ID: nht81-1.18

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proprietors Insurance Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 12, 1980

PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION -- N.H.T.S.A.

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John L. Lubatti -- Branch Manager, PROPRIETORS INSURANCE CO.

Enclosures omitted.

ID: nht81-2.30

DATE: 06/01/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning section 4.2(d) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Section 4.2(d) provides that after seat belt webbing has been subjected to an abrasion test, it must have not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraded webbing set in section 4.2(b) of the standard. You pointed out that section 5.2(d) is inconsistent with section 4.2(d). As explained below, section 4.2(d) correctly states the requirement intended by the agency and section 5.2(d) needs to be corrected.

The abraded webbing strength test procedure set forth in section 5.2(d) of the standard is incorrect. It specifies that the median value of the breaking strengths of the abraded and unabraded webbing are used to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained. Such a test procedure unfairly penalizes a manufacturer that produces webbing with an unabraded breaking strength far in excess of the requirements specified in section 4.2(b).

For example, section 4.2(b) specifies that Type I webbing is to have a breaking strength of 6,000 pounds. Assume that the unabraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 8,000 pounds and the abraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 5,600 pounds. The median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is substantially more than 75 percent of the 6,000 pound breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b). However, the median abraded breaking strength is only 70 percent of the median unabraded breaking strength.

The agency intends to modify the standard so that the abraded webbing strength test procedure specifies that the median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is compared to the breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b) to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

British Standards Institution

JANUARY 6, 1981

F. BERNDT -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs

FMVSS

Many thanks for your letter of 12 December 1980 on the above subject.

You say in your letter that Standard Number 209 requires abraded webbing in manual belt systems for use in motor vehicles to have not less than 75% of the strength of unabraded webbing.

Clause @ 4.2(b) at the end states 'the median value shall be used for determining the retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of this section'.

Clause @@ 4.2(d) states that 'after abrasion, the webbing shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the breaking strength listed in @@ 4.2(b). For clarity surely this should read - not less than 75% of the median value obtained during tests to clause @@ 4.2(b)'.

I would appreciate your comments.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM SENIOR TEST ENGINEER

British Standards Institution

FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs

FMVSS - 209 SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES

Clause 5.1 (b) reads . . . . the median value shall be used for determining the retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (d) (e) and (f) of the section.

Clause 4.2(d) reads . . . . shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the breaking strength listed in Clause 4.2(b) for that type of belt assembly.

Please clarify the level to which the webbing strength after abrasion is to be compared. Is it:-

1. 75% of median breaking strength found under clause 5.1(b) or

2. 75% of minimum breaking strength listed in clause 4.2(b)

I have written to you on this subject before and would appreciate a speedy reply.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- SENIOR TEST ENGINEER, MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY COMPONENTS SECTION

ID: nht79-4.17

DATE: 05/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yokohama Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1979, asking whether Yokohama Tire Corporation's point-of-sale information leaflet conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii). While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not typically issue advance judgments concerning compliance with agency regulations, your proposed point-of-sale leaflet appears to meet the requirements of section 575.104(d)(1)(ii), assuming the listing at the bottom of the page contains each tire manufactured by Yokohama which is offered for sale at the location where the leaflet is distributed.

SINCERELY,

YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION

April 27, 1979

Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Attached is the information I talked to you on April 27, 1979. Please make any correction or changes so this letter will fall within the D. O. T. guideline.

Thank you for your assistance.

Jim Buck National Service Manager Yokohama Tire Corporation

DOT QUALITY GRADES ALL PASSENGER CAR TIRES MUST CONFORM TO FEDERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO THESE GRADES TREADWEAR

The treadwear grade is a comparative rating based on the wear rate of the tire when tested under controlled conditions on a specified government test course. For example, a tire graded 150 would wear one and a half (1-1/2) times as well on the government course as a tire graded 100. The relative performance of tires depends upon the actual conditions of their use, however, and may depart significantly from the norm due to variations in driving habits, service practices and differences in road characteristics and climate.

TRACTION

The traction grades, from highest to lowest are A, B, and C, and they represent the tire's ability to stop on wet pavement as measured under controlled conditions on specified government test surfaces of asphalt and concrete. A tire marked C may have poor traction performance. Warning: The traction grade assigned to this tire is based on braking (straightahead) traction tests and does not include cornering (turning) traction.

TEMPERATURE

The temperature grades are A (the highest), B, and C representing the tire's resistance to the generation of heat and its ability to dissipate heat when tested under controlled conditions on a specified indoor laboratory test wheel. Sustained high temperature can cause the material of the tire to degenerate and reduce tire life, and excessive temperature can lead to sudden tire failure. The grade C corresponds to a level of performance which all passenger car tires must meet under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Grades B and A represent higher levels of performance on the laboratory test wheel than the minimum required by law. Warning: The temperature grade for this tire is established for a tire that is properly inflated and not overloaded. Excessive speed, underinflation, or excessive loading, either separately or in combination, can cause heat buildup and possible tire failure. Tire Size Load Tread Tubeless/ Trd Designation Range Pattern Tube Type Side Wall Wear Traction Temp. 155S13/6.15 $ 13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B B 4PR 155-13/6.15-13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 4PR 165S13/6.45S13 B Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B B 4PR 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B C H78-15 B Y820 Tubeless Black 80 B C

ID: nht79-4.39

DATE: 08/03/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1979, letter asking two questions about the test procedures of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention, as they apply to buses you manufacture.

First, you ask whether side service doors can be counted in determining the proper amount of bus emergency exits as required by the standard. As long as side service doors comply with all requirements applicable to emergency doors, they can be considered emergency exits for purposes of compliance with the standard.

Your second question asks whether glazing in a door is tested for window retention, and if so, whether it is tested while the door is installed in a bus. The answer to both parts of this question is yes. All bus glazing, that is of the minimum size specified in the standard, must comply with the window retention requirement. The intent of the window retention requirement is to prevent openings in buses that might result in the ejection of occupants from the vehicle during an accident. In order for this requirement to have meaning, the glazing must be tested as it is installed in the vehicle to ensure the integrity of both the glazing and its surrounding structure. This means that glazing in vehicle doors is tested while the door is in the normal closed condition. If the door opens during the test, the vehicle would not be in compliance with the requirements.

SINCERELY,

Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

JULY 16, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Sir,

This company was the designer and manufacturer of the Orion Mid size Transit bus.

More recently the deliveries to the U.S. market have been taken over by Transportation Manufacturing Corporation of Roswell, New Mexico, who manufacture and market the buses in the U.S.A. under the "Citycruiser" trade name.

A query has arisen concerning the application of MVSS 217 to this model bus on a point that was raised before the introduction of the model and for which a verbal answer was given when the prototype was presented in Washington on October 5th 1977.

The point at issue was to what extent and under what Criteria the service doors can be considered as "unobstructed openings for emergency exit" as required in S 5.2 (provision of emergency exits) and more particularly the "side exits" as required in S 5.2.1 (Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds).

It was verbally confirmed at the time that service doors could be regarded as side exits for emergency exit, provided they met the requirements of S 5.3 (Emergency exit release), S 5.4 (Emergency exit extension) and S 5.5 (Emergency exit identification). Official confirmation of the above is hereby requested.

Finally, a clear ruling was not given on the application of S 5.1 Window retention when applied to the glazing in service doors. It is reasonably clear that the glass in the door frame should meet the requirements. It is less obvious that the door in its frame, when used as a service door, must meet this requirement, ie. the glass be tested in the door, the door being in the bus.

If not, does this requirement become mandatory, when the service door is designated as a side exit?

The doors are presently being constructed so as to meet this requirement, but a ruling on this point is hereby requested.

CC: E. CUMMINGS -- TRANSPORTATION MFG. CO.

ID: nht80-1.10

DATE: 02/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requested an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacement sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.

Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean that NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION -- Technical Group November 16, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Ref: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109

Gentlemen:

We are considering marking our P-series tires with the alpha-numeric size they replace shown below in parenthesis. An example would be as follows:

P205/75 R15 (replaces FR78-15)

Similarly, we are considering marking our 230-15 tire as follows:

230-15 (replaces 225-15)

The 230-15 can be used on all cars that are fitted with 225-15.

Please advise us if such markings would be in violation of FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. Standard.

Your quick response would be appreciated since we are planning to start these programs shortly.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht78-1.6

DATE: 12/15/78

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

TO: Bud Shuster - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Honorable Bud Shuster House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Shuster:

This responds to your inquiry dated November 29, 1978, on behalf of one of your constituents, Mr. C. Stake, requesting information about Federal safety standards concerning door locks on automobiles. Specifically, Mr. Stake is concerned that the doors on his 1977 Mercury Monarch can be unlocked by a child from the inside by lifting the door handle.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 572.206), which specifies performance requirements for side door locks and side door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact. That standard specifies that each door on a passenger car shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Paragraph S4.1.3.1 of the standard specifies that when the locking mechanism on a side front door is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. For side rear doors, however, paragraph S4.1.3.2 requires both the outside and inside door handles to be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

This latter requirement was specifically included in the standard to address Mr. Stake's concern, that is, to prevent children from unlocking rear doors by means of the door handle. The design restriction was limited to rear doors on the basis that the danger arises primarily with unattended children sitting in the rear seat. A child sitting in the front seat is likely under the watchful eye of the driver. Further, there is the consideration that in emergency situations the driver may need to unlock his front door as easily and quickly as possible.

Since the Standard No. 206 requirements have been in effect for some time, we assume that the situation Mr. Stake describes is true only of the front doors of his Mercury Monarch. As noted above, however, there are competing safety considerations involved with door locks on front side doors.

Please contact our office if your constituent has any further questions concerning this matter, or have him contact us directly.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosure

DATE November 29, 1978

FROM: BUD SHUSTER, M. C.

Room 1112 Longworth Building Washington, D. C. 20515

TO: Department of Transportation Congressional Laison Office 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

NAME OF SUBJECT Mr. Clair Stake

SS OR OTHER CLAIM #

ADDRESS Box 115

Spring Run, Pennsylvania 17262

PROBLEM:

Mr. Stake has contacted me concerning car door lock safety standards. He owns a 1977 Mercury Monarch. When the door is locked (by pushing the button on the inside of the door) he finds that his young child can still open the door by pulling on the door handle.

This concernins him because be beleives that there should be safety standards which should require the door handle to be immobile until the lock button is pulled up.

Will you please send me any information on door lock standards? Thank you for your time and cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht78-4.31

DATE: 08/19/78

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY -- ATTORNEY AT LAW

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JULY 14, 1976 TO GEORGE SHIFFLET, NHTSA, FROM WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY IS ATTACHED.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflett of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client (Illegible Word) reply on the warranty of a fabric manufacture that the fabric sold meets the requirements" of Standard No. 302.

You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1) (A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems. No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Inferior Materials.

As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the addition of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the

exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (2).

With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabric supplier "test each fabric lot for flammability before certification." In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of "due care" the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the "warranty" of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a "due care" defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.

Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seg) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.

I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 for your information.

Enclosures

ID: 2840yy

Mr. Samuel Yk Lau
Kenwo Industries Ltd.
Unit 20, 10/F, Block A,
Hi-Tech Ind. Center,
5 Pak Tin Par Street, Tsuen Wan
Hong Kong

Dear Mr. Lau:

This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991, asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an "additional brake lamp" that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask "if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product", and, further, "does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp orignally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, l985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. l08. For lighting equipment this certification may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an Identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here.

However, Standard No. l08 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. l08. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. l08, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of MOtor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA.

We enclose a copy of Standard No. l08 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:556#551#l08 d:2/22/9l

ID: 77-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

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

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Crane Carrier Corporation's June 8, 1977, question whether the maximum time limits specified by S5.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, for build-up of brake system air pressure from 85 to 100 psi includes the time taken to build up air pressure in an accessory reservoir (for an air starter) that is replenished only when the truck is started.

The answer to your question is no. Section S5.1.1 is a performance requirement that assures that repeated use of the brakes during vehicle operation will not deplete the available air supply because of insufficient air compressor capacity. The purpose of this requirement only indirectly relates to the initial air pressure build-up that occurs when the vehicle is first started.

The agency's existing laboratory procedure for compliance testing provides for fully charging the air brake system (and any accessory reservoirs which charge automatically in the process) before the test is begun. The engine is shut off while brake system air pressure is reduced to a level that permits a subsequent build-up for measurement purposes. In order to properly test vehicles with air starters, the agency is modifying its procedure to keep the engine running throughout the test, so that the air starter reservoir remains fully charged throughout the measurement period.

SINCERELY,

HEAVY DUTY TRUCK MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

June 20, 1977 Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to our telephone conversation last Friday, I am pleased to enclose the inquiry we discussed. You suggested that interpretive rulings should be in writing, and I am pleased to respond.

F. MURRAY CALLAHAN General Counsel

CRANE CARRIER COMPANY

June 8, 1977

Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturers Assoc.

Attention: F. Murray Callahan, General Counsel Subject: Compliance with Section S5.1.1 of MVSS 121, when vehicles are equipped with air starters.

We are seeking an interpretation of Section S5.1.1 due to the following condition occurring on vehicles equipped with air starters. These vehicles require a separate large volume (17,787 C.I.) starter reservoir isolated from the trucks air brake system by means of a pressure protection and check valve which maintains a minimum of 75 psi air pressure in the service brake system. However, after initial start up of truck, which could use up to approximately 50% of starter reservoir capacity, and the truck brake system is built up to 75 psi, the protection valve between the two systems opens, and at this point the total system capacity is equal to the brake reservoir volume plus that of the air start reservoir. When this occurs, it is impossible for us to comply with the time limit specified in Section S5.1.1 due to the extremely large combined volume of the two systems.

What we seek interpretation of is if the standard will allow: (1) air start reservoir to be completely refilled as soon as engine is started, (2) draining of air in the service brake reservoirs and then, (3) replenishing the air in the brake reservoir in the time limit specified. This seems to us to satisfy the standard since the standard is only trying to insure of a large enough air compressor to replenish the service brake reservoirs and once the air start system is filled it will have no effect on the brake system operation.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Ray Sizemore Engineer

cc: KEN LAWRENCE

ID: 77-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/77

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

TO: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company's October 6, 1977, request for confirmation that the criteria for a bulk agricultural commodity trailer contained in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, can be met by a trailer that does not accommodate "slip-in bottom dump" bulk harvest tubs as well as the "deck type" harvest tubs used for tomatoe harvesting. From your description, it is assumed for the purposes of this interpretation that the trailers in question do conform to the criteria in the standard for maximum length and an air line and reservoir arrangement that minimize field damage.

The criterion of "skeletal construction that accommodates harvest containers" can be met by a design that accommodates mounting of deck type bulk harvest tubs by means of removable flooring, whether or not the removal of flooring also permits the mounting of "slip-in bottom" bulk harvest tubs.

SINCERELY,

UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING CO.

October 6, 1977

National Highway Safety Administration

Attention: Duane Perrin

Attached is a copy of a letter sent to our Utility Dealers who have historically sold the agricultural commodity trailer. The letter tells the story.

Basically, we find that there are many more trailers required in the tomatoe harvest than any other kind. Thus, the operator wants to avoid the cost of accommodating the slip-in containers which adds plenty to the cost and weight of the trailer - - - and, I find that our competitors are following the rules we have now set. A copy of a letter that stated our position to Fruehauf last May is attached. Obviously, we and Fruehauf now have the same rules.

Unless we are off-base, I will assume that you agree with our restrictions.

Paul Bennett Chief Engineer

ATTACH.

To: San Leandro - Bruce Myers Fresno - Lyman Ehrlich Los Angeles - James Pollard Phoenix - Ben Cravens The legal definition of an Agricultural Commodity Trailer with specific exemptions from MVSS 121 is "Trailer designed with a high ground clearance and other special features for use with farm tractors during harvest."

Up to the date of this letter Utility has restricted its manufacture of Agricultural Commodity Trailers to a specially designes combination trailer model FS1WC (Semi) and FF2WC (Pull). We now learn many users do not want or need extra expense of a combination trailer that will accommodate a deck mounted harvest tub (tomatoes) as well as the bottom dump can for slip-in body (grapes and fruit) - - - and, that often, a center frame design is preferred to the wide frame design. As a consequence, the following trailer type order will be accepted for trailers qualified as Agricultural Commodity Trailers:

1. Standard Utility combo trailer Models FS1WC & FF2WC, - or -

2. Utility chassis trailer Models FS1W and FF2W (wide frame) or FS1C and FF2C center frame trailers which consider the following special specification:

A. Booster mountings to be top mounted on the axles to accommodate the high road bed clearance requirement.

B. Omission of all floor material for the purpose of accommodating a customer light weight floor or base support for a deck type harvest tub.

C. Trailer lengths may not exceed 27 ft.

D. A dealer letter is to accompany each order warranting that a sole and primary use will be in-field with farm type tractor. The dealer, obviously, should protect himself with a similar letter at time of sale.

John C. Bennett

CC: NHTSA