ID: nht78-1.37

DATE: 01/26/78

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

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 6, 1977, letter asking which portions of the roof and sidewall structure of your small bus must comply with the head impact requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In accordance with the head impact zone requirements outlined in paragraph S5.3.1.1 of the standard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that those portions of your bus constituting the bus sidewall and window structure are not required to comply with the head impact requirements. Only those portions of your bus which constitute part of the roof structure are included within the head impact zone requirements. We have marked in yellow on the enclosed drawing those areas that must comply with the head impact requirements.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

December 6, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Chief Counsel, Frank A. Berndt

Gentlemen:

Reference is made to S.5.3.1.1. of FMVSS 222 - School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, which states the bus sidewall, window, or door structure are not included in the impact zone.

Our question is, what all do you consider as window structure and if a side body pillar and the structure over the top of the window assembly to which the window is mounted, are also not included in the impact zone? The pillar and structure in question are marked in red for the Dodge and blue for a Chevrolet on drawing #K-4300021.

It would be appreciated if you would indicate on the extra copy of the drawing area needing or not needing to be included in the impact zone.

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: 77-4.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/77

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

TO: Ford Garage Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 27, 1977, letter asking whether a 15 passenger vehicle designed to transport children to and from a Y.M.C.A. recreation facility would be required to comply with the new Federal school bus safety standards.

The Federal school bus safety standards promulgated under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) apply to motor vehicles transporting 10 or more passengers to and from school or related events. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has tentatively concluded that facilities such as Y.M.C.A.s may not have been aware that school bus safety standards might be applicable to vehicles manufactured to transport children to and from these facilities. Accordingly, the agency has temporarily exempted from the requirements buses designed for use by such facilities.

You should note that the NHTSA plans to commence rulemaking that might require buses used for activities such as those described to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. The extended application of the standards would only affect buses manufactured after the effective date of the rulemaking action.

SINCERELY,

Ford Garage Company, Inc.

September 27, 1977

Joseph Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our local Y.M.C.A. is seeking a multiple passenger vehicle to transport underpriviledged and other children between the ages of 5 and 18 from outlying areas to their center during the winter months and to their day-camp during July and August. There is, of course, no charge for this service. TThe purpose is to make Y.M.C.A. recreation facilities available to children who would not otherwise have an opportunity to use them.

Pick-up points would be at various schools during the school year and central neighborhood stops on Saturdays and during July and August.

It appears that the most logical unit for their use from the standpoint of size and expense would be a 15 passenger Dodge Sportsman Maxiwagon. The question arises, however, as to whether or not this type unit meets all Federal and State requirements. I am therefore enclosing a copy of the invoice on the unit we propose and will appreciate your early reply.

Charles W. Jarvis Secretary

ID: nht91-6.44

DATE: October 30, 1991

FROM: Jeff Ruff -- Director of Fleet/Government Sales, The Braun Corporation

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeff Ruff (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am writing to you in reference to FMVSS 208 and how it applies to the physically challenged. As a major supplier of equipment to the handicap industry, I offer the following concern:

It is our interpretation of FMVSS 208 and feed back from the OEM automakers that has prompted this letter. That interpretation and feedback tell us that the support brace between the "B" pillars and forward cannot technically be removed. If removed, the OEM automakers will not certify compliance with 208.

Unfortunately, the removal of this brace is imperative to the needs of the physically challenged and their ability to drive. As you can see in the pictures enclosed, if the support brace is left unaltered an individual with a high vertebrae injury would not be able to transfer to the driver's seat. (The original roof line is noted in marker.) Thus, the transportation of the physically challenged would be restricted to those without high vertebrae injuries and/or short people.

Please reconsider this ruling, or advise us as to how our industry can adapt to this requirement. I am familiar with the special revision concerning handicap seating dated 3-'86, page 33,181. Is it possible that a similar revision could be attached to FMVSS 208, or does that revision already apply to this situation?

Your immediate response to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

ID: 77-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Robert Bosch Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1977, asking for confirmation of several interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

You are correct that, as an equipment standard, Standard No. 108 applies only to replacement of equipment that was originally mounted on the vehicle to enable it to comply with the requirements of the standard. It does not apply to items not covered by the standard, but which are frequently provided as new vehicle options, such as fog lamps and cornering lamps. Any item of lighting equipment not required is permissable to be installed, as you also noted, if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3). Additional lighting equipment is otherwise subject to State regulation.

You also asked "what would be the NHTSA's stand on products where SAE standards do not exist, for example halogen headlights?" A halogen headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108 and is intended as a replacement headlamp may not be imported and sold for this use. On the other hand, halogen fog lamps may be imported and sold, subject to State regulations.

I hope this answers your questions.

YOURS TRULY,

ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION

January 26, 1977

Office of Chief Council (N40-30) NHTSA

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108

We have inquired at your Chicago District Office regarding FMVSS108. Robert Weltzer of that office has been extremely helpful in providing information and clarifying our questions. He also suggested we contact you for confirmation of a few points and insight into some others.

Robert Bosch is studying the feasibility of marketing a full line of auxilliary and replacement lighting products. As we understand it, FMVSS 108, Section 2, applies 1). only to actual replacement of equipment supplied new with the vehicle. 2). It is also implied that additional equipment which interferes with OE equipment would fall under this regulation. Can you confirm this?

We would interpret this to mean that 108 does not apply to products offered solely as auxilliary, add-on equipment. In practice, however, we realize that most states rely on the recommendations of the AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administration) which bases its recommendations on compliance of equipment with SAE standards, usually verified by ETL testing.

What would be the NHTSA's stance on products where SAE standards do not exist, for example, Halogen headlights?

Since no federal law would then apply to such products, are we right in assuming that state laws would prevail, more or less making the AAMVA's approval mandatory?

We are quite interested in literally shedding some light on the confused regulations prevailing in the U.S. for on-highway vehicle lighting. Bosch has some exceptional lighting products which have proven themselves in the European and Canadian markets in particular. We would also like to contribute here to the same safety awareness and concern that our products address themselves to in other countries.

Any insight and comment to the situation at large would be very much appreciated. We are particularly looking forward to your specific reactions to the questions raised in this letter to help guide our marketing decisions for lights.

Allan Cheshire Market Research Analyst

ID: 13961.df

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Rd.
High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter asking about the meaning of "high-force" and "low-force access regions" in S5.3.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 for school bus emergency exit windows, and the reason for the differing force requirements in the two access regions. I regret the delay in responding.

S5.3.3.2 states:

* * * [E]ach school bus emergency exit window shall allow manual release of the exit by a single person, from inside the passenger compartment, using not more than two release mechanisms located in specified low-force or high-force regions (at the option of the manufacturer) with force applications and types of motions that conform to either S5.3.3.2(a) or (b) of this section. * * * * *

1. Emergency exit windows--Low-force application.
   1. Location: Within the low-force access regions shown in Figures 1 and 3 for an emergency exit window.
   2. Type of motion: Rotary or straight.
   3. Magnitude: Not more than 89 [N]ewtons.

2. Emergency exit windows--High-force application.
   1. Location: Within the high-force access regions shown in Figures 2 and 3 for an emergency exit window.
   2. Type of motion: Straight and perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.
   3. Magnitude: Not more than 178 [N]ewtons.

The terms "high force" and "low force access regions" have been used in Standard 217 since 1972. S5.3.3.2 limits where release mechanisms for a window exit may be placed, and the force and motion needed to release the exit. The high force and low force access regions depicted in the figures show where release mechanisms may be located, and show, depending on where the release mechanism is located, which force and type of motion requirements apply. The idea underlying the exit release requirements is that if the direction of motion necessary to operate a release mechanism makes operating the mechanism relatively easy, and if the mechanism is within relatively easy reach, the force level necessary to operate the mechanism may be relatively high. Otherwise the force must be relatively low.

You ask: "Does [the reference to the access regions] mean that release mechanisms located in the low-force region are limited to utilizing a rotary or straight motion and that release mechanisms located in the high-force region are limited to straight and perpendicular motion?" You are correct that among the requirements of S5.3.3.2 are that rotary or straight type motions must be used for release mechanisms located in regions of low force application and that a straight motion must be used for release mechanisms located in regions of high force application.

If you have other questions, please call us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.7/25/97

ID: nht92-3.7

DATE: 10/26/92

FROM: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER, INC.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-24-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO KENNETH W. WEBSTER II (A40; STD. 124)

TEXT: Thank you for your response concerning the FMVSS 114. We appreciate the time an efforts of the Chief Council to reach a decision concerning the letters we have mailed recently. This correspondence should be the our last request for the present time.

This correspondence is a request for clarification of CFR Title 49, Part 571.124, Paragraph S5 (FMVSS 124, "Accelerator Control Systems"). The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) has performed the FMVSS 124 tests on passenger cars at the lowest extreme temperature of -40 degrees F. In some cases it becomes very difficult or impossible to start a test vehicle after a 12 hour soak at -40 degrees F. Paragraph S5 specifies that the engine must be running under any load condition during the test performance. If all cold starting improvements have been incorporated but the engine will not start at the -40 degrees F test condition, which of the following would be correct:

(1) Test with engine not running at the -40 degrees F test condition.

(2) Raise temperature until engine will start. Record test temperature and perform test.

If number one is correct, does the vehicle fail if the time is greater than the requirement even though the vehicle meets the requirement at a slightly higher temperature with the engine running?

If number two is correct, what would be the allowable low temperature range in which the vehicle must be started and tested to check compliance?

If neither is correct, please indicate proper measures that must be taken in this situation. A manufacturer has indicated that the "due care" clause is not an acceptable explanation of actions to take in this case.

Please provide TRC a response in writing, regarding the Chief Council's position. If you have any questions or require further information before you can determine a position, please contact the undersigned at (513) 666-2011. We thank you in advance for your expeditious reply.

ID: 20856.ztv

Mr. Mark Steele
Steele Enterprises
225 Merrill Place
Goshen, IN 46528

Dear Mr. Steele:

Thank you for your letter of October 21, 1999, enclosing a copy of my letter to you of October 7, 1999, regarding the unacceptability of automatic activation of rear lamps to signal that the ABS has been activated. You have asked the following three questions:

" Where does Standard 108 designate the method of actuation of the hazard warning signal?"

Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 require motor vehicles to be equipped with vehicular hazard warning signal operating units, as specified in SAE Recommended Practice J910, February 1966. Paragraph 1 of SAE J910 defines the operating unit, in part, as "a driver controlled device which causes all turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously." This means that the hazard warning signal unit must be activated by the driver and not automatically. Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, complements this requirement by specifying identification and illumination requirements for hand-operated hazard warning signal controls.

"Since the hazard warning signal is one of the required signals per Standard 108 (ref. S5.1.1.5 and S5.5.5 . . .), how can the hazard warning signal be considered an 'additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment' per S5.1.3?"

When a lamp is modified to perform in a manner that differs from its original design, we consider it to be an "additional lamp" within the meaning of the phrase during the time of its non-standard operation. When it performs in a manner that differs from its original performance, it must not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

We don't understand your references to S5.1.1.5 (whose subject is turn signals).

"If you do not know the position, color and candlepower of the additional lights proposed, how can they be said to 'impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard?'"

We advised you on October 7 that S5.1.3 would prohibit motor vehicles from being equipped with separate lamps that flashed immediately after activation of the stop lamps because of "the potential to cause confusion and momentary hesitation in a following driver, and, in that sense, impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps." We do not need to consider "position, color and candlepower" to reach a conclusion that a steady burning stop signal immediately followed by a flashing signal from a new and unfamiliar lamp has the potential to cause confusion and momentary hesitation. It's the performance that is relevant.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d.12/6/99

ID: nht68-1.39

DATE: 02/20/68

FROM: H. S. BEAGLE -- ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

TO: EDWIN L. SLAGLE -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: J. R. SCHAEFFER -- ETL; A. R. CHICK -- ETL

TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 205 -GLAZING MATERIALS

REF.1: ELECTRICALLY HEATED SAFETY GLASS FOR DEFOGGING

REF.2: TEST PROCEDURE PER USA STANDARD 226.1-1966

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2/21/68 FROM EDWIN L. SLAGLE OF D.O.T. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU TO H. S. BEAGLE OF ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES INC.

TEXT: The above subject reference No. 2 provides, in part, that safety glazing material be tested for regular (parallel) luminous transmittance (method unspecified), which value shall be not less than 70 per cent both before and after irradiation (ultraviolet are exposure). The word "parallel" means that the light beam used in making this measurement should be essentially collimated. This condition may be obtained by using a light source sufficiently distant from the test specimen that the rays are essentially parallel.

Our photometric laboratory has been performing this test satisfactorily for many years, using the apparatus shown in the attached photographs numbered 1 through 4, as follows:

Photo #1 - A general view, no glass in place, showing diaphragm plate and source of collimated beam above. Light source, positioned 48 inches above photo cell and shielded, is an incandescent monoplane tungsten-filament lamp calibrated for operation at the specified color temperature of 2854 degrees Kelvin.

#2 - Close up of diaphragm plate with 1-1/4-inch opening, positioned 3/4 inch above the color corrected photovoltaic cell. Cell is visible through diaphragm opening.

#3 - Set-up with glass specimen in place. Glass specimen shown has electrically conductive lines on one surface.

#4 - Close up of glass specimen on diaphragm plate.

In performing this measurement the test specimen is moved laterally across the diaphragm (aperture) to find and record the minimum transmittance value.

2

It is our belief that this test method is as suitable for evaluating the luminous transmittance of electrically heated safety glass as it is for the same glass not so treated. As a matter of fact, it has been so employed in the past with respect to imported glass of the electrically heated type.

However, to avoid possible future problems concerning the acceptability of our test method, we are submitting this matter for your consideration at this time. The urgency of it is related to the long loud time with respect to production of electrically heated safety glass to provide for defogging of rear windows in motor vehicles.

We therefore respectfully ask for your written approval of the test method, as herein described, as being acceptable for purposes of evaluating the luminous transmittance of electrically heated safety glass for compliance in this regard, with the requirements of MVSS No. 205.

The earliest possible response to this request would be most sincerely appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure: photographs

ID: aiam5018

Dear Mr. Sonzala: Thank you for your letter regarding Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Your company is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling your product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. I am pleased to provide you the following information. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI. The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (you use the term 'original equipment manufacturers') relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with 'any single leakage-type failure' of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage-type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired. For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, IT would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. Your letter states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. You argue that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting your position. After reviewing this matter, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm wit a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm. As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with any single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaghragm. The usage of the term 'any,' when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically designed at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing. We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure. You also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failure in a vehicle's brake system. We hope that this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam5019

Dear Mr. Sonzala: Thank you for your letter regarding Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Your company is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling your product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. I am pleased to provide you the following information. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI. The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (you use the term 'original equipment manufacturers') relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with 'any single leakage-type failure' of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage-type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired. For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, IT would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. Your letter states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. You argue that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting your position. After reviewing this matter, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm wit a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm. As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with any single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaghragm. The usage of the term 'any,' when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically designed at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing. We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure. You also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failure in a vehicle's brake system. We hope that this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure;