ID: 77-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/77

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

TO: Alabama Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 7, 1977, letter to and conversation with Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus standards to college buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that colleges do not fall within the ambit of the school bus regulations. I am enclosing a copy of a previous letter on this issue. Accordingly, seat spacing in buses used to transport college students can be determined by the particular state in which the bus will be operated.

Your problem appears to be somewhat more complex than the above description, however, since you require the college bus to be painted yellow, have flashing lights, and be labeled "school bus." It is unlikely that any manufacturers will sell you a bus marked and painted as a school bus that does not comply with the Federal school bus requirements. Were they to do this, it would subject them to liability if the bus were misused to transport school children, which from all outward appearances it would be designed to do. We suggest that you label the bus with the name of the college or other institution and drop the "school bus" designation. This would permit manufacturers to supply the bus without fear of violating Federal requirements.

SINCERELY,

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway, Traffic Safety Adm.

The State of Alabama operates buses to transport students to past secondary schools that operate separate and apart from the "primary, preprimary and secondary schools". There is a great need for these buses to have a seat spacing greater than the requirement in FMVSS 222. Any assistance in getting this seat spacing relayed for past secondary will be greatly appreciated.

Norman N Lopez State Coordinator of Pupil Transportation Alabama Department of Eduction

ID: aiam5614

"Re: Headlamp System Containing Fog Lamp Dear Mr. Matsui: This replie to your letter of August 11, 1995, with reference to possible headlamp systems that produce a fog lamp beam, as well as upper and lower beams. According to your letter, 'the fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex., HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be lit simultaneously.' You refer to paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and conclude that 'such a combination will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.' We agree, with respect to the headlamp itself, that a fog lamp operating simultaneously with the lower beam will not impair the effectiveness of the lower beam's photometrics and ability to illuminate the roadway. We view this as a supplement to the lower beam. However, under S5.1.3, the question is whether the fog lamp, either operating alone or when the lower beam headlamp is activated, will impair the effectiveness of any front lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The responsibility for the determination of compliance with S5.1.3 is not Stanley's, but that of the manufacturer of the vehicle in which the combination headlamp is installed, who must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The other front lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 consists of parking lamps and turn signal lamps. The amber parking lamps serve to mark a vehicle, a function incidentally served by white fog lamps. Thus we do not believe that the Stanley headlamp would impair the effectiveness of parking lamps in any position in which the headlamp may be installed on the front of a vehicle. The situation differs with respect to turn signal lamps. A vehicle manufacturer must take care to ensure that a vehicle on which the combination headlamp is installed conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 108 and to paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE Standards J588 NOV84 or J1395 APR85, the two turn signal standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.4 treats the relationship between luminous intensity and photometrics 'where the front turn signal is mounted in close proximity to the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the low beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp.' It does this by establishing luminous intensity multipliers based upon the distance that separates the lamps. For example, if the space between the front turn signal and the lighted edge of the fog lamp is 75 mm to less than 100 mm, the photometric requirements for a front turn signal lamp are 1.5 times more than those required when the spacing is 100 mm or more (Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 requires the multiplier at this distance to be 2.5 when the lamp is a lower beam headlamp rather than a fog lamp). Finally, as a cautionary note, we believe that Stanley should evaluate the glare potential of the headlamp when the fog lamp and lower beam are operating simultaneously, as it is important to safety that oncoming drivers not be distracted or discomforted in the operation of their vehicles. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: XSCI

Mr. Dan Goor
Vice President for Technology
Xportation Safety Concepts, Inc.
4143 Sinton Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80907





Dear Mr. Goor:

This responds to your September 21, 2000, letter to Ms. Heidi Coleman of my staff, informing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of your intent to file an "application for rulemaking" concerning our safety standard for child restraint systems (Standard No. 213, 49 CFR 571.213).

You have developed a rear-facing child restraint which you believe is "compatible with an airbag." You would like NHTSA to adopt a regulation under which a manufacturer could certify rear-facing seats as "acceptable for use an air bag" if the seats meet certain performance requirements. You state:

The Application for RuleMaking [sic] will propose:

That providing, based on NHTSA approved testing, any given rear-facing infant seat/restraint which performs within CRABI performance guide-lines (as may be modified by NHTSA) when interacting with an airbag, be accredited, and labeled in a similar manner to: Certified acceptable for front seat placement. Additionally, such seats will not be required to carry labels to the contrary.

Standard No. 213 requires rear-facing child restraints to be conspicuously labeled with warnings to consumers not to place the restraint on the front seat with an air bag (S5.5.2(k)(4)). Assuming that you wish to change this requirement, the procedure for petitioning NHTSA for a change to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is set forth in 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, or certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

It is important for you to note that your child restraints must have the air bag warning label specified in S5.5.2(k)(4) in the absence of an amendment to the standard. You are not permitted to change the content of the label. Further, you should not assume that your petition will result in the amendment you seek. Our decision whether to grant your petition, should you decide to submit one, will be made in the context of an administrative proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

If you have further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213
d.10/27/00

ID: nht72-2.5

DATE: 12/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Cotter Atkinson Campbell & Kelsey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 27, 1972, inquiring about information on fuel tanks.

The location of fuel tanks in passenger cars is at the option of the vehicle manufacturer, since there are no Federal motor vehicles safety standards (FMVSS) concerned with tank location. The FMVSS are essentially performance oriented, and the manufacturer has the freedom for innovation and use of his own expertise in selecting the means for compliance to a specified safety performance requirement. FMVSS No. 301, which has been in effect since January 1, 1968, specifies certain fuel containment requirements as the result of a front-end impact at 30 miles per hour into a fixed barrier. Proposed amendments for FMVSS No. 301 have been issued specifying performance requirements for rear-end impacts, but the final rule has not yet been issued. The effective date for this amendment, then issued, has now been indicated as September 1, 1976. Copies of FMVSS No. 301 and the Notice of Proposed Rule Making are enclosed for your interest. A copy of Public Law 89-563 is also enclosed with a booklet briefly describing the current standards.

A number of research studies have been completed on fuel systems, and some statistical data is provided in these reports which may be of interest. These reports are available from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, at a price of three dollars per volume. The RTIS code number must be identified when ordering.

1. In Assessment of Automotive Fuel System Fire Hazards, Dynamic Science Final Report on Contract No. PN-11-7579, December 1971, NYIS Codes PB-205240 and PB-208241 (2 Volumes)

2. Impact Intrusion Characteristics of Fuel Systems, Contract No. PN-11-7309 (Cornwall Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc.) April 1970, RTIS Code PB-159347

3. Fuel Tank Protection: Fairchild-Miller, Contract No. FR-11-6919, June 1969, RTIS Code PB-191148 (1 Volume)

4. Investigation of Motor Vehicle Performance Standards for Fuel Tank Protection: Fairchild-Miller, Contract No. PB-11-6696, September 1967, RTIS Code PB-177690 (2 Volume).

The correspondence containing comments from manufacturers and other interested parties, together with other documentation concerning the rule making system to (Illegible Word) FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, it contained in the public record. Docket No. 70-20 identifies this rule making action, and this file is available for conducting in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5221, Washington, D.C. 20590.

We trust this information will provide some of the data you are seeking.

Sincerely,

LAW OFFICES OF COTTER, ATKINSON, CAMPBELL & KELSEY

October 27, 1972

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

This office is interested in a law suit against the American Motors Corporation for the placing of the gas tank in the extreme rear of the car. We are trying to determine how many accidents and burns result from the placing of the gas tank in this position and the engineering and structural reasons for placing the gas tank there. Do you have or do you know where we can get information concerning gas tank explosions or leakages that result from fires after a rear-end collision or the engineering and structural reasons for placing the gas tank in that position?

We are also interested in any studies or investigations concerning the best position to put the gas tank. The car involved was manufactured in 1971 and any studies that would be applicable to cars of that year or before would be extremely helpful.

Please let us know of any charges in connection with obtaining the aforementioned information.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Paul M. Fish

ID: aiam1842

Dear Mr. AuCoin: This is in response to your letter of March 11, 1975, forwarding comment from one of your constituents, Mr. Keith A. Burbidge, on the proposed weakening of the bumper standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would then have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975 which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Burbidge appears to be directing his comments to what he believe to be a proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; We have placed Mr. Burbidge's letter in the appropriate docket. Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1874

Dear Mr. Rhodes: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. William R. Langer, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal Bumper Standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register Notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1970 (sic) model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency sponsored studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Langer has directed his comments to what he believes to be proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face (plastic) systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam1850

Dear Mr. Marx: This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Jim Lee Martin, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal Bumper Standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would then be increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency sponsored studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published on March 12, 1975 (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Martin has directed his comments to what he believes to be proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face (plastic) systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1849

Dear Mr. Marx: This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Jim Lee Martin, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal Bumper Standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1970 (sic) model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two ageny- sponsore (sic) studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Martin has directed his comments to what he believes to be proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face (plastic) systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1859

Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is in response to your letter of March 3, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from Mr. Jim Lee Martin, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal Bumper Standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1970 (sic) model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two ageny-sponsore (sic) studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Martin has directed his comments to what he believes to be proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face (plastic) systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1841

Dear Senator Chiles: This is in response to your letter of March 5, 1975, forwarding a inquiry from one of your constituents, Mr. Vincent Tetuan, concerning a proposed amendment to the Federal bumper standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would then have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975 which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Tetuan appears to be directing his comments to what he believes t be a proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel