ID: nht74-1.40

DATE: 02/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1974, asking whether a school bus rear lighting system is permissible that activates the back-up lamps and flashes four red stop lamps when the gearshift is in reverse.

The system of supplemental school bus warning lamps you describe is one that is not specified by Standard No. 108. Although S4.6(b) states that "All . . . lamps [other than those specified in S4.6(a)] shall be steady burning . . . ," we interpret this requirement as covering only the systems specified by the standard. Therefore there is no Federal prohibition against your installation of such a system. However, the system would be subject to regulation by the individual States, some of which may have restrictions on the use of flashing lights.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

January 15, 1974

Richard Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U. S. Dept. of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Dyson:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 1C8

We need a ruling on whether it is legal to use rear stop lights on a bus as follows:

1. When brakes are applied rear stop lights are steady burning under all conditions.

2. Place gearshift in reverse - two backup lights are energized and the two seven inch and two four inch rear stop lights flash at a frequency between 60 and 120 cycles per minute.

The purpose for such a system is to give school pupils and others additional warning in addition to the backup lights when the bus is in reverse gear and would not interfere with the stop light function. Thanks for an early reply.

Yours very truly,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY;

W. G. Milby -- Project Engineer

ID: nht74-1.41

DATE: 04/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, requesting clarification of the definition of "school bus" as it appears in NHTSA regulations. You point out that school bus is defined for purposes of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean "a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school . . .", but is defined differently in Highway Safety Standard No. 17 (23 CFR 204.4), i.e., "any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 15 pupils to and from school". You also refer to our interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 which states that the term "school bus" as defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 includes buses designed as school buses but which are not intended or sold to transport children to and from school. You state that as a result it is unclear whether buses designed but not used as school buses, including church and civic group buses, must be equipped with warning lamps under S4.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In this regard, you state that you require purchasers to indicate on their purchase order whether the bus will be used primarily to transport children to and from school, and ask whether this is an acceptable form for a manufacturer to use to determine whether a vehicle will be used as a school bus.

We do not interpret Standard No. 108 to require warning lights on buses that are not intended to be used to transport school children. Our interpretation regarding Standard No. 217, exempting school bus-type buses from the emergency exit requirements of that standard (which applies as well to buses manufactured by Blue Bird), was based on what we believed at that time was a special need to exempt such buses from the requirements of that standard. We are aware of the inconsistency in the application of the definition of "school bus" in Standards Nos. 108 and 217 and we intend to modify these requirements so that they will be applied consistently.

The difference between the definition of B school bus in the Highway Safety Act and in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under the Vehicle Safety Act is that the latter statute and the requirements issued thereunder apply to the manufacturing process. The requirements issued under the Highway Safety Act apply more directly to school bus use.

Whether a particular bus is a school bus cannot be ascertained merely by the representation of the purchaser. The manufacturer should base his decision as well on the objective characteristics of the vehicle, so that he can be reasonably certain that the purchaser's representations are bona fide.

SINCERELY,

December 6, 1973

Richard Oyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

REFERENCE: N40-30 (MPP) to Mr. James Tydings, September 25, 1973 N40 30 (MPP) to Mr. G. R. Seward, October 31, 1973

In phone conversations with Mr. Pescoe on November 29 and 30, 1973, we learned of the reference letters which deal with the definition of the term "School Bus" as used in FMVSS 217 Bus Window Retention and Release, S 5.2. Mr. Pescoe has sent us copies of these letters.

In your letter to Mr. Tyiings you say:

School bus is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean,

"a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school. . .

We are of the opinion that buses which share the same design as buses that clearly fall within the definition of "school bus" are school buses under Standard No. 217, and are therefore exempt from the emergency exit provisions of the standard. No modification of the standard is accordingly called for."

In this explanation, you have called attention to the word "designed" in the definition. Highway Safety Program Standard 17, however, uses a different terminology in defining a school bus. In Paragraph III, Definitions, it says:

"Type I school vehicle" means any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. . ." (Illegible Word) the definitions of "school bus" in 49 CFR 571.3 and "Type I (Illegible Word) vehicle" in Highway Safety Standard 17, it is unclear whether it is the way a vehicle is designed or used which determines if it is a school bus or not. We believe that NHTSA should clarify its intent regarding this.

We are concerned with these specific questions:

1. Are all buses which are designed as school buses according to your interpretation in the reference letters required to have warning lamps under FMVSS 108 S 4.1.4? This would include church buses, civic group buses, etc. We believe that such a ruling would defeat the entire purpose of Highway Safety Program No. 17 which attempts to uniquely identify school buses. Accordingly we suggest that only buses used primarily to carry children to and from school be equipped with warning lamps. To tell us when we may delete warning lamps from a bus, we have been asking purchasers or distributors (who sometimes buy stock vehicles) to sign a statement on the purchase order indicating the intended use of the vehicle. See copy of blank purchase order enclosed. Does NHTSA consider this to be an acceptable method of determining if a vehicle is a school bus for the purposes of FMVSS 108 and Highway Safety Standard No. 17?

In closing we would like to indicate our agreement with the NHTSA's interpretation of "school bus" for the purpose of FMVSS 217 which exempts from the emergency exit provisions of that standard, buses which share the same design as those which meet the 49 CFR 571.3 definition but may used for purposes other than the (Illegible Word) of school children. Are the interpretations in the reference (Illegible Word) to Thomas Built Buses, Inc. and Sheller-Globe Corp. legally binding and do they also apply to Blue Bird Body Company?

Thank you for your reply and your continued help in these matters.

W. G. Milby Project Engineer

cc: DAVE PHELPS; JIM MOORMAN

NAME OF AGENCY: Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Routine

TYPE OF MESSAGE: SINGLE

TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION LIMA, OHIO

IN RESPONSE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF DECEMBER 6 NHTSA WOULD CONSIDER THE USE OF A ROOF EMERGENCY EXIT AS APPROPRIATE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO S5.2.1 OF STANDARD NO. 217 IF IT WERE IMPRACTICABLE TO USE A REAR EXIT BECAUSE, AS YOU STATE, RETOOLING AN EXISTING CONFIGURATION WOULD BE EXCESSIVELY EXPENSIVE.

RICHARD B. DYSON ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, N40-30

NAME AND TITLE OF ORIGINATOR: Michael P. Peskoe, Attorney DATE AND TIME PREPARED: Dec. 12, 1973

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. COAST GUARD TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER

12/06/73

LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER, CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON D C 20590 SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION PLANS TO MODIFY EXISTING MOTOR HOME INTO A BUS. MOTOR HOME CONFIGURATION CONTAINS LARGE PICTURE WINDOW IN REAR. COSTS OF TOOLING TO ADD EMERGENCY EXIT EXCESSIVE. ALTERNATE SCHEME IS TO INSTALL EMERGENCY EXIT IN ROOF PERMITTED BY MVSS-217 PARAGRAPH S.5.2.1.

WILL EXIST IN ROOF BE ACCEPTABLE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS?

DUE TO URGENCY, REPLY REQUESTED 12-7-73. R M PREMO, SHELLER-GLOBE CORP, VEHICLE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CENP

ID: nht74-1.42

DATE: 06/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of May 30, 1974, you ask whether a rear lighting configuration intended for your 1975 vehicles, based upon a proposal in Docket No. 69-19, would meet the current requirement that stop lamps be "as far apart as possible."

The photographs you enclose show that the intent of the proposed S8.10 has been met by providing a separation distance between turn signal and stop lamps that is 5 inches or more, and by placing the stop lamp so that its optical axis is inboard of a vertical longitudinal plane passing through the optical axis of the taillamps. Although it is obviously "practicable" for you to retain the stop lamps in their present location, we consider that the reasons you wish to introduce the change support a determination of practicability under the current requirements, even though the proposal remains under consideration and may not be adopted.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

May 30, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U. S. Dept. of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Dyson:

In the Federal Register Vol. 37, No 206, dated October 25, 1972, appeared a proposed change for FMVSS 108. This was identified as Docket 69-19, Notice 3. In paragraph S8.10 of this notice NHTSA proposed to physically separate the stop lamp, tail lamp and the turn signal functions. Blue Bird Body Company concurs with this proposed change and in fact, we would like to incorporate it into our 1975 model buses. The attached photographs show our current stop lamp location and our proposed stop lamp location. As you can see from the photographs, our proposed lighting configuration would physically separate the stop lamp and turn signal lamps by placing the back-up lamps between them.

Although we believe this lighting scheme will provide safer vehicles because of greater discrimination between the stop lamp and turn signal functions, we are concerned with the current requirement of FMVSS 108, table 2, which says that the stop lamps must be ". . . as far apart as practical."

Certainly NHTSA must be of the opinion that such a lighting configuration will provide safer vehicles or they would not have made this proposal. Therefore, it is our opinion that our proposed 1975 lighting configuration meets the intent of the current regulations as well as the proposed future regulation and request your approval of this change. Thank you for your consideration of this request and your early reply.

Yours very truly,

W. G. Milby -- Project Engineer

c Dave Phelps; Jim Moorman

ID: nht74-1.43

DATE: 04/28/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Mark Bedrossyan

COPYEE: L. OWEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 21 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning your "Straight Ahead" directional signal for motor vehicles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," permits lamps, reflective devices or other motor vehicle equipment in addition to those that are required (headlights, parking lamps, turn signal lamps, etc.) providing that the effectiveness of the required devices is not impaired. It does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps; therefore, it would be permitted, either as original equipment, or as an aftermarket item.

Since the performance aspects of your device are not covered by Standard No. 108, the individual States are free to regulate the sale and use of your device. If your "Straight Ahead" signal flashes, its use would probably be prohibited in most of the States, because of their restrictions on flashing lights for motor vehicles.

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Not controlled

ATTACH.

ATLANTIC ELECTRONICS LABORATORIES

March 21, 1979

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

Gentlemen:

Subject: "Straight Ahead"

Directional Signal for Motor Vehicles

Over two decades ago, the use of electrical (Illegible Word) signals on motor vehicles became mandatory nation-wide, this decision has proved both useful and effective in preventing accidents.

It is believed there is room for an additional device, and to fill this need, we have designed the "Straight-Ahead" electrical directional signal for cars and trucks, which is controlled from the dashboard by a switch. This is intended to be used at intersections and certain other road conditions. (Please see the inclosed pictorial representations).

I have already installed such a device on my own car on an experimental basis.

It is respectfully requested that you evaluate this idea, and permit its use, if deemed appropriate, since we plan to market it in kit form.

New car manufacturers are being contacted to bring this new idea to their attention.

An (Illegible Word) reply would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Mark B. Bedrossyan

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-1.44

DATE: 09/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pan Commercial

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 27, 1974 asking for a clarification of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

You are correct in your impression that under section 103(d) of the Act "no state legislation can be more stringent than the Federal ruling." Under paragraph S4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108, effective October 14, 1974, "a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be equipped with turn signal lamps." This means that as of that date, only motor-driven cycles whose maximum speed exceeds 30 mph are required to be manufactured with turn signal lamps. Lower-speed cycles may continue to be provided with them if the manufacturer chooses, but a State cannot require him to do so. This is the result of the preemptive effect of section 103(d).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

August 27, 1974

R. Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Adminstration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

I am referring to the proposed legislation docket #74-16 pertaining to modifications of requirements for motor driven cycles. Under this proposed ruling, article 571.108 S4.1.1, a motor driven cycle with a speed of less than 30 MPH would not need to be equipped with turn signal lamps.

I have contacted the Registry of Motor Vehicles in Massachusetts and in their opinion Massachusetts will always require turn signal lamps. I was under the impression that under section 103D of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no state legislation can be more stringent than the Federal ruling.

In the light of the proposed Federal ruling and the apparent contradiction of State and Federal Traffic Laws, may I ask you for your advice in this matter,

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

PAN COMMERCIAL; Bernard E. Wuthrich

ID: nht74-1.45

DATE: 01/01/74 EST.

FROM: E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: M. L. Higgins

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 8 to Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator, concerning an interpretation relative to the [Illegible Words].

[Illegible Paragraph].

ID: nht74-1.46

DATE: 11/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Midland-Ross' October 8, 1974, clarification of its February 8, 1974, petition for an amendment of S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, that would establish separate air reservoir volume requirements for several brake chamber types generally available in the air brake component market. You point out that Midland-Ross was referring to chamber stroke and not chamber diameter as the chamber dimension which could affect the safety of a brake system. You also requested that we adopt SAE Standard J10b instead of J10a as our specification of a reservoir that "withstands" certain internal hydrostatic pressure.

In our denial of your petition, we did understand your point that additional stroke could be discouraged by a reservoir capacity requirement based on chamber size at maximum travel of the piston or diaphragm. We found that the stopping distance requirements in effect mandate the installation of high performance components, and we do not anticipate a safety problem. If a safety problem does arise in the future, we would consider a modification of S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2.

SAE Standard No. J10b is identical to J10a in its requirement that no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceed one percent. Therefore, for purposes of S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3, we are adopting SAE J10b as our specification of "withstand" until we undertake further rulemaking.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

POWER CONTROLS DIVISION Midland-Ross Corporation

October 8, 1974

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Gregory:

Subject: N40-30 (TWH)

Thank you for your response to our petition dated February 8, 1974 in regard to Section S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard 121 Air Brake Systems. We feel that our petition may not have been clear in regard to use of small volume chambers which apparently led to your misinterpreting our concern. We also believe you may have referred to the incorrect SAE Standard regarding air reservoirs.

In regard to our petition for clarification of air reservoir required volumes, we made mention of the fact that "current reservoir volume requirement based on maximum displacement encourages the use of small volume chambers". By this statement we did not imply smaller diameter chambers but shorter stroke chambers. It is quite easily determined that little chamber stroke is required if the foundation brakes are carefully adjusted with minimum liner to drum clearance. A chamber with 1.5" stroke could be adequate and will meet all of the standard's requirements. If a vehicle manufacturer would elect to go with this short stroke, he could reduce reservoir capacity by 25%. However, there would be very little safety factor to allow for drum expansion and liner wear. It is this condition of which we are concerned and feel it is wrong to penalize the vehicle manufacturer by requiring them to have larger reservoirs when they attempt to provide this additional safety advantage. We ask that you again review this matter and adopt one of the recommended changes to S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 as stated in our petition.

In the last paragraph of your response you mention the NHTSA has adopted the SAE Standard No. J10a in regard to the definition of "withstand". We assume you intended to refer to SAE Standard J10b and would appreciate your concurrence with this assumption.

Sincerely,

M. J. Denholm -- Director of Engineering

ID: nht74-1.47

DATE: 11/12/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 8, 1974, question whether a front axle automatic pressure limiting valve may be removed during the burnish procedure to permit effective burnish of the front brakes.

The answer to your question appears in Notice 6 to Docket 74-10 in response to a similar inquiry from International Harvester. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information. It amends S6.1.8.1 to require that any automatic pressure limiting valve be in use except in the case where the temperature of the hottest brake on a rear axle exceeds the temperature of the hottest brake on a front axle by more than 125 degrees F. A bypassed valve is reconnected if the temperature of the hottest brake on a front axle exceeds the temperature of the hottest brake on a rear axle by 100 degrees F.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

October 9, 1974

Richard Dyson -- U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: 49 CFR Part 571, FMVSS 121 - Air Brake Systems

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Per Federal Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, Part 393, Section 393.48, use of automatic devices for reducing front wheel brake effort is permitted on vehicles complying to FMVSS 121.

With the automatic pressure reduction valve in the front axle, Oshkosh Truck Corporation has found that during burnishing of some vehicles per Section 6.1.8.1 of FMVSS 121, the rear brakes reach 500 degrees F, much earlier than the front axle brakes because of the automatic reduction of brake force to the front axle and, therefore, effective burnishing of the front brakes is not achieved.

Please advise if the automatic device to reduce the front wheel brake force can be removed during the burnishing procedure.

Very truly yours,

P. K. Kamath -- Sr. Safety Engineer

ID: nht74-1.48

DATE: 05/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The Flxible Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht74-1.49

DATE: 05/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Superior Trailer Works

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 22, 1974, question concerning the certification responsibility of a small manufacturer of trailers that must conform to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You ask if road testing of any or all vehicles produced would be necessary to satisfy the requirements.

A manufacturer must "exercise due care" in certifying that the vehicles manufactured by him comply with the applicable standards (National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, @ 108(b)(2), 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(b)(2)). What constitutes due care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment to small manufacturers, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.

A small manufacturer of standard and custom trailers might fulfill his due care responsibility to assure that each of his trailers is capable of meeting the standard in several ways. For example, he could establish categories of models which share a common brake and axle system and certify them all on the basis of tests on the most adverse configuration in the category. Calculations should be written down in such a case to establish that reasonable care was taken in these decisions.

Alternatively, joint testing might be undertaken with a trade association or with a major supplier of brake and axle components. In the case of standard models, you might be able to rely on the supplier's warranty of his products' capacities.

Neither of these methods would require road testing of each vehicle manufactured, nor would every model have to be road tested. A manufacturer must simply satisfy himself that the trailer is capable of meeting the stopping performance requirements if it were tested by the NHTSA.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

April 22, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attn: James B. Gregory, Administrator

Gentlemen:

We are a small trailer manufacturing firm currently producing approximately 100 trailers per year. These trailers are predominantly standard models (with some variations in body length and height), however, we also manufacture some custom trailers, principally low beds.

We do not manufacture brakes or axles or air system components, instead we purchase a complete axle-brake assembly and the air components, and assemble them into a trailer chassis. Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 we will, of course, install components that meet the new requirements.

We are in the process of determining all the changes that we will be required to make under MVSS 121 and would appreciate clarification of the following:

1. Will we be required to road test complete trailers or will the inclusion of all certified components satify the requirements of the law?

2. If road testing of the complete trailer is required, is it required of every trailer produced, or would the test of a single prototype of a standard model be sufficient for all other trailers of the same model?

3. What road testing would be required for custom trailers that vary widely in length, width, height, capacity, etc.?

We have contacted several California trailer manufacturers, and they are in the same position that we find ourselves, i.e., no testing facilities of our own and without knowledge of any independent testing facility offering such a service. The size of the facilities required would make it all but impossible for any but a very large business firm to construct a special facility.

We are including some literature that will show the variations in equipment that we manufacture.

Your earliest possible comments would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

SUPERIOR TRAILER WORKS Charles R. Richards -- President