ID: 1982-3.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1982

FROM: Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel

TO: M.B. Mathieson -- Director of Engineering, Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-29-90 from C. Karl to M. Shaw (OCC 4403); Also attached to letter dated 1-18-90 from R.E. Meadows; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl; Also attached to memo dated 11-28-8? from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's; Also attached to letter dated 11-27-90 from P.J. Rice to C. Karl (A36; Std. 217)

TEXT:

This responds to your September 13, 1982, letter concerning your "vandalock" system and Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Section S5.2.3.2 states that "the engine starting system of a school bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus. For purpose of this requirement, "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated by a person at the door without a special device such as a key or special information such as a combination." You state that your locking mechanism, which is a bolt device, doesn't meet the definition of "locked" since it requires neither a key nor special instructions. You further indicate that the engine will not start until the bolt is withdrawn.

We disagree that your bolt when in the closed position would not meet the definition of locked. The door would not be capable of opening from the outside without the use of special devices when the bolt was closed. Accordingly, the door would be considered locked.

However, nothing in Standard No. 217 prohibits the installation of locking doors as long as the vehicle cannot be started with the door in the locked position. As you noted, your vandalock system is designed to prevent the starting of a vehicle in such circumstances.

ID: nht80-1.7

DATE: 01/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Flexible Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office, you asked whether section S5.2.2 of the standard would apply to the windshield wiper controls which Grumman Flexible intends to install in its transit buses. As I understand your description, there are to be separate controls for the left and right windshield wipers and each control will allow for operation of the wiper over a continuous range of speeds.

The answer to your question is no. Section S5.2.2 of Standard 101-80 provides that:

Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed system control and any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. (emphasis added).

The function identification requirements are not applicable since their applicability is expressly limited to speed controls and to heating and air conditioning controls. The applicability of the extreme position identification requirements is similarly limited since "such controls" refers back to those controls already identified in S5.2.2.

ID: nht92-5.8

DATE: July 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Berkley C. Sweet -- Vice President, School Bus Manufacturers Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Berkley Sweet to Barry Felrice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 29, 1992 asking what minimum passenger size (weight and height) was used in developing the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. You noted that several school districts are now transporting newborn and under-school-age children to schools which provide day-care service, and that you have received inquiries concerning the "limits, if any, on passenger size and age that can be safely transported on school bus seats."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, defines a "school bus" as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purposes of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA has never specified a passenger size and/or age range applicable to the compartmentalized school bus seats required by Standard No. 222. In developing the standard, however, NHTSA considered the range of sizes and ages of children attending preprimary through secondary school.

NHTSA has developed approximate size and weight guidelines for child restraint systems. For children from birth to 9-12 months (or up to 20 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of an infant or convertible seat facing the rear. For children from 9-12 months to 4 years (or 20 pounds to 40 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of a convertible or toddler seat. If a school is transporting children in these age and weight ranges, they may want to consider using a school bus with safety belts to secure a child restraint system. I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled "Transporting Your Children Safely" for your information.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

(Text of Consumer Information Sheet omitted.)

ID: 7378

Mr. Berkley C. Sweet
Vice President
School Bus Manufacturers Institute
7508 Ben Avon Road
Bethesda, MD 20817

Dear Mr. Sweet:

This responds to your letter of May 29, 1992 asking what minimum passenger size (weight and height) was used in developing the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. You noted that several school districts are now transporting newborn and under-school-age children to schools which provide day-care service, and that you have received inquiries concerning the "limits, if any, on passenger size and age that can be safely transported on school bus seats."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, defines a "school bus" as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purposes of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA has never specified a passenger size and/or age range applicable to the compartmentalized school bus seats required by Standard No. 222. In developing the standard, however, NHTSA considered the range of sizes and ages of children attending preprimary through secondary school.

NHTSA has developed approximate size and weight guidelines for child restraint systems. For children from birth to 9-12 months (or up to 20 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of an infant or convertible seat facing the rear. For children from 9-12 months to 4 years (or 20 pounds to 40 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of a convertible or toddler seat. If a school is transporting children in these age and weight ranges, they may want to consider using a school bus with safety belts to secure a child restraint system. I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled "Transporting Your Children Safely" for your information.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:7/28/92

ID: 2859o

Mr. Michael Pomerantz
38th Floor Tower
35 E. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. Pomerantz:

As you requested in a May 27, 1988, telephone conversation with Ms.Fujita of my staff, I am enclosing a copy of our November 27, 1972, letter to Mr.David Humphreys concerning paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems.

Please note that a portion of our letter to Mr. Humphreys regarding seat cushion restraints has been superseded, as explained in our September 2, 1976, letter to Mr. Tokio Iinuma. Although you were concerned only with the language of S4.3 excepting seats "having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants," I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Iinuma for your information.

I understand that you might be contacting us with further questions on Standard No. 207. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

Enclosures ref:207 d:6/7/88

ID: 2956o

Mr. Michael Pomerantz
38th Floor Tower
35 E. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. Pomerantz:

As you requested in a May 27, 1988, telephone conversation with Ms.Fujita of my staff, I am enclosing a copy of our November 27, 1972, letter to Mr.David Humphreys concerning paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems.

Please note that a portion of our letter to Mr. Humphreys regarding seat cushion restraints has been superseded, as explained in our September 2, 1976, letter to Mr. Tokio Iinuma. Although you were concerned only with the language of S4.3 excepting seats "having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants," I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Iinuma for your information.

I understand that you might be contacting us with further questions on Standard No. 207. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

Enclosures ref:207 d:6/7/88

ID: aiam5229

"Dear Mr. Degenstein: This responds to your request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether a control for an automatic vehicle speed system (also known as a cruise control) would meet the location requirement of Standard No. 101, and whether the control must be illuminated. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes. Your letter explained that your company is developing a vehicle that 'will locate a cruise control switch in a console that is attached to the manual transmission shift lever, adjacent to the shift knob.' You state that the switches on the console will be 'operable by the driver.' You believe that because the cruise control console's location is similar to that of a switch located on the vehicle floor console, illumination of the cruise control is not necessary. Your first question asks whether the proposed location of the cruise control would meet Standard No. 101. S5.1 of Standard No. 101 specifies that each control listed in S5.1 'that is furnished' must be operable by the driver. S5.1 lists, under the heading of 'hand operated control,' the automatic vehicle speed system (i.e., the cruise control). Thus, under S5.1, a furnished hand operated cruise control must be operable by the driver. It appears from your letter that the switches on the cruise control console are operable by the driver. Two photographs you enclosed show the cruise control as mounted on the manual transmission shift lever, and as located so close to the driver's seat as to be almost touching it. Accordingly, the proposed location of the cruise control console would be permitted by Standard No. 101. Your second question asks whether your proposed cruise control would be subject to the illumination requirements of S5.3 of Standard No. 101. S5.3.1 sets requirements concerning controls which must be illuminated. It provides that (except for hand operated controls mounted on the floor), any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word 'yes' in column 4, 'Illumination,' shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. The automatic vehicle speed control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and is accompanied by 'yes' in column 4. Therefore, Standard No. 101 specifies that the cruise control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated, unless it is otherwise excepted in S5.3.1. As explained below, your cruise control would not be excepted. You believe that the control is akin to being 'mounted on the floor console' and thus excluded from S5.3.1's illumination requirements. We disagree. The dictionary definitions of 'mount' include 'to place on something raised,' and 'to place, fix, or fasten on or in the proper support, backing, etc. for the required purpose.' (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Both definitions support the view that the cruise control console is 'mounted' on the transmission shift lever, not the floor. The console is placed on the transmission shift lever (i.e., 'something raised'), and is 'place(d), fix(ed) or fasten(ed)' on the transmission shift lever for the 'required purpose' of being operable by hand. The console with the cruise control would not be operable by hand if the console were 'mounted' on the floor. Since the cruise control console is mounted on the manual transmission shift lever, not on the floor, it is not excluded by S5.3.1 from the illumination requirements. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 11958-2.pja

Mr. Bruce M. Gates
Gates Brothers Glass Shops
P.O. Box 657
Bellefontaine, OH 43311

Dear Mr. Gates:

This responds to your May 22 and May 23, 1996, e-mails concerning the practice of some auto glass replacement companies of replacing windshields in used vehicles using a butyl tape. You believe that this practice is unsafe because the butyl tape withstands less pressure than the primers and urethane that your company uses, and that you say the vehicle manufacturers specify in their installation procedures.

A provision in our statute (49 USC, Chapter 301) prohibits motor vehicle repair businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a motor vehicle standard . . . ." (30122(b)). You appear to be aware of that provision and that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has a longstanding position that the replacement of a damaged windshield is not a "making inoperative" with respect to the windshield mounting standard (Standard 212), regardless of the method used to maintain the integrity of the windshield. (See, e.g., enclosed October 5, 1983 letter to Mr. Anthony M. Peterson.) Section 30122(b) would not apply because the windshield mounting was already "inoperative" when it was brought to the repair shop.

You ask us to reconsider this position, believing that vehicles have changed dramatically in the last decade, such as by having "air bags that deploy off the windshield and so many vehicles relying on Urethane to provide the necessary support to the roof structure . . . ."

We are unable to agree that the "make inoperative" provision could require a replacement windshield to be installed as though it were new. The provision does not require repair businesses to ensure that damaged (or worn) systems brought in for repair perform better after repair than they did before repair. Assuming that the original urethane sealant was an element of design necessary to comply with the air bag or roof crush requirements, the element of design was already "made inoperative" when the vehicle was brought to the repair shop.

While NHTSA does not currently regulate the use of butyl tape in windshield replacement, we want to find out more about the safety implications of the practice. Accordingly, we have forwarded your e-mail to our safety engineers for further consideration.

Please call Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205

d:8/15/96

ID: 86-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Finbarr J. O'Neill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 21, 1986 Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq. General Counsel Hydundia Motor America 7373 Hunt Avenue P.O. Box 2669 Garden Grove, CA 92642-2669 Dear Mr. O'Neill: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, concerning the color of the highbeam telltale. You stated that while Table 2 of the standard indicates that a manufacturer has the option of choosing a green or blue telltale, your review of competitive vehicles shows that virtually all have chosen blue telltales. You asked whether NHTSA has taken any position as to whether one color is preferable to the other. You also asked for comment on whether NHTSA has taken any position as to whether one color is preferable to the other. You also asked for comment on whether NHTSA has any reasonable anticipation of changing this requirement. I would note that in the past NHTSA required the highbeam telltale to be blue. That color was selected primarily to promote international harmonization of standards regulating vehicle controls and displays. Blue is the color requirement of the International Standards Organization, the Economic Commission for Europe, and the European Economic Community. On January 21, 1982, NHTSA amended Standard No. 101 to permit green as an alternative to blue (47 FR 2996). The purpose of the change was to allow the use of light emitting diode technology, which at that time could not produce the color blue. While we do not have a preference as such as to how manufacturers choose to meet our standards, we would note that use of the color blue tends to promote international harmonization. On September 12, 1985, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (50 FR 37240) a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 101. Among other things, the proposal concerns color requirements for electronic displays. See 50 FR 37244. We have enclosed a copy of the notice for your convenience. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 3040yy

AIR MAIL

Mr. Andreas Geis Robert Bosch GMBH Automotive Division K4/EWM13 Postfach 1163 W-7580 Buehl Germany

Dear Mr. Geis:

This responds to your letter asking how a vehicle should be loaded when determining compliance with Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You suggested that the vehicle's loading state could influence the position and size of the vision areas. As explained below, a vehicle must comply with the vision area requirements in Standard No. 104 under each and every loading condition between and including unloaded and loaded to the maximum recommended weight.

Standard No. 104 does not specify a loading condition for the development of vision areas, nor does SAE Recommended Practice J903a (May 1966), presently incorporated by reference into the Standard. Furthermore, there is no mention of the vehicle loading condition in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 104. Since no loading condition is specified in the standard, the question arises whether the absence of loading conditions means that a vehicle complies with Standard No. 104 if it complies with the vision area requirements at any single loading condition between unloaded and fully loaded or whether the vehicle must comply with the vision area requirements at every loading condition between unloaded and fully loaded.

NHTSA has recently discussed this issue at length in an October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc. (copy enclosed). As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions can only be overcome if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions.

Applying this test to the vision area requirements in Standard No. 104, we begin with the presumption that the vision area requirements must be met under all loading conditions. We must then examine the standard as a whole and its purposes to see if there are any indications of an intention to limit Standard No. 104 to a particular loading condition or conditions. Nothing in the language of Standard No. 104 suggests an intention to limit the standard to a particular vehicle loading condition. In fact, there is some indication in the language of the standard that it's requirements are intended to be met irrespective of loading condition (see sections S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3). Moreover, the purpose of the standard, to ensure driver visibility by requiring wiper systems to clear a specific portion of the windshield, is only served if the wiper system functions adequately at all loading conditions. Therefore, since the language and purpose of Standard No. 104 indicate no intention to limit the standard's requirements to a particular vehicle loading condition, the presumption that a wiper system must comply at all loading conditions stands.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:104 d:6/l8/9l