ID: nht78-4.28

DATE: 05/11/78

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN, JR. -- NHTSA

TO: JAMES TYDINGS -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO LT MITCHELL; REDBOOK A31, VSA 102, SEC 571; DEFINITION; STANDARD 208; 222; LETTER DATED 03/10/78 FROM JAMES TYDINGS TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE FMVSS 217, SECTION 5.2. "PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS"; LETTER DATED 08/21/87 FROM L. T. MITCHELL TO ERIKA Z. JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON FMVSS 222 ON SCHOOL BUSES WITH A GVWR OF 10,000 POUNDS OR LESS, OCC-945

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your March 10, 1978, letter asking whether you can consider a 39-inch bench-type seat in a bus as a two passenger seat when the bus is designed for adult transportation. You state in your letter that it would be possible for three 5th percentile females to sit in a seat of that width.

The establishment of designated seating positions in buses and other vehicles is done by the manufacturer of the vehicles. A manufacturer is accorded some discretion in making this determination; however, he is subject to certain limitations. For example, a manufacturer cannot understate the designated seating positions to such an extent that the vehicle is likely to carry more people than its stated capacity. In other words a manufacturer must make a good faith determination of the number of designated seating positions in its vehicles. Applying this test to a 39-inch bench seat used in buses transporting adults, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not consider it erroneous to consider these seats as two-passenger seats, because it would be extremely uncomfortable if not impossible to seat 3 adults in those seats.

ID: nht94-2.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: Michael E. Klima -- Managing Engineer, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

TO: Edward Jettner -- Safety Standards Engineer, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 208 Compliance for 1988 Pickup Trucks

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/26/94 from John Womack to Michael E. Klima (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Thank you in advance for your time and effort in responding to the following questions relating to the application of the dynamic requirements of FMVSS 208 to pickup trucks. The pickup truck in questions has a production date of April, 1988 and a GVWR o f 4,400 pounds.

Specifically, does the S6 'Injury Criteria' requirements of 49 CFR 571.208, that includes the Head Injury Criteria (HIC), apply to this 1988 model pickup truck equipped with a Type 2 lap and shoulder belt protection system for the front outboard seating positions and complies with S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3?

Secondly, is a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test required for this 1988 model pickup truck to comply with all applicable portions of 49 CFR 571.208?

Finally, do all of the requirements listed in the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? If not, which portions of 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? Is this truck in compliance with the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard if it meets or exceeds th e portions that you have identified?

I would appreciate your timely written response with regard to this matter. For your convenience a copy of the standard is enclosed. Again, thank you for your time and effort. Please contact me at (810) 649-3775 if you have any questions.

ID: nht92-8.26

DATE: March 16, 1992

FROM: Shigeyoshi Aihara -- Manager, Information Services, Ichikoh America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S7.4(i)(6)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Paul J. Rice to Shigeyoshi Aihara (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to ask for your judgment concerning fogging after humidity test of replaceable bulb headlamp specified in FMVSS No.108, paragraph S7.4(i)(6).

Paragraph S.7.4(i)(6) is defined as follows:

"After a humidity test conducted in accordance with paragraph S8.7, the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification, and the headlamp shall meet the photometric requirements applicable to the headlamp system under test."

Our questions concern the sentence "the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification, and the headlamp ---"

A drawing of our headlamp with on-board aiming system is attached to this letter. The headlamp is a vented system. The bubble indicator cover of types A and B differ as shown in the attached sketches.

Question 1: After the humidity test, both types A and B show the fogging in the location as shown in attached sketches. But, this fogging is gone at normal temperature. We think this fogging does not affect the performance of headlamp such as bubble indicator visibility, photometry and others. Is such fogging acceptable after the humidity test ?

Question 2: May we understand that "the inside of housing" means the lens and reflector portions?, or Must we understand it to mean the entire inside portion of headlamps?

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-7.17

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: Michael E. Klima -- Managing Engineer, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

TO: Edward Jettner -- Safety Standards Engineer, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 208 Compliance for 1988 Pickup Trucks

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/26/94 from John Womack to Michael E. Klima (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Thank you in advance for your time and effort in responding to the following questions relating to the application of the dynamic requirements of FMVSS 208 to pickup trucks. The pickup truck in questions has a production date of April, 1988 and a GVWR of 4,400 pounds.

Specifically, does the S6 'Injury Criteria' requirements of 49 CFR 571.208, that includes the Head Injury Criteria (HIC), apply to this 1988 model pickup truck equipped with a Type 2 lap and shoulder belt protection system for the front outboard seating positions and complies with S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3?

Secondly, is a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test required for this 1988 model pickup truck to comply with all applicable portions of 49 CFR 571.208?

Finally, do all of the requirements listed in the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? If not, which portions of 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? Is this truck in compliance with the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard if it meets or exceeds the portions that you have identified?

I would appreciate your timely written response with regard to this matter. For your convenience a copy of the standard is enclosed. Again, thank you for your time and effort. Please contact me at (810) 649-3775 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-8.36

DATE: January 31, 1994

FROM: Marc D. Marutani -- National Truck Sales Manager, ARI

TO: Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA

COPYEE: A. Crea; W. Cariss; D. Grant

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Marc D. Marutani (A42; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

As a major national fleet leasing company, ARI has a broad cross section of clients in various industries. Recently, an inquiry was received concerning the use of a Ford Econoline Wagon, and whether or not the specific usage fell within the FMVSS definition of a "school bus."

The vehicle in question would be a standard, factory-equipped fifteen passenger full-size van (commonly referred to as a "wagon" due to its primary function as passenger transport), with no after-market modifications. The client requesting the vehicle is a mental health and substance abuse facility handling adolescents on a full-time on-site basis. There is a school located on the premises, since the children reside at the location. The vehicle's purpose would primarily be used for miscellaneous transportation of juvenile patients and facility personnel, both on and off campus, as opposed to providing commuting services to and from home.

Because we interpret the FMVSS regulations regarding school buses as applying to those vehicles whose PRIMARY function is for the transporting of students to and from school and related scholastic events, we do not believe that the use of this wagon falls within that definition. However, we would appreciate your ruling on the matter for verification, and for future reference on similar transactions. If further discussion on this subject is required, I can be reached at 609-727-6995.

Thank you for your consideration.

ID: nht93-9.1

DATE: December 2, 1993

FROM: Harry C. Gough, P.E. -- Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from John Womack to Harry C. Gough (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of the State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. We are requesting a written opinion or interpretation regarding the meaning of the terms "flash alternately" or "alternately flashing" as they apply to school bus overhead signal lamps required under FMVSS #108. The terms are used in SAE Standard J887, which is incorporated by reference. The reason for the request is that a manufacturer of strobe (gaseous-discharge) lamps has supplied test documentation indicating that a system they offer complies with the mechanical, color, and intensity provisions of SAE J887 and thus comply with FMVSS #108. The system offered uses what is referred to as a quad-pulse strobe flash pattern. Effectively the lamp on one side flashes on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the bus repeats the aforementioned pattern. While the pattern is repeated alternately from side to side a question arises as to whether "alternately flashing" refers to the pattern heretofore described or do the four distinct on/off cycles on each side of the school bus defeat the intent of the term alternating.

While I realize your office is very busy with such interpretations, I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. If there are any additional questions or information required, please feel free to have your office call me at (203) 566-3754.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

ID: nht75-1.9

DATE: 10/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 16, 1975, letter to Mr. John Carson of this agency, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination. You requested an interpretation of the footnote to Table 1 of the standard which reads: "Framed areas may be filled".

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this footnote as permitting the vehicle manufacturer the option of depicting the interior of a symbol to which it applies with the same color as the boundary of the symbol, as an alternative to depicting the interior with the same color as the background. In the hazard warning signal symbol, which consists of a triangle containing a smaller triangle, only the area between the triangles is part of the interior. The center of the small triangle is part of the background. Therefore, only the first and third of the sampels submitted with your letter are permitted. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the samples indicating which ones are permitted.

SINCERELY,

September 16, 1975

John W. Carson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I am writing this letter in regard to the hazard warning signal symbol mark in FMVSS 101 which reads:

"Framed area may be filled"

I would appreciate it very much if you could choose the best sample which I have drawn below. Please check if they are good or not good.

Thank you.

(Graphics omitted)

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Naoyoshi Suzuki

Staff, Safety

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-1.14

DATE: 08/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Business

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 18, 1975, question whether S5.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, requires that the brake fluid level warning system specified by S5.3.1 be instantaneous when the brake fluid level reaches the condition described in S5.3.1(b).

The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognizes that a minimal interval between the occurrence of the specified condition and the appearance of the required signal is a physical fact. I enclose a copy of an interpretation of a similar requirement of Standard No. 105-75 for your information. In the case of the brake fluid level indicator, a time interval that is insignificant with respect to the time required to respond to the signal would be permissible.

Sincerely

Enclosure

ATTACH.

June 18, 1975

Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Specification S5.3 of Regulation FMVSS 105-75 includes a requirement of brake system indicator lamps but does not, as I read it, mention the time permitted for such devices to signal after the brake fluid has reached the "danger" level.

Must it be instaneous? If not, what time intervals at various temperatures do you consider adequate?

As a United States citizen I respectfully request your advice on this point at your early convenience.

Very truly yours,

W. J. JOYCE -- CONSULTANT, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

ID: nht95-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 3, 1995

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Exec. Dir., NYSBDA

TO: Walter Myers -- Counsel Staff, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/13/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RICHARD KREUTLIGER (A43; STD. 217; PART 571.3)

TEXT: I MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR RETURNING MY TELEPHONE CALL THIS DATE.

THE QUESTION AS POSED TO YOU ON THE TELEPHONE RELATING TO THE AMENDED FMVSS 217 PERTAINS DIRECTLY WITH THE PROTRUSION OF THE "FLIP" SEAT THAT IS POSITIONED DIRECTLY TO THE REAR OF THE LEFT SIDE (CENTER) EMERGENCY DOOR.

AS NOTED ON THE FOLLOWING DRAWING - THE BOTTOM OF THE FRAMEWORK OF THE "FLIP" SEAT DOES EXTEND BEYOND THE "DOOR OPENING". THE EXTENSION VARIES UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 3/4 INCH. EVEN WITH THIS "INVASION" OF THE DOOR OPENING THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION TO THE DOOR LATCH MECHANISM - AND A DIMENSION OF 11.75" OF CLEAR "AISLE" SPACE IS PROVIDED. THIS AISLE SPACE IS CLEAR TO THE LONGITUDINAL BODY CENTER LINE.

THE DIMENSION IS ACQUIRED THRU THE LOCATION OF THE FORWARD SEAT, IN ACTUAL PRODUCTION THE SEAT AT THE FORWARD EDGE OF THE LEFT SIDE (CENTER) EMERGENCY DOOR IS LOCATED MORE FORWARD THAN THAT AS DEPICTED FROM THE FMVSS DRAWING.

AS PER OUR VERBAL CONVERSATION - AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME OF THAT VERBAL CONVERSATION OF THE "QUESTION" YOU COMMENTED THAT "AS LONG AS THERE WAS 30 CENTIMETERS (11.7 +") THERE SHOULD BE NO SERIOUS PROBLEM OR OBJECTION".

HOPE THE WRITTEN QUESTION IS PRESENTED PROPERLY AND THAT THE FOLLOWING DRAWING IS ACCEPTABLE - THAT I CAN ASSUME TO HEAR FROM YOU WITH WRITTEN CONFIRMATION PROMPTLY.

THANK YOU.

ID: nht95-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Marshall S. Reagle -- Sate-Lite Mfg. Co.

TO: Pat Boyd -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/17/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO MARSHALL S. REAGLE (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Pat:

As I stated in my telephone conversation on Monday, February 27, 1995, I would send you a confirming letter of my interpretation of FMVSS 108 and our discussion regarding retro-reflectors.

You stated that any retro-reflector would have to be made in intervals of 4 inches. The center or 0 degree would be at the two inch mark and the reflective reading would have to comply with S5.7.2.1 (b) and (c) of FMVSS 108.

Also, that regardless of size, 4, 8, or 12 inches in length, your testing requirements and standards are strictly for a 4 inches segment, (ie. you would mask off any area of a retro-reflector other than 4 inches and test the segment alone.) The width of the retro-reflector has not been established as with sheeting, therefore, as long as the photometric requirements are achieved, the width is a variable.

Below is a sketch of how NHTSA is asking the retro-reflector to function:

TOP VIEW

45 degrees L 30 degrees L 0 degrees 30 degrees R 45 degrees R

45L-30L, 30R-45R 30L-0-30RRED 75 MILLICANDELAS/LUX RED 300 MILLECANDILAS/LUX CLR 300 " " CLR 1250 " "

Please review this letter and sketch with legal counsel as soon as possible, we would like to begin work on this project immediately.

Thank you for your time and efforts in this. I appreciate all of your input.