ID: aiam0600

Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1972, in which yo stated your understanding of how Standard 210 applies to two shoulder belt assembly configurations.; In Figure 1, you show a shoulder belt that passes through a slotte plate (A) bolted to the roof rail. Contrary to the impression you have received, the plate is not a part of the anchorage, but is rather a part of the seatbelt assembly. The anchorage consists of the reinforced roof rail structure, including the bolt hole and any retaining ridges or projections on the roof rail. Plates such as Hardware (A) that bolt onto the roof rail are similar in function to the floor mounted attachment plates that have always been considered as part of the seatbelt assembly, and are similarly treated.; The same remarks apply to the plate shown as (B) in Figure 2. This i also a part of the seatbelt assembly, and not part of the anchorage.; The anchorage strength test should be conducted as you show in Figure 3 and 4, using the complete Type 2 assembly provided with the vehicle.; We regret the misunderstanding about the classification of th attachment hardware and hope that it has not caused you inconvenience.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 24061version2

Mr. Jim Freibirger
Senior Staff Engineer
Thomas Built Buses
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27260

Dear Mr. Freibirger:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. The joint at issue is formed in part by a steel "wire trim cover" that covers a wiring harness just above the window header. You ask whether the joint is a body panel joint under amendments to Standard No. 221 that become effective January 1, 2003. (See 66 FR 64358, December 13, 2001, copy enclosed.) As explained below, the answer is yes.

The joint at issue will be a body panel joint under the standard.^[1] "Body panel joint" will mean: "the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, including but not limited to floor panels, and body panels made of composite materials such as plastic or plywood, excluding trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the bus body, members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, ventilation panels, components provided for functional purposes, and engine access covers." The standard will require that (S5.1): "Except as provided in S5.2, each body panel joint, including small, curved, and complex joints, when tested in accordance with the procedure of S6, shall hold the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel determined pursuant to S6.2." The exceptions specified in S5.2 will be:

(a) Any interior maintenance access panel or joint which lies forward of the passenger compartment.

(b) Any interior maintenance access panel within the passenger compartment that does not exceed 305 mm [12 inches] when measured across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening.

(c) Trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to strength of the joint, support members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, doors and windows, ventilation panels, and engine access covers.

The joint in question would not fall within any of the exceptions specified in S5.2. It is not a maintenance access panel (S5.2(a) and (b)). The amendments include a definition of "maintenance access panel" which is: "a body panel which must be moved or removed to provide access to one or more serviceable components." "Serviceable component" is defined as: "any part of the bus, of either a mechanical or electrical nature, which is explicitly identified by the bus chassis and/or body manufacturer in the owners manual or factory service manual as requiring routine maintenance actions at intervals of one year or less. Tubing, wires and harnesses are considered to be serviceable components only at their attachments." Under these definitions, your body panel joint cannot be considered a maintenance access panel because it would be covering the entire wiring harness, not just the attachment points. Further, the joint is not comprised of a trim and decorative part that does not contribute to the strength of the joint (S5.2(c)). Your joint is a structural joint because its steel part forms part of the integral inner shell. That is, your joint forms part of the steel structure that attaches to the roof bow, and contributes to the strength of the entire bus body.

We further note that in the event of a crash, shearing forces on a steel joint could result in jagged edges to the steel, which may cause serious injury to children who might contact the edges. You suggest that the joint in question should be excluded because in an August 31, 2000 letter to Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA excluded a wire trim part. The wire trim part that we addressed in our August 2000 letter differs from the body panel joint at issue. Both your joint and Blue Birds trim are placed above the school bus window. However, with regard to Blue Birds trim, we determined that "plastic wire trim parts at issue do not contribute to the structural integrity or the joint strength of the bus." The Blue Bird trim also was not part of the integral inner shell. In contrast, Thomas Builts joint is a structural joint because it forms part of the integral inner shell. Since your joint forms part of the structure that attaches to the roof bow, and contributes to the strength of the entire bus body, it is a "body panel joint" within the meaning of Standard No. 221.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:221
d.6/25/02

^[1] Note that we also consider the joint in question to be a body panel joint under the existing standard. See September 2, 1976 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company (copy enclosed) pertaining to "the area of contact between headlining panels and the header over the windows."

ID: nht68-3.43

DATE: 07/25/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning requirements for combination clearance and side marker lamps.

Paragraph S3.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the combination of two or more lamps providing the requirements for each are met. Table 1 in SAE Standard J592b gives the photometric requirements for both the clearance and side marker lamps, and Section J of the Standard permits their combination providing the combination complies with both clearance and side marker minimum candlepower requirements. Section J also defines the H-V axis of the combination as parallel with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle when checking clearance lamp test points, and normal to this vehicle axis when checking side marker test points.

Your table of minimum candlepower requirements for the Type 2 combination lamp meets J592b and therefore Standard No. 108 providing you define the H-V axis as that of the side marker lamp. The requirements for the Type 1 combination as specified in your table will not meet J592b or Standard No. 108 unless you change H-10, -20, -30, -45, -60, -80 and -90, both 1, and R to H-15, -25, -35, -45, -55, -65, -75 and -90, both L and R, and define the H-V axis as a line through the center of the lamp at a 45 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

Your mounting instructions are considerably more restrictive than those implied in J592b and Standard No. 108. Actually, no additional mounting instructions are necessary, because any mounting which meets the minimum candlepower requirements of Table 1 in J592 and your table with the suggested revisions would meet the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht74-1.3

DATE: 10/07/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Borg-Warner Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 7 1974 N40-30(ZTV)

Mr. Mike A. Read Design Engineer, Spring Division Borg-Warner Corporation 700 South 25th Avenue Bellwood, Illinois 60104

Dear Mr. Read:

This is in reply to your letter of September 13, 1974, pointing out discrepancies between our two standards covering motor vehicle hydraulic brake systems, Nos. 105-75 and 122.

We intend to amend Standard No. 122 in the near future to be consistent with Standard No. 105-75. This will clarify that the same interpretation will be given master cylinder reservoir and capacity requirements.

Thank you for pointing this out to us.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0436

Dear Mr. Shindo:#This is in reply to your letter of September 3 askin questions about compliance of hydraulic brake hose assemblies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106.#With respect to your first to questions, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not require that you demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 106 prior to supplying Japanese car manufacturers with brake hose assemblies to be installed on cars intended for export to the united States. If the Japanese vehicle manufacturers request proof of compliance from you (apparently in the form of a certification from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania based upon test reports from only one or two test laboratories) such a request os solely a business matter between you and the vehicle manufacturer.#Your third question points out that proposed Standard No. 106 (Docket No. 1-5, Notice 7) would eliminate the specification of brake material for hydraulic brake hoses and asks whether you may implement this 'revision' at the present time. Notice 7 is a proposal only, and the current requirements specifying braid material remain in effect until a formal amendment of Standard No. 106 occurs. The brake hose manufacturer's code number, the subject of your fourth question is also a proposal which may or may not be adopted in the final rule.#Sincerely,Lawrence R. Schneider,Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2795

Dear Mr. Shebar: This responds to your letter to Joan Claybrook on March 23, 1978, whic urges an extension of the exemption presently granted to TVR Cars of America, Ltd., from compliance with Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*. As noted in our earlier letter to TVR, Standard No. 215 was issued under the authority of one statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while the upcoming Part 581 *Bumper Standard* is issued under authority of this statute and a second one, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act).; Our earlier letter pointed out that the Cost Savings Act does no contain exemption authority which is as broad as that contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. In the case of Part 581, the Department of Transportaiton (sic) can only exempt a passenger motor vehicle 'manufactured for a special use if (the) standard would unreasonably interfere with the special use of such vehicle' (15 U.S.C. S1912(c)(1)(B)). The legislative history of this provision cites a 4- wheel-drive vehicle equipped with a snow plow attachment as an example of a special use that would be unreasonably interfered with by a bumper standard.; Upon careful consideration of the issues raised in your letter, we d not believe there is an available basis for extension of TVR'd (sic) present exemption beyond the September 1, 1978, effective date of Part 581. The particular financial and engineering circumstances of TVR do not bear upon the limited grounds for exemption contained in the Cost Savings Act.; Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3364

>>>Re: Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction Corp., *NHTS Exemption No. 79-01*<<<, Dear Mr. Herbst, This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1980. In it you described the plan of your client, Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction Corp., to offer a modification of its Model A replica passenger car, currently produced under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01, and you asked several questions regarding this modification.; Specifically, Model A wishes to offer a modification in which the rea section of the vehicle (rumble seat) is removed and replaced by a flat bed with sides. The seating capacity of the vehicle would be reduced to two passengers and the 'modification will result in a vehicle configuration with the appearance of a Model A pickup truck.' You have asked:; >>>'1. As the modification will occur before complete manufacture o the vehicle, please confirm that the Company will not be considered as 'a person who alters certified vehicles' within the meaning of 49 CFR S568.8.'<<<; Since a vehicle cannot be said to comply until its manufacture i completed, and because certification is not legally required until the vehicle is delivered to a distributor, an alterer's statement is not required when modifications are made upon the assembly line by the certifying party itself, even if the certification label has been attached earlier in the manufacturing process.; You have also asked: >>>'2. Should the Company, for purposes of the certification require under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01, treat the modified vehicle as a passenger car, or, in the alternative should the Company certify the vehicle as a truck, relying on the same waivers granted the Company under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01 (and to the extent necessary, the exemption granted for Safety Standard 109 (new pneumatic tires) and and (sic) Safety Standard 110 (tire and rim combinations) for the comparable non-passenger vehicle Safety Standards 119 and 120).'<<<; The question of whether a vehicle is a 'passenger car' or 'truck' fo purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be answered by a manufacturer on the basis of the definitions contained in 49 CFR 571.3(b). Certainly the modification could be viewed as a 'vehicle...designed for carrying 10 persons or less' (passenger car). But if it is 'designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment' it becomes a truck. Your letter does not indicate whether the 'flat bed with sides' is intended to be load-bearing or merely decorative, or otherwise state the purpose for which its manufacturer intends it. If it is certified as a 'passenger car,' the exemptions in effect will apply to it.; We surmise, however, that the vehicle is intended as an alternative t the Model A passenger car, as a truck for carrying light loads. Certification as such would require compliance with Standards Nos. 119 and 120. Because the requirements differ from Standards Nos. 109 and 110, Exemption 79-01 would not cover the truck tire and rim standards, and Model A would either have to conform or apply for a temporary exemption.; We would however, consider the vehicle as one covered by the origina exemption if the modification results in no increase in the present gross vehicle weight rating stated on Model A's certification plate. An example of this would be if the modified vehicle's unloaded weight remains the same and its rated cargo load did not exceed 300 pounds (the equivalent of the reduction by two of the number of designated seats). This would insure that the modified vehicle's tires would bear no greater load than that of vehicles presently exempted and permit use of the exemptions currently in effect from the tire and rim standards.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2798

Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your February 28, 1978, letter asking whether portion of your van-type school bus have to comply with the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. You enclosed pictures showing portions of the bus designated in pink and yellow and question the standard's applicability to them.; The head protection zone requirements do not apply to portions of th school bus that are considered part of the bus sidewall. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers the sidewall to include those surfaces that run parallel to the outboard edge of a forward facing seat. Accordingly, the portions of your bus designated in yellow in the pictures need not comply with the requirements since they are part of the bus sidewall structure. The pink portions of your photographs represent part of the bus structure that is perpendicular to the bus sidewall. The NHTSA does not consider them to be part of the bus sidewall structure. Therefore, since they fall within the head protection zone they must comply with all of the requirements applicable to that zone.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3872

Dear Mr. Shaw: This is in reply to your letter of December 5, 1984, with respect t the permissibility under Federal regulations of a 'Supplemental Eye-Level Rear Stop Light' which provides functions additional to a stop signal.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflectiv Devices and Associated Equipment* specifies requirements only for center high-mounted stop lamps as original equipment on passenger cars, and for equipment that replaces original equipment center high mounted stop lamps.; If you offer this device to new car dealers for installation on ne cars before their sale, the dealer bears the responsibility for insuring that the car he sells complies with the center high mounted stop lamp requirements for new motor vehicles. On vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1986, equipped with the center lamp, that lamp may flash with the hazard warning lamp, but it cannot be combined with other lighting functions such as turn signal.; However, the device you wish to offer appears intended as a aftermarket device and not intended as original equipment for passenger cars. If this assumption is correct, there is no Federal standard that applies to it, and its legality must be determined according to the law of each State where it will be in use.; We hope that this information has been helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/16/88

FROM: RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC

TO: ROBERT KNAUFF DESIGN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ROBERT KNAUFF; REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 108; LETTER DATED 06/08/89 FROM ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN INC TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 12/07/87 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS TO ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knauff:

This is an evaluation of your school bus rear warning lamp demonstration with a pop-flash option.

I initially expected that we would have a problem with high intensity flash washing out the red lens and appearing white. Technically this is what happens and if you concentrate on it, the flash can appear white. The flash duration however was so brief and when used in concert with red in the cycle did not appear white to me. That should clear one obstacle, as white is prohibited in this type of lamp. Dual day/night intensity should not be necessary as long as you stick with red lamps.

You should also not have to restrict the pop to less than every flash, but in any case you will have to locate the discharge bulb so that the parabolic reflector and lens of the host lamp project the energy at very nearly about the H-Y point. Any large amount that occurs down at a level so as to be observed by a passenger car operator less than, let us approximate, 200 feet away would probably be objectionable to some, depending upon a number of factors that I need not go into at this point.

Generally, we have a basic concept that a signal is either required or not permitted. This keeps messages clear between vehicle operators. In this case however, I believe that we can consider this option since it is only an appendage modification of an existing warning system.

When you clear this modification with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compliance office and with the Minnesota Department of Education student transportation office, we would need to have a look at the finished product and your test da ta for purposes of commissioner's authorization or commissioner's approval certification depending upon the marketing approach that is possible and that you wish to take.

Sincerely,