ID: nht89-3.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1989

FROM: Vaughn Crawley -- Vice President, Monitor Manufacturing Co.

TO: Steven Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-15-90 to V. Crawley from P. J. Rice; (A36; VSA 108(b)(2)

TEXT:

I am writing at the recommendation of Marvin Shaw of your Department, to whom I was referred by Mr. Jettner of the Crash Worthiness Engineering Branch of DOT.

My question is, that if necessary to respond to a certification review of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in order to support certification that the vehicles meet the requirements of FMVSS #207, Seating System and #210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; would test reports and engineering analysis of the individual components of the seating system tested independently, one from the other, meet the require ments of the law? For instance, in a van conversion, if the pedestal, the seat , and the seat belts are supplied by different manufacturers and have been tested and supported by test reports and engineering analysis to conform to the requirements of FMVSS #207 and #210. Would these documents be adequate as a basis of certification of the seating system, or would the components have to be combined together and re-tested in order to comply with the request for certification. Your prompt response would be appreciated.

ID: aiam0842

Dear Mr. Stevens: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention o Mr. Jerome Palisi of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.; 'School bus' is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean bus 'designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children' (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), there, 'gross vehicle weight rating' should not be computer under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met in inserting, 'BUS.'; This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0840

Dear Mr. Stevens: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention o Mr. Jerome Palisi of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.; 'School bus' is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean bus 'designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children' (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), there, 'gross vehicle weight rating' should not be computer under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met in inserting, 'BUS.'; This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0841

Dear Mr. Stevens: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention o Mr. Jerome Palisi of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.; 'School bus' is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean bus 'designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children' (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), therefore, 'gross vehicle weight rating' should not be computed under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met by inserting, 'BUS.'; This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-1.36

DATE: 05/11/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1978, letter asking how to measure the head form contact area in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In your first paragraph, you indicate that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has allowed the knee form contact area measurement to be undertaken on or within a line 1 1/2 inches from the edge of the leg protection zone to ensure that the knee form will contact the entire surface. You ask that a similar line be established for the head protection zone contact areas.

As you know, the head form contact area requirements apply to more areas than do the knee form contact area requirements. The knee form contact area requirements apply only to seat backs and the backs of restraining barriers. The head form contact area, on the other hand, includes anything falling within a specified zone which might include the sides or tops of seats. Therefore, it is impossible to create fictional lines around the outer edges of objects that fall within the head protection zone for purposes of testing the compliance of those objects with the requirements. The agency notes further that it never stated that it would test knee form contact area on or inside a line 1 1/2 inches from the edge of a seat back or restraining barrier. The agency did state that it would test in a manner that "provides opportunity for the knee form to contact with the seat back or restraining barrier to the fullest extent possible." That interpretation can also be applied to the head form contact area requirements.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 9, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Reference: 1. W. G. Milby to Frank Berndt, December 20, 1976 2. Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby, February 23, 1977, N 40-30

Reference number 1 requests an interpretation that the centerline of the knee impact tests of FMVSS 222 only be required on or inside of a line 1 1/2" (same as knee form radius) from the edge of the leg protection zone. The reason for the request was to insure that it is physically possible to obtain the required contact area and to insure that enough padding of the correct composition is available for the knee form to contact.

Reference number 2 grants the request of reference number 1.

The purpose of this letter is to confirm our assumption that the same reasoning should be applicable to the head protection zone.

Thank you for your early response.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: 1982-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 5, 1982 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting reconsideration of the agency's letter of July 22, 1982, advising you that a certain Volvo truck Model F12 had exceeded the three-year limit for nonconforming vehicles temporarily imported for purposes of test or experiment.

I have reviewed this file and determined that the agency's earlier letter was based upon the erroneous assumption that Mack Trucks was the importer of the truck in question. The facts appear to be that the truck was imported not by Mack but by Volvo of America on May 4, 1978 under the declaration that it conformed to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and was so certified (19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii)).

However, on December 13, 1979 Mack Trucks informed us that it had purchased the vehicle from Volvo, both parties being aware that it did not meet Federal safety regulations, that Mack had "recently" learned that the vehicle had come into the country under a mistaken declaration, and that Volvo should have entered it under the testing exemption provided by 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). Since then the agency has treated Mack as if it were the importer of the vehicle.

We are sorry for this error. Volvo appears to be in technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by importing and selling a nonconforming motor vehicle, and by mistakenly declaring that it did conform. Because Volvo never filed an amended declaration form the testing exemption never came into effect; had one been in effect, Volvo could have leased the truck to Mack but its sale would have been a violation.

Mack's status is only that of a purchaser of a nonconforming truck imported by another person. The Act does not prohibit such purchase or regulate the use of such vehicles. Further, we find that the 3-year limit has never applied to this vehicle, and that Mack may make indefinite use of it and dispose of it as it wishes.

SINCERELY,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

August 5, 1982

Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel (NOA-30) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Vinson: Subject: Volvo F-12 Truck-Tractor VIN5122230 Imported for Test & Evaluation In May, 1978, Mack Trucks, Inc., purchased from the Truck Division of Volvo of America Corporation a Volvo model F-12 Truck-Tractor to be used as part of a competitive chassis engineering evaluation program in conjunction with the development of a new model series. This vehicle was not in compliance with all applicable safety standards and was, therefore, imported in accordance with 19CFR12.80(b) (1) (vii).

Under the provisions of 19CFR12.80(b) (2), Mack Trucks, Inc. was granted permission to operate the vehicle on the public road only until May 4, 1982. We have attached for your information all relevant correspondence pertaining to the importation and use of the subject vehicle to date.

Due to circumstances beyond our control, we have not been able to maintain our evaluation program schedule and are, therefore, requesting permission to operate the vehicle on the public highways until May 4, 1983. This should allow us to complete the program as planned.

In support of our request, we wish to offer the following relevant facts which prompted us to seek this extension or deviation:

(a) Economic conditions over the past several years, and the resultant down turn in our industry, have forced us to re-evaluate, and, in some cases, delay our new model programs. In light of this condition, we have not been able to utilize the subject vehicle on a continuing basis as initially planned.

(b) Since May, 1978, Mack has accumulated only 4,730 miles on the vehicle in question and we expect to add only another 1300 miles before May, 1983. As can be seen, this is very limited exposure on the public roads, particularly in light of the fact that part of the distance travelled was and will be on our own test track.

(c) Mack Trucks, Inc., as one of the largest exporters of heavy-duty trucks from the U. S., feels very strongly about retaining and expanding our overseas markets with suitable, indeed, superior products. At this point in our new model program, we are concentrating on an export version of our new COE vehicle which will compete in the world marketplace against such vehicles as the Volvo. It is, therefore, imperative that we complete a full and meaningful evaluation of the vehicle in question to develop a truly competitive product.

(d) With the probable introduction of heavy-duty Volvo trucks into the North American marketplace in the near future, due to the acquisition by Volvo of the White Motor Company, it becomes important for us to complete the evaluation and testing of this vehicle in order to appraise our competitiveness in the domestic market.

In view of the above facts, we request a deviation from the requirements of 19CFR12.80(b) (2) to allow us to use the subject vehicle on the highways until May 4, 1983. We would be only too pleased to discuss this matter further if you so desire in order to obtain a timely decision.

S. Robson Executive Engineer of Vehicle Regulations

CC: FRANCIS ARMSTRONG, DIR. OFC. OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT

ID: aiam1401

Dear Mr. Sullivan: In response to your February 11, 1974, request in behalf of constituent, Mr. Frank Mills of Saint Louis, I would like to discuss the legal implications of modifications to the ignition interlock system on 1974 model passenger cars. I am not familiar with the booklet to which Mr. Mills refers.; The interlock is one part of Standard 208, which like any other safet standard issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to new vehicles only. Once a vehicle is sold for purposes other than resale and the buyer takes delivery, he may modify the system or legally have the system modified by an automobile repair service to accommodate circumstances, such as physical incapacity, which make use of the belts unwise or inconvenient.; Whether or not a dealer's disconnection of an interlock system unde any given specified set of circumstances would be legally permitted is a conclusion which the courts would determine if called upon to decide such an issue. The position of this agency is that any act by a dealer to disconnect an interlock system which could be related to a sales transaction or the introduction into interstate commerce of a motor vehicle is prohibited. In this respect, we support H.R. 5529 which would prohibit any motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing or rendering inoperative any Federally-required safety equipment, including interlocks, from new or used vehicles. The prohibition would not apply to vehicle owners.; I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr Mills at his St. Louis address to assure receipt of the information by February 21, 1974.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1259

Dear Mr. Vara: This is in response to your September 4, 1973, petition for rule makin to amend Standard 125, *Warning devices*, to permit the triangular portion of the device to tilt to a position of 30 degrees from the vertical when subjected to winds of 40 mph from any direction for 3 minutes.; The present standard permits 10 degrees tilt under these condition Rowland Development Corporation of Kensington, Connecticut, and Safety Triangles Company of Phoenix, Arizona, have also requested modification of the tilt rule to permit 30 degrees movement. The NHTSA determined that such tilting distorted the distinctive shape of the equilateral triangle and reduced its reflective characteristics. There factors outweighed the claimed benefits of the proposed change. The NHTSA published its decision in the Federal Register on January 30, 1973 (Docket No. 4-2, Notice 6, 38 F.R. 2760).; We have considered your phone calls and your letters of July 25, 1973 August 4, 1973, and September 4, 1973, to the Office of Operating Systems. One letter enclosed a report dated July 13, 1973, which indicates that your device may tilt as much as 80 degrees, which distorts its appearance and reduces its reflective ability. The NHTSA has concluded that the rapid 'flickering' movement which you consider a desirable feature of your device does not outweigh these disadvantages. Therefore, in conformity with our response to earlier petitions for a 30 degrees tilt, your petition is denies. A copy of the previous denial is enclosed for your information.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 06-005429as-6

ID: nht88-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/88

FROM: LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER -- SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, VEHICLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

TO: TAYLOR VINSON--ATTORNEY ADVISOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/15/88 TO LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) has been asked to help determine the desirability of adding a "deceleration" or "pre-braking" warning light to the light configuration which is normally used on automobiles. As presently envisioned, this light woul d be amber in color and would be illuminated when the driver removes pressure from the accelerator pedal sufficiently to cause the automobile speed to start to decrease, due to the effect of engine compression, and would be extinguished automatically whe never the driver reapplies pressure to the accelerator pedal.

SwRI considers that a "deceleration light" of this type has the potential to reduce the incidence of automobile rear-end collisions (see Attachment 1) and that this potential is maximized if the light is located in as conspicuou a location as possible . The "best" location is considered to be immediately adjacent (or as close as possible) to the location of the "high-mounted stoplamp" since this location appears to offer the highest degree of visibility and would also serve to attract attention to th e high-mounted stoplamp area.

This location appears to have already been considered by NHTSA for this purpose, since it is mentioned as a consideration in FMVSS No. 108 on page PRE 137, and the principle is in widespread use on schoolbuses which use a manually activated flashing a mber light to warn that the red stop lights are about to be turned on and that all traffic must stop.

A review of FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) has failed to locate any requirement which would preclude locating an additional light adjacent to the high-mounted stoplamp; however, this type of requirement was conside red at one time (FMVSS 108, pages PRE 132-133 and PRE 135) and SwRI would like to find out if any requirement exists now, or is contemplated for the future, which would prevent the use of this location.

If I can provide further information or answer any questions which might expedite the answer to this question, please call (512) 522-3017.

Sincerely,

DECELERATION LIGHT MAXIMUM BENEFIT SITUATIONS The following three categories of driving situations are considered to be the situations in which deceleration lights would be of maximum benefit in reducing rear-end collisions.

HEAVY TRAFFIC (High speed/high traffic density with decreased vehicle separation distances)

High traffic density, with the associated decrease in visibility and increased need for enhanced reaction time, leads to a situation where reaction times become additive and eventually reach the point where a following driver is placed in a situation where his vehicle has exceeded its physical capability of stopping in time to avoid an accident. Deceleration lights offer the potential for minimizing this progressive lengthening of reaction time and thereby permitting long strings of cars to stop saf ely. Deceleration lights would also provide valuable information about adjoining lane driver intentions, particularly in lane change situations where an apparent opening in an adjoining traffic lane may be about to vanish if the driver of the vehicle at the front of the opening has decided to slow down and has taken his foot off the accelerator preparatory to stepping on the brakes.

MERGING TRAFFIC (Converging situations between vehicles entering or leaving limited access roadways)

A particularly volatile and rapidly changing situation occurs when two streams of traffic merge and the driver of the vehicle with the right-of-way is often forced to guess whether or not a merging driver is going to yield, speed up, or slow down. Th is guess is made harder by the fact that most drivers control their merging maneuver by use of the accelerator pedal only, and thus leave only the rate-of-change of their speed as a clue to their intentions. The driver with the right-of-way is almost al ways driving the faster, overtaking, vehicle and would be able to see a deceleration light which could furnish valuable clues about the other driver's intentions. A deceleration light would also furnish valuable information to drivers following the vehi cle with the righ-of-way if that driver decides to "let up on the gas" and give a merging vehicle more room to complete the merging maneuver.

DECREASED TRACTION (Braking situations where low traction may cause skids or other loss of control situations if brakes are applied too heavily)

Many drivers fail to realize the need for increased spacing between car during slippery conditions (rain, snow, ice, etc.). At the same time most drivers are taught that the proper way to slow down in slippery conditions is to let up on the accelerat or and allow the vehicle to decelerate gradually. This combination is likely to cause accidents involving following cars which do not realize that they are following a car which is slowing down until it is too late for them to make a controlled stop. A deceleration light would provide this information for following drivers and allow them to initiate their own stop, or speed reduction, in time to remain in control.