ID: 09-000984drn saito

ID: 06-003601as

ID: Lapinskas.1

Mr. Cesar Lapinskas
Mr. Christofer Lapinskas
Lapinskas and Associates, Inc.
d/b/a Road Aire North America
P.O. Box 26077
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33320-6077

Dear Messrs. Lapinskas:

This responds to your October 14, 2003, letter in which you ask whether it is necessary to obtain a permit or other approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) prior to marketing your companys tire inflation systems for sale in the United States. Your letter and attached materials state that the system, which is designed for installation on commercial trucks and buses weighing over 15,000 pounds, contains both a tire pressure monitoring component and an electropneumatic inflation component. Through a series of hoses and tubes tied to the vehicles air brake system, your product allows a driver to supply air to any tire(s) that become under-inflated. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations and to discuss how they may affect your product.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

The agency does not have any regulations covering tire inflation/tire pressure monitoring systems for heavy vehicles. [1] However, because your system would be tied into a vehicles braking system, it may affect compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle, prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Thus, these entities could not install your tire inflation system if it would take the vehicle out of compliance with any existing safety standard. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

In order to determine how installation of your tire inflation system could affect a vehicles compliance with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard contained in 49 CFR Part 571. However, there are certain standards (discussed below) of which you should be particularly aware.

One standard that may have implications for your product is FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if your device is an integral part of the brake system. A related issue is whether certain parts of the device are considered brake hoses and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses.

We do not have sufficient information about your device to specifically address these issues. I can advise you, however, that your device would not be considered part of the braking system if it were separated from the vehicles main braking system by a pressure protection valve in such a way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device. Moreover, if your device is not considered to be part of the braking system, it would not be subject to Standard No. 106.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify NHTSA and purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.1/21/04





---

[1]NHTSA is currently in the process of rulemaking to establish FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMSs), which will set forth requirements for TPMSs that are installed in new passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle. To the extent that your systems are installed only on vehicles with a higher GVWR, the standard would not apply. However, should your product be installed on a new light vehicle covered by FMVSS No. 138, vehicle manufacturers would need to certify that the vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

ID: 77-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/77

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

TO: Daido Kohyo Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 30, 1977, comments concerning Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your comments question the advisability of requiring the rim size designation to be stated in the order of diameter by width. This designation would be the reverse of existing Japanese and European practices.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) examined this issue in its response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard No. 120 (42 FR 7140). The agency determined that the rim size designation should be expressed on the label in the manner proposed in the standard (diameter by width) to avoid confusion with the tire size designation which is measured in terms of width by diameter. Since publication of our response to petitions for reconsideration (which included your petition), we have received no information presenting new reasons to alter the chosen format. Therefore, the NHTSA will continue to implement the standard as published in the February 7 Notice.

In a second question, you ask whether the NHTSA requires that the information specified in S5.2 of the standard be listed in any particular order. Although the agency has not specified the order in which the information required in S5.2 should be listed, the NHTSA expects that for purposes of clarity the information in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) would be grouped together as would the information in paragraphs (d) and (e).

Finally, you note that the symbol "JIS" must be marked on the rim in accordance with requirements of the Japanese Industrial Standard while NHTSA requires only the letter "J." For purposes of uniformity the agency will continue to require the letter "J" even though this may result in the double marking situation to which you refer.

I trust that this responds fully to your comments.

SINCERELY,

DAIDO KOGYO CO. LTD.

April 30, 1977

ATT: THE DOCKET ROOM, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SUBJECT: Written Comment as for Rim Size Designation defined in (Docket No. 71-19: Notice 06: Docket No. 75-32: Notice 02) Part 572.

Reference is made to the above mentioned FMVSS as to Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle other than Passenger Cars.

The rim size designation is defined to mean the rim diameter and width, and this designation order, a diameter designation followed by a width designation, is to distinguish rim designation from tire designation. However, this order of designation is hardly agreeable for us to follow. And we have also a couple of questions to which we would like to obtain your prompt reply.

(1). ISO/TC31/SC10 has been holding meetings four times during the period from June, 1974 to February, 1977, and we, DAIDO, has been taking part in these meetings as representative from Japan and making every endeavor to ISO-rize motorcycle rims.

But it has been never down for discussion that a width designation followed by a diameter designation had better be changed to a diameter designation followed by a width designation. whereas the former designation has been conventionally used in Japan and European countries.

We write here in addition that Mr. Hollis, the representative from U.S.A., has never brought this matter forward at ISO meeting in the past.

(2). There is a danger that the one effort change of conventional rim size designation will create many troubles and confusion, which must be, we feel, more serious as compared with the confusion with tire designation.

For instance, a rim designated as 1.6 x 13 by conventional designation should be changed to 18 x 1.6 in accordance with FMVSS. At this, most of people who have been familiar with conventional designation may regard this rim as 18" width and 16" diameter unintentionally.

We would like to point out the fact that catalogues or brochures of most motorcycle distributors and dealers in U.S.A. list rim size designation as (width) x (diameter). This means that most people concerned in motorcycle trade are already familiar with the said rim designation.

(3). We understand that tire designation is (width) - (diameter) and conventional rim designation is (width) x (diameter). Here is, we can see, distinctive difference of designation, which is "-" and "x" located between width designation and diameter designation.

Even though the order of width designation and diameter designation is same between tire and rim, we feel confident that if you appeal further to a large public such rim designation will not create any troubles and confusion as ever.

(4). S5.2 "Rim marking" requires that each rim or wheel disc in case of singlepiece wheel be marked with informations listed in paragraph (a) through (e). Our question is whether these informations should be marked correspondingly to the order of (a) through (e), or random arrangement of each paragraph is acceptable.

(5). We understand that there is no restriction in marking any other informations than the requirements of FMVSS specified in S5.2. We, Japanese manufacturer, must put JIS marking in accordance with the requirement of Japanese Industrial Standard if the product is approved and authorized by JIS Authority, while it is requested to put "J" mark by order of FMVSS. This means that we are under an obligation to mark both "J" and "JIS".

We have been preparing for the enforcement date of FMVSS based on our own understanding to rim marking requirement, until the receipt of revised NHTSA notice which was issued on January 23, 1977.

We are now facing serious troubles and worrying about if our motorcycle rims can meet with the requirements of FMVSS and with the effective date, August 1st, 1977.

We would appreciate receiving your prompt comments and reply in the above mentioned regards.

Thank you very much and we remain.

(p.s.: We will write to Mr. Malinverni, chairman of ISO/TC31/SC10, to ask his opinions and the future course of ISO. After this we will possibly submit our comments again to you.)

Takeo Shimoguchi General Manager

ID: 1983-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flyer Industries Limited -- Moni Marcus, Chief Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Flyer Industries Limited

TEXT:

Moni Marcus, P.Eng. Chief Engineer Flyer Industries Limited 64 Hoka Street Box 245 Transcona P.O. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R2C 3T4

Dear Mr. Marcus:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S 571.217). You stated that your company's transit bus models use eight large windows as emergency exits to satisfy the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217, and that the entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency doors. Accordingly, you stated that the entrance and exit doors do not "have to be tested for Standard No. 217 requirements." This is not wholly correct.

Standard No. 217 sets forth two basic requirements. These are (1) window retention requirements, which must be met by all windows in a new bus, except for the windshield, and (2) requirements applicable to emergency exits. As I pointed out in a letter to Mr. Moss, of your staff, the window retention requirements apply to all front door glazing which exceeds 8 inches in diameter, and this agency does test such glazing for compliance with the standard. Hence, while you may be correct in asserting that a door not designated as an emergency door would not be tested for compliance with the emergency exit requirements, you are incorrect if you are asserting that the glazing on such a door would not be tested for compliance with the window retention requirements.

Your letter went on to state that, although your entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency exits, most local transit authorities have requested you to add a decal instructing people how to open the doors in case of an emergency. You then stated your opinion that the addition of these decals would not change the status of the doors to emergency exits, so the doors would not be required to meet the Standard No. 217 push force requirements applicable to emergency doors. This conclusion is incorrect.

Standard No. 217 specifies minimum criteria for emergency exits which must be met by all new buses, and your letter states that your transit bus models do not need to count the entrance and exit doors on the buses to satisfy these criteria. Thus, absent other factors, those doors would not be required to comply with the portions of the standard applicable to emergency doors. However, affixing a decal, such as the one enclosed with your letter, in the area of those doors is labeling the door as an emergency exit. It is reasonable for riders of the bus to assume that a door which is labeled by the manufacturer with instructions in case of an emergency and which is intended by the local transit authority to be used as an exit in case of an emergency is in fact a door which can be used as an emergency exit. Given the likelihood of the use of the door as an emergency exit when it is so labeled, it is important that the door comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, and this agency has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in case of an emergency.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a letter reaching this same conclusion which was sent to another manufacturer. Contrary to the understanding expressed in your letter, this agency has never sent a letter to a manufacturer stating that doors labeled with emergency instructions were not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 217 applicable to emergency doors.

Should you need any further information or have further questions on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 12, 1983

Dear Mr. Krazke:

Re: Clarification of FMVSS - 217

As per our discussion on the phone, Flyer's transit bus models 900, 901 and 902 are equipped with 8 large windows and 3 fixed ones. The eight large windows are classified as emergency exits and they satisfy the FMVSS - 217 requirement of:

51 seats x 67 = 3,417 square inches (minimum) Therefore, the entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency exits and do not have to be tested for FMVSS - 217 requirements.

Both emergency exit windows and fixed windows were tested in 1980, and approved by your department - see Report No. 217-OYS (copy attached).

The question remaining is that most transit authorities have been requesting that bus manufacturers add a decal instructing people how to open the doors in case of an emergency. (Copy of decal drawings attached). In our view, the decals do not change the status of the doors to an emergency door status and, therefore, they are still not required to meet FMVSS - 217 push forces.

My understanding is that this interpretation has been given to other bus manufacturers before and we at Flyer would like to have a similar clarification from your office to straighten the records out specifically in regard to the letter marked NOA-30 and sent to Mr. Bill Moss, Flyer's test engineer by Mr. Frank Berndt (copy attached).

Your assistance on the phone was greatly appreciated and I hope to hear from you soon.

Yours truly,

Moni Marcus, P.Eng. Chief Engineer FLYER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Enclosure (4//5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Flyer Industries Limited Omitted here.)

ID: nht79-3.42

DATE: 12/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of the warning system requirements for seat belts in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The buckles of driver lap belts in all AMC vehicles and most Jeep vehicles are equipped with switches that prevent the audible belt use warning system from operating when the driver turns the ignition on after having fastened his or her lap belt. You ask whether the standard allows removal of the switch and associated wiring. The effect of this step, which would result in a savings of about $ 1.50 per vehicle, would be that the warning would operate regardless of whether the driver has fastened his or her lap belt. You also ask that your letter be considered a petition for rulemaking if this removal is not permissible.

Paragraph S7.3 of the standard requires a seat belt warning system that activates a 4 to 8-second warning light when the vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position (condition "a"), and a 4 to 8-second audible signal when condition "a" exists and the driver's lap belt is not fastened (condition "b"). Under your proposal, the audible signal would be activated when both conditions exist. However, it would also be activated when condition "a" alone exists.

The functioning of the audible signal when condition "a" only exists is not permissible under the standard. The rulemaking notices which led to adoption of the current requirement stated that the agency's intent was that the audible signal operate if the driver's lap belt is not in use. The agency expressed that same intent in the standard by specifying the light was to function when condition "a" existed and the audible signal when both conditions "a" and "b" existed. To interpret the standard to permit the signal to operate when condition "a" only existed would be to render purposeless the specification of condition "b".

Further, the agency denies your petition to amend FMVSS 208 to permit operation of the audible signal when condition "a" only exists. A greater limitation was placed on the operation of the audible warning signal in consideration of the irritation factor associated with the signal but not with the light. To provide a reminder and incentive for safety belt use and to avoid subjecting the conscientious belt user to having to hear an audible reminder to do something that he or she has already done, the agency specified that the signal would not function if the driver's safety belt were fastened.

In light of studies concerning the value of a properly designed belt use warning system in improving the rate of belt use, the agency is contemplating including a proposal to amend the FMVSS 208 warning requirements when it issues its forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking on seat belt comfort and convenience. We would welcome your views on the proposal following its announcement.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 19, 1979

Joan B. Claybrook -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

This office is evaluating the feasibility and legal implications of a proposed product improvement. We are considering removing the driver's lap-belt buckle switch and associated wiring harness from the seat belt use reminder system currently installed on all AMC and most Jeep vehicles. We believe that eliminating this buckle switch would not detract from the effectiveness of the reminder system.

The lap-belt buckle switch functions to deactivate the audible signal when the driver's restraint system is fastened. We are of the opinion that the effect of its removal would be consistent with the law as stipulated in paragraph S7.3 of 49CFR571.208 and section 125 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended.

Additional support for our opinion that the audible signal need not be belt-use sensitive apparently can be found in the preamble to Docket 74-39; Notice 3, the final amendment to FMVSS 208 which adopted the new reminder system requirements. In that notice, the NHTSA noted that its initial proposal had intended that the audible warning should be dependent on belt use, but that after consideration of comments received, the Agency determined that "Because of the limited benefit, the reminder should be provided at as low a cost as feasible." Therefore, the NHTSA "determined that an audible-visual combination will provide the best reminder at a cost commensurate with the benefits achievable in a limited-duration signal."

The removal of the lap-belt buckle switch would be consistent with these stated objectives. The achievable associated cost reduction is estimated to be approximately $ 1.50/vehicle, and because many, if not all, U.S.-marketed cars use designs with a similar buckle switch, an industry-wide potential savings of $ 15 million per year appears reasonable.

The resultant belt use reminder system would operate the same as today except that both the light and buzzer would activate for 4 to 8 seconds each time the ignition is turned on regardless whether the driver's belt is fastened. Such a system would not likely be judged unacceptable by the motoring public because we believe that the majority of belt users "buckle up" during the time that the reminder system is activated by the operation of the ignition switch. Therefore, the termination of the audible-visual signal would be essentially coincident with the occupant's fastening of the restraint system.

We ask for your prompt concurrence that such a reminder system would be consistent with Federal requirements. The timeliness of your response is important as the potential product savings and consumer price benefits could be realized almost immediately. Because this is a component deletion that does not require design or tooling time, we could implement this change soon after we receive a favorable response.

If you determine that our interpretation of the belt-use reminder system requirements is not correct, we ask that this request be considered as a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 208 such that the audible signal may be, but is not required to be, driver belt-use dependent.

Sincerely,

K. W. Schang Director - Vehicle Safety Programs -- AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION

ID: nht81-3.34

DATE: 11/10/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 6, 1981, asking for our concurrence that front clearance lamps "located at the frame level (about 50 inches above the ground) on platform trailers with permanent front bulkheads conforms with FMVSS 108."

Clearance lamps are required by Standard No. 108 "to indicate the overall width" of a vehicle, and to be "as near the top thereof as practicable." As you noted, NHTSA has commented before that the indication of overall width is the primary function of clearance lamps, with a secondary purpose of indicating overall height. However, because trailers are not required to have identification lamps on their front, the secondary purpose of clearance lamps on trailers is important, especially if the top of the trailer is substantially higher than that of the truck tractor towing it.

You have stated that the top of the typical front bulkhead is 8 to 9 feet above the ground, and the identification lamps of truck tractors are typically 10 feet above the ground. We will assume also that the tractor's clearance lamps are also typically 10 feet above the ground. You have also stated that the mounting height of truck tractor rear view mirrors and bulkhead-mounted clearance lamps are essentially the same, and that as a result "drivers remove the bulb from the clearance lamps or place tape over the lamps."

The determination of practicability is one that is made by the manufacturer of the trailer. NHTSA will accept a determination that mounting of clearance lamps at the top of the bulkhead is not practicable if such lamps are reflected into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror. But if the configuration of a trailer with a permanent front bulkhead is such that the clearance lamps may be located at the top of the bulkhead frame without interfering with the vision of the truck tractor's operator, that location would appear to be "practicable" within the meaning of Standard No. 108 and the situation your letter addresses.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

October 6, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Interpretation of the Location of Front Clearance Lamps on Platform Trailers with Permanent Bulkheads

Dear Mr. Berndt: TTMA requests your concurrence that the location of front clearance lamps located at the frame level (about 50 inches above the ground) on platform trailers with permanent front bulkheads conforms with FMVSS 108.

Platform trailers are sold in three configurations: (1) without front bulkheads, (2) with removable front bulkheads, and (3) with permanent front bulkheads. Often platform trailers without front bulkheads will be built for stock and placed on a dealers lot. A customer may then purchase the new trailer and request that a bulkhead be added to the trailer. A customer may also bring to the dealer a used platform trailer and request that a permanent bulkhead be welded to the trailer.

The structural framing of the front bulkhead would require that the front clearance lamps, if mounted on the front bulkhead, be located about 8 inches inboard of the front corner of main frame location used for clearance lamps on platform trailers without front bulkheads.

Table II of FMVSS 108 states that the purpose of the front clearance light is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. NHTSA by interpretation (letter of 2/5/74 to Evan Hammond, Trailmobile) has stated that the primary purpose of these lamps is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and the secondary purpose is to indicate the overall height. Front bulkheads typically range in height from 48 to 60 inches (4 to 5 ft.), placing the top of the bulkhead about 100 to 112 inches (8 to 9 ft.) above the ground. The identification lamps on the truck tractor are typically 118 inches (10 ft.) above the ground.

The side view mirror of a truck tractor is typically mounted about 85 inches (7 ft.) above the ground. Due to the frame around the front bulkhead of the platform trailer, the front clearance lamp would be located about 12 inches (1 ft.) below the top of the bulkhead or 88 inches (7 ft.) above the ground. This location results in the lamp shining into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror.

An examination of platforms with permanent bulkheads reveals that drivers remove the bulbs from the clearance lamps or place tape over the lamps. TTMA contends that a location which results in the lamp shining into the driver's eyes is not a practical location and may indeed result in a safety hazard.

Some bulkheads are made with the provision for fastening a tarpaulin. NHTSA, in an interpretation regarding tarps on bulk commodity trailers (letter of 5/2/69 to K. L. Mathews, Reliance Trailer & Truck Company), stated that the clearance lamps should be mounted as high as practical to clear the bottom edge of the tarp. It is assumed that this interpretation would also apply to the location of clearance lamps on platform trailer front bulkheads. The need for attaching tarpaulins results in the clearance lamps being located as much as 30 inches below the top of the bulkhead or about 70 inches (6 ft.) above the ground.

NHTSA has issued an interpretation of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 108 (letter of 3/22/74 to TTMA) stating that front clearance lamps may be mounted on the lower front rail of platform trailers with removable front bulkheads. Since a removable front bulkhead looks similar to a permanent bulkhead and serves the same function, it is TTMA's contention that they be treated similarly with regard to location of front clearance lamps. This interpretation follows the reasoning used by NHTSA (letter of 3/10/81 to TTMA) that the function of a permanent dolly and its towbar are identical in function with that of a converter dolly and its towbar and there is no reason to distinguish one from the other for purpose of computation of overall length and the requirement for an intermediate side marker lamp.

TTMA concludes that the front clearance lamps on platform trailers with and without front bulkheads should be located at the corner of the frame rail to satisfy the requirement that the lamp indicate the trailer's overall width, that this is as high as is practical since a higher location would create a safety hazard for the driver, and that a permanent bulkhead serves the same function as a demountable bulkhead which is exempted from a clearance lamp height requirement.

Donald W. Vierimaa Director of Engineering

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-4.6

DATE: 10/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Excel Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 3, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. S. A. Spretnjak Excel Industries, Inc. 1120 North Main Street Elkhart, Indiana 46514

Dear Mr. Spretnjak:

This responds to your August 15, 1980, letter asking several questions about your responsibilities for complying with Federal safety standards. You state that you manufacture a sun roof that can be installed by either an original vehicle manufacturer or a subsequent vehicle alterer.

Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to note that Federal safety standards apply to different manufacturers depending upon the standard involved. Equipment standards are the responsibility of equipment manufacturers while vehicle standards fall within the responsibilities of a vehicle manufacturer or alterer. For sun roofs, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, is an equipment standard and might apply to an equipment manufacturer who manufacturers sun roofs if they contain any glazing materials. Some vehicle safety standards might be affected also by the installation of a sun roof. The installer of a sun roof would be entirely responsible for compliance with all of the vehicle safety standards affected by the sun roof installation.

Your first question asks who certifies the sun roof if it is installed as original equipment on a vehicle. The equipment manufacturer who manufacturers the glazing would be responsible for certifying the glazing in accordance with Standard No. 205. The installer of the sun roof, the vehicle manufacturer, would certify the vehicle in compliance with all of the safety standards.

Second, you ask the same question as above with respect to a van conversion or motor home construction. Again, the equipment manufacturer would certify to the glazing standard, and the van converter or motor home builder would certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, Certification.

Third, you ask who must certify if a dealer adds a sun roof before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser. The equipment manufacturer certifies to the glazing standard, and the installer of the device would attach an alterer's label to any vehicle in accordance with Part 567.7.

Your fourth question asks who certifies if a body shop adds the sun roof for a vehicle owner. As always, the sun roof glazing is certified by the equipment manufacturer. Businesses that modify used vehicles are not required to recertify those vehicles in compliance with any of the safety standards. Such businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard.

Fifth, you ask whether as a window manufacturer your only responsibility is to certify to Standards Nos. 205 and 217. As stated earlier, you would have responsibility to certify to Standard No. 205. However, Standard No. 217 is a vehicle standard, and only a vehicle manufacturer or alterer has responsibility for certifying compliance with that standard.

Your final question asks about testing for compliance with the safety standards. Testing is usually conducted by vehicle manufacturers for those standards that apply to vehicles. For standards that apply only to equipment, the testing is usually done by the equipment manufacturer. When a vehicle is altered and the alterer must attach a label indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards, the alterer can certify compliance through any means that, in the exercise of due care, he or she feels is sufficient to assure compliance with the safety standards. Methods available to alterers include: retesting, simulated testing, mathmatical modeling, or any other device appropriate for assesiing continued compliance with the standards.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 15, 1980

Roger Tilton ESQ Attorney Adviser Office of the Chief Council Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Per our telephone conversation on August 12, 1980, this formal request for assistance is forwarded to your attention.

Excel Industries is a manufacturer of aftermarket sunroof products and specialty windows. The product consists of a glass lite, aluminum frame and plastic handle (see attached sketch for more details).

The product would be sold thru and to auto body shops, van converters and aftermarket distribution centers. The installation of the product could be done at facilities of the afore mentioned sales outlets or by the general public. The ultimate end use of the product and type of vehicle installation after sales are not controlled.

Based on the above information the question of product liability with regard to compliance and certification to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards must be addressed.

Your assistance is required to answer the following questions:

ITEM #1 If a sunroof assembly is installed by an original equipment manufacturer (ie. Ford, GMC, Chrysler) on a domestic or Import vehicle, should the installer of the unit certify the product?

ITEM #2 If a sunroof assembly is installed by a motor home builder and/or van converter should the installer certify the product and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #3 If a vehicle is not titled ie. altered by dealer before sale, should the installer certify and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #4 If a body shop installs a sun roof for an individual should the installer certify and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #5 As a window manufacturer is it true that the certifications to FMVSS #205 and possibly FMVSS #217 are only FMVSS specifications that must be certified?

ITEM #6 Most FMVSS require testing on the final and completed vehicle. Does this place the burden of testing and/or certifying compliance on the OEM or final stage finisher? When a vehicle is altered can certification be attained by the following methods?

1) Retesting the entire vehicle 2) Simulate static testing the original vehicle versus the altered vehicle 3) Mathematically models 4) Can the installer by any other process, whereby, with due care provide evidence that the altered vehicle is as applicable to meeting the standard as the original vehicle.

A response prior to October 1, 1980, would be most appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation,

EXCEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

S.A. Spretnjak

Attachment SAS/lmv cc: JEC PJT ALG

ID: nht75-1.24

DATE: 03/18/75

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

TO: Stratoflex, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to confirm the interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, which I gave in a telephone conversation on February 27, 1975.

S5.2.4 of the standard requires each brake hose assembly to be labeled with a band. The band must include, among other information, "a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly. . . ." A brake hose distributor who manufactures assemblies at multiple locations is not required to assign a designation to each location; a single designation will suffice.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Department of Transportation -- Office of Chief Counsel

Subject: February 6, 1975 Inquiry on Paragraph S5.2.4 of FMVSS 106 (Tagging Requirement)

Attn: Mark Schwimmer

Dear Mr. Schwimmer;

An inquiry was made on February 6, 1975 at the Office of Chief Counsel to Mr. Mark Schwimmer regarding the FMVSS 106 labeling requirements per paragraph S5.2.4. This inquiry asked if an assembler with multiple locations was required to assign multiple designations. Mr. Schwimmer stated he could not answer the question as it was currently in process of discussion, however, within a few days time he would advise.

(Illegible Word) immediately enacted a "hold" on all phases of preparation (Illegible Word) compliance to "tagging" per S5.2.4 expecting clarification (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) few days. The answer to this inquiry is essential in (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) requirements for this national program.

On February 12, 1975 a meeting was conducted at the Office of Chief Counsel. In attendance were; Mark Schwimmer, D.O.T., Paul Hykes, ATA., Larry Strawhorn, ATA., C.P. Boling, Stratoflex. Discussed were all aspects of "Tagging" requirements including a request to exclude fleets from the tagging requirements at which time Office of Chief Counsel was unable to answer previous inquiry or comment on status except to say, "They will be able to advise in a few days." These 'few days' have now become weeks with no indication of a firm date established to answer our request.

This delay has now made it impossible for Stratoflex to complete a responsible national program that will effectively allow customers, which utilize bulk components, to comply by the current effective date of March 1, 1975.

We request that the effective date of March 1, 1975 be extended to allow time to reconsider our docket submittal of February 18, 1975 which extensively outlines the economic impact on fleet operators. ATA has determined that the total number of potential assembler's exceeds 4 million as presently defined. This figure alone raises the question of the tagging requirement being unrealistic to impose to administrate in addition to being of little or no value in (Illegible Word) the integrity of the end product.

Although we totally disagree with this imposed "tagging" requirement at the fleet level, Stratoflex has made and will continue to make an honest effort to fully comply with all aspects of FMVSS (Illegible Word) and reestablish a national program to support our customers.

C. P. Boling

SANTA ANA

February 18, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Attention: Mark Schwimmer -- Office of the Chief Counsel

Ref: FMVSS 106 Paragraph S5.2.4

Gentlemen:

We respectfully suggest that the implementation of the referenced tagging requirement, particularly at repair and maintenance levels, will result in an extreme inflationary impact on the trucking industry. Further, in view of the apparent massive effectivity, we seriously question the capabilities of involved suppliers to support this effort from an administrative and logistical standpoint. In this respect, we estimate that there are approximately 40,000 independent fleet or equipment operators that fabricate air brake hose assemblies in maintaining their equipment. In addition, we believe there are approximately 60,000 equipment and component dealerships that are active suppliers to the truck market. The potential effectivity of your labeling/tagging requirement could reasonably be expanded to supplier operations other than those that are primarily related to the automative or trucking industry: many mill supply, hydraulic, and farm equipment outlets service the trucking industry by means of providing hose, fittings, or hose assemblies. The collective effect of your regulation could involve several million suppliers.

Our Mr. C. P. Boling visited your office on February 12 and requested clarification or interpretation regarding several facets of the tagging requirement. On behalf of our customers that operate multiple repair operations, we requested clarification as to the necessity for a code number for each operating location. Additional clarification was requested as to applicability in view of the severe impact of this requirement as mentioned above.

As of this date, many of our questions are left unanswered and the effective date of the referenced regulation is eight working days away. As the primary hose and fitting supplier to the trucking industry, we are most concerned with any regulation that affects the sale and subsequent supply of our product line. In this regard, it is our intent to comply with all governmental regulations. However, it is our obligation to question the need for tagging operations at user level; and to question the basis under which effectivity at this trade level is necessary, practical, or in the public interest. We do not believe that the authors of the referenced regulation intended that this specific requirement encompass equipment operator maintenance facilities. Rather, the tagging of hose assemblies might properly include hose and fitting manufacturers.

In view of the apparent confusion as to who this specific requirement applies to, the potentially severe negative impact of mass effectivity, and the questions that still remain unanswered, we strongly recommend that tagging requirements per se be suspended pending a thorough evaluation. In any event, we urge that your office clarify the applicability of this specific requirement as related to users or fleets that are primarily involved with repairing or maintaining their equipment. If this requirement is applicable to equipment maintenance facilities, we believe an unnecessary and costly burden will be placed on fleet operators, with no positive result that will contribute to public safety.

Yours very truly,

A. J. Bowie -- General Manager Western Operations

ID: 77-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/77

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

TO: The Coachette Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 19, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, permits the use of two rear doors for the determination of the size of the required unobstructed rear exit opening.

The standard states in S5.4.2.2 that: "[a] school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall conform to all the provisions of S5.4.2, except that the parallelepiped dimension for the opening of the rear emergency door or doors shall be . . . ." This section specifically allows the determination of the required rear opening through the use of either one or two doors. Therefore, your interpretation that the standard permits the use of two rear doors is correct.

SINCERELY,

Coachette Company

August 19, 1977

Joseph Levin Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A.

RE: FMVSS 217

We urgently need a clarification on FMVSS 217, paragraph S5.4.2. and specifically sub-paragraph S5.4.2.2., as these and other referenced sections apply to a van type school bus rear emergency exit.

The school bus in question had two rear emergency doors side by side with the left hand (driver's side) door hinged on the left side and the right hand door hinged on the right side. The operation of these doors require the right hand door to be opened first, then the left hand door may be opened. However, with just the right hand door open, there are couple of minor protusions into the opening that prevent the parallelepiped from passing through.

The two doors have very simple labels and instructions for operating would be clear and concise. (See enclosed sketch.)

Is our interputation correct that we would be in full compliance with FMVSS 217 if both doors were utilized to obtain the required unobstructed opening?

An early reply is desired and anything that can be done to expedite this clarification will be greatly appreciated.

E.M. Ryan Design Engineer

ENC.

ward

SCHOOL BUS MFG., Inc. P.O. BOX 311 HIGHWAY 65 CONWAY, ARKANSAS 72832

DATE - 8-19-77 CHK - DRAFT: 40M ENGR: SCALE IN OR OUT PART ORDER NO. REV CHANGE BY DATE

MATERIAL-

TOLERANCE

(Graphics omitted)