ID: nht95-5.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 26, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Jane Thornton Mastrucci, Esq. -- Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/08/95 letter from Jane Thornton Mastrucci to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet "all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars." As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the o nly way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are pres ently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies.

Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsibl e for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs.

In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars an d MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars.

However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but spec ifies different requirements for each vehicle type.

There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, yo u should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN) , which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 26, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Jane Thornton Mastrucci, Esq. -- Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/08/95 letter from Jane Thornton Mastrucci to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet "all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars." As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the only way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are presently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies.

Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs.

In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars.

However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but specifies different requirements for each vehicle type.

There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, you should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN), which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.60

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 16, 1990

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Reference: 49 CFR, Part 571.221 School Bus Body Joint Strength

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-14-91 from Paul J. Rice to Thomas D. Turner (A37; Std. 221); Also attached to undated letter from Frank Berndt to W.G. Milby; Also attached to letter dated 3-18-77 from Frank Berndt to W.G. Milby

TEXT:

Section S4 of the referenced standard provides the following definition:

"Body panel joint" means the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, excluding spaces designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, and excluding doors, windows, and maintenance access pa nels.

In an April 26, 1976 letter to Blue Bird (reference N40-30) NHTSA stated: "Your assumption that components located entirely below the level of the floor line are not subject to the standard is correct."

The enclosed drawing 1519834 illustrates the joints of a Blue Bird stepwell to the Number 1 and 2 floor sections. Since the stepwell is a space designed for a functional purpose, it is our understanding that it is excluded from the requirements of the s tandard. The fact that the actual joint and all components of the stepwell are located entirely below the level of the floor line also constitutes the basis for exemption from the standard.

Based on these facts, it is Blue Bird's interpretation that the joints of the stepwell to the floor sections, as shown in drawing 1519834 are not subject to the joint strength requirements of FMVSS 221. We request your early consideration of this matter and confirmation that our interpretation is correct.

Attachment

Correspondence Log Wednesday 09/19/90 11:41 am For: BURRILL, Peggy Entry Number: 5110 Date Received: 08/21/90

Correspondence Date: 08/16/90 Entry Type: LTR Received from Company: Blue Bird Person: Thomas D. TurnerRE: Req. interpretation of FMVSS 221 as it pertains to the stepwell. See attached drawing 1519834 Routed to: NCC-20 *** 8/21/90 Follow up date: 10/09/90 Response date: / / Referred to: DG Filed:

ID: 1988y

Mr. Dan Trexler
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Trexler:

This is in reply to your letter of May 8, l989, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Erika Jones. You have received requests "to install a master electrical disconnect switch on many buses." When the switch is turned to the "off" position "it renders inoperative the warning signals (to the driver) required by FMVSS l05, 121 and 217. It also inactivates the hazard warning flasher required by FMVSS l08." You ask whether installation of the switch would constitute a noncompliance, or a "safety related hazard." if it is accessible to the seated driver, or if remotely located in the battery or engine compartment, without ready access to the driver.

Although you have not explained the purpose of such a device, we understand that a battery disconnect switch of this nature is deemed desirable by many bus owners to prevent drains on the battery when the bus is at rest. When the switch is activated, the bus cannot be started and driven because electric power is not available. Under this circumstance we do not believe that the switch either creates a noncompliance with any of the standards listed, nor constitutes a safety related defect, regardless of its location. When the bus is in operation the warning systems of the standards are not affected. The possibility of inadvertent activation when the bus is in use does not constitute a defect in performance, construction, components, or materials such as to create a safety related defect. To forestall any possibility of inadvertent activation, however, you may find it preferable to locate the switch away from the driver.

We understand that a purpose of this switch is to reduce the likelihood of fire after accidents in which there has been fuel spillage. In this circumstance, it is likely that the bus would be positioned either in the roadway or adjacent to it. Safety would be enhanced if the hazard warning signal power source were separate from the batteries inactivated by the disconnect switch, so that these warning lamps could continue to operate.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:VSA#l04#l08#l2l#2l7 d:8/30/89

ID: nht80-2.50

DATE: 06/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yarbrough manufacturing Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm your telephone conversation of April 23, 1980, with Mr. Nelson Erickson of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 - Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

YARBROUGH MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC.

March 24, 1980

Nelson Erickson -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT

RE: FMVSS No. 115. VIN for trailers to tow Boats, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Utility and similar items.

Dear Sir:

Last week, we discussed by phone the information needed to properly complete section 2 of the new vehicle identification number. I have put together the data on our trailers with a sample serial number. Will you please review this information and let me know if it complies with all the provisions of No. 115 concerning our type of trailers.

Enclosures:

1. Sample serial number

2. Part number information to be used for section 2 of VIN.

3. Information on model designations with examples and explanations.

4. Coded locations of assembly points where serial numbers are assigned and affixed to trailers. For use in 2nd Character of section 3.

5. Sales literature with specifications

Our engineering department would keep your files updated with information on new models added to our line.

Since we begin assigning new serial numbers in July of each year, I would appreciate receiving your written comments as soon as possible. If you would prefer to discuss any of this by phone, please call me at 1-800-433-8863.

Sincerely,

Milton M. Singleton, Vice President

[Enclosures Omitted.]

ID: nht81-1.28

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Smith Industries Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. W. W. Bischoff Divisional Technical Director Smith Industries Limited Vehicle Instrumentation Division Cricklewood Works, London, England NW2 6NN

Dear Mr. Bischoff:

This responds to your letter of January 28, 1981 to John W. Carson regarding Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. You asked whether the encapsulation requirements of this standard (S4.2.5.2) are satisfied if a speedometer is housed in a metal case and sealed by a window and a spun-over metal bezel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.) to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination.

The agency is willing to offer an opinion on whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. Such an opinion is not binding on the agency or on the manufacturer. However, the information you have provided in your letter does not give us a sufficient basis on which to form an opinion. We must see the equipment in question, or at least pictures or drawings of the equipment design, to render a judgment.

Please contact this office if you have more questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

28th January 1981

Mr. John W. Carson, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Sir,

Re: FMVSS 127, Speedometers and Odometers Final Rule (Docket 76-06, Notice 9)

Please advise by return whether the odometer tamper resistant requirement is satisfied relative to the 'Access to the odometer requirement', for a speedometer housed in a metal case and sealed by a window and spun over metal bezel.

Thank you.

Yours truly, for: Smiths Industries Limited

W.W. BISCHOFF Divisional Technical Director

ID: nht74-1.5

DATE: 09/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Technical Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 (ZTV) Sep 19 1974

Mr. Bernard Belier U.S. Resident Engineer for Citroen, S.A. U.S. Technical Research Corporation 801 Second Avenue New York, New York 10017

Dear Mr. Belier:

This is in further reply to the petition of November 16, 1973, by Citroen, S. A. for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

The petition has been thoroughly reviewed by engineering and legal staff personnel of this agency. Before a recommendation is made to the Administrator on the merits of your petition, we request that you furnish further information to us.

First of all, NHTSA is interested in obtaining any available data which will support the contention that the Citroen central power braking system provides a level of safety equivalent to a fully split system with indefinite residual failure mode performance such as is currently required by FMVSS 105-75. Do the highway accident statistics provide such support? Is the incidence of accidents occurring to Citroen vehicles attributable in whole or part to brake failures significantly different from the norm for other European passenger cars? Can it be demonstrated that when failures of the service brakes do occur in emergency situations, drivers are able to adjust their behavior patterns sufficiently quicly to bring the vehicles to a safe stop using the hand operated emergency brakes?

We wuld also like Citroen to provide data to substantiate that the "emergency" system can meet the deceleration requirement of 10 fpsps. What are Citroen's views on an appropriate burnish procedure for testing the emergency braking system? In addition to this, can the 10 fpsps deceleration requirement be achieved using the service brakes with a subsystem accumulator depleted?

Finally, we request data on the costs and leadtime required for Citroen to convert the single central power system to a dual, or full split system.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Maurice Clavel Assistant to the President S.A. Automobiles Citroen

ID: nht78-3.6

DATE: 09/07/78

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

TO: Motorcycle Trades Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the "edge treatment" requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, as they would apply to rigid or flexible plastics to be used for windshields on motorcycles. You asked for confirmation that one-piece plastics are required to meet the edge treatment requirements set forth in the standard for non-laminated glass.

The edge treatment requirements of Standard No. 205 are specified in paragraph S5.2, which incorporates by reference the SAE Recommended Practice J673a, "Automotive Glazing," August 1967. The SAE Practice specifies different requirements for "tempered" and "laminated" safety glass. The agency interprets the distinctions to apply equally to plastics. Therefore, one-piece plastic materials must meet the edge treatment requirements specified for "tempered" glazing, and laminated plastics must meet the requirements specified for "laminated" glazing.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Motorcycle Trades Association, Inc.

June 13, 1978

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: FMVSS No. 205 Paragraph S 5.2

In the above-mentioned section, edges of glazing materials (except in school buses) that are exposed must meet the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J673a, August 1967.

The usual practice in the motorcycle industry is to use rigid or flexible plastics for windscreens and windshields for motorcycles. In most cases, these plastics meet the requirements of the ANSI Z26 standard in full; occasionally, these materials may use the (Illegible Word) from the chemical tests in Z26 when used in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

SAE J673a in virtually all of its wording speaks specifically of "Safety glass" and the edge treatment requirements differ for "tempered" and "laminated" materials. Please confirm for us that one-piece (that is, non-laminated) plastics materials are required to meet the edge treatment requirements set forth for non-laminated glass in the SAE standard.

Thank you for your assistance,

Bruce Henderson Vice-President, MTA

ID: nht93-7.22

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: Saburo Inui -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TO: Robert F. Hellmuth -- Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: Test Procedure for FMVSS 214

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/28/94 from John G. Womack to Saburo Inui (A42; STD 214)

TEXT: We request confirmation of our interpretation of the means to establish vehicle attitude during the testing for compliance with FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, as well as clarification of certain ambiguities in the test procedure.

S6.1, Test Weight, provides that "[e]ach passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity . . . plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added test equipment is located away from impact areas in secure places in the vehicle."

S6.2, Vehicle test attitude, defines "fully loaded condition" as the "test vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1."

The term, "fully loaded attitude," used in S6.2, is not defined.

Toyota assumes that the "test weight" described in S6.1 includes the weight of one front seat and one rear seat dummy, but it is not clear whether the "added test equipment" is added to the "test weight" or whether parts of the vehicle (weighing the same as the "added test equipment") are to be removed to keep the vehicle weight at the "test weight." It is also unclear whether the "as delivered" left-to-right attitude must be maintained when adding test equipment.

2

We also assume that the term, "fully loaded attitude," describes the attitude of the vehicle in the "fully loaded condition" defined in S6.1 (subject to the requested clarifications). Toyota requests confirmation of that interpretation.

Since these issues can affect compliance with the Standard, we request that NHTSA amend the Test Procedure to ensure that all manufacturers and laboratories employ exactly the procedures in conducting compliance testing.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Mr. Soichiro "Chuck" Okudaira of my staff at (202) 775-1707 or our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, at (703) 799-7447.

ID: nht76-4.23

DATE: 08/16/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 28, 1976, request for confirmation that a boat-carrying trailer which has a primary cargo-carrying surface less than 40 inches from the ground qualifies as a "Heavy hauler trailer", and that such trailers are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, until September 1, 1977.

"Heavy hauler trailer" is defined in the standard as follows:

"Heavy hauler trailer" means a trailer with one or more of the following characteristics:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent "front-end structure" as that term is used in @ 393.106 of this title.

The boat-carrying trailer which you describe as having a bed height of 18 3/4 inches would qualify for exemption until September 1, 1977.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

TRUCK EQUIPMENT & BODY

DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION

July 28, 1976

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

We are writing on behalf of a member company who has received a large order for some boat trailers, per the enclosed photograph.

The trailer is 42 feet in overall length, and eight feet wide. The "primary carrying surface" is 18 3/4 inches high, although the gooseneck portion at the front of the trailer is 48 inches high and 79 inches long. The vehicle will be equipped with 12 1/4 inch by 5 inch air brakes.

We agree with our member that this unit is exempt from FMVSS 121, since it meets the definition of a "heavy-hauler trailer". However the member would appreciate your agreement just to be on the safe side.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

THOMAS S. PIERATT/LW -- Executive Director

Enclosure:

[Graphics omitted]