ID: 1982-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/12/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Postal Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 12, 1982 NOA-30

Mr. Darnley M. Howard Director, Office of Safety and Health United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20260

Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your August 18 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office, regarding the use of cross-view mirrors on certain Postal Service vehicles. These mirrors are convex and have a non-uniform radius of curvature. They would be used to assist drivers in viewing the area immediately in front of the vehicle.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 sets forth rear view mirror requirements for new motor vehicles. Vehicles such as Postal Service trucks are required to comply with one of three specified alternative sets of requirements for mirror systems. The first alternative requires a plane inside mirror providing a specified field of view and a plane exterior driver side mirror, also providing a specified field of view. The second alternative is the same as the first, except that it permits the interior mirror to have a more narrow field of view as long as the vehicle also uses an exterior mirror on the passenger side. The third alternative requires two plane exterior mirrors of at least 19.5 square inches surface area each, with one placed on the driver's side and the other on the passenger's side of the vehicle.

The agency has taken the position that mirrors used on a vehicle in addition to the required mirrors are not subject to any requirements of FMVSS 111. If the cross-view mirrors you wish to use would supplement mirrors which fully comply with one of the alternatives in the standard, the installation of the cross-view mirrors on new Postal Service trucks is in no way prohibited by our standard.

Further, our requirements do not apply to aftermarket modifications to the original equipment mirror system, when those modifications are performed by the vehicle owner. Modifications to the required system would be deemed unlawful only if done by vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. Thus, the use of the cross-view mirrors is permissible in any case, so long as one of these designated businesses does not Perform the modification. However, we recommend that the cross-view mirror be used in addition to the original equipment mirrors, and not as a substitute for those mirrors. Based on our experience with non-uniform radius mirrors, these mirrors should not be used when the vehicle is in motion, since the mirror produces an image which can distort distances. Rather, the mirror should be used to detect people in front of the vehicle while the vehicle is stopped.

NHTSA would appreciate the opportunity to review the results of your test program once it is completed. If we can be of assistance to you in evaluating the mirrors, please, feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 18, 1982

Mr. Roger Fairchild Legal Counsel - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 111 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - Room 5219 U.S. Department of Transportation 400-7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

The U.S. Postal Service is considering the testing of an "eyeball" type mirror on certain postal vehicles to provide the driver with a view of the area immediately in front of the vehicle. Currently, for this purpose, we are using convex mirrors, which meet Federal requirements.

The "eyeball" mirror has a nonuniform radius of curvature and, as such, may be in violation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 111. We understand, however, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is considering a revision to the standard which would eliminate a design restriction and allow the use of mirrors that do not have a uniform radius of curvature.

Since we wish to fully comply with the NHTSA standards and also evaluate methods that may enhance our efforts to prevent accidents involving children, we are seeking U.S. Department of Transportation approval to allow the Postal Service to conduct a limited test of the "eyeball" type mirror. Approximately 10 postal vehicles would be involved and would include the use of the K-10 "Eyeball" Truck/Bus Mirror, manufactured by K-10 Enterprises Incorporated of Mission, Texas, or an equivalent mirror. Information concerning the K-10 mirror is enclosed for your review and consideration.

The matter has been previously discussed with Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA. Mr. Cavey was most helpful and suggested we address our inquiry to your office.

Should you need additional information, please feel free to call Mr. Jerry A. Jones, General Manager, Safety Compliance Division, Office of Safety and Health, at 245-4686.

Sincerely,

Darnley M. Howard Director, Office of Safety and Health Employee Relations Department

Enclosure

ID: 1985-01.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Rose Marie Sigismondo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Rose Marie Sigismondo Star Route Box 346 Dingman's Ferry, PA 18328

This responds to your letter asking whether our agency has any authority under current law to require school bus drivers to wear safety belts immediately. Practically speaking, the answer is no. Our authority over school transportation is indirect and can be effectuated only through the States. Let me explain.

The regulations on school transportation were issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). The Highway Safety Act deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States. The standard to which you refer in your letter, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (hereafter HSPS 17), was issued under the authority of that Act. You are correct that section IV.C.d. (4) of this standard provides that drivers of school vehicles equipped with lap belts shall wear the belts whenever the vehicle is in motion. We issued this provision because we believe that safety belts protect school bus drivers in the event of an accident and assist to avoid accidents by helping drivers maintain control of their vehicles.

The great majority of the States have recognized the importance of requiring school bus drivers to wear safety belts, and have issued appropriate requirements either by law or through regulations issued by State agencies. It is the States' responsibility to require the use of safety belts by bus drivers. We have no authority to displace the States and issue regulations directly applicable to drivers. It is up to Pennsylvania to adopt regulations or legislation to require that school bus drivers wear their safety belts and to enforce its law.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Star Route Box 346 Dingman's Ferry, Pa., 18328 November 5, 1984 NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.D., 20590

Attn: Mr. Brundt

Dear Sir:

I have spent the last 8 weeks examining many aspects of school bus safety, especially seat belts on school buses. While researching I came across: a) Standard 17 amended 5/73 - Drivers of School Vehicles equipped w/ lap belts shall be required to wear them whenever the vehicle is in motion.

b) Pa. Equip and Safety Standards of School Buses and School Vehicles Ch. 171 9/1/83 Pg. 25 171.68 - Seat belt for driver. A seatbelt meeting the requirements of FMVSS 209 shall be provided for the driver. c) Pa. School Bus Operators Manual Dept of Trans. Pub #117 rev. 1978 Pg 48 - Adjust your seatbelt to provide firm yet comfortable support. Pg 56 Daily Inspection Form-Inside Bus-Seat belt adjustment.

It is obvious that Pa. complies w/ standard 17 in as far as requiring a belt for the driver. Most of our drivers do not wear their belts. I have called our state troopers asking for info on written warnings or citations that the drivers or contractors would receive when breaking this law.

When I couldn't get a firm answer I called Mr. Robert William who referred me to David Soule. after some discussion he referred me to Elana West Penn DOT 717/787-6453 her office referred me to Mr. William Hilton, 717/787-2895. Mr. Hilton explained that seat belts are required in driver positions although there is no law mandating the driver to use the belt, even when his operators manual tells him to do so. Mr. Hilton said that regulation will be written, it will take 3 mos. to a year for law to be passed.

I hope that your dept can do something in the way of mandating drivers to wear belts. Pa. complies w/ standard 17 on paper yet the most important factor isn't there, the penalty or incentive to wear the belt. I am confident that Mr. Hilton will do all he can to rectify this, but can't help to wonder how many other states are in the same position. As good as standard 17 is, it doesn't mean a thing when not enforced in real life.

I am writing you with hope that you can guide us in the proper direction in enforcing standard 17. Is there anyway presently to interpret current law so that the drive is will have to wear their belts immediately.

Sincerely yours,

Rose Marie Sigismondo

cc: Mr. John a Pachuta Director Bureau Motor Vehicles Pa. Judy Dranov Nat. Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses Rep. William S. Foster Senator Frank O'Connell Senator H. John Heinz Congressman Joseph McDae Senator Arlen Spector Rep. Peter Nostmayer Senator Stewart Greenleaf Doctor G. Strock Superintendent. Delaware Valley School District

Dingmans PTA debates school bus seat belts

[Text Omitted]

ID: 1985-02.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert L. Hart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1985, to former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt asking for an interpretation that a combination stop lamp-rear view mirror you have intended would be permissible under paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108.

That paragraph precludes combining a center high-mounted stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. You have concluded that the prohibition applies only to passenger cars manufactured after September 1, 1985, "and does not prohibit application of my device to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of the mandate."

Actually, S4.4.1 does not apply to your device at all. The lamp established by the standard is one that is mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, at or near the rear window with no relationship to the forward left side of the vehicle where your combination lamp-mirror would be located. Standard No. 108 does contain in paragraph S4.1.3 a prohibition against additional lighting devices that impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. But on the basis of the facts as you have presented them to us, we cannot say that impairment would exist. We therefore conclude that your device is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 as either original or replacement equipment on any motor vehicle.

However, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, does relate to your device. Passenger cars are required to be equipped with an outside rear view mirror on the driver's side; under paragraph S5.2.2 ". . . neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1." Some of your designs show the lamp portion at the left end of the device's housing resulting in a wider unit than one incorporating a mirror alone. We recommend that you re-examine these designs with paragraph S5.2.2 in mind, relocating the lamp to the area either above or below that of the mirror surface if you conclude that the combination mounting would not comply with Standard No. 111.

There is no similar mounting requirement for driver's side mirrors on vehicles other than passenger cars, and your designs for mirrors on these vehicles would appear permissible under Standard No. 111.

Sincerely,

February 11, 1985

Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition for Rulemaking

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to request an amendment to FMVSS No. 108: Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment. I reference specifically, S4.4.1 of 571.108, pp243 of the Federal Register, 1984: . . . and no high mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

The purpose of my petition is to obtain clearance to pursue technical and commercial development of my invention - Side Mounted Rear View Mirror with Brake Light/Wide Vue Brake Light - (on which I have a patent pending) for OEM as well as aftermarket merchandising. My interpretation of the new standard is that the high mounted lamp relates specifically to new passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and does not prohibit application of my device to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of the mandate.

Although functional testing of the Wide Vue Brake Light has not been concluded, my instincts and observations, and those of consultants who are assisting me, give rise to the belief that my device will be more effective than (and an auxilliary to) the high mounted lamp in terms of reducing rear end collisions, especially in highway traffic patterns where chain reaction collisions are most likely to occur.

My invention is designed to be applicable to all roadway motorized vehicles, and is, therefore, more effective than the high mounted stop lamp which is applicable only to passenger vehicles. A most important design feature of my device is that the light is recessed and, therefore, is not within view of the primary driver; i.e., it can be seen by trailing drivers only and cannot distract the primary driver.

The attached materials, including technical drawing and illustrations and a narrative research summary by Invention Marketing, Inc., present reasons why the Wide Vue Brake Light is more effective.

I should appreciate your favorable review of my petition and removal/revision of the restriction encompassed in S4.4.1 of 571.108, in order that I may approach vehicle manufacturers relative to possible inclusion of my invention in new vehicles after the 1986 model year.

Please contact me for clarifications or answers to questions regarding my invention.

Rxobert L. Hart

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: nht80-1.9

DATE: 02/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your September 10, 1979, letter to our Tire Division has been referred to me for reply, since you are requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). You asked two questions in your letter. First, you asked whether the definition you offered for "maximum speed" was correct. If it was correct, you stated that the tire could exceed the speed restriction shown on the tire at a lighter load, and showed how the information could be set forth on the tire. The listing of varying maximum loads at different maximum speeds is not permitted to appear on the tire. Second, you asked if speed restricted tires could specify a speed restriction other than the 35, 50, and 55 mile per hour (mph) restrictions shown in the endurance test schedule of Standard No. 119. The answer to this question is no.

Regarding your first question, you defined a tire's maximum speed as "the highest speed at which a tire can carry the maximum single load that is molded on the tire sidewall." This definition is an acceptable one for tires with a speed restriction listed for them. However, you went on to note that if this definition was acceptable, then a tire could list varying maximum loads at varying maximum speeds. Such a listing is expressly prohibited by the language of Standard No. 119.

S6.5 of Standard No. 119 specifies that each tire subject to the Standard shall be marked with the information that is set forth in following paragraphs. Paragraph (d) of S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressures for single load tires, the type of tire about which you are inquiring, to appear as: Max load lbs. at psi cold. Paragraph (e) of S6.5 requires that a speed restriction on the tire appear only as: Max speed mph. Hence, a single load tire can be labeled with only one maximum load and only one maximum speed.

Your second question was whether a manufacturer could restrict the speed of a tire subject to Standard No. 119 to a speed other than the three speed restrictions shown in Table III of the Standard. Paragraph S6.1 requires all tires to pass the endurance test requirements of the Standard, and Table III shows the load and speeds to which the tires will be subjected during the endurance test. If the tire being subjected to the endurance test does not qualify for the special speeds and loads as one of the three speed restricted tires shown in the table or as a motorcycle tire, the tire would be tested at the speed and load shown under the heading "All other". This would mean that the tire's speed restriction would be ignored for purposes of the endurance test, and it would be tested as if it were a non-speed restricted tire. Such a tire would presumably fail the endurance test under these conditions, and no tire which fails to pass the endurance test can be sold in the United States. As a practical matter, therefore, speed restrictions other than the three shown in Table III of the Standard are not recognized by this agency.

The three speed restrictions shown in Table III of the Standard were adopted from descriptions of three types of speed restricted tires used by the United States tire industry in 1972, when the agency was initially promulgating Standard No. 119. If your company would like to add another speed restriction to those shown in Table III, you should file a petition for rulemaking with this agency requesting an amendment to Standard No. 119.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 10, 1979

Tire Division, National Highway Safety Administration,

Re: Confirmation of the definition of Max. Speed

Dear Sirs,

We would like to confirm that meaning of Max. Speed specified in S6.5e of FMVSS No. 119 is as follow:

1 Max. Speed means the highest speed at which a tire can carry the max. single load that is molded on the tire sidewall.

If the actual carrying load is lower than max. single load, the tire can run at a higher speed than the Max. Speed molded on the tire sidewall.

Example

Tire Size 1000R20 Load range H

Max. Load single 6610lbs

Max. Speed 35MPH Load LBS Speed MPH 6610 Max. Load 35 Max. Speed 5300 42 4600 50

2 According to Table Endurance Test Schedule, Max. Speed For Speed-restricted Service is specified as 55, 50 or 35 MPH. May we choose speeds different from the above?

In this case, if Max. Speed chosen is 40 MPH, should the 50 MPH endurance test condition be used?

We would appreciate it very much if you would give careful consideration to our questions.

Very truly yours,

The Yokohama Rubber Co., LTD -- Tire Quality Assurance Department; Taiji Ide, Manager

ID: nht80-4.2

DATE: 09/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. H. Madison

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 25, 1980, letter asking whether a proposed air brake system that you submitted would comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of systems constructed in compliance with safety standards. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to assure that their vehicles or equipment comply with the requirements of the safety standards. It is frequently impossible for the agency to tell from diagrams and descriptions of devices whether they will comply with the standards. Compliance is based upon testing and observation of the entire vehicle or piece of equipment as it is installed on the vehicle. Without the benefits of such tests, NHTSA cannot state whether your system would comply with Standard No. 121.

Our engineering staff has reviewed your letter and offers the following information. First, the standard contains no requirements for tractor protection valve control pressures. However, control pressures are usually set so that the trailer brakes apply before the tractor brakes.

Second, you asked whether it is appropriate to require the release of parking brakes by pushing in both the tractor protection control valve and the park valve. The standard states that the parking brake control shall control the parking brakes of the vehicle and any vehicle it is designed to tow. The standard is silent regarding the release of those brakes.

SINCERELY,

R. H. MADISON Engineering Consultant

June 25, 1980

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation related to compliance with FMVSS 121.

A portion of one arrangement of air brake systems is illustrated on the attached sketch. The tractor protection control valve is designed to have several features.

1. With the system fully pressurized, pulling the knob out will exhaust the tractor supply line pressure and apply the trailer emergency brakes.

2. In case of trailer breakaway, the valve knob will automatically pop out, trap approximately system pressure in the tow vehicle, exhaust the tractor supply line, and apply the trailer emergency brakes.

3. If the total system pressure drops at a relatively slow rate (less than breakaway type leakage), the valve knob will automatically pop out and exhaust the tractor supply line at a system pressure not lower than 20 psi nor higher than 45 psi. The valve can be manually pushed back in but, if the system is 20 psi or lower, the valve will exhaust the tractor supply line pressure (non over-ride function).

4. When the tow vehicle is operated without a trailer, the knob is pulled out so that the tractor supply pressure is zero.

The tractor protection valve functions as follows:

1. It has a straight through passage so that the tractor supply line pressure and the trailer supply line pressure are equal.

2. The tractor service port pressure is blocked when the supply port pressure is between 20 and 45 psi.

Question One Is:

If the tractor protection valve were designed so it automatically blocked the tractor service port when the supply port was between 5 and 10 psi (rather than 20 to 45) would this, by itself, cause the system to be in non compliance?

One rationale for considering that this system would comply is as follows.

Function Present Proposed a) Tractor protection control 45 to 45 to valve automatically exhausts 20 psi 20 psi the supply pressure to the tractor protection valve. b) Tractor protection valve 45 to 10 to automatically blocks 20 psi 5 psi the trailer control port. c) Manual override of the 20 psi 20 psi tractor protection control valve is not possible below.

In both cases, when system pressure is reduced to 20 psi, the trailer emergency brakes are applied and the trailer control pressure port is blocked. The automatic operation of the tractor protection valve at 45 to 20 psi is redundant because the supply pressure to it goes to zero at not lower than 20 psi by the non override function built into the tractor protection control valve. The only difference in system performance would be the small increment of time required for the tractor protection control valve to deplete the supply pressure to the tractor protection valve from 20 psi to a range between 10 and 5 psi. System protection would still be provided by the tractor protection control valve at a supply line pressure of 20 psi or less.

Question Two Is: With the system described above (automatic operation at 10-5 psi), would a further modification, by itself, cause non compliance?

With this second proposal the park valve would apply the tractor and trailer parking brakes in the normal manner. Release would require that both the park valve and the tractor protection control valve be pushed in.

R. H. Madison

FIG. I -- TYPICAL CURRENT SYSTEM

FIG. II - TYPICAL SYSTEM WITH PROPOSED TRACTOR PROTECTION VALVE

FIG. III - PROPOSED SYSTEM WITH PROPOSED TRACTOR PROTECTION VALVE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-1.39

DATE: 06/16/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 24, 1978, letter asking two questions concerning Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In your first question, you ask what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) means by the phrase "seat components shall not separate at any attachment point." This phrase is found in the forward and rearward loading performance tests. You suggest that the NHTSA interpret this to mean a complete separation of a seat component from another component. The NHTSA disagrees with this suggestion.

The standard as written clearly indicates that the agency has intended that seat components remain connected at all attachment points during testing. If the agency had intended a complete separation of seating components to be the test for separation, it would have used that language in the drafting of the regulation. Therefore, the agency declines to adopt the interpretation that you suggest and will require the seat to remain attached at all attachment points during testing.

Your second suggestion concerns a possible problem in the computation of loads during rearward testing. You state that occasionally the loading bar will become buried in the upholstery material and, therefore, distort the actual seat loads. The NHTSA has not noted the phenomenon to which you refer. However, if it were to occur in compliance testing the agency would be certain to factor out any aberrations in the test results that occurred owing to this loading bar problem.

SINCERELY,

April 24, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this letter is to seek a clarifying interpretation on two issues relating to FMVSS 222.

1. S 5.1.3 (e) and S 5.1.4 (e) state that during the forward and rearward performance tests respectively that "seat components shall not separate at any attachment point."

It has been brought to my attention that this phrase is subject to extreme interpretation which we don't believe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intended. For example, if 1 out of 100 spotwelds attaching a seatback panel to the frame failed, creating a local separation, would this be considered a non compliance per S 5.1.3 (e) or S 5.1.4 (e)?

We have not used this interpretation. The reasoning for this is that the seat component (back panel) has not separated from the frame.

This is only one example. The same problem occurs in attaching the seat riser to the main frame etc., etc.

Without a clear cut definition of "separate" it is impossible to deal with this phrase. For example, would a torn bracket at a bolt attachment point be a separation? If so, how long must the tear be?

Therefore, we believe the only workable interpretation of S 5.1.3 (e) and S 5.1.4 (e) is to define "separate" as complete separation of one seat component from another; i.e. separation of the seat foot from the riser from the main frame etc.

We solicit your concurrence with this interpretation.

2. The second item deals with S 5.1.4 Seat performance rearward and S 6.5 loading bar.

S 6.5 requires the loading bar to be 4" narrower than the seat width to insure that panel type members are secured in a manner adequate to transmit loads to main seat frame members. We agree with this philosophy.

However, in our testing and development program we have noted an intermitent problem which is directly related to the "narrow" load bar but does not affect seat performance in any way.

The problem is that occasionally the "narrow" load bar will bury itself in the upholstery, padding, and sheet metal and hang up. When this occurs, the load bar begins pulling the seat back in tension creating high apparent loads rather than sliding along the upholstery and only sensing seat back bending loads. Because these tension loads build rapidly, (and exceed 2200 pounds) this phenomenon could be misinterpreted as a seat back which is too rigid.

This phenomenon is intermitent and not always repeatable. It occurs on different seat designs and appears to be related to parameters difficult to define such as padding thickness, the hardness of the loading bar spherical ends, and the coefficient of friction of the upholstery.

One possible solution, if this should occur during compliance testing, is to use the test results from the "narrow" bar test to prove the integrity of the panel to frame attachment and use a wider bar to get true results of seat back performance.

The purpose of this discussion is to go on record as acknowledging this phenomenon and seek confirmation from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that this would not be judged a non compliance if encountered during compliance testing.

We look forward to your early response on these issues.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht78-4.9

DATE: 08/31/78

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

TO: L. F. Henneberger, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/9/78 letter from Lawrence F. Henneberger and Robert W. Green to Joseph J. Levin

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1978, on behalf of your client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company ("Jacobs" herein).

Jacobs manufactures a diesel engine retarder system which "produces significant deceleration of a large truck so equipped." Jacobs believes that some means should be provided to warn following vehicles when a retarder is in use. It proposes to connect the retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system when a retarder is installed either as original equipment or as an aftermarket accessory. You have asked whether installation of the system would violate either 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, or 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any device as original equipment that would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Paragraph S4.1.1 and Table I require trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or greater to be equipped with a hazard warning flasher system. The Jacobs device may not be installed if it would impair the effectiveness of the required hazard warning flasher system. The intended use of the Jacobs device is that it act as a warning of a decelerating vehicle in the roadway which may present a potential hazard. As such it augments the hazard warning system and, in our view, would tend to enhance rather than impair its effectiveness. Therefore, it may be installed as original equipment without violating S4.1.3. We have no provisions that would either permit or preclude its sale as an aftermarket device, and whether it is permissible as such is a matter to be determined by the laws of the States in which the truck is registered and operated, as well as those administered by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits a manufacturer, among others, from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Nothing in your letter indicates that the Jacobs device will affect the hazard warning signal flasher's ability to function at times when the Jacobs device is in operation, and therefore, it does not appear that its installation violates section 108(a)(2)(A).

SINCERELY,

Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn

June 9, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Our client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company, has manufactured and distributed its well-known diesel engine retarder (the "Jake[R] brake") for a number of years. The Jake[R] brake is sold both in the OEM market as original engine equipment (by such companies as Cummins Engine Co. and Mack Truck, among others) and as an aftermarket installation. This retarder provides auxiliary retarding capabilities independent of the vehicle's foundation brakes and permit a heavy truck to travel at normal traffic speeds on long downgrades, under full control, as well as extending the service life of the foundation brakes.

In recent years, the retarding force generated by current-design engine retarders has increased considerably, and electric driveline retarders with markedly greater retarding horsepower have become available. For example, Jacobs is now marketing an electric retarder (the "Jake ER[R]"), rated at some two to three times the retarding force of a typical large diesel engine equipped with the Jake[R] brake.

Because retarding forces of this magnitude are capable of producing significant deceleration of a large truck so equipped, Jacobs believes that some means should be provided to warn following vehicles when a retarder is in use. In addition, since a truck tractor equipped with a retarder may be used to pull a variety of different semi-trailers, the warning system must utilize existing vehicle equipment and operate both on the tractor alone ("bob-tail" configuration) and with any semi-trailer that may be hooked up.

After careful analysis and based upon a meeting with NHTSA and BMCS representatives on June 6, 1978, Jacobs has concluded that use of the existing hazard warning flasher system would best provide such warning to following drivers. Many states now require trucks moving less than 40 m.p.h. on limited access highways to use their hazard warning flashers to alert other motorists that they are slow-moving.

In order to provide this retarder warning signal automatically, Jacobs proposes to connect the retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system when a retarder is installed, either at the OEM or aftermarket level. Accordingly, the Company requests an advisory opinion that such use and connection of the hazard warning system is permissive and will not violate the requirements of FMVSS 108, nor will it violate the "antitampering" provisions set out in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

Lawrence F. Henneberger

Robert W. Green

cc: Z. TAYLOR VINSON; GERALD M. BLOOM; JOSEPH WALSH; ROBERT BRENNER

ID: nht88-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: L. T. MITCHELL -- SPECIFICATION ENGINEER THOMAS BUILT BUSES, L. P.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/21/87 FROM LT MITCHELL TO ERIKA JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON FMVSS 222 ON SCHOOL BUSES WITH A GVWR OF 10,000 OR LESS, REF ENCLOSED LETTERS MR. JONES TYDINGS, THOMAS BUILT BUSES; NHTSA RESPONSE NOA-30; OCC-945; LETTER D ATED 05/11/78 FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN JR TO JAMES TYDINGS; LETTER DATED 03/10/78 FROM JAMES TYDINGS TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE FMVSS 217 - SECTION 5.2 "PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS"

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This is a response to your letter asking whether it is permissible to install only two seat belts on a 39-inch bench-seat in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less (small school bus). I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer is no.

You stated that Thomas Built Buses (Thomas) would like to accommodate certain customers who wish to have two designated seating positions on each 39-inch bench-seat installed in a small school bus "for passenger comfort reasons." Your letter sets forth a suggested rationale as to why Thomas believes such a configuration would be permissible in small school buses. First, you argued that a May 11, 1978 interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, states that Federal motor vehicle saf ety regulations do not prohibit having only two-passenger seating positions on a 39-inch bench-seat in a bus designed for adult transportation. In these circumstances, we said, a manufacturer has some discretion to decide the number of designated seatin g positions in its vehicles, but must make a good faith determination of the vehicle's passenger capacity to discourage vehicle overloading.

You reason that because the term "designated seating position" is in the Definitions section of the Federal safety standards (49 CFR @571.3), the definition applies to all safety standards. You apparently conclude that our earlier interpretation of Stan dard 217 and the definition of "designated seating position" in @571.3 permit a manufacturer to make a good faith determination respecting the number of seating positions on a school bus. Based on this conclusion, you posited two situations in which thi s reasoning might be applied.

Situation 1 was described as follows in your letter:

Thomas Built Buses interprets (the May, 1978, interpretation) to be applicable for a school bus sold to carry only high school students. We consider the use of two seat belts on a 39 inch seat to be reasonable and justified due to passenger size maki ng three passengers on one 39" seat impossible. We would honor a purchaser's request to equip these 39" seats with two belts each. Is this interpretation correct?

This interpretation is incorrect for several reasons. First, the earlier interpretation did not apply to school buses; by its own terms, it is clearly limited to buses other than school buses. Second, there is not a separate set of standards that speci fy differing requirements for school buses designed to carry high school students. In determining whether school bus standards apply to a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, the proper inquiry is whether the bus is sold to carry "primary, prep rimary, or secondary school students" to or from school or school-related events. Any vehicle that meets this definition of the term "school bus" must comply with all applicable school bus standards, regardless of whether it is designed to carry small c hildren to kindergarten or teenagers to high school.

Third, the definition of "designated seating position" and our interpretations of that term, are not relevant in determining whether a school bus bench-seat in a small school bus complies with the requirements of Standard 222. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 222 sets out a specific procedure for calculating the number of seating positions in a bench seat. That paragraph explains that the number of seating positions on a bench seat in school buses is calculated by (1) measuring the width of the bench seat i n inches, (2) dividing by 15, and (3) rounding to the nearest whole number. The value which results from this calculation (expressed by the term "W") is the basis for determining whether the seat complies with the requirements of Standard 222.

For a 39-inch bench-seat, the procedure in S4.1 shows that this seat has three seating positions. Paragraph S5(b) of Standard 222 therfore requires that this bench-seat have three seat belt assemblies installed. Therefore, if your company were to insta ll only two seat belt assemblies on a 39-inch wide bench-seat in a small school bus, you could not certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 222.

For these same reasons, your interpretation set forth in your "Situation 2" is also incorrect. Even if a customer specifically asks that only two seat belt assemblies be installed on 39-inch bench seats, Standard 222 requires your company to equip these seats with three seat belt assemblies.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht76-5.46

DATE: 05/11/76

FROM: VETTER FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 4, 1976, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number.

As I advised you on March 1, 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends to issue within a few months a notice of proposed rulemaking relating to a standardized Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). At that time, it is our intent to contact directly a number of interested organizations, including the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, the International Standards Organization, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and seek comments regarding the proposal.

I believe this procedure will satisfy the requirement in section 103(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) for NHTSA to consult with the Commission in prescribing standards under the Act. Regarding this requirement, the conference committee stated:

In the administration of this provision it is expected that the Secretary will, to the extent consistent with the purposes of this act, inform the VESC and other agencies of proposed standards and amendments thereto and afford them a reasonable opportunity to study and comment thereon. (Emphasis added.) (H. Rep. No. 1919, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1966))

Informing the VESC of proposed rulemaking, i.e., proposals issued by the agency, and providing an opportunity to comment, is the practice that the agency has been following and intends to continue following pursuant to section 103(f).

If a final rule relating to a VIN format is promulgated, we would expect all manufacturers to comply with the requirements of the amended standard and therefore do not anticipate litigation on our part. Consequently, should litigation ensue, as you suggest in your letter, it is my expectation that it would emanate from a manufacturer faced with differing requirements.

NHTSA has been considering the preemptive effect of Standard No. 115. As you know, the standard requires a VIN that is unique to a manufacturer during a ten-year period. It does not specify the length or content of the number. The question, therefore, becomes whether the standard was intended generally to cover all aspects of those numbers, and preempt any differing State rules. The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avacado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142, (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines enunciated in cases as Thorne v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that Standard No. 115 is intended to cover all aspects of VIN's relative to the vehicles to which the standard applies, and that any aspects for which there are no specific requirements were intended by this agency to be left to the discretion of the manufacturers. State regulations differing from the standard on this subject are found to "impair the federal superintendence of the field," within the meaning of the Florida Lime doctrine, and any such State regulation would be preempted under section 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

Should you have any other questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Maryland Department of Transportation

March 4, 1976

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

Dear Dr. Gregory:

I appreciate your letter of March 1, 1976 advising me that you Administration intends to issue, within the next few months, an NPRM to amend the existing FMVSS No. 115 to standardize the vehicle identification numbering system for all vehicles on a worldwide basis.

I shall certainly advise my colleagues who serve with me on the Executive Committee of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's intent in this regard. I presume, and it certainly will be my recommendation, that the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission proceed with the promulgation of the Vehicle Identification Number Standard that was the subject of VESC hearings in Orlando, Florida in early December.

As I indicated in my correspondence to General Vetter, as soon as the VESC Standard is promulgated, and assuming it is, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration will promulgate rules and regulations adopting the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission's standard as its own and require manufacturers to comply with the Maryland standard as a condition for the titling and registration of vehicles within this jurisdiction. This action on my part naturally assumes that the pre-emption provision does not apply in this matter and that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not complied with the Congressional mandate that it consult with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission in the promulgation of equipment standards.

I presume, on the basis of your correspondence, that I can anticipate litigation in this matter and I have instructed counsel to prepare for this contingency.

With kindest regards, I am

Sincerely,

EJNER J. JOHNSON -- Administrator

CC: Joseph P. Murphy;

George O. Stevens;

Robert R. Harrison

ID: nht75-2.37

DATE: 04/22/75

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

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975 inquiring whether a State may require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In your phone conversation of March 28 with Mr. Robert Donin of this office you indicated that the vehicle in question was an ambulance outfitted with a raised roof designed to enable medical personnel to stand inside. The raised top increases the height of the vehicle to 9 feet. You stated that although you could not identify the specific State statute involved, it was your understanding that Virginia requires clearance lights near the top of all vehicles over 7 feet in height. The law to which you apparently were referring is Virginia Motor Vehicle Code @ 46.1-265. A copy is enclosed. It states in part:

(a) All motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers exceeding seven feet in height or in width or the widest portion of which extends four inches beyond the front fender extremes shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand front top corners of such vehicle, each of which lamps shall be capable of projecting an amber light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front of such vehicle, and shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand rear top corners of such vehicle, each of which lights shall be capable of projecting a red light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle;***

(b) In addition to the lamps required herein, each such vehicle shall be equipped with amber reflectors located on the side thereof, at or near the front. Red reflectors shall be used on the rear of each such vehicle. Such reflectors shall be securely fastened to the vehicle not less than twenty-four inches and not more than sixty inches from the ground, provided that in the case of a vehicle which is less than twenty-four inches in height such reflectors shall be securely fastened thereto at the highest point the structure of the vehicle will permit. The reflectors required therein shall be of a type that have been approved by the Superintendent. ***

It is important to note that the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code also provides in @ 46.1-267:

*** No motor vehicle shall be operated on any highway which is equipped with any lighting device other than lamps required or permitted in this article or required or approved by the Superintendent or required by the Federal Department of Transportation.

As you may know, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect safety standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical. By virtue of this provision, the Federal government is said to "preempt" the field of regulation with respect to any aspect of performance for which there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

The key question, therefore, is whether Federal Standard No. 108 and Virginia Motor Vehicle Code @46.1-265 regulate the same "aspect of performance." If so, Virginia may not apply its requirement unless the Federal and Virginia requirements are identical. From a comparison of the two laws, it is evident that both address the same aspect of performance and that they are not identical:

* Both the Federal and Virginia laws apply to ambulances. An ambulance is a multipurpose passenger vehicle, under Federal Standard No. 108 and a "motor vehicle" under Virginia Code 46.1-265.

* Both laws require that the vehicle be equipped with lights at certain specified locations to facilitate recognition of its dimensions.

* The configuration and color of the lights required by the two laws differ.

Consequently Federal Standard No. 108 is preemptive, and to the extent that they differ from the Federal requirements the State clearance lamp and reflector requirements quoted are void. The language of Virginia Code @ 46.1-267, to the effect that lighting devices may conform to Virginia or Federal standards, is incorrect.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, II

March 21, 1975

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Recently several members of the Truck Body and Equipment Association have raised questions concerning state versus federal motor vehicle lighting requirements.

The vehicle in question is a multipurpose passenger vehicle less than eighty (80) inches wide, equipped with a raised roof.

Our question is as follows: Can a state require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under FMVSS #108?

Thanking you in advance for your help, I am,

Byron Crampton Manager of Engineering Services