase at the front of the bus appears to be flush with the left side of the bus and the staircase at the rear of the bus appears to be flush with the right side of the bus. |
2010 |
ID: nht91-5.28OpenDATE: August 19, 1991 FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA COPYEE: Robert Hellmuth -- OVSC TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation: 1. 49 CFR Part 571.217 Sections S5.3 and S5.4 2. Report No. 217-MSE-90-10-TR0009-10 Bus Window Retention and Release Compliance Test-FMVSS 217 1990 Blue Bird (33 Passenger) 3. NEF-31KNu/NCI 3189 4. NEF-31KNu/NCI-3189.2 ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas D. Turner (A38; Std. 217) TEXT: A 1990 Blue Bird bus was compliance tested to the requirements of FMVSS 217 as reported in Reference 2. As a result of the test, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) issued NCI letters, including references 3 and 4. Blue Bird Body company responded as requested to reference 3 and requested and attended a technical meeting on July 2, 1991 in Washington, D.C. in response to reference 4. As a result of this activity, there is one issue that needs to be formally resolved before NCI 3189 can be closed. The following paragraphs discuss the issue, provide the OVSC position, provide the Blue Bird Body Company position and request an interpretation of which position is correct according to Standard No. 217. 49 CFR Part 571.217-Sections S5.3.2 and S5.4.1 Discussion: Section S5.3.2 provides two force application options for options for emergency exit release mechanisms. Option (a) LOW FORCE APPLICATION specifies type of motion as "Rotary or straight", and magnitude as "Not more than 20 pounds." Option (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION specifies type of notion as "Straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.", and magnitude as "Not more than 60 pounds." Section S5.4.1 establishes emergency exit extension reach distances and force levels based on Section S5.3.2. OVSC Position: As stated in Reference 4, the OVSC position is: "In this case the release handle is pin jointed at the top much like a piano hinge. The only possible movement the handle can experience is to rotate around the pin joint. The release mechanism neither slides nor translates, IT VERY CLEARLY ROTATES. The video that Blue Bird supplied this office shows that the handle rotates during the release of the window. An occupant of the bus would then have to apply a force in a rotary notion to operate the release mechanism. The maximum release should therefore be 20 lbs." Blue Bird Body Company Position: Blue Bird Body Company agrees with the OVSC that the release mechanism of the pushout window design used by Blue Bird is rotary; however, it is our understanding that Standard 217 regulates the "type of motion" of the FORCE APPLICATION used to manually operate the release mechanism and does not regulate the "type of motion" of the RELEASE MECHANISM itself. Blue Bird Body Company disagrees with the OVSC that an occupant would have to use a rotary motion to operate the mechanism. The introduction of the book The Way Things Work by David Macaulay supports Blue Bird's position by stating: MOVEMENT AND FORCE Many mechanical machines exist to convert one form of movement into another. This movement may be in a straight line (in which case it is often backward-and-forward, as in the shuttling of a piston-rod) or it may be in a circle. Many machines convert linear movement into circular or rotary movement and vice versa, often because the power source driving the machine moves in one way and the machine in another. But whether direction is altered or not, the mechanical parts move to change the force applied into one-either larger or smaller-that is appropriate for the task to be tackled. (1)
---------- (1) David Macaulay, Houghton Mifflin Company, The Way Things Work, Copyright 1988, ISBN 0-395-42857-2
The essence of our argument and position is the principal that a straight linear force can be used to operate a rotary mechanism. A weight put on a lever arm and used to lift an object against the force of gravity is an example of this principle. The straight linear force of gravity acting on the weight is the only application force acting on the lever arm. The lever arm's reaction to this force will be rotary motion and will involve other motions and forces; however, the application force of gravity, since it acts only in a direction toward the center of the earth, remains straight and linear. As another example, a latch string, extending through the latch string hole of a door, can be pulled straight out and perpendicular to the surface of door to activate the latch bar and allow opening of the door. Note that in this example, the latch bar pivots or rotates in a different plane and direction from the application force. Since the pushout window release mechanism of the Blue Bird pushout windows is in the high force application region and is releasable by a single occupant, operating one mechanism, using one force application that is straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface, we must be allowed the use of option (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION and, therefore, are allowed a magnitude of 60 pounds. The report, reference 2, determined the type of motion of release mechanism of the Blue Bird pushout window to be rotary and, therefore, determined the required force application to 20 pounds maximum. It determined the type of motion for extension of the pushout window to be straight and perpendicular and, therefore, allowed a 60 pound application force. The pushout windows are hinged at the top and must swing out (rotate) to open. In a nearly identical way, the release mechanism is hinged at the top and must swing in (rotate) to unlatch. The only difference, from a principle of mechanics viewpoint, is the length of the lever arm from the hinge to the point of force application. For the latch mechanism, the lever arm is short and the motion appears rotary. For the pushout window, the lever arm is long, and the motion appears linear in reality, both motions are rotary but both can be actuated by straight linear force applications. The discrepancy and inconsistency in applying different requirements to mechanisms that operate in the same manner must be resolved and the resolution must be based on established principles of mechanics. Request for Interpretation: Blue Bird Body Company requests confirmation that the requirements of reference 1, with regard to motion, apply to the application forces and not to the release mechanisms being activated by the forces. Further, we request confirmation of our understanding of the principles of mechanics, as applicable to FMVSS 217 requirements, that straight linear forces can cause rotary notion to occur and can be used to manually operate a rotary mechanism. Blue Bird's desire that our pushout rectangular transit window design be allowed the use of Section S5.3.2 (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION of 60 pounds is consistent with both the letter of FMVSS 217 and the intent of the standard. We believe the requirements as written, acknowledge the limitations in typical human physical capabilities. When rotary motion (involving gripping and forearm rotation) is required to operate a release mechanism (such as rotating a common door knob) the allowable force levels are restricted to 20 pounds. Similarly, if reach distances for straight motion are such that body and arm extension are required to reach the mechanism, the allowable force levels are restricted to 20 pounds. Hence in these cases, the "Access Region for Low Forces" and LOW FORCE APPLICATION are required. When a push or pull force is required and the reach distances are small, as is the case with the Blue Bird pushout transit window latch, a human being can easily exert higher forces and the "Access Region for High Forces" and HIGH FORCE APPLICATION are allowed. If NHTSA believes that it is more appropriate for pushout windows to operate within the Low force application requirements, such a change should be implemented through Rulemaking Action and not by interpretations made in Compliance Test Procedures. Blue Bird Body Company requests that thoughtful and timely responses to the above requests for interpretation be provided so that NCI 3189 can be satisfactorily resolved and closed in the best interests of motor vehicle safety. If additional information or further discussion will assist in timely resolution of the issues involved, we will be glad to visit NHTSA to provide whatever information or assistance possible. |
|
ID: 10161Open Ms. Sally O'Cordan Dear Ms. O'Cordan: This responds to your question about whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applies to glass used in a travel trailer. You stated that your law office was investigating an accident in which an individual was injured by glass of such a vehicle. Please be aware that no FMVSS applies to the glazing (the term the agency uses for glass) in trailers. The agency has issued one standard, FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR '571.205), which applies to glazing in some motor vehicles. However, this standard does not apply to glazing in trailers, which our regulations define as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle" (49 CFR '571.3). You may wish to contact the State of Wisconsin about the regulation of glass in trailers. The State has the authority to regulate the operation and modification of vehicles by their owners. Wisconsin may have used this authority to issue regulations about glazing in travel trailers. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:205 d:8/26/94
|
1994 |
ID: GF0002060OpenDon Brown, Director of Engineering Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your February 23, 2005, letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, permits relocating front trailer clearance lamps in order to limit their exposure to damage. Your letter indicates that you intend to relocate the clearance lamp so that it is recessed into the "top rail". Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that for a trailer with an overall width of 80 inches or more, two amber clearance lamps must be located at the front edges of the trailer as near the top as practicable. S5.3.2.1 (formerly S5.3.1.1.1) of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that clearance lamps may be located elsewhere, if necessary for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle. Accordingly, our regulations do not prohibit relocation of clearance lamps in order to limit their exposure to damage. Please note that S5.3.2.1 also specifies that a relocated clearance lamp need not meet the applicable photometric output requirements at any test point that is 45 degrees inboard. Other applicable photometric output requirements remain (see SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps", July 1972). I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2005 |
ID: 008437OpenMr. Lance Tunick Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your October 21, 2005, letter in which you request an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you asked whether a manufacturer of a vehicle without a back seat may modify the pictogram depicted in Figure 11 of FMVSS No. 208 to show only one row of seats. As explained below, modification of the pictogram is not permitted. S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208 requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently affix an air bag warning label to the sun visor at each front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint. The air bag warning label is intended to provide information on the potential hazards of air bags. In order to ensure uniformity of design, S4.5.1(b) specifies that the warning label must "conform in content to the label shown in Figure 11". As you have correctly noted, S4.5.1(b)(3)(iv) and (v) permit manufacturers to omit the text relating to back seats for vehicles that have no back seat. These provisions were adopted in response to comments from vehicle manufacturers questioning the appropriateness of the "back seat" text for vehicles that do not have a back seat. While the text of the label may be modified, there is no similar provision that permits manufacturers to modify the pictogram. Thus, a vehicle manufacturer may not modify the pictogram. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Larry Prange of my staff, at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:208 |
2005 |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.