ID: nht90-4.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1990

FROM: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TO: Taylor Vincon -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-16-91 from Paul J. Rice to Carol Zeitlow (A37; Std. 101; Std. 104; Std. 108; Std. 201

TEXT:

As you may recall, I spoke with you on the phone regarding the following subjects. You had suggested I write you with my questions.

1. In my August 1st letter I asked the question, "When a hazard warning light (four-way flasher) and a rear stop light are together on a vehicle, which should be the over-riding feature?". Your reply of August 27, 1990 stated that the hazard light shoul d always be over-riding. You also stated that you thought the regulations had previously stated either option was acceptable. If this is the case, when did the regulation change and in which section of the regulations can I find the ruling? Possibly, w e have had a misunderstanding since we have noticed that passenger cars are not all designed in this way. Your comments will be appreciated.

Additional questions I asked during an Oct. 9th phone conversation:

2. Question: Is a sun visor was required by FMVSS. Your answer was no.

3. Question: Are there any regulations regarding the type, or quantity of horns required on a vehicle? The answer you gave was no, only a horn was required.

4. Question: According to CFR 49, Section 571.104, there are no regulations regarding the percentage of area of the windshield that the windshield wiper must wipe, only the frequency of the wipers is egulated? You agreed.

Will you please confirm these answers in writing? Thank you.

ID: 1982-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Zimmer Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1982, to the Administrator asking whether there is "any blanket waiver of standards solely based on a small production of vehicles."

You are correct that no such waiver exists. Even a single automobile manufactured for use on the public roads must meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless exempted by the Administrator under the provisions of Part 555. A manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding filing of his petition does not exceed 10,000 units is eligible to apply for an exemption of up to three years on a hardship basis. Any manufacturer of motor vehicles may apply for an exemption of up to two years on the three remaining bases that you mention but the exemption extends only to a maximum of 2500 vehicles in any 12-month period that the exemption is in effect.

Under the original exemption authority, in effect from 1968 to 1971, exemptions were available on a hardship basis and the threshold of eligibility was 500 units.

SINCERELY,

ZIMMER CORPORATION

August 6, 1982

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

From time to time I am confronted with statements to the effect that if a vehicle manufacturer produces not more than "X" quantity of vehicles, such vehicles are not required to be in compliance with the FMVSS. The quantity of vehicles referenced varies from 250 to 2000 depending on the source of the statement.

I am aware of the provisions of Part 555 covering temporary exemption from the standards under special conditions of economic hardship, development of new vehicle safety and low-emission engine features, and equivalent vehicle safety. But I am not aware of any blanket waiver of standards solely based on a small production of vehicles.

Please advise.

R. H. Zelinske Vice President Corporate Engineering

ID: 8578

Mr. Patrick P. Radice
Director of Operations
Electronics Division
Tridon
101 Evergreen Drive
Springfield, TN 37172

Dear Mr. Radice:

We have received your undated letter with respect to certification of aftermarket flashers.

You understand that manufacturers of aftermarket turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers must certify that the flashers comply with the applicable requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prior to sale. However, when a vehicle is equipped with a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher, you ask whether the manufacturer of the replacement flasher must certify compliance with requirements for both flashers, or can certify the flasher to "meet either the turn signal flasher or hazard warning signal flasher of FMVSS-108 but not both?"

Paragraph S5.8.1 (formerly S5.7.1) of Standard No. 108 requires that each item of lighting equipment manufactured to replace any item of lighting equipment on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. Therefore, a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher that is manufactured to replace a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher must be designed to conform to requirements applicable to both turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers.

Paragraph S5.8.2 permits replacement lighting equipment to be labelled with the symbol DOT, constituting a certification of compliance to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (although the manufacturer may certify by a label or tag affixed to the flasher or the container in which it is shipped). The "applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards" for a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher are those portions of Standard No. 108 that specify requirements for turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers. The manufacturer's certification must therefore cover both.

I hope this explains the matter for you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/5/93 NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:4/26/93:62992:OCC 8578 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron ZTVinson Interps/.Std. 108 8578; ztv; U:\ncc20\interp\108\8578.ztv

ID: nht91-7.18

DATE: November 25, 1991

FROM: Don Weidman -- Manager, Special Projects, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Don Weidman (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On May 15, 1990 in the Federal Register Docket 88-17 Notice 2 a final rule was issued to become effective on December 1, 1990 requiring vehicles 80 inches or more in width to have stop and turn lamps with 75cm(2) of "effective projected luminous lens area" (EPLLA).

This occurred when NHTSA adopted SAE J-1395 April 85 for turn lamps and J-1398 May 85 for stop lamps.

Question is how will these new larger requirements affect the agriculture vehicles and implements when they are traveling on the highways?

Presently SAE J-137 June 89 covers lighting and marking of agriculture equipment on highways.

It requires a single tail light which meets J-585 and has no area requirements.

It requires at least two amber flashing warning lamps conforming to J-974. J-974 requires the lamp to have an effective projected illuminated area of 12 in(2).

Paragraph 3.14 of SAE J-137 states "when turn indicators are provided the amber flashing warning lamps shall be used as turn indicators".

What lighting and safety equipment standards must the agriculture equipment comply with to be legal when operating on the highways FMVSS-108 or SAE J-137?

If the warning lamp also serves as a turn signal lamp and the 12 in(2) effective projected illuminated lens area required in J-974 is measured by including all illuminated areas such as lens legs, and screw bosses will this be considered legal when operating on the highways?

We would appreciate knowing NHTSA's position on this issue.

We have one of our customers in the process of making a decision on their future purchases of lighting devices, therefore we would appreciate receiving your reply as soon as possible.

ID: nht93-2.51

DATE: April 13, 1993

FROM: Bob Davis -- Quality Control Mgr., Horton Emergency Vehicles

TO: David Elias -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA - DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/27/93 from John Womack to Bob Davis (A41; Std. 206)

TEXT:

I would like to request an interpretation on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 571.206 "Door locks and door retention components".

We are an Ambulance and Emergency Vehicle manufacturer and must comply with this Standard. We are concerned with this particular Standard because all of our vehicles have two (2) rear doors. The streetside door is closed first with it's own double (top & bottom) two step latch and an inside and outside release handle with locking features both inside and outside. The curbside door is closed last of which overlaps the streetside door, and it too has a double (top & bottom) two step latch and same locking features as the left.

Some of our customers have requested that we eliminate the inside handle and locking features on the streetside door because they have people trying to open the streetside door from the inside quite frequently. They of course can't due to the curbside door overlapping this door, thus preventing them from doing so.

If we should eliminate both the inside door release handle and the inside/outside locking features, leaving only an outside release handle, will we still be able to comply with Code Of Federal Regulations Transportation 571.206?

Under section S4.1.3 "Door Locks" it states that EACH door shall be equipped with its's own locking mechanism. We are looking at this as if one of the doors is trapped by the other door, and the other door is lockable, doesn't this in a sense make the trapped door also able to become locked?

We would appreciate it very much if we could get an answer on this by April 27, 1993.

ID: nht93-3.33

DATE: May 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Patrick P. Radice -- Director of Operations, Electronics Division, Tridon

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-23-93 EST from Patrick P. Radice to NHTSA (OCC 8578)

TEXT: We have received your undated letter with respect to certification of aftermarket flashers.

You understand that manufacturers of aftermarket turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers must certify that the flashers comply with the applicable requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prior to sale. However, when a vehicle is equipped with a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher, you ask whether the manufacturer of the replacement flasher must certify compliance with requirements for both flashers, or can certify the flasher to "meet either the turn signal flasher or hazard warning signal flasher of FMVSS-108 but not both?"

Paragraph S5.8.1 (formerly S5.7.1) of Standard No. 108 requires that each item of lighting equipment manufactured to replace any item of lighting equipment on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. Therefore, a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher that is manufactured to replace a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher must be designed to conform to requirements applicable to both turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers.

Paragraph S5.8.2 permits replacement lighting equipment to be labelled with the symbol DOT, constituting a certification of compliance to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (although the manufacturer may certify by a label or tag affixed to the flasher or the container in which it is shipped). The "applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards" for a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher are those portions of Standard No. 108 that specify requirements for turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers. The manufacturer's certification must therefore cover both.

I hope this explains the matter for you.

ID: 9220

Ms. Amantha L. Barbee
Sales Coordinator
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
Post Office Box 2450
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms. Barbee:

This responds to your letter to me of October 14, 1993, and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on October 22, 1993.

You stated in your letter that you are the Head Start Sales Coordinator for Thomas Built Buses, Inc., and in that capacity you have found that many Head Start agencies are using conventional vans to transport Head Start students to and from their programs. You stated that when you asked the directors of the agencies why they did not use vehicles that comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for school buses, their usual answer was "because we have not been told otherwise." You then asked whether this practice is illegal and if so, what your organization can do to rectify the situation.

As Mr. Myers explained in your telephone conversation, this agency has repeatedly stated that Head Start facilities are preprimary schools. Therefore, new buses sold to Head Start centers for use in transporting Head Start participants to and from school must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. However, Federal law does not require Head Start facilities to use complying school buses or any other particular vehicles. The individual states, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

As promised by Mr. Myers, please find enclosed interpretation letters previously issued by us on this issue, as follows: to Hon. Paul David Wellstone, U.S. Senate, dated Jan. 26, 1993; to Mr. Chuck Anderson, dated Aug. 21, 1992; and to Mr. Charles Pekow, dated Sept. 27, 1985.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures

ref:571#102 d:11/23/93

ID: 04-006330drn

Mr. Robert L. Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
IC Corporation
751 South Harkrider
Conway, AR 72032

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of a provision in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You wish to know whether the provision at S5.2.3.2(a)(4), “No two side emergency exit doors shall be located, in whole or in part, within the same post and roof bow panel space” applies only to side emergency exit doors located on the same side of the bus. The answer is that this restriction applies to all side emergency exit doors located “within the same post and roof bow panel space,” including those on the left and right sides of the bus.

You believe that the restriction should not apply to emergency exit doors located on opposite sides of the bus from each other. You do not believe that the structural integrity is compromised when the doors are mounted on opposite sides of the bus and in the same section.

We have considered your suggestion but conclude that S5.2.3.2(a)(4) also applies to side emergency exit doors located on the opposite sides of the bus. The issue was discussed and decided in a rulemaking proceeding. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on S5.2.3.2(4)(under Option B)(March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11153, at 11163)) did not propose to restrict side emergency exit doors from being located, in whole or in part, within the same post and roof bow panel space. In commenting on the NPRM, Thomas Built Buses stated that the left and right side emergency exit doors should not be within the same post and roof bow panel space. In the final rule, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted Thomas Built’s recommended language at S5.2.3.2(a)(4). Thus, S5.2.3.2(a)(4) was specifically adopted with the intent to exclude left and right side emergency exit doors from being “within the same post and roof bow panel space.”

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,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

ref:217

ref:217

d.11/12/04

ID: 0473a

Mr. Steve Brooks
General Manager
IAD West Coast, Inc.
5761 McFadden Ave.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This replies to your letter of November 1, 1994, to John Womack, former Acting Chief Counsel. IAD West Coast ("IAD") is converting a Subaru panel van from internal combustion to electric drive. The vehicle is currently a prototype but "will be modified in the state of California, to OEM build standards." You have asked for help "with the definition of crash testing for front and side impact for the vehicle for current and future production, also with the requirement for dual air bags if necessary."

Because we did not understand what you meant by "definition", Taylor Vinson of this Office spoke with you on January 24, 1995. He learned that IAD is engineering the prototype for production by another company, and that your question related to the extent of crash testing that is required before production. He then explained to you that there is no legal requirement that prototype vehicles be crashed, but that production vehicles must conform with the performance requirements of standards with crash demonstration procedures, and that the manufacturer's certification of compliance may be based upon good faith surrogates to crash testing such as computer simulation, engineering studies, and mathematical calculations. The Department of Transportation, however, tests in the manner specified in a standard, and if there is a test failure, will ask the manufacturer to supply the data upon which it based its certification.

Your letter also asks about "the requirement for dual air bags if necessary in the future." Manufacturers of light trucks will be required to install dual air bags in not less than 80% of vehicles produced between September 1, 1997, and September 1, 1998, and in 100% of production from September 1, 1998, on.

Finally, you have asked whether we have information on approach and departure angles. These are not part of the FMVSS, and are established by the manufacturer in designing a vehicle.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:208 d:3/2/95

ID: 24439Suzuki_tether_anchor_zone

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway
P.O. Box 1100
Brea, CA92822-1100

Dear Mr. Bush:




This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225).I regret the delay in responding.You ask whether a certain user-ready tether anchorage location would meet the location requirements of S6.2.1 of the standard. Our answer is yes.

S6.2.1 of Standard No. 225 states: " the part of each tether anchorage that attaches to a tether hook must be located within the shaded zone shown in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard."Figure 3 shows the front edge of the zone as extending along the torso line reference plane under the seat and then following the contour of the vehicle seat bottom and seat back up to a point on the seat back.You ask about locating an anchorage in a recessed area of the seat back.You do not believe that the standard intended to disallow locating the tether anchorage in that area.

With one exception, a recessed area in the seat back is acceptable for locating the tether anchorage. Figures 3 to 7 do not provide dimensions as to the location of the front edge of the shaded zone, except with regard to the "strap wrap-around area" at the top of a vehicle seat back.The agency did not intend to exclude part of the seat back from the shaded zone; thus, a tether anchorage that is recessed in the seat back is permitted.However, the shaded zone does not include the strap wrap-around area at the top of the vehicle seat back.Thus, the anchorage must not be located in that wrap-around area. We will be issuing a technical amendment to include in the shaded zone the part of the seat back that is below the strap wrap-around area.

You also ask for confirmation that, for the area under the vehicle seat, the forwardmost edge of the shaded zone is defined by the torso line reference plane.Your understanding is correct.

Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.11/8/02