ID: 77-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1976, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment applies to fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

No requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to fog lamps and they are subject to regulation by the individual states. Pursuant to S4.1.3, however, they may be prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

You also asked that, absent inclusion of these lamps in Standard No. 108, your letter be treated as a petition "for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to include such lighting requirements . . . for optional use on passenger cars." Your submission does not meet the requirements of our procedural regulations, a copy of which I enclose. Specifically, pursuant to 49 CFR 552.4(c) you should "set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an order is necessary." Among these facts should be reasons why you are petitioning for "optional" rather than mandatory use on passenger cars, and why other vehicles are not included in your petition (if, in fact true).

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

December 21, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108

FMVSS 108 specifies performance requirements for certain lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment for use on passenger cars. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby requests interpretation as to whether or not this standard applies to the performance and installation of fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

This request for interpretation specifically concerns those fog lamps currently used in Europe and subject to EEC regulations, a copy of which is enclosed for your review.

These requirements include a minimum candela output of 150 cd to a maximum of 300 cd measured at any test point within +/- 10 degrees right and left of the lamp axis and +/- 5 degrees up and down on the vertical axis.

The effective projected luminous area for these types of lamps is 140 sq. cm (21.7 sq. in.) maximum. These lamps are wired so as to be switched on with the headlamps and front fog lamps. The color emitted from the lamp when lighted is red within the appropriate SAE-CIE coordinates. The lamp is installed on/or at the rear of the vehicle, left of the centerline, no closer than 100 mm from the stop lamp.

Should this type of lighting device be subject to the current requirement of FMVSS 108, an interpretation is requested as to which aspect of performance this lamp should be designed.

Should this type of lighting device not be subject to the above standard, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby petitions for rulemaking to amend Standard 108 to include such lighting requirements as previously described for optional use on passenger cars.

Samples of these types of lighting devices can be made available for review and testing. Should additional data be necessary to further evaluate this type of lighting system as currently regulated by EEC, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

HEINZ W. GERTH

ID: 77-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm your November 11, 1976, telephone conversation with Tad Herlihy of this office, concerning the certification label required by 49 CFR Part 567.

On the vehicles in question, the certification labels mistakenly indicated 1977 as the year of manufacture, even though manufacturing was actually completed in 1976. You proposed correcting this error before sale by crossing out the digits "77" and inserting "76" directly below them.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to certification labels that have been corrected in this manner, provided that all other requirements of the certification regulation are also met.

ID: 77-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have acknowledged receipt of Chrysler Corporation's November 29 and December 20, 1976, petitions for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" that appears in 49 CFR 571.3. Copies of these petitions are attached.

The November 29 petition requests an amendment to reflect the interpretation that appeared in your July 16, 1976, letter to Jeep Corporation (copy attached). That interpretation, you will recall, was: "[the] weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use . . . is not included in [unloaded vehicle weight]." I recommend that the November 29 petition be granted. The requested amendment of the definition can be issued as an interpretive amendment, without a prior notice of proposed rulemaking. Incidentally, such an amendment does not impinge on the agency's long-standing position that a motor vehicle is expected to comply with all applicable standards in the form in which it actually rolls off the dealer's lot, regardless of the accessories and optional equipment with which it is equipped. Instead, it affects the meaning of compliance, by implicitly requiring the agency to remove from the vehicle certain accessories -- which it has already determined ought not to be considered a part of the vehicle -- before compliance testing.

The December 20 petition requests a much more substantial amendment of the definition. Please note that, to the extent that it would affect Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the agency is constrained by the Congressional ratification of that standard in Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. The requested amendment, which appears as if it would significantly reduce amendment does not impinge on the agency's long-standing position that a motor vehicle is expected to comply with all applicable standards in the form in which it actually rolls off the dealer's lot, regardless of the accessories and optional equipment with which it is equipped. Instead, it affects the meaning of compliance, by implicitly requiring the agency to remove from the vehicle certain accessories -- which it has already determined ought not to be considered as part of the vehicle -- before compliance testing.

The December 20 petition requests a much more substantial amendment of the definition. Please note that, to the extent that it would affect standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the agency is constrained by the Congressional ratification of that standard in Section 10a of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. The requested amendment, which appears as if it would significantly reduce the severity of the standard's crash tests, could not be issued without an affirmative agency finding that it would not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.

Please advise me of your recommendations on these petitions so that a response may be prepared.

ID: 77-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fleming Metal Fabricators

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 3, 1976, letter concerning the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, and the fuel tanks that you manufacture for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Standard No. 301-75 applies to whole vehicles rather than to fuel tanks. Therefore, the responsibility under Federal law for compliance with the standard lies with the vehicle manufacturer. He must exercise due care in certifying that the vehicle will, if tested by the NHTSA as specified in S6 and S7 of the standard, meet the fuel spillage requirements set out in S5. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.

The vehicle manufacturer who installs a fuel tank manufactured by you may, in order to meet his duty to exercise due care, rely on assurances from you concerning the tank's performance characteristics, to the extent that such reliance is reasonable. Your assurances, in turn, need not necessarily be based on actual crash testing of vehicles equipped with your fuel tanks under the exact conditions prescribed in the standard.

You should both note, of course, that the ability of a vehicle to conform to the standard depends not only on the performance capabilities of the fuel tank itself, but also on other factors including the manner and location in which it is mounted. The fact that your fuel tanks conform with Federal Highway Administration requirements (49 CFR @@ 393.65 and 393.67), therefore, does not by itself imply that vehicles equipped with such tanks are capable of passing the crash test requirements of Standard No. 301-75.

Similarly, the fact that your company's manufacturing procedures and its mounting and installation instructions conform to established industry practices is not sufficient evidence of due care, unless it is reasonable to conclude from it that the vehicles will conform.

SINCERELY,

FLEMING METAL FABRICATORS

3 December, 1976

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council Dept. of Transportation SUBJECT: 571, 301-75 Fuel System Integrity with certification per Part 567 -- by auxilliary gasoline tank installers (Truck Body Builders, New Truck Dealer, Truck Repair Facility, Etc.). To discover bases for responsible certifying to Safety Standard 301 without performing actual tests or without reference to factory vehicle tests.

Pursuant to our telecon of 2 December, 1976, we present the following information hoping that some answer can be found to this very perplexing problem.

We are strictly manufacturers, and if you will make reference to FMF 76 Minilog our total product line will be clearly presented.

Many of FMF customers are bogged down by the Safety Standard 301 (they currently will not install tanks on vehicles 10,000# or less); and, their attitude is that FMF is responsible for providing a certification basis to them (which of course is not true). Many large manufacturers in the east are providing their dealers (installers) with installation diagrams and stating that a product once installed per their instructions may be certified by the installer. It is highly doubtful that these manufacturers actually performed barrier impact tests, but, rather are relying on the Truck Manufacturers Test Information (Ford, Chev., Etc.), and this information is not available to FMF or to our customers.

It appears to us that by furnishing our customer with a fully representative installation diagram (which would parallel factory procedures), it would provide a clear cut basis to the tank installer to provide a responsible certification. (It should be noted that the installation of an auxilliary gasoline tank does require connecting into existing lines for the supply and vent lines, but it is difficult to see that such additions would in any way create a situation that would be less safe than the vehicle as originally certified by the Truck Factory.

As you probably noted, all of FMF tanks are made to comply with FHWA 393.65 & 393.67; further, the mounting of these tanks has been statically tested far beyond the traditional 5 to 1 safety factor. Our products are in many cases deliberately overdesigned and we do not have product failures. Product failures cannot be tolerated in today's marketplace -- if a company's product liability insurance was every used, it is doubtful that replacement insurance would be available -- even at vastly increased premiums.

Many of our customers are Mom & Pop organizations with up to 10 employees; This type of organization as well as many much larger companies are not able to get involved with extensive testing because of the following reasons; economic, personnel, time and inadequate facilities -- to name just a few.

Since all truck chasses (some with bodies mounted and some without) must be certified by the truck manufacturer -- It would seem reasonable that installers of component parts or auxilliary parts to the truck chassis or body (knowing that their additional certification is to be on that vehicle) will proceed responsibly and especially if fully representative installation diagrams are provided.

Your immediate attention to this letter will be greatly appreciated, & we remain,

Robert I. Fleming, Pres.

ID: 77-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1976, which raises several questions with respect to motor vehicle lighting and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

First I want to comment upon this statement:

"A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applies to 'original equipment' replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to 'aftermarket' lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle."

This is not entirely true. Standard No. 108 applies in pertinent part "to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment or vehicles to which this standard applied." The standard applies to motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. Thus, any replacement of an original equipment item specified by Standard No. 108 must meet original equipment requirements. This not only includes lenses and lamps, such as parking lamps and tail lamps designed for specific year model vehicles but also lighting equipment sold for general use, such as headlamps, clearance lamps, and identification lamps, whose dimensions do not vary over the years.

Your first question is:

"1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and other devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the "aftermarket" sales?"

The answer is yes, as I explained in my preliminary remarks about the applicability of Standard No. 108 to all replacement equipment.

"2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type sealed beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies or are they subject to state regulations?"

We construe the words "like equipment" broadly. If one headlighting system is being replaced with another, the replacement headlighting system must meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, even though its configuration differs from that of the original. Obviously, a State may also regulate sale of this equipment if its requirements are identical with the Federal ones.

"3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units are energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?"

Quartz-halogen headlamps sold in the aftermarket, intended as replacement for headlamps that comply with Standard No. 108, must also meet Federal requirements. If the lamps do not conform, not only would their sale be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Section 108(a)(1)(A), but the removal of sealed beam headlamps by the seller or a motor vehicle repair shop to facilitate the installation of the nonconforming ones would also be a violation of the Act (Section 108(a)(2)(A).

"4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps, and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?"

It is NHTSA's position, as explained earlier, that if an item of lighting equipment "sold for universal use" is capable of replacing equipment on a vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, then it must meet Standard No. 108, and a State may also regulate it in an identical manner.

You also asked our advice "on the problem of not being able to recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not." As an alternative to the DOT mark permitted by S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, replacement lighting equipment may be certified in two other ways. Pursuant to Section 114 of the Act certification "may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered." Thus, access by a State enforcement officer to corporate records is not required. If an item subject to Standard No. 108 is not marked "DOT," if it bears no certification label or tag, and if its container is unmarked, then it has not been certified as required.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

December 16, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A3107

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The finding of the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania against state requirements for presale approval of items of motor vehicle equipment regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, if upheld, will eventually result in all states curtailing their approval programs. The question then becomes one of determining specifically which items of equipment are federally regulated.

The answer appears clear-cut with respect to equipment standards that apply to an individual item such as brake hoses, safety glazing, emergency triangular reflectors, seat belts, etc. It is not so clear with respect to the part of Standard No. 108 which applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies". A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applies to "original equipment" replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to "aftermarket" lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle. It is important to us to know whether or not we may have misinterpreted the discussion.

We are investigating how best to amend our laws, regulations, and approval procedures if the Pennsylvania decision becomes binding upon all states. The following questions have arisen with respect to which items of lighting equipment are regulated by Standard No. 108 and which are not:

1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and other devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the "aftermarket" sales?

2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type sealed beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered "replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies" or are they subject to state regulations?

3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units are energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?

4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps, and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Lighting equipment subject to FMVSS No. 108 is not required to be marked in any way with the manufacturer's name or model number nor is a DOT certification symbol required. Without such markeings and symbol, neither a potential customer nor an officer inspecting devices offered for sale at retail outlets has any way of knowing whether a particular device is one that has been certified by the manufacturer as meeting the standard or whether it is a bootleg product that is locally produced or imported without complying with the standard. Neither the customer nor the officer has access to the store's records to determine whether or not the manufacturer included the federally-required certification with the shipment.

If the federal standards totally preempt the state requirements on lighting devices, manufacturers will no longer need to place any markings on their products, since the federal standards make no such requirement. It, therefore, becomes impossible for any local agency to attempt to enforce the federal standard and, in view of the limited enforcement personnel in NHTSA, it means that anyone can sell almost anything he wants with little change of being detected by NHTSA and being prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

We would appreciate your answers to the above questions and your advice on the problem of not being able to recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

cc: AAMVA; VESC

ID: 77-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Caravan Trailer Rental Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Caravan Trailer Rental Company's December 22, 1976, question whether trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, may be imported into the United States for sale without being required to conform to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Standard No. 121 only regulates the manufacture and importation of trailers that are produced on or after January 1, 1975. Standard No. 121's only limitation on the importation and sale of trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, would be that any repair, refurbishment, or other modification of the trailer must not be so significant as to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. To qualify as a repair the NHTSA requires that the running gear assembly of the existing trailer be used in the refurbished trailer and that certain other identification and ownership (or leasing) aspects of the existing trailer be continued in the refurbished trailer. I have enclosed a copy of a notice which explains the NHTSA regulations in this area.

You are reminded that a trailer imported into the United States as you described must bear a label that states the month and year of manufacture.

SINCERELY,

CARAVAN TRAILER RENTAL CO. LTD.

December 22, 1976.

Fred Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our Company is looking at the feasibility of exporting, from Canada, used trailers to be sold in the American market.

We are concerned with a potential problem vis a vis, the M.V.S.S. 121 Brake Regulation.

Our question to you is this:

Does the existing M.V.S.S. 121 Brake legislation prohibit us in any way from selling used trailers, manufactured in years 1974 and prior, into the American market? Would the braking system on these trailers have to be altered in any way, as they are obviously presently not equipped with any of the M.V.S.S. 121 specifications?

We would appreciate an early reply to this inquiry and thank you in advance for your co-operation.

CARAVAN TRAILER SALES - DIVISION OF CARAVAN TRAILER RENTAL CO. LTD.

Jack D. Livingston, Executive Vice-President.

cc: MARY SWEENEY

ID: 77-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Commercial Plastics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 7, 1976, regarding the use of plastic glazing materials for side windows of school buses. You asked what materials are permitted by Federal regulations for school bus side windows and whether Federal laws concerning the materials that may be used preempt State laws on the same subject.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et. seq.) provides in part:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title 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.

Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205) currently does not permit the use of plastic glazing in bus side windows. Therefore, State laws that permit plastic glazing are in direct conflict with Standard No. 205, and it is the agency's opinion that they would be preempted.

I would point out that the agency recently issued a proposal to amend Standard No. 205 that would permit the use of rigid plastic glazing in bus side windows (41 FR 56837, Dec. 30, 1976). I am enclosing a copy of this proposal for your information. I am also enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 and the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205. From these standards you can determine the various types of glazing materials that are permitted for side windows and the requirements that the glazing must meet.

Regarding your question about replacement glazing, Standard No. 205 is not a vehicle standard and is applicable to all glazing for use in motor vehicles, whether the glazing is to be installed in new vehicles or as replacement in used vehicles. Therefore, glazing manufacturers and fabricators cannot produce glazing to be used in a given location in a vehicle unless the standard permits that type of glazing to be used in that location, regardless of whether it is original or replacement glazing.

SINCERELY,

COMMERCIAL PLASTICS & SUPPLY CORP.

December 7, 1976

Office of Chief Council National Hway Traffic Safety Admin.

Att: Mr. Oates:

We have received many inquiries in recent months regarding the use of plastic glazing materials for the side windows of school buses. Naturally, our primary concern is what material is permitted by the Department of Transportation for this use.

On Thursday, November 18, I was in telephone contact with you regarding this subject of school bus glazing. My question is, does the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation supercede that of the State Agencies concerning material permitted in the buses? If so, then why are there states that presently have their own requirements for these buses, which greatly differ from those of your department.

My second question is, what material is accepted by your department for side window glazing and what are the specifications and requirements this material must meet? If it is possible, please send me a copy of this for examination.

Finally, please explain in detail the Standard 205 with respect to replacement window glazing and new equipment requirements. I feel a full explanation will clear up many of my questions.

Thanking in in advance, I remain

David Munafo Transportation Division

ID: 77-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's November 2, 1976, request for confirmation that head and knee contact areas specified under S5.3.1.3 and S5.3.2.2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, may be measured by the use of the direct transfer of a medium (such as spray paint) from the head or knee form to the seating surface with the addition of the area that falls within nonintersecting lines that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. You also request confirmation that the impact requirements of S5.3.1.2, S5.3.1.3, and S5.3.2.2 may be conducted on seating that is attached to a test fixture instead of being mounted in a bus body. In both cases you suggest rulemaking action to make your recommended procedures a part of the standard.

When a standard does not specify a particular aspect of a requirement, such as the means to measure contact area, a manufacturer is entitled to use any reasonable method it chooses to demonstrate, in the exercise of due care, that the regulated vehicle or item of equipment in fact conforms to the requirement. For your information, the agency intends to use a contact medium test similar to the test you describe and will include in its computation of "contact area" the maximum area that falls within nonintersecting line segments that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. The outer bounds of direct contact do not include areas that represents splattering of the transfer medium without contact of the head or knee form.

In response to your second request, Standard No. 222 is a vehicle standard. Therefore, the impact requirements have meaning only as they apply to seating when installed in a vehicle. For this reason the agency intends to conduct its compliance testing with the seating installed in a bus. The agency's contemplated procedure may involve the removal of seating around the seating being tested, and the test device may be mounted to the floor in place of the seating that is removed.

However, the requirement that the seating conform as it is installed does not prohibit a manufacturer from using a different test procedure from that specified, in view of the NHTSA's expressed position on the legal effect of its regulations. To certify compliance, a manufacturer is free to choose any means, in the exercise of due care, to show that a vehicle (or item of equipment) would comply if tested by the NHTSA as specified in the standard. Thus, the NHTSA test procedures need not be duplicated by each manufacturer or compliance test facility. Blue Bird, for example, is free to conduct its test on a test fixture outside the bus as long as it can certify that its vehicle would comply if tested by the NHTSA according to the standard.

In view of this disposition of your requests, the agency does not intend to undertake modification of Standard No. 222 at this time. The NHTSA will continue to monitor the results of tests conducted to determine compliance with the head and kneeform contact area requirements of the standard and will modify the standard if warranted.

SINCERELY,

November 2, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The purpose of this letter is to discuss two problems associated with FMVSS 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, which are caused by the technical state of the art of seat impact testing and to ask for approval to proceed based on the two proposals described below.

First problem - Contact Area S5.3.1.3 and S5.3.2.2

Background 1. FMVSS 222 requires a headform contact area of 3 square inches when impacted at 5 feet per second and a knee form contact area of 3 square inches impacted at 16 feet per second.

2. The requirement of 3 square inches is based on bio-mechanical data and is, therefore, not disputed.

3. It is our understanding that the feasibility of the 3 square inch requirement was verified based on impact tests on foam without upholstery.

4. It is believed that the problems of measuring contact area with upholstery were not anticipated.

Problems of Contact Area with Upholstery:

1. The tension of the upholstery is virtually uncontrollable as it is affected by many factors including tolerances of the seat back, foam pad, and upholstery; installation techniques; temperature; etc.

2. There are several types and weights of upholstery offered as standard equipment and as options. Various state specifications require different upholstery materials.

3. The grain of the upholstery varies and can affect contact area results.

4. The method of determining contact area has not been defined and such factors as transfer mediums, area measurement techniques, and documentation methods can cause large variations in results.

Example of Effects of Upholstery on Contact Area:

The following table shows the significant difference that the use of upholstery can make at several impact locations of Blue Bird drawing #0833079 (copy attached). These contact areas were determined using black spray paint sprayed on the head and knee form as the transfer medium, with the imprint transferred to tracing paper, and the area measured with a Planimeter. Figure Impact Location Contact Area (square inches) Number Dwg. No. 0833079 with 42 oz. upholstery Direct transfer Bounded by tangent lines 1 H5 2.76 3.20 2 H7 2.53 4.85 3 H11 2.53 5.24 4 H12 2.14 4.29 5 K3 wall side 2.92 X 6 K3 aisle side 3.26 X 7 K4 center 2.45 X

Figure no upholstery Number Direct transfer 1 8.75 2 8.30 3 9.90 4 10.90 5 5.80 6 5.89 7 5.05

Discussion: 1. It is felt that the contact area problems associated with upholstery are measurement problems.

2. It is felt that our seat is in compliance with the contact area requirement with or without upholstery, however, due to inadequate measurement techniques we cannot verify compliance when upholstery is used.

3. Obviously, we meet the spirit of the requirement since it was based on 3 square inches of contact area without upholstery and we accomplish this in all areas with a significant margin.

4. The problems of contact area with upholstery have been discussed with the Office of Crash Worthiness and Office of Standards Enforcement on several occasions. The latest of these were meetings on October 28th and 29th, 1976.

Recommendations:

1. Because the contact area problem is one of measurement methodology, we recommend that the NHTSA develop a proper methodology and incorporate it into the standard through the Rulemaking Procedure.

2. Since in the meantime we must release designs, commit tooling, and order material we are asking for approval to proceed based on a conservative approach of defining contact area as that area circumscribed by tangent lines drawn between points of direct paint transfer. See figures 1 to 7.

Second Problem - Impact Test Inside Bus S5.3.1.2, S5.3.1.3, S5.3.2.2

Background: 1. The NHTSA has indicated it plans to conduct all seat performance tests including impact test inside a bus body.

2. Blue Bird Body Company agrees that it is most desirable to conduct impact tests inside a bus body, however, impact testing inside a bus requires a compact, portable, and adjustable test fixture incorporating a fired projectile.

3. All of the impact testing conducted at Blue Bird Body Company has been done outside a bus body using cable suspended pendulums to impact seats. The seats are mounted on bus body floor sections secured to rigid fixturing. The fixturing allows the seat to be positioned to different impact locations and different impact angles in order to meet the requirements of S5.3.1.2 ". . . when any contactable surface . . . is impacted from any direction . . . ."

Problems: 1. Blue Bird Body Company has done development work on a pneumatic fired impact testing device but have not been able to perfect one because of the rigid requirements such a device must meet.

2. The primary factors that have prevented us from perfecting a successful testing device are:

a. The standard requires that the headform exhibit no resonant frequencies below 3000 Hz and the knee form, no resonant frequencies below 1800 Hz and specifies the data channel class for each. Section S6.6.2 and S6.7.2.

b. The standard specifies the total equivalent weights and the shapes of both the head form and knee form. Sections S6.6 and S6.7.

c. The measurement of Force-Distribution S5.3.1.3 requires a very sensitive data acquisition system capable of accurately sampling low level data (0 to 13.04 "G's" compared to up to 200 "G's" for the H.I.C. requirement) at a high sampling rate (approximately 10,000 data samples per second).

3. Within the above size, shape, and weight requirements we have been unable to build a testing device that had sufficient rigidity of the head and knee forms and the supporting and guiding fixtures to eliminate undesirable and intolerable signal inputs produced by the test fixture, with the exception of a cable suspended pendulum which cannot be used inside a bus body.

Examples of Fixturing Induced Signals:

1. The top half of figure 8 shows an oscillograph trace of a Head Impact with our cable suspended impact pendulum. Note the first portion of the trace, 0 to 13.04 G's, which is the area of the curve used in determining Force Distribution, is free of fixture imparted - low amplitude - high frequency signal and can be accurately sampled at a 10 KG sampling rate by a computer in order to calculate a Force Distribution value.

2. The lower half of figure 8 shows an oscillograph trace of a Head Impact with our most successful pneumatic fired impact fixture. The signal, prior to and during the critical initial part of the impact, has a low amplitude, high frequency signal superimposed on it. This is believed to be a fixture imparted signal. This signal cannot accurately be used manually or with a computer to determine a Force Distribution value.

Discussion:

1. It is felt that resonant frequency and fixture imparted signal are fixturing problems and because of the complexity and interplay of these problems we know of no impact test system, fired projectile or otherwise, that could be used inside a bus at all angles and at all impact locations required to comprehensively evaluate seat impact performance.

2. It is felt that our seat is in compliance with the impact requirements because impacting a seat mounted on a rigid fixture is considered to be a more severe test than impacting a seat mounted in a bus.

3. Obviously we meet the spirit of the requirements since we are testing under conditions we believe to be more severe than intended and have spent considerable effort and resources in trying to develop new test fixturing.

Recommendations:

1. Since we know of no other alternative we recommend that Impact Testing for Compliance be performed outside a bus on a "rigid" fixture which can be used to orient the seat in front of the impact form. We request immediate rulemaking action be taken by the NHTSA to require impact testing be performed outside the bus.

2. For the reasons mentioned earlier we are asking for approval to proceed based on impact test data generated on a rigid fixture outside a bus.

In Summary: May we have immediate approval to:

1. Proceed based on tangentially circumscribed contact areas,

2. Proceed based upon impact test data generated on a rigid fixture outside a bus.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Emilio Noriega

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 3, 1976, question whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, prohibits the installation in a towing vehicle of a service brake control that is designed to permit separate, sequential, or simultaneous actuation of the service brake systems of the towing vehicle and any towed vehicle.

Assuming that the valve for the towing vehicle represents a "split" service brake system as specified in S5.7 of Standard No. 121, such a service brake control design would not conflict with the Standard's requirements. Of course, the actual compliance of any vehicle with Standard No. 121 depends on the actual installation and performance of the system as well as its design.

I would like to note that the agency is not endorsing the service brake control in question by the issuance of this interpretation letter. In fact, the agency is unsure about the effect the control may have on safe braking in a panic situation. Any test information that you or a vehicle manufacturer may care to provide would be appreciated.

ID: 77-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/77 EST

FROM: LOWELL K. BRIDWELL -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TO: HAROLD T. HALFPENNY -- AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Halfpenny:

This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1967, seeking clarification as to the effect of the recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on theaftermarket repair automotive industry.

In your letter you have expressed the opinion that vehicle parts sold after the effective date of the standard must conform to such standards only when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard. You have asked if this opinion is correct and specifically whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold.

The answer to your question, as you have correctly noted, requires an examination of section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This section prohibits the manufacture or sale of any". . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." (emphasis supplied). It should be noted that this provision of the law makes no distinction between systems, parts or components, nor does it distinguish between original equipment manufactured for replacement, improvement, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. Any such distinctions would depend in each instance upon the terms of the "applicable" standard.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 23 CFR 255.21, each contain a paragraph designated S.2 and entitled "Application." This paragraph establishes the coverage of that particular standard by identifying the motor vehicle and/or motor vehicle equipment to which the standard applies. Where the application paragraph refers only to vehicles, the person responsible for compliance is the manufacturer of such motor vehicles. An example of this type coverage is found in Standard No.107- REFLECTING SURFACES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. "Since this standard does

not apply to motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturers of equipment otherwise referred to in the standard,e.g., windshield wiper blades and arms, have no legal obligation to conform to the standard. This is true notwithstanding the fact that equipment manufacturers will be furnishing such equipment to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment.

Where,however, the application paragraph refers to equipment for use in specified motor vehicles, both the manufacturer of such equipment and the manufacturer of the specified vehicles are responsible for compliance. An example of this type coverage is Standard No. 106 - HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars and multipurpose passenger equipment." All hydraulic brake hoses manufactured and sold on or after January 1,1968, must conform with this standard whether such brake hoses are manufactured as original equipment or as replacement for either prestandard or poststandard/motor vehicles.

There were six of the twenty Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued on January 31, 1967 (32 F.R. 2408) applicable to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, Standards Nos. 106, 111, 205, 206, 209, and 211. Two of these standards,No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors, and No.206 - Door Latches and Door Supports,were amended on March 29,1967 (32 F.R.5498),to exclude coverage of equipment and are now applicable only to certain specified vehicles. This means that manufacturers of rearview mirrors,door latches and door supports will not be required to comply with these standards. Therefore, only the following four initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are now applicable to motor vehicle equipment:

Standard No. 106 - Hydraulic Brake Hoses -- Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Standard No. 205 - Glazing Materials -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps -- Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Pursuant to each of the above standards, equipment manufacturers of the specified motor vehicle equipment must manufacture such equipment in conformance with the standard whether it is to be used as original equipment on new vehicles,as a replacement part,an accessory,or an addition to the motor vehicles specified in the standard. None of the above standards exempt from coverage equipment manufactured and sold for replacement or as an accessory to prestandard vehicles.

In summary, your opinion to the effect that motor vehicle parts manufactured and sold "after the effective date of the standard must conform to such

standards when they are forreplacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard, and not otherwise" is incorrect. Your question as to "whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold" must be answered in the negative with regard to Standards Nos. 106, 205, 209, 211, for the reasons I have outlined above.

I trust that this response clarifies the issues you have raised in behalf of Automotive Service Industry Association. If I can be of further assistance to you or members of your association, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely,