ID: nht93-4.38

DATE: June 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA; Signature by Ken Weinstein

TO: Bob Jones -- Director of Engineering, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-93 from Bob Jones to Mary Versailles.

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 29 1993, addressed to Mary Versailles of this office, requesting information on the proper testing of your raised-roof minivan for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 220, SCHOOL BUS ROLLOVER PROTECTION.

You correctly stated in your letter that the school bus rollover protection requirements of FMVSS 220 do not apply to minivans. You explained, however, that many states and/or localities require compliance with FMVSS 220 for vehicles equipped to transport the handicapped, and you asked how properly to test your raised-roof minivan for compliance with FMVSS 220.

Since the requirements you referred to are state or local requirements, this agency cannot comment on them. You should contact the states or localities concerned to find out what their expectations are in that regard.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you.

ID: cox.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
President
Monte Carlo Minis Limited Inc.
2011 Pleasant Hill Church Road
Shelby, NC 28152

Dear Mr. Cox:

On August 31, 1998, we received your faxed manufacturer identification information sheet sent in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, and your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions.

You informed us that Monte Carlo Minis Limited, Inc., wants to build "Mk 1 and Mk II Minis." These vehicles "will have all new parts except for the chassis or subframes." You comment that "if we replace the chassis, we know we would have to meet all the DOT and EPA regs." You ask whether you can "retain the old VIN number if we use the pre 1969 donor cars and chassis." You also state that "if we only exported the Minis to Japan I assume we would have to use the new VIN numbers as described in CFR 49."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and other agency regulations do not apply to vehicles manufactured for export, and which are so labeled between the completion of their manufacture and shipment from the United States. Therefore, the VIN on vehicles intended to export for Japan should conform with the requirements of that country, if any, for VINs, rather than those of 49 CFR Part 565 for vehicles intended for sale in the United States.

You incorrectly assume that retention of the old chassis alone is sufficient to excuse a vehicle from compliance with the FMVSS. The agency's opinions over the years have been premised upon the fact situation of a vehicle in use being modified to incorporate a new body on its original chassis and one which retained its original title. We have said that the resulting vehicle would not be considered a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS . The agency did not intend the word chassis to be interpreted narrowly but meant the term to indicate an assemblage that retained the original frame and all vehicle components other than the body, including the power train, brake system, suspension, and tires and wheels.

The vehicles you intend to build would have "all new parts except for the chassis or subframes, including "the new [body] shell," "new suspension," and "new engine and transmission," while "the old chassis, sub frame is retained after being sandblasted." In our view, vehicles assembled using equipment as you have described it to us would be new motor vehicles which must comply with all applicable FMVSS in effect as of the date of assembly, and be certified as complying if they are to be sold for use in the United States. Among other things, such vehicles must have a VIN meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Liz Severe
c/o Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc.
ref:571
d.9/29/98

ID: nht81-2.20

DATE: 05/06/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. G. Frail

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

May 6, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. John G. Frail P.O. Box 581 Bronxville, New York 10708

Dear Mr. Frail:

This is in reply to your letter of April 9, 1981, to this agency asking, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured outside of the lamp or inside of the lamp." You have asked this question in behalf of an "OEM supplier" in Germany.

The requirement in Table IV of Standard No. 108 is that the minimum edge to edge separation distance between a turn signal lamp and a tail or stop lamp be 4 inches while the turn signal lamps themselves must have a minimum separation distance of 9 inches between their centerlines. (Your design is somewhat confusing as it depicts centerlines of stop lamps and turn signal lamps at 9 inches.) We interpret this as meaning the minimum separation distance between the edge of lighted area to be 4 inches, as depicted in "B" in your design. Of course, final responsibility for compliance with this requirement rests on the vehicle manufacturer rather than the equipment manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

John G. Frail Post Office Box 581 Bronxville, New York 10708

April 9, 1981

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: FMVSS 108 interpertation.

Gentlemen:

The attachment from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations from ULO-WERK of West Germany questions the following:

The contents of the attachment are that of Table III & Table IV (Part 571; S 108 11/12). They are interested, as illustrated by the client, the interpertation as to whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured outside of the lamp or inside of the lamp.

They have not specified their concern other than being OEM suppliers. This question may have risen as a result of two manufacturers supplying the lamp for one vehicle. The outside ornamentation of the lamp may be the question resulting in how one should measure the distance. Also, if we assume the distance is basically for light output of the lamp (night time driving) they may have a reasonable question.

So that I may inform our client, please advise in writing the proper interpertation of the subject specification as to wether the measurement of 4 inches regarding the distance between tail-stop-lamp and indicator lamp will be measured at the inside or outside of the spare lens.

Please forward your answer to my above post office box address at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

John G. Frail

Attachment Omitted

ID: aiam4510

"Dear Mr. Friedman: This is a response to your letter dated Novembe 17, 1987, asking whether two child restraint systems you have designed comply with certain requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 213, Child Restraint Systems. You call one system 'Cradle Safe,' and describe it as an inclined, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed to restrain new-born infants from 4.5 to 14 lbs. The second system you call 'Premie Cradle,' and describe it as a recumbent, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed for premature infants from 4 to 6 lbs. Your letter assesses the performance attributes of these systems as follows: 'In an accident the baby is oriented and cushioned to avoid injury and ejection by a deformable, energy absorbing 'bed' and 'shell' without harnessing the infant. The bed and its crushable extensions (wings) cause the infant to rotate and take acceleration forces through its back and limit those applied to the head. After rotation, the infant is cushioned by the collapsing bed.' You state your belief that both systems comply with applicable provisions of Standard 213, but ask for our comment because 'the designs are innovative and make the applicability and interpretation of certain paragraphs of the standard not entirely obvious.' To help the agency better understand your products and the methods you used to test performance, you requested that agency staff meet with you, and your colleague, Mr. David Shinn. On April 12, 1988, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Shinn, and agency staff from the following offices: Chief Counsel, Enforcement, Plans and Policy, Research and Development, Rulemaking, and Traffic Safety Programs. At that meeting, you and Mr. Shinn presented a video-film showing two sled-tests of your cradle-safe restraint system, one with a NHTSA-specified, 17 pound dummy, and one with an EEC eight pound dummy. In the video film, your child restraint system broke apart in the 30 mph test with the 17 pound dummy, but appeared to maintain its structural integrity when tested with the eight pound dummy. You did not show a sled-test with your 'Premie Cradle' product. By a letter dated June 8, 1988, you informed this agency that you had performed tests of a 'modified' Cradle-Safe restraint system, and that this system will contain the NHTSA-specified 17 pound dummy in simulated barrier-impact testing under Standard 213. You state further that a restraint system you call 'One-ride' also will contain a 17 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. (You did not address the 'One-ride' restraint in your November 17, 1987, correspondence, nor did you present it during the April 12, 1988 meeting.) Your June 8 letter also references a letter of July 22, 1987, addressed to Mr. Val Radovich of this agency, a June 3, 1988 video tape showing a simulated barrier impact test of your Cradle-Safe seat with a 17 pound dummy, and submissions of patent documents in support of a patent application for your products. As NHTSA staff understood from your November 17, 1987 letter, and the April 12, 1988 meeting, your principal question was whether you could test a Standard 213 child restraint system with an eight or 14 pound dummy (rather than the specified 17 pound dummy), if you intended to label the restraint as appropriate for children from 4.5 to 10 pounds. You briefly addressed the other matters raised in your November 17, letter, clarifying a reference to an 'unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not required in (Standard 213) testing.' You explained that the 'belt' to which you refer is a two-piece, cloth wrap that anchors at either side of the restraint, and fastens over the child with a velcro attachment. I shall respond to your comments in the order that you present them in your letter, also discussing new matters raised in the meeting, in the June 8, 1988 letter, and in your other submissions where appropriate. I will not discuss the patent materials because they are not relevant to a determination of whether your restraint systems comply with Standard 213. In responding to your comments, I assume that we are discussing only those child restraint systems designed for children weighing less than 20 pounds (infant restraints). Your First Comment. Paragraph 5.1.1.a dealing with Child Restraint System Integrity specifies 'no complete...and no partial separation' of surfaces. Our design is deformable and involves materials of 1/4' thickness which in deforming, tear slightly. However when torn these materials are not lacerating and not likely to come into contact with the infant. Response. Paragraph S5.1.1(a) states that when a child restraint is tested as specified in the Standard, the system shall: Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system. If the system failure you describe as tearing of materials at the system surface does not result in a failure of the load-bearing structure of the system, then paragraph S5.1.1(a) is inapplicable. In 1978, NHTSA proposed adding this language to 213 as one of a number of amendments to the Standard that would upgrade performance requirements, improve performance criteria, and require dynamic testing of child restraint systems using anthropomorphic test dummies. (43 FR 21470, 21473, May 18, 1978.) In the preamble of that document, we stated that our objectives in promulgating the system integrity requirements were to prevent a child's excessive excursion or ejection from the system, and to ensure that the system does not fracture or separate in such a way as to harm the child. (43 FR 21470, 21473.) To accomplish this objective, Standard 213 requires that in dynamic testing, any load-bearing, structural element of a child restraint system must not separate completely, and that any partial separation must not expose surfaces with sharp edges that may contact the child. Id. Your letter states that some materials at the surface of your system may tear during an impact. In promulgating S5.1.1(a), the agency intended to minimize dangers resulting from failures in the structural integrity of the system, rather than failures in the materials. The agency did not intend to preclude a manufacturer from designing some deformation into a child restraint system to improve the system's energy absorption performance. Your Second Comment. Paragraph 5.2.3.2.b The system surface in contact with the infant's head shall be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. Although our system surfaces are not covered, they are fabricated out of such material. The system surface in contact with the infants head (the bed) is 3/16' woodfiber separated by air from a similar material in the shell. The system complies with the requirement and when dynamically tested exhibits deformation much better than a 25% compression-deflection, but there is no appropriate ASTM Test Standard such as for open or closed cell foam. Response. As I read your comment, you raise three issues which I shall address separately. The first is whether the material from which you fabricate your system can meet the S5.2.3.2(b) requirement that a child restraint system must be 'covered' with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. The agency's long-standing position is that a given type of surface material is an acceptable 'covering' if it is a flexible material that would meet the thickness and performance requirements for energy-absorbing padding set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.2. The surface needn't have a separate layer of energy-absorbing padding. The second issue is whether 3/16 inch woodfiber is a sufficient thickness for a system surface. This thickness would not comply with S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard 213. That subparagraph requires thicknesses of at least 1/2 or 3/4 inch, depending on the material's compression-deflection performance as measured in the static testing specified in S6.3 of Standard 213. You assert that the 3/16 inch thickness material used in your systems exceeds a 25% compression-deflection measurement in dynamic testing. In the preamble to the final rule amending Standard 213, NHTSA responded to commenters who suggested that specifying a minimum thickness for the infant restraint surface was design-restrictive. (44 FR 72131, 72135, December 13, 1979.) We explained in that document that we set these minimum thickness requirements because there was no available test device to measure the energy absorption properties of either the surface or underlying structure of an infant restraint in dynamic testing. Consequently, the agency specified 'long-established static tests' of the surface material, and established minimum thickness requirements based on the results of those static tests. Therefore, a compression-deflection measurement derived from dynamic testing is not an acceptable test of compliance with paragraph S5.2.3.2. The third issue is whether the compression-deflection measurement for this system must be derived from tests under one of the ASTM standards in S6.3, even though none of the ASTM titles expressly states that the test is for woodfiber, and all three procedures are for static tests. Paragraph S5.2.3.2(b) requires that when one tests the energy absorption properties of child restraint materials, those tests must be conducted under one of three ASTM static test procedures set out in paragraph S6.3 of Standard 213. Your restraint systems are made of woodfiber. Woodfiber - or any material that meets the Standard's requirements - can be an acceptable substance out of which to fabricate a child restraint. As NHTSA stated in the final rule preamble cited earlier, the agency wishes to allow restraint manufacturers to use a wide range of materials, provided that the material exhibits acceptable energy absorption properties. You may use any ASTM title specified in paragraph S6.3 to test your surface material, and the material is acceptable if it displays the required energy absorption properties when tested under one of those titles. Your Third Comment. Paragraph 5.4.3.1 'Each belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system...' is interpreted to mean that a soft unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not required in testing, need not conform to this paragraph. Response. As you explained in the April 12, meeting, the 'belt' to which you refer is the cloth device described in the beginning of this letter. By its express terms, paragraph S5.4.3.1 is inapplicable to belts that are (1) not part of the child restraint system and (2) not designed to restrain a child using the system. On the other hand, I note that in the June 8, video tape, the narrative refers to a belt within the Cradle-Safe system as a belt for restraining the child. If you do intend any belt in the system to be used for restraining the child, then various provisions of paragraph S5.4.3, Belt Restraint, will apply, depending on the design configuration of the belt assembly. In the preamble to the May 1978 proposal cited earlier in this letter, the agency expressed its continuing concern that child restraint system designs minimize the prospect of system misuse. (43 FR 21470, 21471.) If there are belts in any of your child restraint systems that you do not intend as restraints for the child, then I hope you will consider whether these additional belts unreasonably increase the risk that some users will mistake the additional belt assembly as a Standard 213 belt intended for use in restraining a child. Your Fourth Comment. Paragraph 6. This paragraph requires the CRADLE SAFE to be tested with a paragraph 7 dummy (17 lb.) for which it was not designed and which cannot be physically accommodated. We would prefer to use available 7.8 lb. and/or 14 lb. non-specified dummies. The PREMIE CRADLE falls in the car bed 'travel crib' category and does not require dynamic testing. Response. Paragraph S7.1 of Standard 213 requires testing an infant restraint system with the 6-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR 572.25. (An infant restraint system is one that is recommended 'for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing not more than 20 pounds.') That test device is 17.4 pounds. Because your child safety system meets the definition of infant restraint, it must be capable of meeting Standard 213 performance requirements when tested with the specified 17.4 pound dummy. If an infant restraint can not accommodate this test device, then it can not be certified as complying with Standard 213. I understand from your June 8, 1988, letter that the Cradle-Safe and One-Ride systems will accommodate the specified 17.4 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. Further, your restraint systems must meet head excursions limits with the 17.4 pound dummy under paragraph S5.1.3.2, Rear-facing Child Restraint Systems. The dummy specified in Part 572 is based on a simple design that represents a 6-month-old infant in dimensional, mass distribution, and dynamic response characteristics. NHTSA chose to use this test dummy after conducting extensive testing and evaluation of the dummy's responses. The testing, conducted by NHTSA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), showed that the specified dummy provided a consistent and repeatable measure of the structural integrity and confinement properties of a child restraint system, and was superior to a previous test version. (43 FR 21490, May 18, 1978, 44 FR 76527, December 27, 1979.) Before we can sanction use of another device to test an infant restraint system, the agency would have to determine that the dummy is a reliable surrogate for measuring a system's performance in an actual crash. NHTSA can not now make that statement with respect to any unspecified dummy, instrumented or non-instrumented. The agency can make this kind of finding only through a rulemaking process. Further, contrary to what you believe, infant car beds are subject to dynamic testing to ensure that the test dummy stays within the confines of the restraint system during impact. (Standard 213, S6.1.2.3.3.) While you believe you have identified some potential problems with Standard 213, I am sure that you can appreciate the need to follow established procedures when considering any change to a safety standard. Following established practices helps ensure that child restraint systems which comply with Federal standards continue to offer satisfactory crash protection for children. The agency has scheduled two public meetings this summer in order to explore the need for changes to Standard 213. I enclose a copy of the notice announcing these meetings, and invite you to participate in the forum. Based on the information you provided, it appears that you would have to modify your systems, or the agency would have to amend Standard 213 in order for you to be able to certify your child restraint system as satisfying all the applicable requirements of that Standard. Title 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) sets out a procedure for petitioning the agency to amend a safety standard, and you have a right to file such a petition. If NHTSA grants your petition, the agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard 213. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam0775

Dear Mr. Weirich: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1972, inquiring about the use o plastic for an automatically closing fuel cap for automobiles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has th responsibility for promulgating standards that improve the safety performance of new motor vehicles to minimize injuries and fatalities associated with the use of motor vehicles. Among the standards that have been issued is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, which specifies performance requirements for the fuel tank, fuel tank filler pipe, and fuel tank connections. Like other Federal standards issued by the NHTSA, this standard is performance oriented and does not specify design requirements. This standard will shortly be amended to specify additional performance requirements including rear-end collisions and rollover. In addition, other proposals will also be issued to considerably improve fuel containment to minimize the possibility of fuel spillage resulting from additional vehicle impacts. The essential requirements pertain to demonstrations of safe fuel containment as the result of standardized vehicle crash tests. how the results are to be achieved, what materials can or cannot be used, or other design features, are left to the discretion of the motor vehicle manufacturer in order that there should be the maximum freedom for innovation and inventiveness to meet the specified safety performance. We have no restrictions in the use of plastics or other materials that meet a specified safety performance requirement.; In view of present rulemaking action to amend FMVSS No. 301, there ha been much information assembled, which is part of the public record, concerning comments from manufacturers, the interested public, and from suppliers of components. Your components, including a self-closing fuel cap and a seal within the filler pipe are interesting developments having possible contribution to improved safety. We would be pleased to have more information concerning these developments and with your permission, we would like to have copies of descriptive information to put into our public record, Docket No. 70-20, for the public and for the motor vehicle industry to see.; We should mention also that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, whic regulates interstate commercial transportation of passengers and cargo, has regulations which include fuel caps. you may want to contact this organization for their current requirements. Their location is at the same address of NHTSA.; Relative to pollution, the current requirements for fuel evaporativ emission controls have resulted in motor vehicles being equipped with fuel caps that either have no vents or which vent only after certain stress develops from positive of negative internal tank pressure. You may want to contact the Environmental Protection Agency concerning their regulations. The address is 1626 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.; We are enclosing a copy of FMVSS No. 301, a copy of a notice proposin additional requirements, and a copy of Public Law 89-563.; We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam4516

"Dear Mr. Snyder: This is in reply to your letter of March l0, l988, t the Department's regional office in Philadelphia, asking for a response concerning 'ornamental lighting.' In your opinion 'a few extra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night.' The agency is interested in the role that vehicle conspicuity plays in accidents and accident avoidance. With reference to motorcycles, we have amended our motor vehicle lighting standard to prescribe performance characteristics for headlamp modulation. We were prepared to amend the standard to require the activation of motorcycle headlamps when the ignition was turned on (but did not do so when we learned that almost all motorcycles were being wired to operate in that fashion). Some time ago we asked the public to comment on ways of increasing the conspicuity of large vehicles as our research had indicated that reflective tape applied to the side and rear of wide trucks and trailers might lessen crashes and crash severity, and our research still continues in this area. Most importantly we adopted the center highmounted stop lamp for passenger cars because of the ability it demonstrated in test fleets to reduce the frequency of rear end impacts. The type of lights of which you speak are referred to as 'presence' lamps (as contrasted with 'signal' lamps), and the agency over the years has acted with respect to all motor vehicles by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps, and by increasing the lens area for stop lamps. As the Federal safety standards are by statutory definition 'minimum' safety standards, the requirement that there be two taillamps, for example, does not mean that a manufacturer may not add two more if it wishes, or any lighting device not covered by the standard. The sole restriction is that lighting devices added by the manufacturer or dealer that are in excess of the minimum must not impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. This could happen, for example, if a fog lamp (not covered by the standard) was of an intensity and located so that it masked an adjacent front turn signal. With respect to nighttime operation, the critical issue would appear to be thatadditional lighting devices not create glare to oncoming and following drivers. The owner of the vehicle is not under a similar Federal restriction, and may personally add such additional lighting devices as seems desirable, subject to the laws of the States where the vehicle is registered and/or driven. However, the owner may not have these devices installed by a motor vehicle dealer or repair business if the result is to render wholly or partially inoperative any of the vehicle's original lamps or reflectors. We appreciate your suggestion for improving motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2803

Dear Mr. Loftus: This responds to your January 12, 1978, letter asking several question concerning the applicability of the Federal safety standards to vehicles that are being reconstructed with new chassis. The answers to your specific questions are set forth below.; 1. You ask whether the replacement of the engine, transmission, driv train, rear end, frame, front axle, front brakes, wheels and steering box constitutes the manufacture of a new chassis requiring a new or upgraded body. The answer to your question is yes. Part 571.7(e) of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies the items that must be retained in a truck chassis in order that such chassis be considered used. These same considerations apply to reconstructed school buses since they are built on truck chassis.; 2. You ask what parts of a chassis must be retained to ensure that th vehicle could continue to utilize an old body that does not comply with current Federal safety standards. Part 571.7(e) states that, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) must be retained.; 3. You ask who must certify a remanufactured vehicle if its chassis i considered old or new. In the case of an old chassis that retains the required components and is therefore considered used, no certification is required of any repair business. In the case of a remanufactured chassis, the chassis manufacturer must certify his chassis for compliance and the shop that installs the body must certify the final compliance of the vehicle.; 4. Part 568.8 states that vehicles altered before the first purchas for purposes other than resale must be labeled with an alterer's label. When a new chassis is installed in a vehicle, this is not an alteration, but rather, it is the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Therefore, section 568.8 would not apply. The other provisions of Part 568 relating to the manufacture of a new motor vehicle would apply to this reconstructed vehicle. The person undertaking the remanufacture would be treated like the original manufacturer of the vehicle and would be required to certify it for compliance with the standards.; 5. Standards promulgated after 1975 that are specifically applicable t school buses are : Standard No. 217-76, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, Standard No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, Standard No. 222, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*, Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*. Many of the other safety standards apply to school buses as well as other vehicles. I am enclosing a sheet detailing the applicability of Federal safety standards. All Federal safety standards are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. By examining the standards in Part 571, you can ascertain when their most recent amendment has occurred.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0665

Dear Mr. Kennel: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1972, in which yo presented a series of questions concerning the meaning of several requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, 'Air Brake Systems.' Our reply deals with the questions in the order you asked them.; >>>1. Your first question concerns the meaning of the statement i section S5.4 that 'a brake assembly that has undergone a road test pursuant to S5.3 need not conform to the requirements of this section.' To parahprase (sic) your question, the quoted language means that if a given brake assembly is subjected to the road test, the same brake assembly with the used lining need not conform to the dynamometer requirements. Conformity to the dynamometer requirements will be determined by testing an identical brake assembly with new linings. The petitions for deletion of dynamometer testing would have made the road test the only test. The standard requires both tests, even though two sets of identical brakes will be used, and our statement that the petitions were denied is therefore correct.; 2. You point out that the measurement interval used in S5.4.1.1 fo determining average torque, which begins when a specified pressure is reached, differs from the interval specified in S5.4 for measuring deceleration, which begins with the onset of deceleration. Although we agree that you may need different instrumentation for measuring average torque and average deceleration, we do not agree that their is any conflict since average torque and average deceleration are not required to be measured at the same time. We consider the present method of measuring torque and deceleration to be the correct methods.; 3. The typographical error in section S5.4.1.1, which you hav correctly edited to read 'Repeat the procedure six times, increasing the brake chamber air pressure by 10 psi each time,' has been corrected by a revision in the March 29, 1972, *Federal Register*.; 4, 5, 6. The requirements of S5.4.2, S5.4.2.1 and S5.4.3 concernin average deceleration rates should not be understood to mean that a manufacturer, in his own testing, must test at exactly that rate. It is advisable for him to test in a manner that offers assurance that the brakes will pass when tested in the manner specified in the standard. Typically, where a test value such as 9 fpsps is specified, manufacturers tend to use more adverse values in their own testing. Under the former wording of these sections, the compliance agency could have tested brakes at decelerations higher than the specified minimum, and it would have been much more difficult for a manufacturer to ascertain his 'worst case' situation.<<<; The notice ofoposing (sic) to amend the weight conditions fo truck-tractors should be issued within the next two months.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: 1985-01.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Addressee not given

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1984, (not received until October 17, 1984) with respect to questions of compliance of lighting and bumper requirements on a vehicle equipped with a variable height control system.

Standard No. 108 requires that the center of a headlamp lens be not less than 22 inches from the road surface. You stated that this minimum might not be met with respect to certain headlamp configurations when the ignition is off, and the hydraulic pressure in the height control system relaxes, a period of approximately three hours. You believe that compliance with the mounting height requirement should be judged "with the ignition switch in only the 'on' position," the apparent point at which the height control system begins to operate.

We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height.

We also call to your attention paragraph S4.1.3 which forbids the installation of motor vehicle equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and ask that you consider whether a height control system would change vehicle height, pitch, roll, etc., in response to some external or internal condition, in a manner which would affect the performance of headlamps and other lighting equipment.

You have also asked, in essence, which conditions of operation of the system are appropriate for the pendulum and barrier impact tests of the bumper standard, 49 CFR Part 581. Under Sec. 581.5(c), the suspension system is to remain in adjustment and operate in the normal manner; under Sec. 581.6(c) the engine is operating at idling speed. In our opinion, the vehicle is required to meet the pendulum test of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates, and the barrier test of Part 581 when the engine is idling.

Finally, you requested confidentiality for all information submitted which pertains to the variable height control system. After carefully reviewing the documents, I have determined that your request should be granted. The release of these documents could cause substantial injury to the competitive position of your company. Therefore, I am withholding from the public your letter which contains a detailed description of the variable height control system currently under consideration. I am also deleting all references to the company name. I will instruct all agency personnel having access to this information to accord it confidential treatment.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht91-1.4

DATE: 01/01/91

FROM: UNDER SECRETARY -- MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, KUWAIT

COPYEE: THE MINISTER'S OFFICE; THE UNDER SECRETARY; INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS; STANDARDS & METROLOGY DEPT.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (PART 574; STD. 109; STD. 119; A40; PART 571)

TEXT: We have studied your above mentioned standards with interst and we would appreciate if you please reply to following questions:

1) Do all tyres manufactured and sold in the US must bear the (DOT) mark?

2) What are the basises for granting the right to use the (DOT) mark by the manufacturer on their tyres?

3) Is the (DOT) mark required for local consumed and exported tyres also?

4) Is there a validity time for the use of the (DOT) mark?

5) What is the relation ship between your administnation and the Department Of Transportation concerning the implementation of the use of the (DOT) mark?

6) What are the legal responsibility of the manufacturer by using the mark.

7) What are the responsibility of the manufacturer in case of violation of mark's roles.

We would appreciate if you please kindly furnish us with all information and document concerning the above mentioned subject.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.