ID: 1985-04.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber -- Vice President, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive P.O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Thank you for you letter of August 12, 1985, to Administrator Steed, telling us of your plans to identify Mercedes-Benz vehicles which are equipped with your Supplemental Restraint System. You stated that, beginning with model year 1986, you plan to use the vehicle identification number (VIN) plate location for this purpose. The attachments to your letter depict a VIN plate which indicates whether the vehicle is equipped with an air bag for the driver or for both front seating positions. As long as the requirements of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, and Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements, are met, we believe your plan to use the VIN plate location to identify an air-bag equipped car in this manner should be useful. We agree that it should enable service departments, dismantlers, or recyclers to quickly and easily note that a vehicle is equipped with an air bag. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Acting Chief Council

ID: 1985-04.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The London Coach Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. D. F. Landers President The London Coach Co., Inc. 25 Eldredge P.O. Box 1183 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043

Dear Mr. Landers:

This responds to your June 6, 1985 letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. We apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether your vehicle's "folding flip seats" are required by section @4.3 of the standard to be equipped with a restraining device. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By the way of background information, this agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section @4.3 of Standard No. 207 states:

...a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat or seat back and control for releasing that restraining device. (Emphasis added.) The term "occupant seat" is defined in section S3 of Standard No. 207 as, "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." The term "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3(b) as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for the auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.... (Emphasis added.)

The issue raised by your letter is whether your folding flip seats are seats that provide a designated seating position, within the definition of 49 CFR Part 571.3(b). If a seat provides a designated seating position, it is an occupant seat under Standard No. 207 and subject to section @4.3's requirement for a restraining device. It is our opinion that your folding flip seats are "auxiliary seating accommodations" and therefore not subject to the Standard No. 207's requirement for a restraining device. This conclusion is based on the information shown on your brochure. The brochure shows that each of the flip seats normally remains folded up. When they are temporarily needed to accommodate additional passengers, they can be folded down to form a seating surface.

While folding jump seats are not subject to a number of safety requirements, including those of Standards No. 207 and 208, Occupant Crash Protection, we encourage you to ensure that the seats provide safe performance when in use. In particular, we would encourage you to provide safety belts for these seats to ensure that their occupants will have adequate crash protection.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 6, 1985

The Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir/Madam:

This letter is our request for interpretive advice on our vehicle, London Taxi and London Sterling, in the area of seating. Brochures are enclosed for your information.

Regulation @4.3 of 49CFR 571.207 requires a self-locking device on all hinged or folding occupant seats. We have gone to a great deal of trouble and research in an effort to locate a suitable self-locking device without success.

Meanwhile, we have noted many vehicles, such as, limousines, ambulances, and fire trucks with folding temporary jump seats without self-locking devices. We further note that in 49CFR 571.3 under the definition of the term, designated seating position, "temporary or folding jump seats" are not regarded as "designated seating positions".

We interpret this latter definition to mean our vehicle folding flip seats do not require self-locking devices. Would you please advise us if our interpretation is correct.

Yours very truly,

D.F. Landers President

DFL/ka

cc: J. Greenebaum A. Turner

enclosure

ID: 1985-04.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John L. O'Connell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 25, 1985 Mr. John L. O'Connell Public Transportation Administrator Department of Motor Vehicles State of Connecticut State Street Wethersfield, CT 06109-1896 Dear Mr. O'Connell: This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1985, to Jeffrey Miller, former Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked whether a new style school bus warning lamp system developed by the Whelen Engineering Company meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and referenced SAE standards, and whether such a system can be installed and used on school buses in compliance with Federal regulations. Pursuant to paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, a school bus must be equipped with a system of red lamps, or red and amber lamps meeting SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964 (copy enclosed). The Whelen system is said to comply with SAE J887 May 1982, with the possible exception of dimensions. The requirements that the Whelen system must meet are those of the 1964 version of J887. Dimensional specifications are not included in the 1964 version, however, the minimum effective projected luminous lens area requirement of 19 square inches must be met. The test report indicates that the Whelen lamp meets the minimum photometrics of both the 1982 and 1964 versions of J887 and its dimensions, 7" x 2.75", indicate that the minimum luminous lens area requirement may also be met. However, the test report indicates that the light flashes at a rate of 55 cycles per minute. The Whelen lamp therefore does not comply with the 1964 requirement that school bus warning lamps flash at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute (nor the 1982 SAE specifications of 1-2 H which is 60-120 cycles per minute). For this reason, the Whelen system does not meet Federal requirements and cannot be installed on school buses certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1985-04.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Richard Pertz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 25, 1985 Richard Pertz, Esq. Julian & Pertz, P.C. 1629 Oneida Street Utica, NY 13501 Dear Mr. Pertz: I regret the delay in replying to your letter of July 12, 1985, regarding interpretations of Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. You asked whether the agency has issued any interpretations concerning S5.1.2 of the standard. In addition, you asked whether Ford Motor Company had submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) any interpretations of paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 111, regarding requirements for mounting inside rearview mirrors in passenger cars. This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. As part of its responsibilities, this office issues interpretations of safety standards, upon written request. This agency has issued two interpretations of S5.1.2 of Standard No. 111. Copies of these interpretations are enclosed. In addition, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance investigated the compliance of different makes of passenger cars with Standard No. 111 between 1977 and 1981. The Ford passenger car models tested were the Ford LTD, Econoline, and Fiesta and the Mercury Zephyr and Cougar. As a part of its submission to the agency in these investigations, Ford provided information on its compliance with S5.1.2. The files are available on microfiche from the Technical Reference Office, Room 5108 (202-426-2768) at the address shown above, and the file numbers are CIR Nos. 1708, 2062, 2063, 2064, and 2245. Your request in your letter of September 3, 1985, for comments by Ford on notices of proposed rulemaking on Standard No. 111 has been referred to the Docket Section. They will reply directly to you regarding this information. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-04.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: P.J. Pennells

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 25, 1985 P.J. Pennells Pilkington Glass Limited Triplex House Eckersall Road Kings Norton Birmingham ENGLAND B38 8SR Dear Mr. Pennells: Thank you for your letter of October 7, 1985, concerning the application of our glazing regulation to slow moving vehicles, such as agricultural vehicles and earth moving equipment. I hope the following discussion answers your questions. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies only to vehicles classified as motor vehicles by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. The agency does not consider agricultural vehicles, such as tractors, to be motor vehicles since the legislative history of the Vehicle Safety Act indicates that Congress did not intend to cover those vehicles. Whether construction vehicles, such as earth movers, will be considered motor vehicles depends on their use. For example, construction vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use are not. I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet prepared by the agency which discusses additional factors we consider in determining whether a vehicle meets the statutory definition of "motor vehicle." We would be glad to give you an opinion as to whether a particular construction vehicle would be classified as a motor vehicle for the purposes of our regulations, if you will provide us with specific information about the design characteristics and use of the vehicle. Since the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the U.S. Department of Labor has regulations which effect off-road construction vehicles, I have referred a copy of your letter to that agency. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-04.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ron Marion -- Specification Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Marion Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point, N.C. 27261

This responds to your October 1, 1985 letter to this office asking whether each state has the discretion to determine whether vehicles purchased for Head Start programs should be school buses. While the memorandum you intended to enclose from Commissioner Hodges was excluded from your letter, we are able to answer your questions directly. Your first question asked, "Are Head Start Programs considered schools or school related events for preprimary students?" This agency has consistently stated that a Head Start facility is considered a preprimary school for the purpose of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Your second question asked, "Are Head Start Agencies required to provide school buses when transporting 10 or more students?: As you know, the requirements under the Vehicle Safety Act apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and not to motor vehicle use. The Vehicle Safety Act does not require schools to use school buses that comply with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Instead, given that Head Start facilities are "schools" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act, each person selling a new bus (i.e., a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons) to such a facility is required to sell a bus that complies with NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Your final question asked about state discretion to determine whether Head Start centers must provide complying school buses. The requirements governing the use of a motor vehicle after it is sold is a matter of state law. While NHTSA has issued recommendations to states regarding school bus operation in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), this agency has no requirement that Head Start centers must use complying school buses. On the other hand, the responsibility of school bus sellers to comply with the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act, and to sell a vehicle that complies with all applicable safety standards, including the school bus safety standards, is a Federal requirement. Accordingly, the states have no discretion to permit persons to sell new buses to Head Start centers if those buses do not comply with the motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. For your future reference, Mr. Tilton is no longer with this agency. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1985-04.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: EPL Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James L. Loden President, EPL Incorporated 200 Campus Drive, RD Pemberton Farms Research Campus Mt. Holly, NJ 08060

Dear Mr. Loden:

Thank you for your July 16, 1985 letter inquiring about the existence of any Federal safety requirements applicable to your projected sale of heated windshield wiper blades. You also asked if Federal testing or research testing or research is being conducted on windshield wiper systems.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems and No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, which are applicable to new motor vehicles. While these standards do not regulate the heating component of wipers, they do, among other things, require that a defrosting or wiping system clear a minimum percentage of a vehicle's windshield.

In addition, Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, also applies to new motor vehicles. This standard sets limits on the glare from certain metal components, including windshield wiper blades, in the driver's field of view. Its purpose is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces will hinder safe and normal operation of the vehicle. Copies of these three standards are enclosed.

If a new vehicle equipped with your blade did not comply with Standard No. 103, Standard No. 104, or Standard No. 107 due to some aspect of that blade, the sale of that car to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.

As to used vehicles, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle under Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Care should be taken that the installation of your product would not have that effect. A rendering inoperative might occur if, for example, your blade were not large enough to enable the wiping system to clear a sufficient area of the windshield. We urge you therefore to ensure that the substitution of your blade for an original equipment blade provided by a vehicle manufacturer would enable the wiping or defrosting system to continue to perform as required by Standard No. 103 and No. 104, and would not produce unacceptable glare in the driver's field of view, as prohibited by Standard No. 107.

Copies of the windshield compliance test reports for Standard Nos 103 and 104 are available from the agency's Technical Reference Division. Copies of these reports can be purchased by contacting Mr. Robert A. Hornickle (202-426-2987).

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

E P L Incorporated 200 Campus Dr. RD 1 Pemberton Farms Research Campus Mt. Holly, NJ 08060

July 16, 1985

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

Dear Mr. Oesch:

During a recent conversation, Edward Jetner, Staff Engineer for the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, suggested I contact you for information on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as they apply to a new product we intend to manufacture.

Our company, EPL Incorporated, is starting to manufacture a heated windshield wiper blade. We call it "Thermoblade", and it is designed for use on motor vehicles of all types. Thermoblade is an important safety item as it prevents snow and ice accumulation on the wiper blade and enables it to clean the windshield and provide good visibility for the driver even under the most severe weather conditions.

Is the product we intend to manufacture covered by certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards? Has any Federal testing been done, or are any of our Government's testing laboratories involved in any research and development on windshield wiper systems?

Any information you can give us which will help us launch our new product will be very much appreciated. Should you need more information, please call me at 609-261-6000.

Sincerely,

James L. Loden President

ID: 1985-04.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber -- Vice President, Product Compliance and Service, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale, NH 07645

I am writing in response to your letters about the headlamp cleaning systems you intend to install on certain 1986 model year vehicles. Your letters provide information about these systems and their performance. My staff has carefully reviewed the information and how it relates to Standard No. 108. "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Our finding is that headlamp cleaning systems as proposed would be governed by paragraphs S4.1.1.36(b)(3), S4.1.3. and S4.3.1.1. The intent of the requirements in these paragraphs is 1) to assure mechanical aimability of the lamp as installed in the vehicle, and 2) to assure that all photometric performance requirements are met with and without installation of auxiliary vehicle parts or accessories, (and if performance degradation must occur, to assure that an auxiliary lighting device is provided). Additionally, the "fail safe" requirements of Standard 112, "Headlamp Concealment Devices" provides a precedent for a requirement that a headlamp should meet all photometric performances requirements, should a wiper fail.

In viewing your company's systems relative to the requirements, it appears possible to design a replaceable bulb headlamp for a specific vehicle application which includes a wiper type headlamp cleaning system, that meets the intent of the law. This could occur if the headlamp system and cleaning system were designed to meet the requirements together: i.e., the photometric performance requirements of FMVSS No. 108 could be met with the wipers in any achievable position and with any standardized replaceable light source. The system would also have to provide for the wiper to accommodate mechanical aiming. The information presented by you appears to show that the design of your system has taken these needs into account. NHTSA would anticipate that any replaceable bulb headlamp system in such an application would be certified by the vehicle manufacturer to meet the performance requirements using a standardized replaceable light source which has minimum lumen output and which has the filament at the maximum out of position tolerance, any replacement headlamp, and any headlamp cleaning system parts. This would be necessary to ensure that the vehicle would remain in compliance when replacement parts are used.

In consideration of the above, NHTSA believes that replaceable bulb headlamp systems with wiper type cleaning systems designed to be compatible and designed to conform to Standard 108 are permissible under the present Standard.

In summary, NHTSA views the use of the wiper type headlamp cleaning system in conjunction with replaceable bulb headlamps as permissible so long as due care is taken to ensure that the systems are designed to conform together, and can remain in compliance in the event of parts replacement.

Sincerely, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ID: 1985-04.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Iwase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 29, 1985 Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for a clarification of requirements for motorcycles equipped with two headlamps. You have informed us that your two-headlamp design complies with the photometric requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (i.e., the at focus and out of focus tests of SAE J584) when the photometric measurements are made with reference to the photometric reference to the photometric reference axis of the individual headlamp unit. However, if this measurement is made at the combined axis, the combined maximum value of the upper beam will exceed 75,000 candela. Photometric measurements are to be made with reference to the photometric reference axis of the individual headlamp unit. Under Standard No. 108, however, the maximum candlepower of each unit on the upper beam is not to exceed 75,000. The fact that the combined maximum value of your system exceeds 75,000 candlepower. However, if the motorcycle headlamp is one consisting of two bulbs in a single housing, then the measurement is made at the combined axis of the two bulbs and the combined candlepower of this two-bulb single headlamp cannot exceed 75,000 candlepower. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Enere H. Levi, Esq. -- Office of the Attorney General, American Samoa Government

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Enere H. Levi Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General American Samoa Government Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

Thank you for your letter of September 18, 1985, to Mr. Hal Paris of this agency requesting information on the bumper requirements that apply to small trucks. You also asked about the effect of our standards on vehicles sold in your Territory. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), we have issued Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581), a copy of which is enclosed. The Part 581 standard applies only to passenger motor vehicles. Section (2)(1) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901(1)) defines a "passenger motor vehicle" as a vehicle designed to carry 12 persons or less, except a motorcycle or a truck not designed primarily as a passenger carrier. We would not consider a small utility truck to be a passenger motor vehicle since it is not designed primarily as a passenger carrier, but is instead designed primarily to carry cargo. Therefore, under Federal law, a small utility truck may be sold without any rear bumper.

Both the Vehicle Safety Act and the Cost Savings Act apply to motor vehicles manufactured in or imported into the United States. Both Acts define the term "State" to include American Samoa (15 U.S.C. 1391(8) and 1901(16)). Therefore, the requirements of the Part 581 standard would apply to vehicles sold in American Samoa.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

September 18, 1985

Hal Paris U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Paris:

I am writing to request any information that your office has regarding the application of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 USC S1381, et seq., to small utility trucks, such as Toyota, Datsun or similar makes.

In specific, what are the requirements, if any, for such vehicles to have rear bumpers? Here in American Samoa, small trucks are being sold without bumpers. We are concerned about the safety of such vehicles, especially since Samoan families are large and the standard practice is to load the entire family into the back carry area. In the event of a rear end collision, the dangers are obvious.

Our legal research has produced conflicting interpretations of federal law and its application to our Territory. Furthermore, we have been lead to believe that small trucks are presently being sold in the mainland without bumpers.

Could you please enlighten us as to your official position on this issue, and provide the relevant legal authority. We thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, ENERE H. LEVI Assistant Attorney General EHL/fst