ID: nht78-4.15

DATE: 01/06/78

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

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 17, 1977, request for confirmation that the brake system of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus to be imported by AM General conforms to S5.1.4, S5.3.3, S5.3.4, S5.4, and S5.6.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. An October 17, 1977, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to Mr. Shillinger of AM General has already answered your question concerning S5.1.2.3 of the standard.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) requires, among other things, that no person manufacture or sell any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard. As the manufacturer of AM General Transit buses, I am sure you are aware that this provision makes it impossible for the NHTSA to "approve" the compliance of a brake system in advance of manufacturer of the vehicle because there can be no certainty that the vehicle as manufactured will actually comply.

In response to your statement that the bus must be tested to S5.4, @ 108(b)(2) of the Act provides that @ 108(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to any person who establishes that he did not have reason to know, in the exercise of due care, that a vehicle is not in conformity with an applicable standard. The NHTSA has always interpreted "due care" to mean that a manufacturer is free to use whatever method is reasonably calculated to assure itself that its products, if tested, would conform to the standard's requirements. Thus, dynamo-meter testing of the brakes on each bus would not be necessary if the manufacturer can, in the exercise of due care, assure itself on a reasonable basis, such as engineering calculations, that its products are capable of complying with the standard.

The NHTSA can confirm that S5.3.1 specifies that the tested vehicle be capable of stopping at least once in six stops in the specified stopping distance, within the 12-foot wide roadway, and without lockup of any wheel above 10 mph other than "controlled lockup." Section S5.3.1 specifies "no lockup" performance and can be met by any design, including one which incorporates "load sensing devices" that provide the specified performance.

Section S5.1.4 specifies "[a] pressure gauge in each service brake system . . . that indicates the service reservoir system air pressure." In the case of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus, each of the three service brake circuits must be monitored by a gauge readily visible to the driver. The agency takes no position on the wisdom of deleting pressure gauges that monitor brake chamber air pressure.

Section S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 specify minimum actuation and release times for the service brakes, measuring the time to achieve 60 p.s.i. during actuation and the time to drop from 95 p.s.i. to 5 p.s.i. during release. While these 60- and 95-p.s.i. benchmarks appear in the standard, an interpretation of them has been issued because at least one manufacturer is using a maximum air pressure that is less than the benchmarks. I enclose a copy of the clarification to answer your question.

Your question about S5.6.4 is unclear, but the NHTSA can confirm that the control lever that you showed to the NHTSA appeares to be identified in manner that specifies the method of control operation. As we understand it, the arrow suggesting clockwise rotation of the handle, in conjuction with the word "park", are intended to identify how to apply the parking brake. This interpretation only addresses an arrangement in which parking brake release is the opposite of parking brake application.

SINCERELY,

October 17, 1977 NHTSA Handling & Stability Division

Dear Mr. Perrin:

I am expressing my gratitude for your cooperation and assistance during our meeting on September 8, 1977 with Mr. Scott Shadle, M.A.N. Representatives and Westinghouse Representatives.

The following is a list by paragraph of items of FMVSS #121 discussed: S5.1.2.3 Check Valves - The use of a four-circuit protection valve in lieu of check valves as interpreted, meets the intent of the law. However, the location must be approved by NHTSA. S5.14 Gages - As interpreted, the three individual systems must have an air gage in driver's compartment.

Gages which show actual chamber pressure not required. As agreed, each of the three systems will incorporate a gage in driver's compartment and gages showing actual chamber pressure will be deleted. S5.3.3 Brake Actuation Time - As discussed, the require- ment of 0 to 60 psi in 0.45 seconds has been changed to 0 to 70% of maximum attained pressure (psi) in 0.45 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to actuation time. S5.3.4 Brake Release Time - As discussed, the release time 95-5 psig in 0.55 seconds has been changed

to maximum attainable pressure to 5 psi in 0.55 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to release time. S5.4 Service Brake System - Dynamometer Test Required to be conducted. S5.6.4 Parking Brake Control - This is related to con- figuration which will be used by Seattle-approved.

Discussion on anti-skid versus non-anti-skid:

It was pointed out that the interpretation by NHTSA that driver modulation is permissible, only one of six attempts must meet distance, 12 ft. lane and no-wheel lock up. Further, it was interpreted that load sensing brake system will meet intent of law.

I am anxiously awaiting your Department's letter indicating that the brake and air system on the Articulated Bus as discussed, to the best of your knowledge, meets the intent of FMVSS #121. However, we will ensure that certification testing is in conformance.

AM GENERAL CORPORATION

R. E. Billman Project Engineer

Attachments - 81.52100.8211 Sheet 1 81.52100.8193 Sheet 1 81.51400.8144 Sheet 3 81.99231.8779

ID: 7307-2

Mr. William E. Lawler
Manager, Specifications
Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.
18881 U.S. 31 North
P.O. Box 408
Westfield, Indiana 46074-0408

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1992, concerning the test requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your questions concern a final rule published on December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63682) clarifying the definition of "seat belt anchorage." That final rule had the effect of requiring seat belt attachment hardware, which previously was not included within the definition of "seat belt anchorage," to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 210. Your five questions are addressed below.

The first three questions refer to a safety belt design which incorporates a retractor.

l. If a test harness is used, can one end of the harness be attached to the attachment hardware (retractor frame), or must it be attached to the retractor spool?

The use of test harnesses for Standard No. 210 testing was permitted in a final rule published April 30, 1990, and effective September 1, 1992. More specifically, the final rule specified that "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" be used to transfer the test loads from the body block to the anchorages during the Standard No. 210 compliance tests. The amended standard also specifies that the attachment of this material should "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing.

The amended definition of "seat belt anchorage" explicitly states that the seat belt anchorage is

any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the retractor spool breaks during a crash, the safety belt will not remain attached to the vehicle. Therefore, the retractor spool is a part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, and, under the definition set forth above, is part of the seat belt anchorage. If a test harness is used, it must be attached such that the retractor spool is tested as part of the seat belt anchorage. The harness may not be attached directly to the retractor frame, since the retractor spool would not be tested in that instance.

2. If the harness must be attached to the spool, may it be attached around the spool as opposed to being inserted into the spool?

As stated previously, Standard No. 210 specifies use of "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" for Standard No. 210 tests. For compliance tests, NHTSA's preference is to use the original safety belt webbing whenever possible. When this cannot be done, due to elongation or breakage of the original webbing, NHTSA's first choice is to attach substitute webbing or other material to the original webbing near the anchorage. If the substitute material cannot be attached to the original webbing, NHTSA would attach the substitute webbing directly to the retractor spool. If the substitute webbing cannot be inserted into the spool in the same manner as the original webbing, attaching the substitute webbing around the spool would most closely duplicate the geometry of the original webbing.

3. We assume it is the intent of the agency to test only the strength of the attachment hardware--not the locking mechanism of the retractor built in accordance with FMVSS 209.

The strength requirement in S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that anchorages must withstand certain forces when tested under specified conditions. Under S4.2.3, permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. If breakage of the locking mechanism (a part of the anchorage because it is "involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure") caused separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, such breakage would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test, as the anchorage would not have withstood the test forces. However, if the locking mechanism broke or released during the test without allowing the webbing to separate from the vehicle structure, the agency would not consider it a failure of the strength requirement test, since the belt would still be anchored to the vehicle structure.

4. A commonly used design is the "cable buckle". The buckle assembly is positioned in convenient reach of the seat occupant by attaching the buckle to a cable by a method called swaging. The attachment hardware consists of a flat end containing a hole for an attaching bolt and a ferrule which is swaged to the cable. The ferrule and the flat end are made in one piece. Please confirm that the attachment ferrule bolted to the seat/vehicle is what is required to withstand the forces dictated by FMVSS 210; separation of the cable from the ferrule would not constitute malfunction of the test harness and not non-compliance to FMVSS 210.

In the December 5, 1991 final rule, the agency stated that "the definition of seat belt anchorage included only the attachment points of the seat belt, and not the webbing, straps, or similar device, or the buckles which comprise the seat belt itself." For this design, the cable is a "similar device" to seat belt webbing, and would be considered part of the seat belt, not the anchorage. If the cable broke, the agency would consider that an incomplete test, just like breakage of webbing. However, it would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test if the cable pulled out of the ferrule, since such pulling out would result from a failure of the ferrule rather than a broken cable.

5. Please confirm that the test harness could delete the buckle mechanism and attach directly to the upper end of the cable in the cable/ferrule assembly.

The answer to this question is yes. As stated previously, buckles are part of the seat belt, not the anchorage, and therefore, are not subject to the strength requirement of Standard No. 210.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:210 d:7/23/92

ID: nht91-1.23

DATE: January 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John K. Roberts -- Vice President, Muth Advanced Technologies

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-29-90 to Richard Van Iderstine from John K. Roberts (OCC-5511)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You are developing a "Stop Turn Mirror" (STM) which you intend to be used "in combination with (or possibly in place of) center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's). The STM is so designed that it appears as a mirror to a vehicle operator, but as a stop and turn signal indication system to the operator of a following vehicle.

You have not provided us with a picture of the STM, and we are unable to tell from your letter and description sheet whether the STM is intended to be mounted as an interior rear view mirror, or as an exterior one. As a surrogate for the CHMSL, it would appear to be intended for installation as an interior rear view mirror. However, as a stop and turn signal system, the STM would appear more appropriate as two exterior mirrors mounted on either side of the vehicle. Nevertheless, we shall try to answer your questions on the basis of the information available to us.

Your first question is:

"(1) If the STM satisfies the current explicit requirements of FMVSS 111 and 108, is there further NHTSA approval we should seek before fielding the device?"

NHTSA does not "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment such as the STM. It will advise whether the equipment is permitted or not permitted by Federal laws, standards, or other regulations. If the equipment is permitted, then it may be manufactured and sold. However, it is the inquirer's responsibility to determine if there are any State and local restrictions on use of the equipment.

For the reasons expressed below, we have serious reservations whether the STM could meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. There is no requirement that a CHMSL be mounted on the rear of a vehicle or in the rear window. STM theoretically could fulfill the requirements for CHMSL's if combined with an interior rear view mirror conventionally placed in the center of the windshield area. In this location, it would appear to be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle as seen from the rear, as the standard requires. The STM will not be perceived by the driver as anything but a mirror; however it must also fulfill the requirement that light from it falling on the rear glazing not reflect back into the mirror, or, in the words of Standard No. 108 that means have been "provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rear view mirror." Most importantly, the STM must fulfill the photometric requirements and visibility requirements of center high-mounted stop

lamps. Compliance with these requirements is determined with the lamp mounted on or in the vehicle. Because of the different designs of back windows and adjacent "C" pillars in cars, and the distance of the STM from the back window, we believe that compliance with all applicable requirements would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Standard No. 108 does prohibit the physical combination of the required CHMSL with any other lamp or reflective device. A mirror is not a "reflective device" for purposes of Standard No. 108. Thus the question would be whether the turn signal functions of the STM are clearly separated from the stop function so that the question does not arise as to whether they are combined.

If the STM iS intended to be mounted as one or both exterior rear view mirrors it would not meet the location requirement, and could not be used as a substitute for the required CHMSL. Under Standard No. 108 it would be permissible as supplementary lighting equipment as long as it did not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, in its role as a supplementary stop/turn signal lamp system, we do not consider that the STM would impair the effectiveness of the original stop/turn signal lamp system.

"(2) Would it be reasonable for us to apply for a variance or to seek a change in FMVSS 108, if the STM doesn't meet the letter of FMVSS 106 in certain applications, but demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the standard."

"Variances", or exemptions from one or more requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard are only granted to manufacturers of motor vehicles. We have no authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer.

As for seeking a change in Standard No. 108, while any person may file a petition for rulemaking to change a standard, I have no reason to believe that the agency would look favorably on allowing the CHMSL to be combined with a turn signal lamp, or require use of the STM as standard equipment in place of the present CHMSL.

"(3) Before a pickup truck standard is published, would it be possible to certify the STM as a compliant device and ensure that the wording of the new rule doesn't needlessly prohibit utilization of STM's?"

It is a legal impossibility to certify something as a compliant device before the requirements for that device have been formally adopted, and the effective date established for compliance. We anticipate the "pickup truck standard" as you call it will be published sometime in January 1991. If you find that it prohibits utilization of the STM you may file a petition for reconsideration of the rule with the agency within 30 days after its publication.

" (4) Is it possible that someone at NHTSA would like to see this thing or test it before we go too far in our development and larketing? It may be a useful development in vehicle safety devices with importance to industry and the public. It also may be a ready solution to the difficult issue of requiring CHMSL's on pick-up trucks. We would be happy to support

any such investigative effort by supplying a model, information, etc.

We appreciate but decline your offer. The agency is satisfied that its forthcoming rule achieves a reasonable solution to the issue of CHMSL's on pickup trucks. The agency's resources are limited, and must be deployed in areas where there is a reasonable possibility that a mandatory safety standard may result as a consequence of its investigative efforts. Given the facts that the STM addresses an area of safety that is already covered by the CHMSL, and that any safety benefits of the STM remain speculative while those of the CHMSL are well demonstrated, there is no reasonable possibility that the STM would become a mandatory requirement of this agency.

ID: nht92-5.12

DATE: July 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William E. Lawler -- Manager, Specifications, Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/92 from William E. Lawler to Mary Versailles (OCC 7307)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1992, concerning the test requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your questions concern a final rule published on December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63682) clarifying the definition of "seat belt anchorage." That final rule had the effect of requiring seat belt attachment hardware, which previously was not included within the definition of "seat belt anchorage," to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 210. Your five questions are addressed below.

The first three questions refer to a safety belt design which incorporates a retractor.

1. If a test harness is used, can one end of the harness be attached to the attachment hardware (retractor frame), or must it be attached to the retractor spool?

The use of test harnesses for Standard No. 210 testing was permitted in a final rule published April 30, 1990, and effective September 1, 1992. More specifically, the final rule specified that "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" be used to transfer the test loads from the body block to the anchorages during the Standard No. 210 compliance tests. The amended standard also specifies that the attachment of this material should "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing.

The amended definition of "seat belt anchorage" explicitly states that the seat belt anchorage is

any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the retractor spool breaks during a crash, the safety belt will not remain attached to the vehicle. Therefore, the retractor spool is a part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, and, under the definition set forth above, is part of the seat belt anchorage. If a test harness is used, it must be attached such that the retractor spool is tested as part of the seat belt anchorage. The harness may not be attached directly to the retractor frame, since the retractor spool would not be tested in that instance.

2. If the harness must be attached to the spool, may it be attached around the spool as opposed to being inserted into the spool?

As stated previously, Standard No. 210 specifies use of "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" for Standard No. 210 tests. For compliance tests, NHTSA's preference is to use the original safety belt webbing whenever possible. When this cannot be done, due to elongation or breakage of the original webbing, NHTSA's first choice is to attach substitute webbing or other material to the original webbing near the anchorage. If the substitute material cannot be attached to the original webbing, NHTSA would attach the substitute webbing directly to the retractor spool. If the substitute webbing cannot be inserted into the spool in the same manner as the original webbing, attaching the substitute webbing around the spool would most closely duplicate the geometry of the original webbing.

3. We assume it is the intent of the agency to test only the strength of the attachment hardware--not the locking mechanism of the retractor built in accordance with FMVSS 209.

The strength requirement in S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that anchorages must withstand certain forces when tested under specified conditions. Under S4.2.3, permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. If breakage of the locking mechanism (a part of the anchorage because it is "involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure") caused separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, such breakage would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test, as the anchorage would not have withstood the test forces. However, if the locking mechanism broke or released during the test without allowing the webbing to separate from the vehicle structure, the agency would not consider it a failure of the strength requirement test, since the belt would still be anchored to the vehicle structure.

4. A commonly used design is the "cable buckle". The buckle assembly is positioned in convenient reach of the seat occupant by attaching the buckle to a cable by a method called swaging. The attachment hardware consists of a flat end containing a hole for an attaching bolt and a ferrule which is swaged to the cable. The ferrule and the flat end are made in one piece. Please confirm that the attachment ferrule bolted to the seat/vehicle is what is required to withstand the forces dictated by FMVSS 210; separation of the cable from the ferrule would not constitute malfunction of the test harness and not non-compliance to FMVSS 210.

In the December 5, 1991 final rule, the agency stated that "the definition of seat belt anchorage included only the attachment points of the seat belt, and not the webbing, straps, or similar device, or the buckles which comprise the seat belt itself." For this design, the cable is a "similar device" to seat belt webbing, and would be considered part of the seat belt, not the anchorage. If the cable broke, the agency would consider that an incomplete test, just like breakage of webbing. However, it would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test if the cable pulled out of the ferrule, since such pulling out would result from a failure of the ferrule rather than a broken cable.

5. Please confirm that the test harness could delete the buckle mechanism and attach directly to the upper end of the cable in the cable/ferrule assembly.

The answer to this question is yes. As stated previously, buckles are part of the seat belt, not the anchorage, and therefore, are not subject to the strength requirement of Standard No. 210.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 08-003274drn driver alarm

ID: 12203.ztv

Mr. Paul G. Schoen
President
Chariot Marine Fabricators & Industrial Corp.
P.O. Box 635
West Frankfort, IL 62896

Dear Mr. Schoen:

This responds to your letter of July 15, 1996, for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 as it applies to the location of front side marker lamps and reflectors on a wide boat trailer that you manufacture. You inform us that "questions have been raised by Transport Canada" as to the location of these lamps and reflectors, and that Transport Canada has encouraged "that trailers manufactured by our company for sale in the United States be built to the same lighting specifications as the trailers our company builds for export to Canada."

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that front side marker lamps and reflectors are to be located "as far to the front as practicable." This is qualified by paragraph S5.3.1.3 which states that, on a trailer, they may be located as far to the front as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue. You tell us that in Canada, sec. 108(7)(c) of CMVSS No. 108 states that they "may be located as far forward as practicable, exclusive of the trailer tongue." The Canadian requirement in this respect appears to be identical to the requirement of the United States.

According to a letter that Canada sent you:

"the preferred location of the front side marker lamps and reflex reflectors is where the vertical load-bearing frame members meet at the furthest point forward at the center line of the trailer, at a location not less than one meter (39 in,.) and not more than 1.5 meters (60 in.) behind the coupler with the surface of the reflective device parallel to the longitudinal axis of the trailer."

At present. your company locates this equipment at points A and B, as shown in the diagrams you enclosed. In these locations, it appears that the equipment is located at points closer to the front end of the trailer than they would be under Canada's interpretation of its regulation. However, because the trailer tongue is very short, when the marker lamps are located at points A and B they will be obscured at the 45-degree visibility angle by the side of the towing vehicle, thus reducing some of their effectiveness. This problem is solved when the side marker lamp is placed in the location preferred by Canada

There are a number of areas where FMVSS No. 108 prescribes location requirements in terms of practicability, i.e.,: "as far to the front as practicable," " as far to the rear as practicable," " as far apart as practicable", and "as high as practicable." This is to afford a manufacturer maximum design freedom while indicating preferred locations for lighting equipment. It has been our practice to leave the determination of practicability to the manufacturer who, in his certification of compliance with all applicable FMVSS, certifies that it has located the equipment in accordancewith a practicability specification. It has not been the practice of the United States Government to substitute its judgment of practicability for that of the manufacturer, unless the manufacturer's determination is clearly erroneous.

Your company has previously determined that the front side marker lamps and reflectors on the trailer are "as far to the front as practicable" at Points A and B. Yet in this location the front side marker lamp cannot fully perform its function because it will be obscured at the forward 45 degree angle by the mass of the towing vehicle. Even though relocation rearward would result in the marker lamps no longer being located "as far to the front as practicable" under a literal interpretation of these words, we believe that it is a proper exercise of the manufacturer's discretion in determining practicability to locate lighting equipment where it can best fulfill its intended function. Thus, we concur with Canada's recommendation in this instance for location of the front side marker lamps 1 to 1.5 meter behind their present location at Points A and B..

However, our interpretation does not extend to the front reflex reflectors which, in our view, should remain in their present location at Points A and B. The reflectors serve the important purpose of marking the forward end of the trailer when the side marker lamps are not operating, such as when the trailer is at rest, whether or not it is attached to the towing vehicle. We assume that you are currently using a combination lamp and reflector. If this is so, you may use the same equipment in the new location, but you must provide separate reflectors at Points A and B..

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:9/10/96

ID: 10914-2

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
Post Office Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office regarding the May 9, 1995, amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. For your future reference, Mr. Myers is no longer assigned to our school bus standards. You may address requests for interpretation directly to me.

The May 9 amendment (60 FR 24562) to FMVSS No. 217 permitted, among other things, bus manufacturers to meet the additional emergency exit area (AEEA) requirements of S5.2 by permitting manufacturers to install two emergency exit windows as an alternative to an emergency exit door. You asked what the location requirements (fore and aft) are for the emergency windows that are used as the first additional emergency exit.

FMVSS No. 217 contains no explicit fore and aft location requirements for the two additional emergency exit windows. However, the intent of the final rule was to substitute the location requirements of the side exit door when the windows are used to satisfy the requirement for the first additional emergency exit. This intention is reflected in the use of the conjunctive word "or" in Tables 1 and 2 of the May 9, 1995, amendment. If a left side exit door would have been installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i), then S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires that it be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. The same fore-aft location should be used for the windows. In cases where the fore-aft location is not specified, such as a right side exit door installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b)(2)(i), then the windows should be placed so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable.

Also note the explicit location requirement in S5.2.3.2(c) that exit windows be evenly divided between the left and right sides of the bus. For example, if two exit windows are used instead of a left side exit door, they should be placed on opposite sides at the midpoint of the bus.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek at this address or by calling (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:8/4/95

ID: 10975

Helen A. Rychlewski
MGA Research Corporation
900 Mandoline Street
Madison Heights, MI 48071

Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage

the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201 d:8/4/95

ID: 11643MLS

Mr. J. Brian Powers
NGV Sales and Service Manager
BC Gas Utility Ltd.
207-4190 Lougheed Highway
Burnaby, British Columbia
Canada V5C 6A8

Dear Mr. Powers:

This responds to your letter asking whether Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks for motor vehicles in the United States require periodic hydrostatic testing. You stated that these containers had been purchased by BC gas and stored in a warehouse, but did not state the date of their manufacture. The answer is no. This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to require the periodic testing of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, after the first consumer purchase.

Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has exercised this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. One such requirement is that each new CNG container comply with a hydrostatic burst test. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with the hydrostatic burst test and the other requirements in FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to periodic hydrostatic testing (or any other periodic testing) of motor vehicles or such equipment.

I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers used to transport hazardous materials, including CNG containers. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the periodic retesting of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle.

Even though there are no Federal requirements about the periodic hydrostatic testing of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, each state has the authority to regulate motor vehicles while they are in use. Accordingly, a state could regulate the testing of CNG containers in the aftermarket.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref: 304 d:4/19/96

ID: 1984-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/19/84

FROM: ROGER HAGIE -- KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP USA

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION...FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/02/85 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO ROGER HAGIE, REDBOOK A26, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the provisions of FMVSS 108 with respect to a new headlamp design/concept under development at Kawasaki.

We are aware of the interpretation issued by your office to Koito Manufacturing Co. (letter dated July 24, 1984) in response to their request of June 21, 1984. In this interpretation, you confirmed that two headlamps, each meeting the requirements of SAE J584 may be used on a motorcycle when mounted side-by-side as described by Koito's letter.

Kawasaki wishes to clarify a question which we feel was raised by the Koito request and your response, and to further determine your position with respect to our design ideas. Concerning the Koito request, Koito stated that their "headlamp unit is optically designed to be less than 75,000 cd". It is unclear to us whether Koito was referring to the output of a single lamp in their dual-lamp system, or whether the maximum output of both lamps together would not exceed 75,000 cd. Therefore, our first question is: Does the 75,000 limit (as specified by SAE J584) apply to each lamp individually, or must the total output of both lamps be limited to 75,000 cd?

Kawasaki is considering a headlamp design that consists of two reflectors, each with its own dual-filament bulb, and each capable of independent aim, installed in a single housing, and behind a single lens. Bulbs would be a standardized, replaceable unit, accessible from the rear of the housing. The assembly would meet all of the environmental and other requirements of SAE J584 and FMVSS 108. In some respects, this unit would be similar to the headlamp design proposed by Ford and approved by NHTSA on May 20, 1983. Our questions with respect to this design are: First, is such a design acceptable for a motorcycle? Secondly, would both reflectors have to be independently aimable, or could the aiming be accomplished by moving the whole lamp assembly as long as the aiming requirements of SAE J566 and the photometric requirements of SAE J584 are met?

Kawasaki would appreciate your earliest response to these questions. Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions or if any additional information is required.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,