ID: 1983-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. I. A. Wuddel Westfalische Metall Industrie KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany

Dear Mr. Wuddel:

This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1983, to August Burgett of this agency. With reference to the recent amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permitting semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamp systems, you have asked whether a headlamp assembly would be allowed which also incorporated a European H1 or H2 bulb, "for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it."

It is our understanding that the H1 bulbs are commonly used in European lamps as the principal lighting source, and that H2 bulbs are used in high intensity supplemental front lamps. Therefore, use of one of these bulbs in a replaceable bulb headlamp would create, in effect, a system of four headlamps. The agency recently denied a petition by Volkswagen for a four-lamp system at this time using the standardized replaceable light source (copy enclosed), because of unresolved issues. We therefore are currently unable to allow a system such as you propose with the H1 or H2 bulb in a common housing with the standardized replaceable light source, creating in effect a four-lamp headlamp system. Further, paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, prohibits the installation of additional lighting equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and there is the distinct possibility that this could occur through incorporation of the H1 and H2 bulbs.

Use of the H1 and H2 bulbs in separate and independent units for driving or fog lamps remains permissible, subject to regulation by the individual American States, as these items are not covered by Standard No. 108.

You may be interested to know that Volkswagen of America has recently petitioned us for rulemaking that would allow use of the H4 bulb instead of the standardized replaceable light source in replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A decision is pending whether to grant this petition.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

Mr. A. Burgett Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. USA - Washington, D.C. 20590

BV Wu/Mei 7509 09-09-1983

Dear Sir,

Since optional headlighting systems are allowed according to FMVSS No. 108 (Docket No. 81-11, Notice 3) on certain promises, we intend to develop a semi-sealed headlamp assembly with two adjacent reflectors, moulded as one part, and a lens covering both reflector sections. The lens and the dual reflector would be sealed. The outward reflector would be equipped with a standardized replaceable bulb (Ford bulb) for the required upper and lower beam, and the inward reflector would be equipped with a european replaceable bulb type "H1" or "H2" for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it. The optical axis of the system would be parallel. On surface of the lens area for upper and lower beam there would be three aiming pads by which a common aiming adjustment of both the upper/lower beam and the auxiliary driving or fog lamp beam could be carried out.

We would like to learn whether such a headlamp assembly would be allowed or it is required that the aiming adjustment must be possible for each reflector.

Please find attached sketch.

Yours sincerely

Westfalische Metall Industrie Kommanditgesellschaft Hueck & Co. i. A. Wuddel Headlamp Assembly

*Insert diagram here

ID: 1983-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lyn-Mont Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey A. Crawford Q.A. Manager Lyn-Mont Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 11745 4208 Clubview Drive Fort Wayne, Indiana 46860

Dear Mr. Crawford:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You asked whether certain proposed labeling for brake hose assemblies would meet the labeling requirements of sections S7.2.3 and S7.2.3.1. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.

By way of background information, this agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equip- ment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its products comply with applicable safety standards. The following opinion is based on the facts provided in your letter.

Sections S7.2.3 and S7.2.3.1 provide two options for the labeling of air brake hose assemblies made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging. Section S7.2.3 states that such assemblies, except those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly as specified in that paragraph, or, at the option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in section S7.2.3.1.

If the first option is chosen, using a band as specified in section S7.2.3, the band must include (a) the symbol DOT, and (b) the manufacturer designation.. If the second option, specified in section S7.2.3.1, is chosen, the manufacturer designation must be placed on at least one end fitting of the assembly. (These sections also specify other require- ments concerning labeling, such as size of letters, which are not relevant to this interpretation.)

Your proposed labeling, placing the manufacturer designation on the band and the symbol DOT on the end fitting, would not meet the requirements of either of these options. If the first option is chosen, the symbol DOT must be placed on the band along with the manufacturer designation. If the second option is chosen, the manufacturer designation must be placed on the end fitting.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 5, 1983

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Crash Avoidance Division National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTN: Mr. Bloom

Subject: FMVSS -106 Paragraph S7.2.3 and S7.2.3.1

Dear Mr. Bloom,

There is some confusion on interpreting these two paragraphs between ourselves and a customer.

We've interpreted paragraph S7.2.3 to read that the assembly can be labeled with a band listing the information in sub-paragraph A&B, with it being our option to put on our designation as the manufacturer either on this tag or marked on the fitting as described in paragraph S7.2.3.1.

Our customer interprets this to read that this designation must be stamped on the fitting no matter what. What we would like to do is stamp the symbol DOT on the hex of the fitting.

Enclosed please find a sketch of our assembly showing where they would be marked in accordance with the 106 spec.

We would like a legal interpretation on weather we would be in compliance labeling our assemblies in this manner.

Sincerely,

Lyn-Mont Manufacturing Co.

Jeffrey A. Crawford Q.A. Manager

NO SHARP EDGE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

* GRAPH INSERTED HERE

ID: nht80-4.11

DATE: 10/20/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 30, 1980, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116, in which you inquired about the definition of "purple" as specified for the color of DOT 5 brake fluid. During a telephone conversation regarding the question on September 2, 1980, with Edward Glancy of this office, you suggested that specific color coordinates be established and expressed concern about another manufacturer's DOT 5 brake fluid that appears to be blue rather than purple.

Paragraph S5.1.14 of the standard states: "Brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil manufactured on or after September 1, 1978, shall be of the color indicated: . . . DOT 5 -- purple." This is in contrast to the color specifications of DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid which are required to be colorless to amber and hydraulic system mineral oil which is required to be green.

The major purpose of the color coding requirements is to permit easy identification of fluids before they are placed in a vehicle, in order to prevent the mixing of an incompatible fluid in a braking system. See notice 12 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (41 FR 54942, 54943) on December 16, 1976. At an early stage in the rulemaking process, the Agency did propose color requirements defined in terms of millimicrons. See notice 5 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (38 FR 32142, 32144) on November 21, 1973. (The colors proposed at that time were later changed.) Later, however, the Agency determined that visual inspection for color compliance was adequate and the proposed wavelength bands were deleted. See notice 6 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (39 FR 30353) on August 22, 1974.

As you noted in your letter, Notice 10 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (40 FR 56928) on December 5, 1975, does explain:

. . . The specifications for fluid colors are intended to refer to color ranges as generally interpreted in day-light by persons of normal color vision. No color coordinates are proposed, since the fluids may change color in storage or in use (without detriment to the performance of the fluids).

Establishing specific color coordinates would require rule-making proceedings in accordance with agency regulations. If you believe that coordinates ought to be established, you may wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 116. The procedures for submitting such a petition are set forth at 49 CFR Part 552. If you should submit a petition, we would like to see it address the issues of why visual inspection for color compliance is inadequate and what type of definition should be established.

If you believe that another manufacturer is in noncompliance with Standard 116, we suggest that you send the relevant information to our office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for enforcement purposes.

We have enclosed copies of the Federal Register notices referred to by this letter.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

GENERAL ELECTRIC

SILICONE SALES DEPARTMENT

July 30, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Silicone Products Division of General Electric Company requests a legal interpretation of the requirement of paragraph S5.1.14 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116.

Our question is: How do you define "Purple" as specified for the color of DOT-5 brake fluid?

We note that the preamble to Notice 10 of Docket 71-13 states in part that "the specifications for fluid colors are intended to refer to color ranges as generally interpreted in daylight by persons of normal color vision." The preamble further states that "no color coordinates are proposed since the fluids may change color in storage or in use."

Thank you.

T. M. Birdwell

ID: nht80-4.28

DATE: 12/12/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motors Corp. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 26, 1980, to Mr. Schwartz of my office concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

In your letter you ask whether 1981 model year vehicles produced before the effective date of the standard, September 1, 1980, need comply with the standard. It would not be a violation of Standard No. 115 to produce 1981 model year vehicles which do not comply with the standard so long as they were manufactured prior to September 1, 1980.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

November 26, 1980

Ref. 80-116-M

Frederic W. Schwartz -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter is in response to your telephone request concerning 1981 Datsun Models' VIN Systems (new and old).

After our plants in Japan took their summer vacation (August 9-17, 1980), Nissan produced 1981 Datsun Model Vehicles with new VIN System Numbers that have seventeen (17) characters and meet the new requirements of FMVSS No. 115, VIN which has been applied to the vehicles that have been produced on and after September 1, 1980.

However, before the summer vacation mentioned above, Nissan produced 1981 Datsun Models with old VIN System Numbers because the new machines for the New VIN Numbers were introduced into our plants during the summer vacation. There are approximately 34,430 Datsun 1981 Models with old VIN Numbers (Attachment).

Nissan has been guaranteed by the Federal Government that we are not violating the Federal Law by using the old VIN System Numbers on 1981 Model Vehicles produced before August 31, 1980.

We hope this information will be sufficient for your needs. Your taking the information mentioned above into consideration will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Hisakazu Murakami -- Washington Representative, Safety

Attachment

VIN. FOR DATSUN '81 MODELS OLD VIN. NEW VIN. Model Starting Beginning Production Starting Beginning Production Vin. Volume Production VIN.

Date Date 210 80.07.31. LB310-077293 JN1 CB02S 7 BU 080076 HLB310-746820 80.08.20. JN1 HB02S 0 BU 450001 PLB310-547078 8,138 JN1 PB02S 9 BU 650001 WPLB310-035876 JN1 PB01S 5 BU 150001 KPLB310-220965 JN1 PB05S 9 BU 038005 80.07.02 PN10-000036 80.08.19 JN1 PN03S X BM 000888 310 2,875 JN1 PN06S 2 BM 000735 KPN10-000027 JN1 PN04S 9 BM 000668 510 80.08.01 HLA10-200031 1,542 80.08.18 JN1 HT02S 5 BT 200160 FHLA10-200031 JN1 HT03S 0 BT 200338 510 80.07.22 WHLA10-125001 594 80.08.18 JN1 HT05S 8 BX 125667 Wagon 810 80.07.14 HG910-000101 491 80.08.18 JN1 HU01S 8 BT 000596 810 80.06.27 WHD910-000001 270 80.08.18 JN1 HU05S 0 BX 000322 Wagon 200SX 80.07.31 PS110-215386 80.08.20JN1 PS06S 6 2,830 BU 400001 KPS110-038159 JN1 PS04S 6 BU 300001 280ZX 30.06.23 HS130-250021 7,170 80.08.18 JN1 HZ04S 9 BX 254601 HGS130-180040 JN1 HZ06S 0 BX 182555 Pickup 80.07.07 No. 1 Plant NO. 1 Plant M720-000012 JN6 MD01S 2 BW 002786 MG720-000011 10,520 80.08.18 JN6 MD02S X BW 001903 KM720-000021 JN6 MD06S X BW 002972 EM720-000016 JN6 MD05H 6 BW 000036 MY720-000008 JN6 MD01Y 1 BW 001424 KMY720-000004 JN6 MD06Y 0 BW 001942 NO. 2 Plant NO. 2 Plant MGY720-000001 JN6 MD02Y 8 BW 500493

Total, 34,430

ID: nht78-1.4

DATE: 12/06/78

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

TO: Saab-Scania of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Ralph T. Millet Director, Governmental Relations Saab-Scania of America, Inc. Saab Drive, P. O. Box 697 Orange, Connecticut 06477

Dear Mr. Millet:

This is in response to your letter of 25 October 1978 concerning the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201 as it applies to the instrument panel compartment door in the Saab 900. Your specific concern is the portion of S3.3 that provides, "Additionally, any interior compartment door located in an instrument panel or seat back shall remain closed when the instrument panel or seat back is tested in accordance with S3.1 and S3.2."

According to your letter, the hinges on the Saab 900 instru- ment panel compartment door are designed to deform to keep the compartment door closed if deformation resulting from the head impact requirements of S3.1 is great enough to open the compartment latch.

If the instrument panel compartment door remains closed during the head impact tests of S3.1, the vehicle complies with that aspect of the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201. The standard does not specify that the latch mechanism remain closed, only that the door "shall remain closed."

This interpretation should not be construed as an approval of Saab's instrument panel compartment door hinge system. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are written primarily in terms of performance requirements which must be met in specified tests, and a manufacturer is free to use any design it wishes to meet those performance requirements. Thus, this agency does not grant approval of specific systems or components in the vehicle. The manufacturer must exercise due care to assure that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel October 25, 1978

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

Subject: Interpretation of Paragraph S3.3 of FMVSS 201

Dear Sir:

Paragraph S3.3 of Federl Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #201 states:

"Interior compartment doors. Each interior compartment door assembly located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position shall remain closed when tested in accordance with either S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(b) or S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(c). Additionaly, any interior compartment door located in an instrument panel or seat back shall remain closed when the instrument panel or seat back is tested in accordance with S3.1 and S3.2. All interior compartment door assemblies with a locking device must be tested with the locking device in an unlocked position.

When the Saab 900 instrument panel and compartment door is so tested, the compartment door remains in a closed position.

However, in certain head form impact directions, it may occur that the latch disengages and no longer keeps the door closed.

The only acceptable solution we could find to this problem was to design the hinges of the compartment door so that if the deformation after impact is large enough to open the latch, the hinges will deform in such a way that the door thereby remains closed.

We would appreciate your opinion as to whether or not the door remaining closed by the designed locking action of the hinges is considered to be in compliance with Paragraph S3.3 of the Standard.

Very truly yours,

SAAB-SCANIA OF AMERICA, INC.

Ralph T. Millet Director, Governmental Relations

RTM:s

ID: nht78-2.4

DATE: 11/28/78

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

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. D. P. Weiher Office of Corporate Safety Emissions and Noise Control AM General Corporation 32500 Van Born Road Wayne, Michigan 48184

Dear Mr. Weiher:

This responds to your August 2, 1978, letter asking whether it is permissible to perform the tests of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, with only part of the vehicle mechanism at the designated temperatures. You state further that there is not sufficient time to find an environmental chamber large enough to accommodate the size vehicle that you are testing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue approvals of manufacturer's plans for compliance with agency standards. Standard No. 124 mandates that a vehicle shall meet the requirements of the standard at any temperature between -40o F. and 125o F. When the agency tests for compliance with the standard, it finds a chamber sufficiently large to accommodate the entire vehicle and tests according to the standard. Any manufacturer deviation from this accepted test procedure carries with it certain risks that a vehicle may not conform to the requirements.

With respect to the vehicles that you are constructing, you state in your letter that they are being manufactured for use by the army. As such, these vehicles are not required to comply with the agency's safety standards, and the NHTSA would not test these vehicles for compliance.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 2, 1978

Mr. Joseph Levin Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NASSIF Building 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Levin:

We urgently request legal interpretation as to whether our plan for compliance testing meets the intent of FMVSS 124, Accelerator Control Systems, Paragraph S5, requirements which state, "The vehicle shall meet the following requirements when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40o F and +125o F after twelve hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range."

AM General Corporation is in the process of mass producing heavy truck tractors in the 55,000 pound to 75,000 pound GVWR range for the U.S. Army. These diesel engined tractors are of sucn physical size that the number of environmental chambers capable of accommodating them, as well as their availability, is extremely limited. Those capable of accepting this size vehicle are not available within the time frame remaining until the start of our production in November of this year. In consideration of these circumstances, and with the purpose in mind of complying with the intent of the cited Federal standard, we are planning to conduct compliance testing using an actual accelerator control system mounted to a production floor pan and dash panel assembly to which will be oriented the diesel fuel pump with all linkages connected. This assembly will be environmentally soaked to -40oF and then, again, to +125oF, and the linkage connections individually disconnected to measure the return capabilities of the energy sources (springs). Our logic for not testing an entire vehicle (with engine) is based on the contention that engine rock or motion would have an insignificant effect on our accelerator system and, in fact, the heat produced by the running engine would cause the accelerator linkage at the engine-mounted fuel pump to be less than the worse condition under extreme cold, and the temperature increase at this linkage during extreme high ambient would be inconsequential.

Your immediate telephone response with follow-up official written reply would be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

D. P. Weiher

Office of Corporate Safety, Emissions and Noise Control Phone No. 1-313-722-4900

DPW/emr

entir

ID: nht76-4.1

DATE: 01/15/76

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

TO: Timpte, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Timpte's December 10, 1975, question whether modification of a certified trailer prior to retail sale constitutes the manufacture of a vehicle subject to applicable safety standards such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The answer to your question is no. From your description, it appears that the proposed modification would be an alteration of a certified vehicle subject to @ 567.7 of NHTSA certification regulations (49 CFR @ 567.7) (copy enclosed). Under that section, conformity of the vehicle as altered need only be to standards in effect at the time the originally certified trailer was manufactured.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

TIMPTE, INC.

December 10, 1975

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

As a manufacturer of semi-trailers we have just been approached with a condition that I am unable to determine our particular status if we were to proceed with the modification requested. Let me explain the situation to you.

Two years ago, we manufactured 6 semi-trailers which were 26' long, single axle, dry freight vans. They were intended to be put in use as "doubles". Our order was from one of our distributors who is a separate entity from our Company. We built these trailers, delivered them to him and he has paid us for them. We furnished him with Statements of Origin on these units. However, two of them did not get sold to his customer and these have not been titled in any way at this time.

Now, our distributor has the opportunity of selling these trailers. However, a modification will have to be made to the extent that the trailers each would need to be lengthened to 45' in overall length and the single axle would be replaced by a tandem axle sliding bogie. The overhead rear doors would be replaced by swinging rear doors. Now, in one context, this is a modification where we are utilizing the entire frame and side structure of the present trailer and adding on to it in so far as length is concerned. We are, however, making a tandem out of it with a sliding bogie as opposed to a fixed single axle. Its GAWR rating for each of the axles would remain the same; however, the GVWR would increase. These trailers are not used trailers and they presently carry our plate showing manufacturing date of 1974.

Can this be considered a repair or is this a modification to the extent of a rebuild where we would be required to furnish 121 brake equipment on the units and how, in either case, would we go about certifying them if, in fact, certification would be required to particularly the FMVSS 121?

I grant that this is an unusual request and yet it is entirely valid in that the distributor, not having had a sale for these trailers for a long period of time, now sees an opportunity to dispose of them if, in fact, a modification of this degree could be made reasonably and without necessity of probably adding the 121 axles and brake equipment. From a structural standpoint, we would have no concern since we would be doing the work here in our plant and making appropriate accomodations so that the trailers would be as structurally sound as if they had originally been made in the configuration of 45' in lieu of the 26' length.

Since a sale is pending based on the decisions in this letter, I would appreciate the earliest possible reaction from you so that we, in turn, may know how to advise our distributor and proceed accordingly.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Jack Gromer -- Vice President - Engineering

ID: nht76-5.11

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. G. Milby

COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's May 29, 1976, question whether safety chains are prohibited across the opening of a side or rear emergency door that is provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217. Bus Window Retention and Release. You note that the State of Washington plans to require a "seat guard" at side emergency doors to prevent students from accidentally falling through these openings.

The requirements of Standard No. 217 for school buses manufactured on or after October 26, 1976, specify that each school bus shall be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window (S5.2.3.1). Unobstructed passage through these exists from the interior of the bus is required by S5.4. A parallele-piped of specified dimensions must be capable of unobstructed passage through rear doors, and the rearmost point of a seat back must coincide with the forward edge of a side emergency door, so that unobstructed passage from the vehicle interior is preserved.

The agency's intent in specifying these emergency exit provisions is to assure unimpeded egress from school buses in the event of accident. Small children are often transported in school buses, and provisions for emergency exists should be as simple as possible to assist their exit. For these reasons, sections S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 prohibit the installation of safety chains across any emergency exit provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides:

@ 103

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

It is the opinion of this agency that the State of Washington's requirement would be preempted as of the effective date of the new school bus requirements of Standard No. 217, with regard to emergency doors that are installed in compliance with S5.2.3.1. The agency does not believe that the requirement for safety chains constitutes a higher level of protection, and has concluded that it would cause the vehicle to be in non-compliance with the requirements of S5.2.3.1 and S5 4.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

May 20, 1976

Thomas Herlihy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

It has been our practice to furnish safety chains with snaps on both ends across side emergency doors as standard equipment per the enclosed photograph. Chains are optional equipment for rear emergency doors. The State of Washington plans to require the following on school buses:

"Seats adjacent to side emergency doors, if so positioned, shall have a seat guard of adequate size to prevent student falling from bus should emergency door be accidentally opened."

Will the subject safety chains or seat guards for either side or rear emergency doors be legal for school buses after October 26, 1976?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-2.7

DATE: 07/24/74

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

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Bendix's June 10, 1974, request for interpretation of the Standard No. 121 requirement in S5.5.1 that "on a vehicle equipped with an antilock system, electrical failure of any part of the antilock system shall not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes." You ask whether this language permits use of a separate device that senses electrical failure in the antilock system and automatically reduces pressure to the front brakes as a safety measure. The device would increase brake actuation and release time.

S5.5 is addressed to antilock systems and S5.5.1 mandates that antilock systems be designed not to interfere with air brake performance if they fail electrically. S5.5.1 does not prohibit separate safety devices which are designed to operate in the event of antilock electrical failure to compensate for that failure. Therefore the Bendix automatic front axle limiting system, as we understand its operation, is not prohibited by S5.5.1 simply because it operates when it senses an antilock electrical failure.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BENDIX HEAVY VEHICLE SYSTEMS GROUP

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

June 10, 1974

Subject: Request for Interpretation

Re: S5.5.1 (Antilock System Failure) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121

Gentlemen:

As a result of the adoption of the stopping distance provisions of FMVSS No. 121, higher torque brakes on front axles were required. On certain vehicles, these higher torque brakes created wheel lockup/stability problems which were to be solved or controlled by the use of an antilock system. The Automotive Industry concerns with vehicle stability, as expressed in petitions submitted to NHTSA, are directed towards antilock reliability and stability problems that may be amplified by an antilock system failure.

The concern with vehicle stability due to high torque front brakes are recognized by NHTSA in Docket 74-10, Notice 1, wherein a manual control for limiting front axle braking was proposed. Such proposal was, however, subsequently withdrawn in Docket 74-10, Notice 2, primarily, we suspect, because of the manual control feature.

The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group, has developed an automatic front axle limiting system, separate from the antilock system itself, that will sense an electrical failure of the front axle antilock system and "automatically" reduce front axle braking to 50% of that normally provided. Attention is invited to the performance comparison (Enclosure 1) wherein the automatic limiting curve reflects that 120 psi rear axle pressure is required to reach 60 psi at the front axle. While Bendix' system does not introduce an air line restriction, it does limit the level of front axle braking pressures so that the 60 psi and 95 psi pressure levels set forth in Section 5.3.3 (Brake Actuation Time) and Section 5.3.4 (Brake Release Time) respectively, are not achieved, nor are the corresponding actuation and release times realized.

Section 5.5.1 (Antilock System Failure) provides that an ". . . electrical failure of any part of the antilock system shall not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes." Bendix is of the opinion that since the affect on response time is caused by a system separate from the antilock system itself, it is not within the purview of, and hence not in conflict with Section 5.5.1.

An official interpretation is requested from NHTSA as to whether it concurs with Bendix' opinion that the Bendix Automatic Front Axle Limiting System is not covered by the provisions of, and is not in conflict with Section 5.5.1.

We would be happy to discuss the details of this matter if you feel additional information is necessary.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt -- Group Director of Engineering

Attachment

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

Standard (Non Limiting) System Vs: System With Automatic Limiting Upon Antilock Failure

(Graphics omitted)

Rear Axle Brake Pressure (PSI)

ID: nht74-4.31

DATE: 03/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: New York State Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 7, 1974, inquiring whether the words "emergency door" may be used in lieu of "emergency exit" under S5.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. You indicate that New York's regulations manual specifies the use of the words, "emergency door," and that a revised printing of the manual presently under way still contains this requirement.

While the NHTSA does not consider the phrase "emergency door" to be synonymous with emergency exit (we do not believe pushout windows or other non-door emergency exits are appropriately marked "emergency door"), we would not consider a bus to fail to conform to Standard No. 217 if its emergency doors were marked "emergency door." Emergency exists other than doors, however, must be marked emergency exit.

NHTSA standards apply only to vehicles manufactured after a standard's effective date. Standard No. 217 does not apply to buses in use that were manufactured before its effective date of September 1, 1973.

I point out that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act dealing with preemption of State requirements (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) prohibit New York from enforcing its requirement that emergency exits be marked "emergency door."

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

January 7, 1974

Jerry Palisi Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. John Murphy of this office informed me that he discussed with you our question concerning the use of the words "Emergency Door" in lieu of "Emergency Exit" as is apparently required by federal standards or regulations.

New York State has been requiring the use of words "Emergency Door" for many years now and it appears to us that it would be unreasonable to request a change in this regulation when considering the difference is only a matter of semantics. We feel quite certain that the use of the words "Emergency Door" will achieve the same result as the use of the words "Emergency Exit", and it is our suggestion that both expressions be permitted, if not on a permanent basis at least on a temporary basis until our rules are next amended.

We would appreciate whatever consideration you and your office can give to this request, as compliance at this particular time would create a considerable hardship. To illustrate, we have in circulation now between 4 and 5,000 copies of our current regulations and have already started the process of printing new regulations which will contain the words "Emergency Door". If the difference were significant, we would certainly consider changing our wording, but this is not the case and we would hope for some relief. Thanks for your help.

WILLIAM G. GALLOWAY, Director Traffic and Safety Division

By

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Inspection Section

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TO: Lawrence Schneider

Office of the Chief Counsel (N40-30)

FROM: Regional Administrator

Region II

DATE: January 11, 1974

In reply refer to:

0II-00.NHTSA

SUBJECT: Request for Exemption from or Modification to FMVSS

No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release"

The enclosed letter dated January 7, 1974, from Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, Chief, Carrier Inspection Section, New York State Department of Transportation, is a follow-up to a discussion with Mr. Guy Hunter, Office of Crashworthiness, M.V.P.

New York is questioning the requirements of Section S5.5 of the above Standard, specifically the designation, "Emergency Exit".

We would appreciate a direct response to New York and an informational copy to our office.

Jerome A. Palisi

Highway Safety Management Specialist

Attachment