ID: nht87-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Koji Tokunaga

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This letter responds to your inquiry of June 25, 1986, requesting an interpretation of S4.5 of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, regarding the "part of the vehicle" on which the vehicle identification number (VIN) shoul d appear. I regret the delay in replying to your letter.

You ask whether either of two specific locations within the passenger compartment of a vehicle would meet the VIN location requirement, and submit diagrams of these locations. Paragraph S4.5 of Standard No. 115 reads:

"The VIN of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part."

You state in your letter that your concern is whether a VIN or a plate or label with the VIN affixed to it, may be "fitted to a part that is not designed to be removed except for repair but that can be replaced by a new part as a result of the repair."

We interpret S4.5 to require that the VIN be placed on a part that is designed to be removed only for the purpose of repairing (or replacing) that part. Thus, the VIN may not be placed on a part which is designed to be removed to allow the maintenance or repair of other parts.

The first location you describe is the instrument panel front cover. That cover is a plastic strip immediately behind and below the inner surface of the front windshield, and it appears from your diagram that the part is designed to be removed only for i ts repair or replacement. If that is correct, placing the VIN at this location would meet the requirement of S4.5.

The second location is the top of the meter upper hood. On your diagram, this location seems to be on the plastic cover for the speedometer and tachometer. It appears from the diagram that the meter upper hood is designed to be removed to permit the repa ir or maintenance of those meters or other parts of the dash board. If this is the case, then this location would not comply.

As a separate matter, we note from your diagram that the meter hood location may be in a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or light truck. If that is so, you must meet both the S4.5 requirement with respect to placement of the VIN, and the r eadability requirement of S4.6.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 25, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Subject: Confirmation of NHTSA's Interpretation of our Request

The attached letter, DE-85-181, requested your agency's interpretation regarding "a part of the vehicle" where the vehicle identification number (VIN) is required to appear.

We mailed this letter last August. However, we have not received your interpretation. On June 24th and 25th, Mr. Imai or Isuzu Motors America, spoke with your secretary and was informed that you do not have any record of this request. Therefore, we are s ending this letter again. Please check your records and please forward your interpretation.

We would appreciate your response as soon as possible.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

August 26. 1985

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Subject: VIN Durability.

The purpose of this letter is to request your agency's interpretation regarding "a part of the vehicle" where the vehicle identification number (VIN) is required to appear.

FMVSS 115. S4.5 requires a VIN to be fitted to "...a part of the vehicle...that is not designed to be removed except for repair Our concern is whether the VIN may be fitted to a part that is not designed to be removed except for repair but that can be re placed by a new part as a result of the repair. In the context of a specific vehicle, we would request you to advise us whether it meets the requirement to affix the VIN or a VIN plate or label to either of the following parts in the locations shown in t he attached fig. 1 and 2:

1. Instrument panel front cover (Fig. 1)

This cover is made of plastics and can be detached from the vehicle by removing a clip on each side and the three screws shown. There is a possibility, although not great, of this cover being replaced by a new cover when damaged or badly stained.

2. Meter upper hood (Fig. 2)

This hood is also made of plastics, and can be detached from the vehicle by removing the four screws shown. The possibility of this hood being replaced is still smaller but not nil.

We would appreciate your prompt confirmation as to whether affixing the VIN to these parts meets the requirements of S4.5 of FMVSS 115.

Sincerely yours.

Koji Tokunaga Manager. Engineering

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: nht87-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

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

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/20/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M.B. Mathieson (Std. 301)

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

Dear Mr. Mathieson:

This is in reply to your letter of April 27, 1987, asking for a clarification of my letter of March 20.

In that letter I answered your question as to whether the results of frontal barrier impact tests that occurred at 30.1 mph with a vehicle that exceeded the test height limits would constitute either a noncompliance with Standard No. 301 or a safety rela ted defect. Because the test has not conducted in accordance with Standard No. 301's conditions I replied that this would not be a noncompliance, and further, that those results "do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of the vehi cle." This statement appears unclear to you.

By my earlier statement I intended to explain that we do not use a safety standard's compliance test results (particularly if the test was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures) as the sole basis for a determination of a safety-relat ed defect in the same aspect of performance governed by that standard. For example, having determined through rulemaking that a particular level of vehicle performance is expected in a 30 mph crash test, it would be inappropriate to use the results from an otherwise identical crash test conducted at 35 mph to form the sole basis for a determination of a safety-related defect in the tested vehicles. To do so would constitute, in effect, rulemaking to raise the impact speed in the standard to 35 mph. We c ompletely agree, however, with your statement that "there can be safety-related defects that are not addressed by the standards." We also agree that the manufacturer has the responsibility to address safety defects that become apparent to him through test data or otherwise.

With this background, we will turn to your question. You have now posed a hypothetical in which your tests indicate that a fully-loaded school bus may encounter a severe leakage exceeding 4.1 ounces of fuel per minute in a head-on impact of 30 m.p.h. Thi s may be evidence that could lead you to believe that there would be a significant number of failures if a school bus, in its normal operation with full complement of students, encounters a head-on collision at what appears to be a reasonable operating s peed. This combination of factors might appear to pose an unreasonable risk to safety and afford the basis for the determination that a safety related defect exists.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 27, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear. Ms. Jones,

This letter is in reference to yours of March 20, 1987, regarding Thomas Built Buses, L.P. questions resulting from crash tests performed on a proposed vehicle utilizing a Thomas school bus body and a Chevrolet Model #G31303 chassis.

We understand from your letter that since the test parameters of vehicle velocity and vehicle test weight did not meet the "letter of the law" in that the test impact velocity exceeded 30 mph by 1.333%, and the vehicle test weight exceeded the manufactur ers limits as defined in @7.1.6(b) of FMVSS 301, that your office has found the test to be invalid as far as determining the requirements of compliance to the standard are concerned.

We further understand from your letter that final stage manufacturers are not prohibited from manufacturing a vehicle that falls outside the limits of the chassis manufacturer's guidelines for maximum unloaded vehicle weight. However, those final stage m anufacturers who build and offer for sale such a vehicle bear full responsibility for certification to FMVSS 301 for such completed vehicles.

We do not understand the basis of the statement in your letter, i.e. "Further, those results do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of vehicle".

Our interpretation of P.L.8g-563 regarding "failure to comply" and "safety related defects" is that these two possible situations are not necessarily coincident or correlated. In other words, while "failure to comply" will possibly always be considered a safety related defect, there can be safety related defects that are not addressed by the Standards but which carry the full responsibility and associated penalties for report and failure to report when they have become apparent to a vehicle manufacturer .

April 24, 1987 Ms. Erika Z. Jones

In light of the above, we would appreciate your consideration of the following:

Thomas Built Buses, L.P., is contemplating the manufacture of a school bus in the "10,000 lbs. or less" GVWR class. We expect the vehicle to operate frequently at the maximum design GVWR of 10,000 lbs., carrying school children in the normal fulfillment of its' purpose. Our tests have indicated that if this fully and legally loaded vehicle encounters a severe head-on impact of 30 mph there will be a significant fuel system "failure" resulting in a fuel leak exceeding 4.1 ounces of fuel per minute.

Question: Does this condition constitute a safety defect in a school bus completed and offered for sale by Thomas Built Buses, L.P.? Thomas Built Buses currently has two prototype vehicles operating in public service.

Your prompt reply would be most helpful to this Company. Sincerely yours,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, L.P.

M. B. MATHIESON, Director of Engineering

MBM/jm

cc: J. W. Thomas, Jr. J. E. Thomas Roger Chilton Morris Adams Roddey Ligon Tom Mitchell Dale Guthrie

ID: 86-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Hayashibara

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Hayashibara Managing Director Certification Business Division Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

Dear Mr. Hayashibara:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of certain terms used in Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims -passenger cars (49 CFR S571.110). Specifically. you asked about the definitions of the terms "curb weight", "accessory weight", and "production options weight". These terms are defined in Standard No. 110 as follows.

The "curb weight" of a vehicle is calculated by adding the weight of the vehicle with all of its standard equipment, including its maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant to the weights of two optional items of equipment, if the vehicle is equipped with these optional items. The items whose weight is included in calculating the curb height, if present on the vehicle, are air conditioning and the additional weight of an optional engine. No other optional items are included in calculating a vehicle's curb weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.

The "accessory weight" of a vehicle means the combined weight (in excess of the weight of the standard equipment items that may be replaced) of automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, power windows, power seats, radio, and heater to the extent that these items are available as factory-installed options on that vehicle, regardless of whether these options are actually present on the vehicle in question. No other items of optional equipment are included in calculating the accessory weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.

The "production options weight" means the combined weight of all items of optional equipment that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The weight of the item of optional equipment is more than five pounds greater than the weight of the item of standard equipment that it replaces:

(2) The optional equipment is present on the vehicle in question: and

(3) The weight of the optional equipment has not previously been considered in either the curb weight or the accessory weight.

Section 53 of Standard No. 110 lists the following examples of items of optional equipment whose weight might be considered when calculating the production options weight: heavy duty brakes, ride levelers, roof rack, heavy duty battery, and special trim, However, any item of optional equipment that meets the three criteria listed above would be included in calculating the production options weight, even if that item were not listed in the examples. Therefore, Mazda's understanding is correct that the weight of four-wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs ace included when calculating the production options weight.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 21, 1985

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire Selection and Rims

Dear Ms. Jones,

Mazda requests clarification and verification of selected terms that appear in FMVSS 110. Tire Selection and Rims. These relate to the definition of the various weight classifications and the inclusion of the items that compose and differentiate them.

In FMVSS 110.3, the terms "accessory weight", "curb weight", "vehicle capacity weight" and "production options weight are defined and used to classify various vehicle configuration weights. These vehicle configuration weights, the "vehicle maximum load on the tire" and the "vehicle normal load on the tire" are then applied to the load capacities of the tire selected for that vehicle to insure adequate performance of the tire under foreseeable vehicle operating conditions. The principle areas of difference between the two are: specified cargo weight, luggage weight, difference in occupant weight dependent on the difference in the total number of designated seating positions and the number of seating positions cited in Table I, and production options weight.

Mazda's central area of interest in these definitions lies in the components that must be included in the "curb weight", "accessory weight" and the "production options weight". It is Mazda's understanding that the components listed in the definition of "curb weight" and "accessory weight" are limited to only those components actually specified,,such as standard equipment, heavier optional engines, automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, etc.; and no additional components. Conversely. the "production options weight" definition is understood to contain only a partial listing of the many different components, excluding only those specifically referenced in the "curb weight" and "accessory weight", that may be installed on a vehicle. Some examples of components not referenced that may, by means of Mazda's current understanding of the definitions, be included in the "production options weight" are: four wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs.

Please review our understanding of these terms and verify that they are accurate. Also, please comment on any factors that have not been discussed that may influence the determinations of the Agency and the application by manufacturers of these definitions.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

M. Hayashibara Managing Director Certification Business Division

ID: nht93-7.44

DATE: October 29, 1993

FROM: John B. Walsh -- Legal Affairs Manager, Corporate Attorney, American Suzuki Motor Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 208 - Sun Visor Label

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/4/93 from John Womack to John B. Walsh (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

American Suzuki Motor Corporation ("ASMC") requests an interpretation of FMVSS 208 regarding the sun visor label requirements issued by NHTSA on September 2, 1993 (Docket No. 74-14; Notice 82). I understand that the agency discussed this final rule at the most recent NHTSA/Industry public meeting and announced that the agency plans to respond to several pending requests for interpretation of the new rule at the same time that the agency responds to the pending petitions for reconsideration of the rule. ASMC respectfully suggests that its interpretation request contained in this letter could appropriately be handled in the same fashion. Although ASMC has framed this request as seeking an interpretation of the rule, ASMC would not object if NHTSA were to conclude that this request should be handled instead by means of an amendment to the final rule issued in the course of responding to the petitions for reconsideration.

1. Specifically, ASMC requests an very limited interpretation that use of the signal word Warning, but no other word, complies with the requirement to use the signal word Caution for the sun visor label specified in S4.5.1(b)(1).

Discussion

a. The interpretation requested by ASMC conforms with the agency's concern that consistent information and instructions on sun visor labels be presented in a consistent format. All vehicles will bear uniform labels, with the only potential difference being the signal word used. Every signal word will be either Warning or Caution, consistent with the manufacturer's use of those signal words on other vehicle labels and in the vehicle owner's manual. Vehicle occupants will be constantly exposed to the same list of do's and don't's regardless of vehicle manufacturer, and will not be confused by the manufacturer's use of the appropriate signal word.

b. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z535.4-1991, Product Safety Signs and Labels, specifies that Warning or Caution (or Danger) be used as a signal word to indicate risk of personal injury. The ANSI Standard specifies that Warning be used to alert product users to non-imminent risks of serious injury or death. The language from the Standard is:

4.15 Signal Word. The word or words that designate a degree or level of hazard seriousness. The signal words for product safety signs are DANGER, WARNING, and CAUTION.

4.15.1 DANGER indicates an imminently hazardous situation which, if not avoided, will result in death or serious injury. This signal word is to be limited to the most extreme situations.

4.15.2 WARNING indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury.

4.15.3 CAUTION indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, may result in minor or moderate injury. It may also be used to alert against unsafe practices.

Note: DANGER or WARNING should not be considered for property damage accidents unless personal injury risk appropriate to these levels is also involved. CAUTION is permitted for property-damage-only accidents.

If NHTSA permits use of the signal word "Warning" on the air bag sun visor label, this will be consistent with a national effort toward uniformity in safety labeling of products.

c. Many motor vehicle manufacturers currently use the word "Warning," rather than, or in addition to, the word "Caution", as a signal word in owner's manuals or on vehicle labels indicating risk of personal injury. A brief review of a small sample of 1991 through 1993 owner's manuals reveals that Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, Volvo, Saab, and Suzuki are in this group. Allowing manufacturers to use the signal word "Warning" on the air bag sun visor label would contribute to motor vehicle safety by assuring that occupants of vehicles already employing the word "Warning" for risks of personal injury will be provided with consistent messages about such risks.

d. In the preamble to the Final Rule, NHTSA relates that several commenters referred to various label statements as "warnings." Use of the word Warning as a signal word will not cause any confusion about the nature of the label, as Warning clearly indicates something related to a potential hazard.

2. In addition to the interpretation requested above, ASMC offers the following comment in support of the petitions for reconsideration submitted by General Motors and Ford regarding a change in the final rule to permit placement of the Part 575.105 label on the driver's sun visor.

Discussion

a. It is consistent with motor vehicle safety to permit two labels required by NHTSA to appear on the same portion of a motor vehicle. NHTSA has required both labels. The air bag label must be on the sun visor. The utility vehicle label would be permitted to be on the driver's sun visor, absent the prohibition of S4.5.1(b)(2). NHTSA can resolve the conflict by amending the FMVSS 208 final rule to permit the utility vehicle label to be placed on the driver's sun visor.

b. Having two labels on the sun visor will not cause information overload. The two labels relate to two different aspects of vehicle

use - basic do's and don't's that occupants should follow to obtain maximum protection from air bags, and an alert for drivers of utility vehicles to follow when driving utility vehicles on paved roads. Both labels will be present in air bag-equipped utility vehicles pursuant to regulation, so the utility vehicle label should not be banished from the sun visor because the manufacturer has installed an air bag. Encountering two required labels on two separate parts of the vehicle interior causes no more information overload than encountering the same two labels on the sun visor.

Thank you for considering this request for interpretation and this comment.

ID: 07-003545as

ID: nht87-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 7, 1987

FROM: EAST, MORRIS -- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR-LOUISIANA BUREAU OF SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MARCH 16, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO EAST

TEXT: This request for an opinion concerns the interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to school buses.

One of our local school systems has requested an opinion with respect to the changing of a school bus body from one chassis frame to another chassis frame. As we understand it, they intent to remove the bus body from an existing chassis and and place tha t body onto a new chassis. The work would be performed by the local school system's school bus maintenance shop. The shop has the facilities to perform most bus body repairs. We fully understand that Congress has placed the responsibility for overseei ng the manufacture of school buses with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Therefore, we are asking for an opinion from your office concerning this matter. Specifically we need an answer to the following questions:

1. Is is permissible under the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bu s chassis? Would this action violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220 and 221)?

2. If permitted, can the work described in 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehicle repair shops su ch as bus body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

3. If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

Your timely answer to the above questions will assist us in expediting our response to the local school board and will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht81-2.29

DATE: 05/27/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 27 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Jim Tydings Thomas Built Buses, Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your April 14, 1981, letter asking whether a fold-up seat that you plan to build in a school bus would comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You state in your letter that the seat would comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. If the seat complies with that standard and if its location in the bus will not interfere with the requirements applicable to emergency exits, then the seat should comply with all of the Federal safety standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 14, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 S.W. 7th St. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Roger Tilton

Subject: FMVSS 217-76, Bus Window Retention and Release

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Enclosed is our print #46-009627, Sketch - Fold Up Seat Cushion at Emergency Exit, plus photos.

This print shows a side (left) emergency exit and the location of a seat wherein the cushion is spring loaded to maintain the cushion in an upright position when the seat is unoccupied.

The advantage being that this seat configuration provides greater egress to the side door. This seat naturally would meet all requirements of FMVSS-222 School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

It is our opinion that this arrangement meets the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Standards.

We would appreciate it if you would review this material and advise us of your conclusions.

Thanking you in advance, I remain

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

Jim Tydings, Specifications Engineer

JT/jf

Enclosure

ID: nht93-8.30

DATE: November 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack McIntyre -- Vice President, Tie Tech Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/15/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack and (OCC-9123) and letter dated 8/18/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you withdrew your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead.

You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair.

Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position...." That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards.

I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.7

DATE: 10/26/92

FROM: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER, INC.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-24-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO KENNETH W. WEBSTER II (A40; STD. 124)

TEXT: Thank you for your response concerning the FMVSS 114. We appreciate the time an efforts of the Chief Council to reach a decision concerning the letters we have mailed recently. This correspondence should be the our last request for the present time.

This correspondence is a request for clarification of CFR Title 49, Part 571.124, Paragraph S5 (FMVSS 124, "Accelerator Control Systems"). The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) has performed the FMVSS 124 tests on passenger cars at the lowest extreme temperature of -40 degrees F. In some cases it becomes very difficult or impossible to start a test vehicle after a 12 hour soak at -40 degrees F. Paragraph S5 specifies that the engine must be running under any load condition during the test performance. If all cold starting improvements have been incorporated but the engine will not start at the -40 degrees F test condition, which of the following would be correct:

(1) Test with engine not running at the -40 degrees F test condition.

(2) Raise temperature until engine will start. Record test temperature and perform test.

If number one is correct, does the vehicle fail if the time is greater than the requirement even though the vehicle meets the requirement at a slightly higher temperature with the engine running?

If number two is correct, what would be the allowable low temperature range in which the vehicle must be started and tested to check compliance?

If neither is correct, please indicate proper measures that must be taken in this situation. A manufacturer has indicated that the "due care" clause is not an acceptable explanation of actions to take in this case.

Please provide TRC a response in writing, regarding the Chief Council's position. If you have any questions or require further information before you can determine a position, please contact the undersigned at (513) 666-2011. We thank you in advance for your expeditious reply.

ID: nht90-1.54

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 22, 1990

FROM: Keith D. Kroll -- Vice President, Engineering., Hehr International. Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-13-90 To Keith D. Kroll and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; Std.217); Also attached to letter dated 1-26-90 To John G. Sims and From Stephen P. Wood

TEXT:

Hehr International, Inc. manufactures windows and emergency exit windows for buses. We are looking for clarification of the marking of and operating instructions for window emergency exits; specifically, the requirements of paragraphs S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 o f Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Per paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS 217, "...and each push-out window or other emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit" followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism." We interpret this as two labels; one designating the "Emergency Exit" and the other giving unlatching instructions located 6 inches from the latch/es.

With this interpretation, it follows that the legibility requirements of paragraph S5.5.2 apply only to the "Emergency Exit" marking and not to the unlatching instructions. Additionally, S5.5.2 requires the marking must be legible from the aisle with the seats occupied. Again, we interpret this to apply to the "Emergency Exit" marking only. There are many seating configurations where the latch and unlatching instructions (6 " from the latch) are not visible from the aisle because the "adjacent seat" passenger totally covers them.

Our position has, on numerous occasions, been discussed with NHTSA engineers. The most recent was 23 October 1989 with Jeff Jiusippe who further reviewed this with his supervisor, Mr. Robert Kraus, and called back the same day stating that they (NHTSA) a greed with our position.

We receive numerous calls from our various bus window customers on the legibility of the 'unlatching instructions' to which we respond with our position that the 'unlatching instructions' do not have to meet the legibility requirements of paragraph S5.5. 2; S5.5.2 applies to the exit identification only.

We request your written concurrance with the preceeding interpretation of FMVSS paragraphs S5.5.1 and S5.5.2.