ID: 9128_freshener

Mr. Robert V. Payne
Transcents, Inc.
11516 Gardenia Dr.
Pittsburgh, PA 15235




Dear Mr. Payne:

This responds to your letter and phone conversations with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) staff regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of interior materials, to an air freshener system manufactured by your company. As explained below, FMVSS No. 302 does not apply to your product.

In your letter, you described your product as an air freshener system that is installed in the evaporator compartment of a buss ventilation system. You explained that the system automatically sprays a fragrance into the vehicles occupant compartment air space. In a phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you explained that your system is typically separated from a vehicles occupant compartment by a louvered vent cover. You asked whether FMVSS No. 302 would apply to your product, or to an aerosolized version of it, when installed in a vehicle.

FMVSS No. 302 applies to new motor vehicles, and specifies burn resistance requirements for particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, used in the vehicle occupant compartment. The components listed in S4.1 are:

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

Air freshener systems are not listed in S4.1 of the standard. Also, it appears that your air freshener system is not incorporated into any component listed in S4.1. Thus, your product, including an aerosolized version, is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 302.

Please note that there are other requirements that could affect your product. NHTSA has jurisdiction over defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your systems are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)In addition, there are other agencies in the U.S. Department of Transportation that might have requirements for your product. We suggest that you contact the Research and Special Projects Administration at (202) 366-4400 for information about pressure vessels, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at (202) 493-0349 concerning requirements for large trucks and buses.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:302
d.2/11/05

ID: 86-5.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Edward T. Fennell, Jr. -- Amilite Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/31/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Terry E. Quinn (Std. 205); 9/18/87 letter from Terry Quinn to NHTSA (occ 1128)

TEXT:

Mr. Edward T. Fennell, Jr. Amilite Corporation 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530

Dear Mr. Fennell:

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1986, concerning the marking requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You explained that your company represents several glazing manufacturers that make windshields. You said that your company sometimes receives orders from other companies asking to have a windshield made for them with their own corporate logo marked on the windshield. You asked if a company can, with the permission of the other company, mark a windshield with the other company's logo and its own DOT identification number. As discussed below, such a practice is permissible.

Section 6 of Standard No. 205 sets forth the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. Section 6.1 requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material in accordance with the section 6 of American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.la, July 3, 1980 (ANS Z-26). One of the requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26 is that a manufacturer mark its glazing with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." In addition to those requirements, S6.2 of Standard No. 276 requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material designed to be used in a specific vehicle with the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer code mark assigned by this agency. The standard defines a prime glazing manufacturer as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material."

One reason for the marking requirements of Standard No. 205 is to aid the agency in identifying the actual manufacturer of the glazing for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Since, in the situation you described, the prime glazing manufacturer will be placing its own DOT code mark on the glazing, the agency's ability to identify easily and accurately the manufacturer of the glazing will not be impaired. Therefore, we would not consider the use of another manufacturer's logo on the glazing to be a violation of the standard as long as the prime glazing manufacturer has marked the glazing with its own DOT code mark.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 30, 1986 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to seek a ruling for the logo on windshields. We represent several factories, and at times we receive orders from other factories to have windshields made for them with their own corporate logo. We realize the fabricating factory must have only its own D.O.T. number in this logo.

Please confirm it is acceptable by your agency to use any logo (as long as permission is granted) with the Manufacturing Factories' Registered D.O.T. number.

I have attached a copy of a Letter of Permission to use a corporate logo on purchased products for your review. Should have any questions, please feel free to call on our toll free number (800) 645-6240. A prompt reply would be appreciated.

Sincerely, AmiLite Corporation

Edward T. Fennell, Jr.

ETF:lam Encs.

Mr. Carmen Mazzocki Amilite Corp.

666 Old Country Road Garden City, New York 11530

Dear Carmen:

Attached is the facsimile of the LOF logos for clear, tinted, and tinted shade windshields. Please note that the letters at the bottom are to be ignored and that ORAN will use their D.O.T. No. (268) and "M" numbers when manufacturing the U.S. domestic truck 1/2-windshields for LOF. For the current order they will only need the tinted (E-Z-EYE) safety float monogram. The position of the logo should be the same position as the OEM manufacturer's logo.

This letter will serve as permission for ORAN PALMACH ZOVA< kibbutz zova 90870, israel to produce our p.o. 2053-6004, and 2053-6002 totaling 3,000 lites using the lof logo oran d.o.t. number. also attached is a copy of letter from indicating us that this practice in accordance with section 6 safety standard 205, glazing materials which incorporates by reference american national "safety code for motor vehicles operating on land highways", z26.6-1966 (ans z26).

If you have any questions, advise.

Richard P. Keim Manager - Inventory Control RK/fb

Attach.

ID: 04-008470drn

N. Martin Stringer, Esq.
McKinney & Stringer
Corporate Tower
101 North Robinson, Suite 1300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-5510

Dear Mr. Stringer:

This responds to the two letters you sent us dated November 2, 2004, concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to school buses that have been promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). One of your letters relates to how State definitions of school vehicles affect NHTSAs requirements to sell certified school buses. The other asks about the permissibility of reclining seat backs on school buses.

You state that the Oklahoma Legislature has created a new category of buses, known as "auxiliary transportation equipment", to be used for transporting students "to and from extracurricular activities, but does not include transportation equipment used for transporting students from their homes to school and from school to their homes". You explain that the legislators and members of the school board believe that the legislation enables school districts to purchase and use "traditional charter-type buses, as well as 10+ passenger vans" for extracurricular activities. You explain that state officials believe that buses (new and used) for extracurricular activities are "exempt from the FMVSSs for school buses". You ask in the one letter: "Under FMVSS, can Oklahoma school districts purchase and use new traditional charter-type buses and/or [used] 10+ passenger vans for use in transporting school children to and from extracurricular activities?" You also ask the same question with regard to used buses.

As you are aware, on July 31, 2003 (68 FEDREG 44892), NHTSA published its final rule creating the multifunction school activity bus (MFSAB) as a school bus category. The MFSAB was established for use in transporting children on trips other than those between home and school. The final rule took effect on September 2, 2003, but manufacturers have had the option of complying with the new rule as of July 31, 2003. As school buses, MFSABs must meet all FMVSSs applicable to school buses except for S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, and FMVSS No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices.

New Buses

We do not regulate which vehicles school districts must purchase, nor do we mandate which must be used. However, we regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. A person may not sell or lease a new "school bus" (as defined under NHTSAs regulations) unless it complies with, and is certified as complying with, all FMVSS applicable to school buses, regardless of how the vehicle would be characterized under State law.

NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling a new vehicle to sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling a new "school bus" must sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applicable to school buses. 49 U.S.C. 30125 defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. (NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events.)This definition was enacted as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

Our "school bus" definition determines which new vehicles sold or leased by dealers are required under Federal law to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. If a State has a different school bus definition, that definition determines the applicability of State "use" requirements for school buses, but it has no effect on the Federal requirement on dealers to sell school buses that comply with the applicable FMVSS. Thus, Oklahomas defining a school bus as "auxiliary transportation equipment" does not affect the obligation of dealers selling the new vehicle for extracurricular transportation to sell a certified school bus. If a dealer sold new "auxiliary transportation equipment" to a school district that did not meet the FMVSSs for school buses when it should have under our requirements, the dealer would be subject to Federal penalties under the statute.

Used Buses

As explained below, we do not regulate the sale of used vehicles. Under Federal law, dealers or other persons may sell a used bus (e.g. , a charter bus or used 10+ passenger van) to a school district for the transportation of students even though the vehicle is not certified to Federal school bus safety standards.

NHTSAs requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith other than for resale" (see 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1)). Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSAs school bus safety standards.

That view is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses". NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses". Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

Reclining Seat Backs

You wish to know whether FMVSS No. 222 prohibits school bus seats from reclining. The answer is no. However, the school bus with such seats must meet all applicable FMVSS No. 222 requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.1/7/05

ID: nht71-3.7

DATE: 05/24/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 7, 1971, requesting clarification of S4.9 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." Your letter asks whether the release mechanism requirements of S4.9 apply to either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that is used to restrain the child seating system pursuant to S4.4(b) of the standard. Your letter also raises by implication the question whether a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that pursuant to S4.9, is used to directly restrain the child must also meet the release mechanism requirements of S4.9.

The answer to both questions is no. The release mechnism requirements that each Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly is required to meet are those specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. The requirements for the release mechanism specified in S4.9 of Standard No. 213 apply to those components, other than a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, that directly restrain the child.

ID: 5716 filters

Mr. Larry A. Gaughan &
Mr. Seongju Kim
Bldg 60-1W-17
2465 Lexington Ave S
Mendota Heights, MN 55120

Dear Messrs. Gaughan & Kim:

This is in response to your e-mail and a phone conversation between Mr. Gaughan and Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, in which you ask if the cabin air filters manufactured by your company must meet the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. You supply the air filters to a vehicle manufacturer for installation in new vehicles. As explained below, the answer is no.

You described the cabin air filters as designed to clean the air entering the cabin of the motor vehicle through the heating and air-conditioning vents. You stated that the filters are located either behind or under "the dash of the vehicle or in the engine compartment of the vehicle."

FMVSS No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Section 4.1 of the standard lists the components in the vehicle occupant compartments that manufacturers must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of S4.3. The components listed in S4.1 are:

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

Cabin air filters are not listed in S4.1 of the standard. Thus, they are not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 302.

Please note that there are other requirements that could affect your product. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also has jurisdiction over defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your filters are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on Standard No. 302, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:302
d.9/4/03

ID: nht93-3.22

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: Shintaro Nakatsuka -- Vice President, Environment & Safety, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/93 from John Womack to Shintaro Nakatsuka (A41; Std. 102; Std. 114)

TEXT:

Mazda, like many other manufacturers, is relying more and more upon the use of electronics in the development of future vehicles. In the course of examining some applications of these technologies, we discovered some ambiguity between the requirements of FMVSS 102 and FMVSS 114. There appears to be an unintended inconsistency between the two regulations.

We believe that it is possible to interpret the provisions of FMVSS 102 along with the provisions of FMVSS 114 so as to eliminate this ambiguity. We are requesting that you consider the possible interpretations discussed herein and advise us whether we are correct.

In 1989, NHTSA amended FMVSS 102 in order to permit the use of electronic gear shift sequence displays. The agency replaced the requirement that the gear shift sequence be PERMANENTLY displayed with a requirement that it be displayed only when the ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted or when the transmission is not in park (49CFR102 S3.1.4.1).

In 1991, NHTSA amended FMVSS 114 to accommodate electrical transmission shift lock systems. Here the standard was amended to allow override systems to be incorporated in vehicles that permitted the transmission to be shifted out of park in the case of a power failure. The amendment that was added permits the transmission to be shifted out of park in the case of a power failure provided that the key is removed and the vehicle cannot be steered (49CFR114 S4.2.2(b)(1)). This permits towing when the vehicle is otherwise disabled.

In the course of examining electrical systems for future vehicle programs, we encountered some ambiguity between the two provisions discussed above. There appears to be what can best be described as unintended inconsistency between the two provisions. The agency clearly contemplated power failures and the need to deal with them when it added the override provisions to FMVSS 114. This standard permits the incorporation of features in a vehicle that allows the transmission to be moved out of park, provided first, that the key is not in the ignition so as to prevent vehicle operation, and second, that the vehicle cannot be steered.

These safeguards assure that moving the transmission out of park does not inadvertently present an unsafe situation.

However, when we turn to the requirements of FMVSS 102, that standard does not explicitly address the situation where the transmission has been moved out of park in the case of a power failure (as contemplated under the provisions of FMVSS 114). It is the safeguards that are incorporated in FMVSS 114 that allow a manufacturer to design and sell a vehicle with an electrical shift lock system.

We presume that reading FMVSS 102 alongside FMVSS 114 allows a similar situation with respect to electronic shift sequence displays. We believe that the provisions of S3.1.4.1(b) of FMVSS 102 would not have to be satisfied in a vehicle equipped with an electronic gear shift sequence display were that vehicle to suffer the same power failure that necessitated the application of the shift lock override provision of FMVSS 114, provided that the same safeguards pertained, minimizing any possible safety risk.

An alternative interpretation of this issue may be equally valid. Under this interpretation, we advance the position that the agency never intended that the provisions of FMVSS 102 would apply in situations where a manufacturer elected to use an electronic transmission shift sequence display and there was a power failure.

It is clear that the 1989 amendments were promulgated only to permit manufacturers to offer electronic displays. In amending the regulation to allow those types of displays, the agency clearly recognized that its requirements could not be satisfied under conditions where there was a power failure. Thus, compliance testing was never intended to be conducted in such a situation.

In fact, only where the agency has a particular safety concern in cases where there is a power failure, such as those conditions addressed by FMVSS 114, does NHTSA explicitly establish requirements that apply in such a situation. The absence of any such requirements in FMVSS 102 is a further indication that the standard is not meant to apply when there is no power.

We would appreciate an early response to this request for interpretation. If NHTSA does not believe that there is a suitable interpretation that permits FMVSS 102 to be read consistently with FMVSS 114, we respectfully request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking and that it receive expedited treatment.

Please feel free to contact me or Mr. M. Ishibashi of this office should you have any questions.

ID: aiam1468

Dear Mr. Hogan: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1974, enclosing a sampl certification label and requesting that we approve as an alternate location the inside wall left of the driver's seat beneath the driver's side window, to the left of the dash.; The labels you supply state in day, month, and year, the dates o complete and incomplete vehicle manufacture, and that date by which applicable standards are determined. The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) call for these dates to be stated only by month and year. While we prefer that the regulation be followed specifically, and thus that month and year only be specified, we will accept the format you have submitted which includes the day. The other information on the labels conforms to the Certification requirement.; With respect to your request for an alternate location, we approve th alternate location you request.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2330

Dear Mr. Nims: This will confirm your telephone conversation of June 23, 1976, wit Mr. Vinson of this office concerning the preemptive effect of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with respect to moped turn signals.; The Federal standards are issued pursuant to Title 15, United State Code, Section 1392(a). Judging that a multiplicity of State and Federal vehicle safety standards would constitute a burden on interstate commerce, Congress also enacted Section 1392(d), which prohibits a State from establishing or continuing in effect a vehicle safety standard that differs from a Federal safety standard covering the same aspect of vehicle performance. For example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 contains requirements for motorcycle headlamp performance. Therefore, if a State has a standard on motorcycle headlamp performance it must be identical to the Federal one, and may not impose either greater or lesser requirements. On the other hand, there is no Federal standard for fog lamps, and a State may set whatever requirements it deems appropriate for fog lamps.; How does preemption apply to moped turn signals? Under the Federa standards, a moped is categorized as a 'motorcycle' since it is 'a motor vehicle. . .having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.3(b)). For some purposes a moped is considered a 'motor-driven cycle' which is 'a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less.' Standard No. 108 requires motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, in recognition of the limited ability of low-powered motorcycles, Standard No. 108 was amended effective October 14, 1974, to add paragraph S4.1.1.26 which states that 'A motor- driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be equipped with turn signal lamps.' Pursuant to Section 1392(d) this means that a State can validly require a moped to be equipped with turn signal lamps in only two instances: If the moped were manufactured between January 1, 1973 and October 14, 1974, or if it were manufactured on or after October 14, 1974, and has a top speed exceeding 30 mph.; I hope this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your June 14, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Section 5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 217 provides manufacturers with three options with which they may meet the unobstructed openings requirements for buses other than school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. You asked for our confirmation of your interpretation that windows and doors on these vehicles which meet the specifications of options (b) and (c) of section 5.2.2 have no requirements as to emergency exit release, extension, and identification. As discussed below, windows and doors installed in compliance with section 5.2.2 in a bus other than a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must comply with the requirements of section 5.3 and 5.4 of the standard. They do not have to comply with the requirements of S5.5 unless specially-installed emergency exits, such as push-out windows, are used.

Section 5.3 specifies emergency exit release requirements for push-out windows or other emergency exits not required by S5.2.3. Similarly, section 5.4 specifies emergency exit extension requirements for push-out windows or other emergency exits not required by S5.2.3. Since section 5.2.3 only specifies emergency exit requirements for school buses, the windows and doors on buses other than school buses with GVWR of 10,000 or less must comply with Sections 5.3 through 5.5 of the Standard. The Standard permits the emergency exit requirements to be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which are manually operable to an open position that provides a specified area for egress. Standard roll-down windows generally meet these requirements.

You are correct in your understanding that Standard No. 217 does not require standard roll-down windows and doors on these vehicles to be labeled as emergency exits. The purpose of the emergency exit marking requirements of Standard No. 217 is to identify for occupants the location and use of specially- installed emergency exits. In the case of buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, the emergency exit requirements may be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which meet the specifications of S5.2.2(b). Standard roll-down windows generally meet these specifications. The agency has determined that the operation of standard roll-down windows and doors are generally familiar to persons who are old enough to read instructions. Thus there would be little justification for providing emergency exit markings for these exits. However, section 5.5.1 provides that specially-installed emergency exits whose operation are not immediately obvious in such buses, such as push-out windows, are not exempted from the emergency exit identification requirement.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NHTSA NOA-30:D.Hom:p11:69511:7/6/84:PR: NOA-30:Subj/Chron Concurrence: NRM; NEF Interps: Redbook (3) Std. 217 NRM-01:Info NEF-01:Info OCC 765

June 14, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CFR Part 571.217 Bus Window Retention and Release Dear Mr. Berndt:

Section S5.2.2, "Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.", of the subject standard states the following:

Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less may meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing: (a) Devices that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 without using remote controls or central power systems; (b) Windows that can be opened manually to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches; or (c) Doors

Option (a) specifies devices that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5. Options (b) and (c) make no reference to the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5. Based on this it is our understanding that options (b) windows . . . and (c) doors, do not have to meet the requirements of Sections S5.3 through S5.4 dealing with emergency exit release, extension, and identification.

In other words, on a bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less built on a Commercial cutaway van chassis, large windows meeting S5.2.2 (b) and/or the driver's door provided with the chassis and the entrance door, can be used to meet the unobstructed opening requirements of S5.2 without regard to the requirements of S5.3, S5.4, or S5.5.

We request your confirmation that our understanding is correct and thank you for your early reply.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services

fvc c: FMVSS 217 File

ID: nht87-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase, Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/23/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M. Iwase (Std. 108)

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimuzu-shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1987, with further reference to features of a 60 degree slant replaceable bulb headlamp presently being developed by Koito. You have explained that the aiming pads for the new system will be installed on t he aiming adapter, rather than the headlamp lens, and have asked for confirmation that this is "not illegal" under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you noted in your letter, paragraph S4.1.1.36(a) (2) specifically requires the exterior face of each replaceable bulb headlamp lens to have three aiming pads. The agency has no specifications for the design of aiming adapters, and a headlamp without a iming pads would be one that is not designed to conform to the standard.

The agency is examining concepts for aiming methods for other than mechanical aim, but no amendments to Standard No. 108 are contemplated that would permit or require aiming pads to be on aiming adapters.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail Ms. Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. E. Z. Jones:

We would like to further ask you the following question of headlamp aiming adaptor in connection with your kind advice mentioned in your letter of July 23, l987 replying to our letter of March 24, l987. (Refer to the attached.)

RE = 1 ) Aiming Adaptor for 60 " Slant Bulb Replaceable Headlamp

As shown below, instead of being installed, on the lens of headlamps, aiming bosses are installed on the surface of the special adaptor which is to be equipped onto each vehicle so that mechanical aiming can be performed, by use of the headlamp aimer " s pecified SAE J602C.

Of course, the special adaptor is so designed that it can be surely attached onto the proper design position of headlamps.

The aiming bosses and markings, which are applied to 54. 1. 1.36 (a) (2)& (3) of FMVSS No. 108, are placed on the surface of the special adaptor.

(INSERT GRAPHICS)

Attn: Ms. Erica Z. Jones Date: Sept. 15, 1987 Page: 2 / 3

Question:

We believe that the aiming boss installation as abovementioned can be applied to FMVSS NO. 108 and not illegal under FMVSS NO. 108. We would like you to confirm whether our interpretation is correct or not.

Aiming pads are specified in 54.1. 1.36 (a) (2) of FMVSS NO. 108 as follows;

"The exterior face of each replaceable bulb headlamp lens shall have three pads which meet the requirements of Figure 4, Dimensional Specifications for Location of Aiming Pads on Replaceable Bulb Headlamp Units .. ."

However, for all this prescription, we can not find it necessary that aiming pads shall be placed on the lens of headlamps which can be aimed by the use of the adaptor equipped onto each vehicle, because the special adaptor can be designed regardless of lens bosses so as to be surely attached onto the proper design position of headlamps in any way, we think.

And it is not only useless but also impractical that the specified aiming bosses are placed onto the lens of headlamps which slant up to about 60o in vertical and horizontal, because the projection of the aiming bosses becomes higher according to the len s slant inevitably.

(INSERT GRAPHICS)

Attn: Ms. Erica Z. Jones Date: Sept. 15, 1987 Page: 3 / 3

Upon our consideration of the abovementioned matter, it should not be required that aiming bosses shall be placed on the lens of headlamps which are aimed by use of the special adaptor equipped onto each vehicle.

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, M. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

See 7/23/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M. Iwase.