ID: 1984-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 15, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. You specifically asked about the effect on certification of adding auxiliary equipment to the fuel system. As explained below, you are correct in your understanding that the vehicle with any auxiliary equipment installed on it must be certified as complying with the standard.

You explained that you are receiving more requests for school buses equipped with auxiliary fuel-fired heaters and air conditioners. Those auxiliary devices would be connected to the fuel tank or line of the vehicle. You further explained that the typical auxiliary heating and air-conditioning include fuel powered units mounted to the outside of the chassis frame and/or the underside of the body and located between the outside of the chassis frame and the outside body sheetmetal, where it could be impacted by a moving barrier during the crash test required by Standard No. 301.

Standard No. 301 sets requirements for the integrity of the entire fuel system used in motor vehicles. If auxiliary fuel-powered equipment is installed in a vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the vehicle with the auxiliary equipment installed must be certified as complying with Standard No. 301.

You explained that because of the variety of different auxiliary fuel systems and the different sizes, types, and configurations of vehicle involved, you believe it is impracticable and economically prohibitive to conduct full scale crash tests. Therefore, you asked about alternative methods of determining compliance. As with all of the agency's standards, Standard No. 301 sets forth the test procedures that the agency will use to determine if a vehicle complies with the performance requirements of a standard. A manufacturer is not required to do crash testing to verify compliance; instead it may rely on such things as engineering analysis or computer simulations to establish that its vehicle conforms with the standard.

Section 108(b)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a manufacturer to show that it has exercised due care in making its certification that the vehicle conforms with all applicable standards. Whether a manufacturer has exercised due care can only be made on a case-by-case basis. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations on current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer. The agency would look to such things as the drawing, engineering instructions, and quality assurance procedures that you mentioned in order to make a determination of due care. Although an inspection by an independent laboratory is not required, the existence of such testing would be considered in determining whether a manufacturer has exercised due care.

Finally you asked if any manufacturers are currently relying on methods other than crash testing to determine whether their vehicles conform with our standard. Since manufacturers are required to self-certify their vehicles and are not required to receive any approval from this agency before making their certifications, I cannot answer your question. I note that in instances where there has been a question of whether a vehicle complies with Standard No. 301, manufacturers have provided crash test data to the agency to demonstrate their compliance with the standard.

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

Sincerely,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

August 15, 1984

OCC-1058

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Blue Bird Body Company is a major manufacturer of school and non-school buses which are sold throughout the U.S. and Canada. For years, on non-school buses, we have offered air conditioning as a regular option and have provided auxiliary fuel fired heaters upon request on a temporary option basis. The market place has recently been expressing a need for these features on school buses. We have received requests for auxiliary fuel fired heaters from several northern states and Canadian provinces. The need for auxiliary heating capability is increasing with the increased popularity of diesel powered school buses, which have less heat available for heating and defrosting of the driver and passenger compartments.

The demand for air conditioning in school buses is naturally coming from the warmer climate states, particularly Florida, and is primarily for lift buses used in transporting the handicapped. These vehicles often travel long routes and the stops to load and unload passengers are often quite lengthy. As a result the students often spend a lot of time on the bus and many of the special students are more sensitive to excessive heat than non-handicapped students.

I have presented this background and brief explanation because we at Blue Bird, strongly believe that the need for auxiliary heating and air conditioning on school buses is real and justified, and has significant bearing on the safety and well being of the students being transported. In order to provide these needed features on new school buses in an efficient and cost effective manner, we as body manufacturers must be able to install available heating and air-conditioning units and systems at the factory, and certify the completed vehicle as meeting all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The typical and commonly available auxiliary heating systems and air conditioning systems include fuel powered units mounted to the outside of the chassis frame and/or the underside of the body and located between the outside of the chassis frame and the outside body sheetmetal, or skirt, as it is commonly called. With the variety of systems available that could be requested by the customer, the different sizes, types, and configurations of vehicles that are involved and the variety of possible mounting locations on each type vehicle, the combinations of equipment involved is potentially quite large. Our primary concern is with FMVSS 301-75 as it applies to school buses and auxiliary equipment provided on school buses that have their own fuel systems.

It is our understanding that FMVSS 301-75 as it applies to school buses with GVWR's of more than 10,000 pounds is a vehicle performance standard, and that the vehicle, including any and all auxiliary equipment installed on the vehicle, must meet FMVSS 301-75 requirements and be certified as meeting FMVSS 301-75. In other words, if we choose to manufacture and sell school buses with an auxiliary heater or air conditioner mounted in the skirt such that it could be impacted by the moving contoured barrier as specified in Section S6.5, we would need to be sure that the fuel system of the auxiliary heater or air conditioner would not cause the vehicle to exceed the fuel spillage requirements of S5.5 and be capable of documenting our compliance. We request your confirmation that the fuel system of an auxiliary heater or air conditioner installed on a new school bus is covered by FMVSS 301-75, and that there are no exemptions or interpretations that exclude such systems from the standard's requirements.

Due to the variety of systems and combinations discussed previously and the continual evolution of chassis, body and heater/air conditioner designs and manufacturing procedures, we feel it is impractical and economically prohibitive to conduct full scale vehicle crash tests. We, therefore, wish to pursue alternate methods of certification documentation. One particular system we have looked at is a skirt mounted air conditioner with a diesel engine. The diesel fuel system of the vehicle is certified as meeting FMVSS 301-75. The engine on the air conditioner shares the same fuel tank as the vehicle's engine and, thus, only the fuel lines, fuel pump, filler filter, and the air conditioner's engine itself pose a concern relating to FMVSS 301-75 compliance. Preliminary tests have shown the air conditioner fuel system contains only about 3 1/2 ounces of fuel and the fuel pump is controlled by an oil pressure switch on the air conditioner's engine. We feel that by locating the fuel pump and fuel filter inside the chassis frame where they are extremely well protected, and by using high quality flexible fuel lines carefully routed and supported to prevent them from being damaged, we can easily maintain assurance of compliance with FMVSS 301-75. On such a system, would the agency accept Engineering documentation in the form of drawings. Engineering instructions, and Quality Assurance procedures in lieu of actual crash test reports as a suitable basis for certification? Would it be necessary or desirable to have independent laboratory inspection and approval under such a method of certification? Are any manufacturers using this type of certification, and if so, could we be provided with examples of the documentation used?

Blue Bird Body Company believes in its motto that, "Your Children's Safety is Our Business". Blue Bird also believes in improving its products, providing the safest, most modern and most efficient products possible, and in meeting our customer's needs whenever possible. To this end we appreciate any assistance the agency can provide to enable us to offer auxiliary heaters and air conditioning on new school buses. I have taken the liberty of sending three copies of this letter to Mr. Francis Armstrong and to Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, since I feel input from both Enforcement and Rulemaking would be beneficial in addressing this issue.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter.

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

c: FRANCIS ARMSTRONG (3) -- OFC. OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE; RALPH HITCHCOCK (3) -- OFC. OF VEHICLE SAFETY STDS.

ID: 1984-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arent; Fox; Kintner; Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5339

Dear Larry:

As requested, our office has reviewed the utility vehicle labels and Owner's Manual language proposed for use by American Motors Corporation on 1985 model year utility vehicles subject to the Utility Vehicle Consumer Information Regulation, 49 CFR 575.105. These materials were contained as Attachments A and B in your recent submission and are annexed hereto for convenience.

We have determined that the utility vehicle sticker and Owner's Manual language proposed by American Motors Corporation is in compliance with the referenced regulation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

The following labels will be placed on 1985 Model Year American Motors utility vehicles:

Open-Body Utility Vehicles - Jeep CJ and Scrambler:

WEAR SEAT BELTS AT ALL TIMES DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE

This is an open-body utility vehicle. It handles and maneuvers differently from many passenger cars both on-road and off-road. You must drive it safely. As with other utility vehicles, if you make sudden sharp turns or abrupt maneuvers, you may cause this vehicle to go out of control and roll over or crash--you or your passengers may be seriously injured. Read the driving guidelines in the Owner's Manual and Supplement.

Closed-Body Utility Vehicles - Wagoneer, Cherokee and Grand Wagoneer:

WEAR SEAT BELTS AT ALL TIRES DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE

This utility vehicle handles and maneuvers differently from many passenger cars both on-road and off-road. You must drive it safely. As with other utility vehicles, if you make sudden sharp turns or abrupt maneuvers, you may cause this vehicle to go out of control and roll over or crash--you or your passengers may be seriously injured. Read the driving guidelines in the Owner's Manual.

ATTACHMENT A

Following is an extract of the American Motors Owner's Manual (specified utility vehicles), containing the required introductory statements:

An Important Message To You From Jeep Corporation

Thank you for selecting one of our 1985 Jeep models. Whichever your choice--Jeep CJ or Scrambler--be assured that it represents the precision workmanship, distinctive styling and high quality traditional with Jeep vehicles.

This is a specialized vehicle designed for both on-road and off-road use. It can go places and perform tasks for which conventional, 2-wheel drive, closed vehicles were not intended. However, on-pavement ride and handling will have a different feel from what drivers experience with other vehicles, so take time to become familiar with your vehicle.

This vehicle has a higher ground clearance, higher center of gravity and narrower track than many passenger cars. It is capable of performing better in a wide variety of off-road applications. Driven in an unsafe manner, all vehicles can be caused to go out of control. Because of the higher center of gravity and the narrower track, if this vehicle is out of control, it may roll-over when some other vehicles may not. You should not attempt sharp turns or abrupt maneuvers or other unsafe driving actions that can cause loss of vehicle control. Failure to operate this vehicle safely may result in an accident, roll-over of the vehicle and serious injury or death.

Because of their open-body construction, Jeep CJ's and Scramblers offer less protection than closed vehicles in the event of an accident. Although Jeep CJ's and Scramblers may be equipped with optional soft or hard tops to give the occupants protection from the weather, these tops do not offer structural protection in the event of an accident and do not change the open-body characteristic of the vehicle. Even though your Jeep CJ or Scrambler has a roll bar for some extra protection, it is a truly open vehicle--there is no steel structural integrated top and it has low sides and a folding windshield. Many of these vehicles have no real doors. Dangerous driving behavior presents more risk of injury to occupants of open- body vehicles. So drive carefully and wear safety belts at all times.

Drive carefully. Observe traffic laws. Use driver and passenger safety belts. Don't drive if you have been drinking or taking drugs. These are the best ways to avoid accidents and injury or death. It is especially important to practice safe, cautious driving techniques in driving open-body vehicles because they offer less protection in the event of an accident.

Human error is the primary or contributing factor in more than 90% of all traffic accidents that result in severe injury or death. Alcohol impairment is a major cause of fatal and other serious accidents and is particularly involved in single-vehicle crashes. Between 40% and 50% of fatally injured drivers were too intoxicated to have legally driven their motor vehicles under the laws of most states. Alcohol impairment may increase the seriousness of injury in an accident and may complicate the medical treatment of a serious injury. Excessive speed is a factor in at least 30% of all accidents that result in serious injury or death.

Failure to use driver and passenger safety belts provided as standard equipment on nearly all vehicles is a major cause of serious injury or death. In fact, the U.S. government notes that the universal use of existing safety belts could cut the highway death toll by 10,000 or more each year, and could reduce disabling injuries by 2 million incidents annually.

Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among persons 15 to 34 years of age...more than disease or illness, more than all other accidents combined.

Operating this vehicle at excessive speeds or while intoxicated may result in loss of control, collision with other vehicles or objects, going off road, or overturning; any of which may lead to serious injury or death. Also, failure to use standard safety belts subjects the driver and passengers to a greater risk of being thrown out of an open-body vehicle than out of a closed vehicle in an accident.

Before you start to drive this vehicle, read the Owner's Manual Supplement "Driving Your 4-Wheel Drive Vehicle" including the on-pavement and off-road driving guidelines and be sure you are familiar with all vehicle controls, particularly shifting, steering and braking. Learn how your vehicle handles on different road surfaces. Your driving skills will improve with experience, but as in driving any vehicle, take it easy as you begin. When driving off-road or working the vehicle, don't overload it or expect it to overcome the laws of nature. Always observe federal, state, provincial and local laws wherever you drive.

As with other vehicles of this type, failure to operate this vehicle correctly may result in loss of control or an accident. Be sure to read On-Pavement and Off-Road driving guidelines in this manual.

Read the manual and all the supplements in the Owner's Kit before operating your Jeep vehicle.

Enjoy your new Jeep vehicle. When you need assistance, service or replacement parts, see your Jeep dealer.

Change of Address or Ownership

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Clean Air Act require that the manufacturer be able to contact owners in the event of a product correction. Please complete the card included in the Owner's Kit when you change your address or purchase a used Jeep vehicle. Be sure to use the complete Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)--location described in this manual. If the card has been used, furnish the VIN and you name and address to:

In U.S.A. In Canada Jeep Corporation American Motors (Canada) Inc. Owner Relations 350 Kennedy Road South P.O. Box 442 Brampton, Ontario L6V 2M3 Detroit, Michigan 48232 Attn: Warranty Admin.Dept.

Warnings and Cautions

This manual contains WARNINGS against operating procedures which could result in an accident or bodily injury. It also contains CAUTIONS against procedures which could result in damage to your Jeep vehicle or accessory equipment. If you do not read this entire manual, you may miss important information. Observe all Warnings and Cautions.

Warning and Caution Labels

Various information labels affixed to your vehicle use a combination of colors and symbols. Bright orange labels WARN against operating procedures which could result in an accident or bodily injury. Bright yellow labels CAUTION against operating procedures which could result in damage to your vehicle.

ID: 1984-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. Moriyoshi, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

This responds to your letter of August 3, 1984, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. You specifically inquired about the application of the requirements of section S3.5 of the standard to four possible inner door panel designs Mazda is considering.

You explained that manufacturer-installed armrests originally were simple in design and only extended a short distance sufficient to provide actual support for the arm or elbow of an occupant, but that currently manufacturers "employ inner door panel designs that embody a continous and, in some cases, quite elaborate protrusion that extend the entire length of the door and serve many additional functions, often aimed at occupant convenience." You are concerned about whether the entire inner panel design would be considered an armrest.

You enclosed a drawing of four potential designs for an "inner door panel projection...that incorporate, in addition to a specific location that would be literally considered an armrest, ...other convenience functions. These additional functions, placed in remote locations from an occupant's trajectory during an impact, might include the door handle, power window switches, ashtrays, map pockets and remote side door mirror controls." You asked whether the entire designs would have to comply with section S3.5.1(b), which you understand applies to the whole armrest. You also asked how the designs could be changed to comply with section S3.5.1(a) or (c) and whether the agency's interpretation would differ if the designs were changed so that certain portions of the design were separate components.

First, I want to confirm that the requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements of S3.5.1(a), of the standard apply to the entire armrest, while S3.5.1(c) is limited to a portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area. Based on a review of the four designs, we have concluded that the shaded and unshaded portions of each design would be considered an armrest since each design is an integral unit which provides an area for an occupant to rest his or her arm. We cannot comment on how these designs could be changed to comply with sections S3.5.1(a) or (c) since your letter does not explain why you consider it impracticable to meet the requirements of those sections of the standard.

The agency's answer would differ if the designs shown in Figures 1, 2 and 4 were changed so that the shaded areas of those designs were a separate component located away from what you have labeled the literal armrest and had features, such as power window switches, installed in them which would preclude their use as a conventional armrest. As to Figure 3, if the shaded portion of the design which does not have a portion of the "literal armrest" on top of it were likewise moved and included functions to preclude its use to rest the arm, the agency would not consider it an armrest. It would appear that, because of the large size of the entire shaded area shown in Figure 3, you might not be able to separate it and include sufficient design features to preclude its use as an armrest. If that could be done, the agency, again, would not consider it an armrest.

As shown by your careful discussion of the purpose of the armrest requirements of the standard, you are aware that the agency is concerned about reducing injuries caused by any protrusion in the vehicle. If you decide to modify your designs so that certain portions would not be considered armrests covered by the standard, I urge you to utilize a design which will minimize occupant injuries.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel 3 August 1984

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

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Mazda respectfully requests consideration of this letter seeking the interpretation of terminology used in S3.5, Armrests, of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Mazda understands that the requirements of S3.5.1(b) apply to the entire "armrest". This term has been generically used to define a protrusion mounted on the inner door panel and situated in such a manner as to allow an occupant to comfortably and conveniently rest their arm or elbow. The goal was to relieve the occupant of the fatigue that often accompanies automobile trips of extended length and provide a stable platform for the driver that decreases uneven and unnecessary movement. Originally, manufacturers installed "armrests" that were quite simple in design and extended along the length of the door only a significant distance to actually provide support to the occupant. Currently, however, many manufacturers employ inner door panel designs that embody a continuous and, in some cases, quite elaborate protrusion that extend the entire length of the door and serve many additional functions, often aimed at occupant convenience.

It is in this context that some confusion arises. The obvious intent of S3.5.1 was and is to protect the occupant from potentially injurious collisions with the inner door panel. Indeed, S3.5.1(c) refers specifically to the "pelvic impact area", presumably as the location of greatest possible risk. However, S3.5.1(a) and S3.5.1(b) apply to the entire "armrest" and, in the case of designs mentioned previously, could thereby be applicable to the entire length of the inner door panel, including those locations of the inner door panel that the lower body of an occupant would not contact under an impact situation. Therefore, a possible design that could assist in the overall goal of providing occupant convenience may be prohibited by strict implementation of the term "armrest".

Mazda has conceived four possible design configurations for an inner door panel projection (see Figures 1-4) that incorporate, in addition to a specific location that would be literally considered an armrest and therefore in compliance with S3.5.1 (b) (Mazda currently considers it impractical to utilize the requirements of S3.5.1 (a) or S3.5.1 (c) relative to the depicted configurations), other convenience functions. These additional functions, placed in remote locations from an occupant's trajectory during an impact, might include the door handle, power window switches, ashtrays, map pockets and remote side door mirror controls.

Therefore, upon consideration of the preceding remarks, please examine the inner door panel configurations depicted and discuss them individually. Also, please offer any comments, suggestions or recommendations that might serve to insure adequate occupant protection, compliance with FMVSS 201, S3.5.1 (b) and maximum design flexibility. Further, please comment on the efficacy of modifying the configurations depicted so that compliance with S3.5.1 (a) or S3.5.1 (c) might be possible. Finally, please discuss any relevance that the continuity of the projection might impart on your interpretation; for example, the shaded area shown in Figures 1-4 being a separate component or piece.

Your consideration is most appreciated.

Thank you.

H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager HM/mls

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rodger I. Bloch, Sales & Marketing Director, Scott Air, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director Lavelle Road, P.O. Box 1745 Alamogordo, NM 88310

Dear Mr. Block:

This responds to your letter of August 15, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to an air conditioning system you supply to school bus manufacturers. You explained that your system taps into the fuel system of the school bus. If your system is installed by a manufacturer as an item of original equipment on a school bus, the manufacturer of the bus, is required by Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle with the auxiliary air conditioner complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301.

If you are installing the air conditioners on the vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer and under Part 567.7 be required to certify that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable standards.

In addition, you, in effect, asked about how a manufacturer or alterer demonstrates that it has exercised due care in making its certification of compliance. The agency has recently written Blue Bird Body Co. concerning this issue and I am enclosing a copy of that letter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 15, 1984

Dear Mr. Burndt:

Scott Air is a manufacturer of bus air comfort systems (air conditioning). It has been called to our attention by a manufacturer of school buses, that FMVSS 301-75 relating to fuel integrity was a concern to them. They have taken all steps to certify compliance to this standard. We are now supplying a self contained air conditioning system that is skirt mounted on the drivers side.

Our system is mounted to the chasis of the vehicle and incased in a steel housing, it is protected also by the steel brackets, by which it is mounted, as well as, the vehicle itself. Please see the enclosed photo's. We are tapping into the original certified fuel system of the vehicle and our system holds only about 6.5 ounces of fuel.

I have been talking to Mr. Taylor Vincent of your staff and also Mr. Tom Grubbs with the engineering department. They have both indicated we should be able to secure a DO CARE certification. Would you or your staff be so kind as to issue instructions to me, so I can proceed in this matter.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director ds Enclosure: omitted.

ID: 1984-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rodger I. Bloch, Sales & Marketing Director, Scott Air, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director Lavelle Road, P.O. Box 1745 Alamogordo, NM 88310

Dear Mr. Block:

This responds to your letter of August 15, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to an air conditioning system you supply to school bus manufacturers. You explained that your system taps into the fuel system of the school bus. If your system is installed by a manufacturer as an item of original equipment on a school bus, the manufacturer of the bus, is required by Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle with the auxiliary air conditioner complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301.

If you are installing the air conditioners on the vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer and under Part 567.7 be required to certify that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable standards.

In addition, you, in effect, asked about how a manufacturer or alterer demonstrates that it has exercised due care in making its certification of compliance. The agency has recently written Blue Bird Body Co. concerning this issue and I am enclosing a copy of that letter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 15, 1984

Dear Mr. Burndt:

Scott Air is a manufacturer of bus air comfort systems (air conditioning). It has been called to our attention by a manufacturer of school buses, that FMVSS 301-75 relating to fuel integrity was a concern to them. They have taken all steps to certify compliance to this standard. We are now supplying a self contained air conditioning system that is skirt mounted on the drivers side.

Our system is mounted to the chasis of the vehicle and incased in a steel housing, it is protected also by the steel brackets, by which it is mounted, as well as, the vehicle itself. Please see the enclosed photo's. We are tapping into the original certified fuel system of the vehicle and our system holds only about 6.5 ounces of fuel.

I have been talking to Mr. Taylor Vincent of your staff and also Mr. Tom Grubbs with the engineering department. They have both indicated we should be able to secure a DO CARE certification. Would you or your staff be so kind as to issue instructions to me, so I can proceed in this matter.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director ds Enclosure: omitted.

ID: 1984-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/19/84

FROM: ROGER HAGIE -- KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP USA

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION...FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/02/85 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO ROGER HAGIE, REDBOOK A26, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the provisions of FMVSS 108 with respect to a new headlamp design/concept under development at Kawasaki.

We are aware of the interpretation issued by your office to Koito Manufacturing Co. (letter dated July 24, 1984) in response to their request of June 21, 1984. In this interpretation, you confirmed that two headlamps, each meeting the requirements of SAE J584 may be used on a motorcycle when mounted side-by-side as described by Koito's letter.

Kawasaki wishes to clarify a question which we feel was raised by the Koito request and your response, and to further determine your position with respect to our design ideas. Concerning the Koito request, Koito stated that their "headlamp unit is optically designed to be less than 75,000 cd". It is unclear to us whether Koito was referring to the output of a single lamp in their dual-lamp system, or whether the maximum output of both lamps together would not exceed 75,000 cd. Therefore, our first question is: Does the 75,000 limit (as specified by SAE J584) apply to each lamp individually, or must the total output of both lamps be limited to 75,000 cd?

Kawasaki is considering a headlamp design that consists of two reflectors, each with its own dual-filament bulb, and each capable of independent aim, installed in a single housing, and behind a single lens. Bulbs would be a standardized, replaceable unit, accessible from the rear of the housing. The assembly would meet all of the environmental and other requirements of SAE J584 and FMVSS 108. In some respects, this unit would be similar to the headlamp design proposed by Ford and approved by NHTSA on May 20, 1983. Our questions with respect to this design are: First, is such a design acceptable for a motorcycle? Secondly, would both reflectors have to be independently aimable, or could the aiming be accomplished by moving the whole lamp assembly as long as the aiming requirements of SAE J566 and the photometric requirements of SAE J584 are met?

Kawasaki would appreciate your earliest response to these questions. Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions or if any additional information is required.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: 1984-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/29/84

FROM: FRED W. BOWDITCH -- MVMA TECHNICAL AFFAIRS DIVISION

TO: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/14/85 EST, FROM BARRY FELRICE TO FRED W. BOWDITCH, REDBOOK A27, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Miss Steed:

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA) * files this petition under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

* MVMA members are AM General Corporation, American Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, International Harvester Company, M.A.N. Truck and Bus Corporation, PACCAR Inc., Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volvo North America Corporation.

MVMA requests removal from section 4.1.1.36(a)(2) of the limitation requiring the three aiming pads to be located on the exterior face of the headlamp lens. So long as the aiming pads are accessible to the adjustable legs of the aimer locating plates described in Figure 9, there is no motor vehicle safety need to limit pad placement to the face of the lens. Adoption of this requested amendment would remove an unwarranted design restriction. By allowing the aiming pads to be located on a part of the headlamp other than the lens, e.g., the mounting flange at the lens-reflector joint, such amendment would facilitate, for example, the design of lower profile replaceable bulb headlamps. Use of such headlamps could enhance the aerodynamic properties of future vehicle designs. Accordingly, we request substitution of the following text for the current section 4.1.1.36(a)(2):

"S4.1.1.36(a)(2) Each replaceable bulb headlamp shall have three pads on the front surface of the lamp which form an aiming plane for mechanically adjusting and inspecting headlamp aim. In the front view of the lamp taken in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the three pads shall be positioned to match corresponding locations, for either Group I or Group II, that are specified in Figure 9 (front view) for the adjustable legs of the locating plate. The pads shall be designed to permit use of a mechanical aimer conforming to SAE Standard J602 October 1980 "Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units", together with an adjustable locating plate described in Figure 9, to check the aim of the Headlamp. Group I aiming pad locations are those prescribed for the 2B1 sealed beam headlamp unit and Group II aiming pad locations are those prescribed for 1A1/2A1 sealed beam headlamp units. Each lens face shall have molded into it the settings, appropriate for that headlamp, of the lengths of the three legs of the adjustable locating plate. Each setting is to be located adjacent to the aiming pad to which it applies. The molded characters specifying the settings shall have a minimum height of 4mm".

If you would like to discuss this petition further, please call on us.

Very truly yours,

ID: 1984-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Yea-tung Hung, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to this office, asking for information on the necessary steps for certifying that a rim complies with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You were particularly interested in how to obtain "authorization" to place the required markings on rims. Markings are only required by Standard No. 120 to appear on rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, to be certain that I answer your request fully, I will explain our requirements for both passenger car rims and rims for use on other motor vehicles.

The two applicable standards are No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims -- Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.110), and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120). I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. For passenger car rims, section S4.4 of Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional requirements shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire and Rim Association, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, or the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application. No markings are required on rims subject to Standard No. 110.

For rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not the rim manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will actually be mounted on the rim.

The second requirement, set forth in S5.2, is that the rim be marked with five specified items of information. These are:

(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions;

(2) The rim size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

(3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards;

(4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and

(5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

You specifically asked how to obtain "authorization from D.O.T." to engrave the symbol on the rim which indicates that it complies with the standards and regulations. As explained in Standard No. 120, this symbol is the letters "DOT". The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to the governmental entity, and that entity tests the rims to determine if it can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. Once the manufacturer determines that its rims do meet the requirements of Standard No. 120, it stamps the symbol "DOT" into those rims, without any authorization from this agency.

Should you have any further questions regarding the requirements applicable to rims, please feel free to contact me.

ENCLS.

OCC-1208

September 18, 1984

U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir,

This is to inquire that how to obtain the authorization from D.O.T. to engrave the symbol or words on the rim which shall indicate the quality of the rim is manufactured in accordance with the regulation set forth by the D.O.T.

On behalf of Shinn Fu Company of Taiwan, I have discussed this matter with Mr. Casanova and was told that there is not necessary to get special authorization for the rim except for the tire.

Please confirm this advice or advise us otherwise.

I am looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Yea-tung Hong

cc: SHINN FU CO.

ID: 1984-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; FRANK BERNDT; NHSTA

TO: H.K. Porter Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. F. Netzer Hose Development Manager H.K. Porter Company, Inc. 1301 W. Sandusky Avenue Bellefontaine, Ohio 43311

Dear Mr. Netzer:

This responds to your September 19, 1984 letter to Mr. Vern Bloom of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. Your letter was referred to this office for our reply.

You asked whether Standard No. 106 would permit the manufacture of an air brake hose for use with permanently attached end fittings when the size of the hose is not listed in Table III of that standard. The answer to your question is yes. Table III of Standard No. 106 specified dimensional requirements for air brake hose intended for use with reusable end fittings. The table does not limit the sizes of hoses used with permanent fittings.

He wish to emphasize that all other requirements applicable to air brake hoses which are found in Standard No. 106 would apply to your air brake hoses.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 19, 1984

Mr. Vern Bloom U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA NRM11 CAD 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

We, as air brake hose manufacturers, have been requested by several customers to produce an air brake hose having an inside diameter as listed under SAE J1402 table "A" specification for permanently attached fittings. We find that the DOT 106 specification table "III" does not list a hose diameter for permanently attached fitting and would like to know if we would have any problems if we manufactured a hose with the dimensions as listed in SAE J1402 table "A".

Thank you very much, I remain

Very truly yours,

A. F. Netzer Hose Development Manager AFN/jah

ID: 1984-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/02/84

FROM: Diane K. Steed -- NHTSA

TO: Jim Burnett -- Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is in further response to recommendations H-83-44 and H-83-45 which your agency made to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Highway Accident Report, "Jonesboro School District Schoolbus Run-Off-Road and Overturn, State Highway 214 at State Highway 18, near Newport, Arkansas, March 25, 1983" (NTSB/HAR-83/03).

NHTSA agrees with the National Transportation Safety Board that properly inspected and repaired school buses are essential to the safe transportation of school children. We also believe that the current provisions in Highway Safety Program Standard 1, Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection, and Highway Safety Program Standard 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, as well as the relevant Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, provide for an adequate level of safety when children are transported to and from school.

Of the 15,840 school districts in the United States, about 15,000 provide pupil transportation. Over 400,000 buses are involved in transporting the Nation's 22 million public, private and parochial school children to and from school each day. These buses are maintained by a number of persons having diverse backgrounds ranging in skill from "grease monkey" to those certified by the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE). This fleet travels over three billion miles a year, and is remarkably free of problems. Information reported at national meetings indicates that accidents due to mechanical failure are estimated to be between three and five percent and very few result in injury or death.

With respect to the specific recommendations, we have the following comments:

RECOMMENDATION H-S3-44 (Class II, Priority Action)

Include in Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) 17 -- Pupil Transportation Safety and in the "Program Manual" for HSPS 17 the requirement that the States institute quality control procedures for schoolbus repairs to determine if needed repairs have been performed adequately or if major repairs are required.

COMMENT

State Directors of Transportation, school business officials and fleet supervisors with whom NHTSA has talked agree that school buses should be kept in good repair. They questioned, however, how quality control procedures could be applied to the repair of school buses when almost every repair is different. Most school buses currently undergo at least two inspections a year, as suggested by Standard 17, which procedure helps to detect major defects that require repair. In addition to this inspection, we understand that most drivers conduct a daily inspection which identifies the need for minor repairs. One supervisor observed that school bus drivers act as a form of practical quality control because they check to determine if the school bus is operating safely after the repair has been made.

A survey of almost 1,000 fleets by the National School Transportation Association revealed that 49 percent operated fewer than 10 buses. To institute quality control procedures for these small fleets would quickly exhaust the limited resources of most States. Instituting formal quality control procedures would be costly to the States, no matter whether facilities were built and equipment purchased, or alternative checking procedures were utilized.

Recommendation H-83-45 (Class II, Priority Action)

This five part recommendation would include in the Program Manual of Highway Safety Program Standard 17 -- Pupil Transportation Safety, the program areas listed below.

1. Specific, well-defined qualifications for hiring schoolbus mechanics;

2. Specific skill areas for schoolbus mechanics for which certification of proficiency is required;

3. A biolography of available courses that can be attended or course curricula that can be used as an example to obtain certification of proficiency in the required skill areas;

Comment

NHTSA plans to use a portion of staff resources to review the literature that pertains to school bus mechanic qualifications and skill areas needed for certification. Upon completion we will disseminate the appropriate information to State and local governments.

Many schools, colleges and vocational training centers offer various courses in auto-mechanics, but few people ever master all the major areas of vehicle repair and become master-mechanics. The majority of small fleet operators could not afford to hire such a skilled mechanic. Car dealers employ many skilled mechanics but many are neither equipped nor do they desire to repair school buses. It is highly unlikely that owners of small fleets would or could hire an ASE certified mechanic. It is also unlikely that most of the garages or service stations that maintain school buses have such a person in their employ because they are small independent private entrepreneures. The extreme diversity of the school bus fleet in the United States would be a major complication for a practical certification program.

In 1978, hearings were held by the House Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance, of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to examine State and local as well as private sector approaches to the problem of unnecessary, incompetent, or fraudulent repair practices. Senator Philip Hart also held hearings in the late 1960s on Mechanic Training and Licensing. In spite of the adverse findings by these two committees, neither the Federal Government nor any State has gone so far as to require certification of mechanics doing work on cars or school buses. Because of the complexity of this problem, and the lack of Congressional action, NHTSA is of the opinion that it cannot go beyond publishing qualifications for school bus mechanics and identifying available training centers.

States whose accident records show the need for better maintenance care can be expected to take remedial action. Michigan, for example, provided workshops especially designed for school bus mechanics for over 10 years.

4. A requirement to institute and enforce procedures to prevent school activity groups from organizing, beginning, or continuing trips in mechanically unsafe vehicles;

Comment

A requirement to institute and enforce procedures to prevent school activity groups from organizing, beginning or continuing trips in mechanically unsafe vehicles is commendable. Such a requirement, however, would be effective only if it were enforced. Standard 17 currently suggests pre-trip inspections and a written report of any defect or deficiency discovered. We believe a reminder to the States of this suggestion would encourage them to give the proper attention to this safety area.

5. Requirements to place fire extinguishers at the front and rear of school buses, post signs in school buses on the location and use of emergency equipment, and brief passengers on the location and use of emergency equipment, both periodically and before beginning activity trips.

Comment

The placement of additional fire extinguishers outside the bus driver's compartment has led to increased theft and vandalism. These essential pieces of emergency equipment need to remain under the watchful eyes of the bus driver. The benefits of placing a second fire extinguisher in the rear of the school bus are so few as to make this requirement unwarranted. In case of a fire, a bus driver's first responsibility is to get the pupils to a place of safety. Having the personal skill and the equipment to handle a small fire are helpful, but not a necessity.

NHTSA suggests that all pupils who ride school buses should have instruction twice a year in safe riding procedures and emergency drills. This should provide sufficient information to students concerning the location and use of emergency equipment carried on the school bus. The location and use of fire extinguishers should be a part of this instruction.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these safety recommendations. If NHTSA can supply any additional information, please let me know.

ID: 1984-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent, Fox, Kintner,Plotkin and Kahn

TEXT:

Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washigton Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

This responds to your letter of August 27, 1984, on behalf of your client, the Breed Corporation. You asked whether section S4.5.2 of Standard No . 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to totally mechanical air bag restraint systems such as those to be produced by Breed. As explained below, the readiness indicator requirements do not apply to a totally mechanical system.

The readiness indicator requirement was first adopted by the agency in November 1970. The text of the rule provided, in applicable part, that "an occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash should have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The system components monitored shall include all electrical and compressed gases, if present." As you correctly pointed out, the agency explained in the problem to the November 1970 rule that it was particularly concerned about monitoring electrical circuitry and pressure vessels, two critical elements of then available crash-deployed system. The agency said that "although manufacturers are urged to provide monitoring for all system elements for which it is feasible, the specific requirements of the standard in this regard are that electrical circuitry and pressurized gases, if present, be monitored,...."

In response to petitions for reconsideration, the agency modified the readiness indicator requirement on October 1, 1971. Several petitioners argued that monitoring of pressure vessels and electrically actuated explosive release devices could impair the integrity or reliability of those devices. The agency deleted the specific reference to an electrical and compressed gas monitoring system so that manufacturers could "avoid designs that are prone to deterioration. . . ." The amendment did not, however, otherwise affect the coverage of the requirement and therefore a totally mechanical system does not have to have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 27, 1984

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation; Inapplicability of Readiness Indicator Provision of FMVSS 208 to Non-Electric Crash Protection System

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Our firm represents Breed Corporation, located in Lincoln Park, New Jersey, which anticipates the production and marketing of a mechanical, self-contained air bag module. Breed seeks a letter of interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirming that sub-section 54. 5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, the "readiness indicator" provision, does not apply to totally mechanical airbag restraint systems such as those to be produced by Breed.

Regulatory Background

A readiness indicator requirement, as proposed by NHTSA, first appeared in an advance notice of proposed rule making for passive occupant restraint systems such as the air bag in July of 1969. Passive crash protection technology then and for a number of years thereafter suggested electrical, rather than mechanical, systems for this purpose.

Indeed, in a final rule notice issued on November 3, 1970, Douglas Toms, the then Director of NHTSA' s predecessor agency, the National Highway Safety Bureau, observed:

"The proposed requirement for a readiness indicator for crash-deployed systems brought forth several questions as to which system elements were required to be monitored. Obviously any deployable system will have some qualities . . . that are not suitable for monitoring, and other aspects whose monitoring would be very difficult and costly. System monitoring of electrical circuitry and pressure vessels, two of the most critical elements where they exist, is, however, feasible with present technology. Therefore..., the specific requirements of the standard in this regard are that electrical circuitry and pressurized gases, if present, be monitored...." (35 Fed. Reg. 16928 (1970).)

The narrow application of subsection S4.5.2 was reconfirmed in an October 1971 rule making notice, in which the Safety Administration observed:

"To permit manufacturers to avoid designs that are prone to deterioration, the readiness indicator requirement has been amended by omitting specific reference to compressed gases and electrical circuits. " (36 Fed. Reg. 19254 (1971).)

Request for Interpretation

Breed Corporation respectfully submits that its completely mechanical air bag system, which consists of five basic components (knee bolster, steering column, nonpressurized, solid state gas generator, air bag and crash sensor), is not subject to the readiness indicator requirement of subsection S4. 5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, 49 C.F.R. 571.208, which is intended to cover occupant protection systems with electrical circuitry and/or pressurized gases.

We request that the agency confirm, by letter of interpretation, our understanding of the city provision.

Sincerely,

Lawrence F. Henneberger cc: Thomas C. McGrath, Jr., Esquire John C. Culver, Esquire