ID: nht93-3.47

DATE: May 17, 1993

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: REFERENCE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2,1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A41; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1."

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No.2 proposed the of "one inch wide" retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a "minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape." The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a "minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape." Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that "each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter...." The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening.

In addition, Blue Bird requests that appropriate NHTSA officials and staff review the enclosed photographs and advise if the retro-reflective tape installations shown would be in compliance with the subject requirement of Section S5.5.3(c).

Although the final rule does not become effective until May 2, 1994, several states have mandated conformance to the new standard in advance of the FMVSS effective date. Blue Bird must therefore complete the Engineering work and release final designs to Production in the very near future. We, therefore, request that prompt and favorable responses to our requests for interpretations be provided.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: VINs

Mr. Dale Kardos
Dale Kardos & Associates
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 715
Washington, DC 20036-4104





Dear Mr. Kardos:

This responds to your letter requesting information on Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirements as they pertain to a forthcoming Porsche sport utility vehicle (SUV). You state that the Porsche SUV will be produced in two stages and in two different Porsche plants. The first stage will occur at the Porsche plant in Bratislava, Slovakia, where the body structure will be produced, and the front windshield and VIN will be installed. This basic structure then will be transported to the Porsche plant in Leipzig, Germany, where it will be combined with the rest of the vehicle (i.e., engine, transmission, wheels, tires, brakes, etc.).

You ask whether it is acceptable to use the letter "L" as the eleventh character of the VIN, which would indicate the plant of manufacture as the Leipzig plant rather than the Bratislava plant. Under the circumstances described above, this is acceptable.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) VIN requirements are contained in 49 CFR Part 565. Each VIN must be made up of seventeen characters consisting of Arabic numbers and Roman letters. Under 565.6(d)(2), the eleventh character must represent the "plant of manufacture," which is defined as the plant where the manufacturer affixes the VIN. Since the VINs of the Porsche SUVs will be affixed at the Bratislava plant, it would appear that the eleventh character in the Porsche SUV VINs should indicate the Bratislava plant, not the Leipzig plant.

However, the requirements of Part 565 do not apply until the structure at a minimum meets the definition of an "incomplete vehicle." Section 565.4(a) requires a vehicle manufactured in more than one stage to have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined as:

an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Since the Porsche SUV unit which will be produced at the plant in Bratislava will consist only of the body structure, front windshield, and VIN, it does not meet the definition of an "incomplete vehicle." Thus, the requirements of Part 565 do not apply to the Porsche SUV until the unit produced at the Bratislava plant is married with the power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system. Since this will take place at the Leipzig plant, NHTSA considers the Leipzig plant to be the plant of manufacture for purposes of 49 CFR Part 565. Consequently, Porsche should use the letter "L" as the eleventh character in Porsche SUV VINs to indicate the Leipzig plant as the plant of manufacture.

I hope this answers your question. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565
d.2/20/01

ID: aiam4418

Dear Mr. Rossow: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. Section S6.2.1 of that standard specifies for certain tests conducted on a dynamometer that '(t)he dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating.' According to your letter, you have interpreted the term 'equivalent' in this section to 'authorize compliance testing by reference to axle loads under actual stopping conditions.' You requested confirmation of this interpretation. As discussed below, we disagree with your suggested interpretation.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) 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 all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; As indicated in your letter, your request for an interpretation wa submitted in light of recent correspondence between your company and NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). OVSC requested you to submit information on the compliance with Standard No. 121 of the Mercedes-Benz model L-1317, a two axle straight truck. You responded to that request by submitting a compliance certification and interpretation concerning section S6.2.1. In letter dated April 9, 1987, OVSC informed you that it did not agree with your interpretation.; Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests are set forth in section S5.4 That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force--relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. One of those conditions, set forth in S6.2.1, is as follows:; >>>S6.2.1 The dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to th load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating. For a vehicle having additional gross axle weight ratings specified for operation at reduced speeds, the GAWR used is that specified for a speed of 50 mph, or, at the option of the manufacturer, any speed greater than 50 mph.<<<; In support of your suggested interpretation, you noted that axle load of a decelerating vehicle vary under different deceleration conditions, i.e., as a vehicle travelling forward decelerates, the load on the axles shifts so that the front axle load rises and rear axle load falls. You stated that it is your reading of Standard No. 121 that the manufacturer 'can assess compliance by either using a static load value or determining which of the varying values of the axle load should be considered in view of actual vehicle behavior.' With respect to gross axle weight rating (GAWR), you suggested that when used in the context of Parts 567 and 568, the GAWR is properly measured in a static manner, to permit determination of whether the load carrying capacity of a vehicle axle in actual use has been reached. For dynamometer tests of service brakes under dynamic conditions, however, you argued that such tests should properly take into account the dynamic effects of deceleration.; You then stated the following: >>>The language of S6.2.1, setting dynamic test conditions, indicate that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is to be set at the 'equivalent' to the load on the wheel, when the axle is loaded to its GAWR (i.e., its load-carrying capacity). This language is not restrictive and grants a manufacturer the flexibility of determining an 'equivalent' loading in consideration of the dynamic phenomena in conducting the tests required by S5.4. Thus, the static GAWR is permitted to be linked to dynamic conditions by the word 'equivalent.'<<<; We disagree with your suggested interpretation, which we believe i inconsistent with the language of S6.2.1, past interpretations of that provision, and the compliance test procedures the agency has long followed with respect to this provision. As indicated above, S6.2.1 specifies that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is 'equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating.' The phrase 'equivalent to the load' uses the singular 'load,' instead of the plural 'loads,' to show that the dynamometer inertia has only a single value. By itself, this suggests that S6.2.1 was not intended to provide multiple options for the dynamometer inertia setting, depending on the dynamic conditions simulated.; Further, the overall language of S6.2.1 shows how the singl dynamometer inertia setting is to be determined. The term 'GAWR' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as 'the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.' When an axle is loaded to its load-carrying capacity, there is one 'load on the wheel,' at whose 'equivalent' the dynamometer inertia must be set.; While we believe that the language of section S6.2.1 is clear on th issue raised by your letter, we also note that agency guidance in the form of past interpretation letter and OVSC's laboratory procedures for Standard No. 121 are also clear. In an interpretation letter to Wagner Electric, dated May 26, 1972, the agency stated:; >>>In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamomete inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pounds as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.; <<>>Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is movin as a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they affect the outcome of testing.<<<; We do not agree that this letter supports your suggeste interpretation. The letter addressed only the issue of how a requirement should be read in view of the absence of a particular test condition. As explained at length above, we conclude that section S6.2.1 clearly specifies the particular test conditions to be followed for this section. Therefore, the Oshkosh letter is not relevant to requests for interpretation of S6.2.1.; You also argued that in order to provide an appropriate braking system with proper distribution of brake forces between the axles, its design must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle during normal and emergency braking conditions. You stated that such a design and compliance test leads to a significant reduction in premature lockup of the rear axle. You also argued that NHTSA has recognized your braking system as 'a safe and effective system' in its research testing.; We agree that a manufacturer must take into account the transfer o weight from the rear axle to the front axle when designing an appropriate braking system. This is necessary to provide safe brake performance during varying loading conditions, for normal and emergency brake applications on varying road conditions, and it is so for all kinds of vehicles. However, the requirements of Standard No. 121 do not require vehicles to have too much rear braking, as you appear to imply. The requirements of S5.4.2 (Brake Power), and S5.4.3 (Brake Recovery), are minimum performance requirements intended to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. In practice, in order to perform well in such conditions, both front and rear brakes must have a minimum capacity, and this capacity is related to GAWR despite the fact that the actual loads borne by the front and rear axles vary during different brake applications. The agency therefore referred to GAWR in section S6.2.1, because this is an objective value that is readily ascertainable for every vehicle, and performance based on this value meets the particular safety need provided for by the requirements of section S5.4. These minimum requirements are not intended, nor do they operate, as a restriction on the design decisions that manufacturers must make independently to distribute braking capacity to meet anticipated load distributions.; Contrary to your assertion, NHTSA has not concluded that your brak system is 'safe and effective.' We also note that the quotations of the agency's research report cited in your letter address only limited aspects of braking performance and are taken out of context. We note that you stated that '(t)he Agency reported finding that the subject vehicle's front and rear axles were '. . .well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same pedal effort level.' (p. 19).' A more complete quotation is as follows:; >>>. . . In the empty driver best effort stops the driver was also abl to utilize this peak friction, although not as effectively as the antilock, because the brakes on front and rear axles of the vehicle were well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same pedal effort level. In the loaded case, however, the front axle tended to lock prematurely and it was not possible for the driver to maintain all four wheels near the peak friction level. He could keep the front tires near the peak but when this occurred rear braking was relatively low. If he applied more braking, the front axle locked and he lost steering control due to lack of lateral traction at the front tires.'<<<; Based on the information before the agency, OVSC is continuing it investigation concerning the compliance of your vehicles with Standard No. 121.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 2620y

Mr. Brian Gill
Senior Manager
Certification Department
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
100 West Alondra Boulevard
P. O. Box 50
Gardena, California 90247-0805

Dear Mr. Gill:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 Honda Acura NS-X car line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Acura NS-X vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Acura NS-X car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Honda showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on February 5, 1990, and appeared in the Federal Register on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4746).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Honda plans improvements in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Acura NS-X in two ways: First, the new antitheft system would be armed by using the auto door lock system control to lock either door. Honda states that in the system that was the subject of the exemption from the theft prevention system, it was necessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. According to the attachment provided in your letter, this change would make it possible to arm the the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked. Second, the radio would now be included in the alarm system. Thus, the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal or the coupler is disconnected, or if the radio's wiring is cut.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Honda to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Honda does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Honda notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in a May 16, 1990, telephone conversation between Brian Tinkler of Honda and Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Tinkler confirmed that Honda was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking / ref:Part 543 d:7/ll/90

ID: 2622y

Herr Hanno Westermann
Hella KG Hueck & Co
Postfach 28 40
4780 Lippstadt
W. Germany

Dear Herr Westermann:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency with respect to "multi bulb devices", specifically "how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure lb have to be interpreted. . . ." You have asked this question because "Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have --opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb." Your question assumes that Standard No. l08 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-compartment lamps.

We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September l988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, l990, an amendment to Standard No. l08 was published, effective December 1, l990, the effect of which is to restrict Figure 1b to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

Your question relates to "signalling devices" for new motor vehicles, and Figure 1b shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December l, l990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width. SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width. In the May l990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for "Multiple Compartment Lamp". Such a lamp is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens." The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition.

SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5.1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395 applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections". Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:8/22/90

ID: 7641

Mr. Dan Trexler
Thomas Built Buses
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Mr. Trexler:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your questions about requirements addressing the activation of a stop signal arm and the permissibility of a manual override device. In addition, I am enclosing a September 14, 1992 interpretation letter from this agency to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, which explains these requirements.

As your letter indicates, there are two different types of lamp systems on school buses: a four lamp system with four red lamps and an eight lamp system with four amber and four red lamps. You asked several questions about the stop arm's activation and the manual override device.

You first ask whether the stop arm is required to extend every time the signal lamps in a four lamp system are activated. (emphasis in original). As a general rule, S5.5 of Standard No. 131 requires that the stop arm be automatically extended at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps are activated. Nevertheless, Standard No. 131 includes an exception to this general rule which permits the installation of an override device. If the override device were activated, then the stop arm would not extend.

Your second question addresses the operation of the stop arm on buses with an eight lamp system. Specifically, you ask whether the stop arm is required to extend only after the red signal lamps have been activated by opening of the bus entrance door or is the stop arm required to extend at any time the red signal lamps are activated. (emphasis in original).

As stated above, Standard No. 131 includes provisions addressing the activation of the stop signal arm. Standard No. 131 requires the stop arm to be automatically extended whenever the red signal lamps are activated, whether those lamps are activated by opening the bus door or for some other reason. Of course, the stop arm may be extended for a longer period of time than when the red signal lamps are activated, given that Standard No. 131 includes the phrase "at a minimum" in explaining when the stop arm must be extended. In the final rule establishing Standard No. 131, the agency addressed methods of stop arm activation used by Washington State, Illinois, and Florida in which the stop arm was activated to control traffic before the door was opened. (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991).

Your third question asked whether a device may be used that is capable of remaining in the "override" position with only a one time activation by the driver. The override would have an audible signal that would automatically sound for at least 60 seconds and would automatically recycle each time the service door was opened, with the engine running. As mentioned above, Standard No. 131 permits a device that prevents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm. In our September 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Lyle Walheim from the State of Wisconsin, we explain a situation in which an override would be permissible. Based on S5.5 of Standard No. 131 and the September 14, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Walheim, it would appear that the override device you describe also would be permissible.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:131 d:10/2/92

ID: 06-005423as

ID: nht76-2.49

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Registry of Motor Vehicle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1976, question whether specific aspects of Massachusett's requirements for the construction, location, and size of fuel tanks in school buses would be preempted by the Federal requirements for school bus fuel system integrity that become effective April 1, 1977 (Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity). I regret that we have not responded to your questions sooner.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d) does preempt State motor vehicle safety requirements of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal standard applicable to the same aspect of performance. In the cases you cite, it appears that the fuel tank seams and the location of the tank are items of design that are identical to the aspects of performance (integrity of the fuel system) regulated by the barrier impact tests of Standard No. 301-75. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that these aspects of fuel system construction are preempted by Standard No. 301-75, effective April 1, 1977. In developing the performance requirements of the standard, the agency did not intend to regulate fuel tank size.

The second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or its political subdivisions could specify additional fuel system features in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.

SINCERELY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

June 29, 1976

Chief Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Department of Transportation

Enclosed is a copy of current rules and regulations concerning minimum standards for construction and equipment of school buses. We have two distinct bus categories, a type I bus has a seating capacity of seventeen or more passengers and a type II bus has a seating capacity of sixteen or less passengers.

On page 16 under fuel system we specify the minimum capacity of a fuel tank for either type bus and we also state where said tank shall be mounted. We also require both type buses to have a tank meeting Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. On the type II school bus, the chassis manufacturers have a tank that is mounted at the rear of the vehicle. We have always considered this as a hazardous and dangerous location. A small bus hit in the rear, with a fire ensuing in that area would render the emergency door useless for evacuation. The same would apply when such a bus is tipped over on its' right side rendering the service entrance useless. If a fire occurred at the rear, the emergency door could not be used and the children would be trapped inside the vehicle.

In reference to F.M.V.S. Standard 301, Fuel System integrity I am posing several questions.

1. Will this standard pre-empt Massachusetts requirements for special heavy duty welded seam fuel tanks on both type I and type II school buses?

2. Will this standard force us to accept a standard 301 tank mounted wherever the chassis manufacture wishes to mount same or can we retain our requirement of mounting the tank on either side of a type II school bus.

3. Will this standard specify the minimum capacity of a fuel tank?

Charles V. Mulhern Supervisor School Bus Inspection

[ENCLOSURE OMITTED.]

ID: nht88-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1987, asking for an interpretation of paragraph 54.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That paragraph specifies in pertinent part that a replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1-Aiming Adjustment Test, of SAE Standard J580 AUG79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. Section 6.1.1 states that "when the headlamp assembl y is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of +/-4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes." You have asked whether the aiming adjustment is to be achieved by the headlamp assembly, or by both the headlamp assemb ly "and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the vehicle."

SAE J580 applies to the design of headlamp assemblies, including the functional parts other than the headlamps, such as aiming and mounting mechanisms and hardware. The assembly may include one or more headlamps. Although the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, its design must be identical to the headlamp assembly used on the vehicle. Thus, if the aiming adjustment requirement is met by the headlamp assembly in the laboratory, it should also be met when the assembly is installed on the vehicl e. An individual headlamp installed on the vehicle need not meet the aiming adjustment test unless that headlamp is part of a headlamp assembly comprising only one headlamp.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 30, 1987 Ref: W-253-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Nissan Research & Development, Inc., on behalf of Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, hereby submits this request for an interpretation relating to the replaceable bulb headlamp aiming provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, "Lam ps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Among its requirements, S4.1.1.36(b) (3) of Standard 108 stipulates that the replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1 - "Aiming Adjustment Test" of SAE J580 AUG79, "Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly.

Item 6.1.1 of the above-referenced "Aiming Adjustment Test" states that, "when the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of + 4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes."

Nissan's question is whether this minimum aiming adjustment requirement is to be achieved:

1. by the headlamp assembly (by the component unit) itself, or

2. by both the headlamp assembly (as a component unit)

and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the

vehicle?

Erika Jones June 30, 1987 Page Two

Thank you very much for your assistance. Please contact Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi of my Washington staff at (202) 466-5284, if you have any questions or require further details. I would appreciate it if you would please also notify Mr. Hayashi when your respons e has been issued.

Sincerely,

Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

ID: nht94-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stamped signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: William G. Franz -- Vice President Fabrication, Wells Aluminum Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/4/94 from William G. Franz to Walter Myers (OCC 9857)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Franz:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Walter Myers of this office requesting an interpretation of window opening size as provided in paragraph S5.1.2, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explained that Wells Aluminum Corporation manufactures pushout windows for the school bus industry. You asked whether the 8-inch window opening size referred to in paragraph S5.1.2 applies to the "total outside frame dimension" or to each pane of gl ass. "In other words, would a pane of glass which measures less than 8 inches across need to be subject to the retention test [of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 217]?" To illustrate your question, you enclosed with your letter a picture of an upper/lower-pane pushou t window which was positioned for a retention test.

To be excluded from Standard No. 217's window retention requirement, the entire window, and not just a pane of the window, must be less than the 8-inch window opening size described in S5.1.2 of the standard. Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 217 specifies reten tion requirements for windows other than windshields in buses. Paragraph S5.1.2 provides that those requirements do not apply to "a window whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of its area is less than 8 inches." This exemption of 8 -inch windows was included in the standard in the final notice establishing the standard, published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1972 (37 FR 9394). In the preamble to that notice the agency stated at 37 FR 9395:

Since there is little likelihood of passenger ejection or protrusion from window openings whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of the area is less than 8 inches, an exemption for windows of this size has been granted (emphasis adde d).

2

It is clear that the intent of the agency in providing this exemption was to exempt window openings, as measured by the perimeter of the window, not just individual panes of glazing material. A window can be composed of more than one pane of glazing mat erial, such as the window in the picture you provided, where 1 or more individual panes may have a minimum dimension smaller than 8 inches, but the whole window is larger than 8 inches. Regardless of the size of the individual panes which make up a wind ow, passenger ejection or protrusion could occur through such a window opening. Since ejection through such a window is precisely what the standard was intended to prevent, S5.1 would apply.

We note that you did not explain what you meant by "total outside frame dimension" and the meaning of the quoted phrase is not entirely clear. We assume you meant the entire window opening which, for the window in your picture, would include the combina tion of both panes and the window frame. Thus, for purposes of S5.1.2, we would measure both the pane and the window frame.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ncc-20WMyers; mar:7/25/94:62992:OCC 9857 Ref:217 U: NCC20 INTERP 217 9857.WKM Greenbook: (2); Interps: Std. 217 Coord: NRM, NEF