ID: aiam2550

Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your December 10, 1976, petition to amend Standard No 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. In your petition you request that the NHTSA withdraw the requirements for seat belts in buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Secondly, you suggest that the NHTSA reconsider the validity of establishing 10,000 pounds GVWR as the dividing line between buses that must be equipped with seat belts and those which need not be so equipped. The NHTSA denies your requested rulemaking.; The NHTSA mandated the installation of seat belts in school buses wit GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, because these vehicles are subject to different crash pulses than larger school buses under the same accident circumstances. To ensure adequate protection for children transported in these vehicles, the NHTSA applied to small school buses some of the seating requirements mandated for larger buses plus the installation of seat belts. Since we are aware of no data indicating that small buses do not need the additional protection provided by seat belts, the NHTSA considers the provision of seat belts in these school buses to be a necessary safety requirement.; The second recommendation in your petition suggests that the NHTS classification of vehicles into two groups, one with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less and another with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds, is arbitrary. You indicate that a vehicle weighing slightly more than 10,000 pounds will not react in a crash situation significantly different than a vehicle slightly under 10,000 pounds. Accordingly, you suggest that there is no valid reason to have different requirements for buses within a relatively narrow weight range.; The NHTSA has historically classified vehicles into the two weigh groupings you mention. This has been done in part because there are significant differences between large and small vehicles with respect to their reactions in crashes. The agency realizes that any line differentiating the two classes may seem arbitrary to manufacturers of vehicles that fall barely on either side of the line. Arguably, these vehicles, similar in many respects, would exhibit only minor differences in crash pulse in any given accident situation. Nonetheless, the classification is valid for the majority of vehicles in each class. Since we are aware of no data that would indicate that a line could better be drawn elsewhere, the NHTSA has decided to retain the present classification.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam3154

Dear Mr. Louis:#I regret the delay in responding to your lette requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. The answers to your specific questions appear below.#*Section 5.2.2*#*Question 1*:Is the expression 'word form' met when using the following abbreviations?#>>>HI for High#LO for Low<<<#*Answer*: The requirement in section 5.2.2 that identification of the heating and air conditioning control shall be in 'word form unless color coding is used' does not preclude the use of readily understandable abbreviations. Therefore, the abbreviations shown above may be used.#*Question 2*: Can we use the arrow symbols corresponding to air directed either on the windshield or the feet for heater and ventilation controls?#*Answer*: Section S5.2.2 of Safety Standard 101-80 states that:#>>>Identification shall be provided for each function of any .... heating and air condition system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used.<<<#If, when you speak of directing air on the windshield you are referring to the function performed by a windshield defrosting and defogging system, the control for that system must be identified by use of the symbol shown in Table 1, Column 3 of Safety Standard 101-80. If this is not what you are referring to, any symbol which you use for identification of the control must be accompanied by an identifying word or words or by a readily understood abbreviation or abbreviations unless color coding is used. The same would be true with respect to the identification of a control which directs air from the heater to the feet since Safety Standard 101-80 does not currently specify a symbol for this type of control. Please note, that although section 5.2.2 permits the use of color coding, generally color coding has been used only to identify the extreme positions of a control that regulates temperature over a quantitative range.#*Section 5.3.2*#*Question 1*: What meaning should we give to the expression, 'each discrete and distinct telltale'?#*Answer*: Section 4 of Safety Standard 101-80 defines the word 'telltale' as 'a display that indicates, by means of a light-emitting signal, the actuation of a device, a correct or defective functioning or condition, or a failure to function.' A discrete and distinct telltale is a display that indicates the actuation, correct or defective functioning condition, or a failure to function of *a single* automotive device, system or function.#*Question 2*: Does 'in conjunction' imply that the indicator light and the indicator be joint or directly beside one another?#*Answer*: Safety Standard 101-80 states that: 'any telltale used in conjunction with a gauge need not be identified.' This means that any telltale (what you have referred to as an indicator light) that is an integral part of a gauge (what you have referred to as an indicator) need not be identified. For example, a telltale placed on the fuel gauge to indicate low fuel would not have to be identified by use of the symbol indicated in Table 2 Column 4 of Safety Standard 101-80. However, the gauge itself must be identified by that symbol. If the telltale were placed elsewhere, it would have to be identified by the symbol indicated in Table 2, Column 4.#*Section 5.3.3*#*Question 1*: In this paragraph there is no indication of the number of rheostats required to regulate the luminous intensity of the different instruments.#*Answer*: The number of rheostats to be used is left to the discretion of the manufacturer.#*Question 2*: What is to be understood by 'any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment'?#*Answer*: This phrase refers to any passenger compartment lighting regardless of its source or purpose, which is activated when and only when the headlights are activated. This interpretation is based upon the language of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80 and upon the discussion in the preamble of the notice of proposed rulemaking that proceeded the final promulgation of Safety Standard 101-80. (41 FR 46460, October 21, 1976). The preamble of this notice states that the variable lighting requirements are meant to satisfy the need to enable drivers to reduce glare in the passenger compartment and that their application was expanded in order to include all illumination activated by the headlights 'regardless of whether it shines upon a control [or] display.'#Consequently, such items as a green ring encircling the cigarette lighter, the power window switches and the electric clock encased in the dashboard would be subject to the variable illumination requirements if those items are activated when and only when the headlights are activated.#*Question 3*: Does the phrase 'when and only when the headlights are activated,' include the 'on' parking lamps position of the switch?#*Answer*: This phrase refers only to the situation where the headlight switch is in that position which activates the headlights regardless of what other lights may be activated when the switch is placed in this position. The phrase does not refer to the situation where the headlight switch is in the position which activates only the parking lamps.#*Table 1*#*Question 1*: How must we define 'key locking system' as used in this standard?#Does this expression imply a notion of anti-theft, or does it apply only to a control by key of starting up the engine and/or shutting off the engine without any interaction with an anti-theft locking control on the steering column or the transmission, for example.#*Answer*: The key locking system is the one referred to in section S4.1 of Safety Standard 114. It states that:#>>>Each passenger car shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed will prevent (a) Normal activation of the car's engine or other main source of motive power, and (b) Either steering or forward self- mobility of the car, or both.<<<#Table 1 of Safety Standard 101- 80 indicates that the identifying words 'engine start' and 'engine stop' must be used when the engine control is separate from the key locking system. These identifying words would have to be used, for example, in a vehicle in which starting or stopping the engine required both insertion or removal of the key and use of a separate control designed to start or stop the engine.#I hope that you will find these responses helpful. If you have any further questions please feel free to address them to Ms. Debra Weiner of my office.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2872

Dear Mr. Kerr: This responds to your June 27, 1978, letter concerning the requirement of Safety Standard No. 207 as they would apply to pedestal seat assemblies for use in van vehicles. You ask whether your test methodology is consistent with the requirements of the standard and whether the pedestal base is considered part of the seat assembly.; As you know, the agency does not approve a manufacturer's test methods A manufacturer must exercise due care to ascertain that his product is in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. While your test methods appear to be reasonable, the agency will test seats in the vehicle rather than on a surrogate test frame. You must exercise due care to assure that your simulated test is a true determination whether the seats would comply with the standard when tested as provided in that standard. (The vehicle manufacturer is, of course, responsible for compliance with Standard 207.); Regarding your second question, the pedestal base would be considere part of the seat assembly for purposes of Standard 207. This means that the agency would test the entire assembly by applying a force of 20 times the combined weight of the seat and the pedestal, contrary to your simulated test procedure of using only the weight of the seat frame and adjuster, without the pedestal base attached.; Finally, the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Bel Assembly Anchorages*, (5,000 pounds) are applied simultaneously with the force requirements in Standard No. 207, if the anchorages are connected to the vehicle seat, to the pedestal, or to the pedestal base.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions, an please excuse the delay in this response.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2871

Dear Mr. Kerr: This responds to your June 27, 1978, letter concerning the requirement of Safety Standard No. 207 as they would apply to pedestal seat assemblies for use in van vehicles. You ask whether your test methodology is consistent with the requirements of the standard and whether the pedestal base is considered part of the seat assembly.; As you know, the agency does not approve a manufacturer's test methods A manufacturer must exercise due care to ascertain that his product is in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. While your test methods appear to be reasonable, the agency will test seats in the vehicle rather than on a surrogate test frame. You must exercise due care to assure that your simulated test is a true determination whether the seats would comply with the standard when tested as provided in that standard. (The vehicle manufacturer is, of course, responsible for compliance with Standard 207.); Regarding your second question, the pedestal base would be considere part of the seat assembly for purposes of Standard 207. This means that the agency would test the entire assembly by applying a force of 20 times the combined weight of the seat and the pedestal, contrary to your simulated test procedure of using only the weight of the seat frame and adjuster, without the pedestal base attached.; Finally, the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Bel Assembly Anchorages*, (5,000 pounds) are applied simultaneously with the force requirements in Standard No. 207, if the anchorages are connected to the vehicle seat, to the pedestal, or to the pedestal base.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions, an please excuse the delay in this response.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3035

Dear Mr. Budrodeen: This responds to your June 21, 1979, request for information on how t obtain the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) approval for a child seating device, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion, you wish to market in the United States.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *e seq*.), a copy of which is enclosed, does not authorize NHTSA to approve products. Section 114 of the Act requires 'self-certification' by manufacturers that their products comply with applicable standards.; According to your letter, the product you wish to market is 'designe primarily to raise children to see out the windows of an automobile' and is meant for children in the 5-10 year old age group. You also state that the device can be used with a lap or lap-shoulder seat belt or a child harness to restrain a child.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Seating Systems* establishes performance requirements for items of equipment used to seat a child being transported in a motor vehicle. Although the G.T.A. Booster Cushion does not have an integral restraint system, it could be covered by Standard No. 213 if it is designed to seat a *child*.; Standard No. 213 does not currently specify the size or age range o children to which the standard is applicable, while NHTSA'S proposed Standard No 213-80, a copy of which is enclosed, does specify a size range. In previously interpreting Standard No.213, however, the agency has stated that the standard is intended to apply only to child restraints or seats for children weighing 50 pounds or under.; If the G.T.A. Booster Cushion will only be used by children larger tha those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the advertisement accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for children using the seat. Further, the agency is concerned that even if the seat and advertisement clearly indicated such limitations, the G.T.S. Booster Cushion will be bought for and used by children smaller and younger than those limits. Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the recall and remedy provisions of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety- related defect in the G.T.A. Booster Cushion.; The agency is interested in learning of any test data that you hav concerning the protection provided by use of the G.T.A. Booster Cushion. In particular, the agency is interested in learning of any tests comparing the protection provided by use of the G.T.A. Booster Cushion in conjunction with a lap or lap-shoulder seat belt, with the protection provided by use of only a lap or a lap-shoulder seat belt. Copies of that information should be sent to:; >>>Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, Chief Crashworthiness Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590<<< If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3733

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1983 asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Section S4.2 of SAE Standard J588e *Turn Signal Lamps* establishes minimum distance of 4 inches from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp providing the lower beam. You believe that it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp and you have asked whether you may substitute the edge of the reflector (as shown on your drawing) to measure the dimension covered by S4.2 of J588e.; The point depicted on your drawing appears to be the inner edge of th reflector, rather than the extreme edge, nevertheless, the 'reflector edge' you have indicated is the approximate location of a retaining ring on a fully sealed headlamp, and is therefore acceptable as a measuring point under Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: K.Dziczek Part 583

ID: aiam2873

Dear Mr. Murakami'(sic) This is in response to your letter of August 30, 1978, concerning th application of the Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, pendulum test conditions to vehicles equipped with height control systems.; Part 581 requires that a vehicle meet the protective requirements o the standard when tested at unloaded vehicle weight, that is, without occupants or cargo and with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle. There is no language in the pendulum test requirements of the standard which would limit their applicability to only the ignition-on or ignition-off situation or to the recommended driving position for normal roadways. The vehicle must be capable of meeting the pendulum test requirements at all stable bumper heights possible at unloaded vehicle weight.; Thus, in the situations described in Question 1 and 2 of your letter in which an automatic height control system is employed, the vehicle must comply with the pendulum test requirements in both the ignition-on and ignition-off positions, i.e., positions (1) and (2). In the situation where vehicle height can be controlled manually as described in Questions 3 and 4 of your letter, the vehicle must comply with the standard at all possible settings, i.e., positions (1), (2) and (3). The presence of a label cautioning against operation of the vehicle in other than the position recommended for normal conditions would not alter the manufacturer's responsibility for compliance. In the case of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compliance testing (Question 5), the agency will conduct its pendulum tests with the vehicle in a stable situation at unloaded vehicle weight, but may test a particular vehicle in either the ignition-on or ignition-off condition.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-2.27

DATE: 04/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schenider; NHTSA

TO: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of February 9 and February 17, 1971, requesting a clarification of the applicability of Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation, to changeover tires.

In your letters you suggest that, for purposes of Part 574, changeover tires should be considered as used tires, because (1) as a legal matter title to both the vehicle and the tires passes to the purchaser of the vehicle at the time of purchase; (2) tire dealers generally accept changeover tires with less than 100 miles of use as trade-in tires; (3) changeover tires are considered to be used tires by the Federal Trade Commission; and (4) in most cases the tire manufacturer will not have direct contact with the tire dealer selling the changeover tires after they have been traded in by the vehicle purchaser.

We have carefully considered these points, and have determined that Part 574 is nevertheless applicable to changeover tires.

Part 574 is an integral part of the enforcement scheme for compliance with the standards and the requirements with respect to safety-related defects, and as such its coverage is intended to be coextensive with the applicability of the standards. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, or offering for sale of tires which do not conform to applicable standards. Although the Act provides that this prohibition shall not apply after the first purchase, it specifically limits this exemption to purchases made "in good faith for purposes other than resale." Therefore, the fact that title to original-equipment tires has passed to the vehicle purchaser is not controlling, because in these cases the purchaser intends to exchange the tires-- that is, he is purchasing them for the purpose of reselling them, not for using them.

If the standard were not applicable to changeover tires, tire dealers could with impunity alter these tires in a manner that would make them unsafe. A case in point is the known practice whereby dealers alter the sidewalls of tires, often changeover tires, by cutting out a groove and laminating a whitewall surface to the surface of the tire.

Another policy reason for applying Part 574 to changeover tires is that, from a safety standpoint, the person who actually is using the changeover tires on his vehicle should be the one who is notified in the event the tires are suspected of being defective.

We recognize that the Federal Trade Commission does not allow changeover tires to be sold as new tires. That agency is, however, primarily concerned with fraudulent sales, an area of concern much different from ours. The difference in the definitional categories used by the two agencies is, we feel, fully justified by their different missions.

With regard to your point that the manufacturer of the changeover tires would not have direct contact with the dealer who sells the changeover tires, I will simply say that this is true in many situations with regard to tire distribution, and we do not consider it sufficient grounds to make the regulation inapplicable to changeover tires. It does not appear to be an undue hardship for a tire dealer to obtain a form and forward the information concerning the purchaser of the tire to the tire manufacturer.

ID: nht80-3.36

DATE: 08/13/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 9, 1980, letter requesting clarification of the Federal requirements for door locks on fire trucks. Specifically, you ask whether Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206), is applicable to fire trucks.

As Mr. Oates of my office stated in his telephone conversation with you, Safety Standard No. 206 applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. Since fire trucks are not specifically exempted in the standard, they would be considered "trucks" and would have to comply with the standard. There are certain types of doors on vehicles, however, that do not have to comply with the requirements of the standard. Section S4 of the standard provides:

Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. However, components on folding doors, roll-up doors and doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors need not conform to this standard.

Therefore, certain doors on fire trucks may not be required to have locks. For example, a door leading to a cat-walk or standing area on the fire truck that contains no seating position would not have to comply with the standard. Likewise, a passenger compartment door that is readily removable would also not have to comply. I believe that many fire trucks have these type doors. You should check with your sales people to see if the vehicles they saw at the Fire

Equipment Show would qualify under the exceptions mentioned above. If you are aware of specific models that should comply with the standard but which do not, we would appreciate being apprised of that information. I hope this has clarified the requirements of the standard.