ID: nht93-8.35

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Ray Paradis

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 18, 1993, requesting a clarification of our letter of November 16 as it applies to the rear of the trailers shown in items #5 and #7 which accompanied your letter of August 31, 1993.

As we advised you with respect to rear markings, Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. With respect to the trailer shown in #7, retroreflective tape can be applied across the full width of the "approach ramp" to meet the requirements since the ramp will be in the down position when the trailer is moving.

As we further advised you, paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps. breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps. With respect to #5, we recommend applying red/white conspicuity treatment on either side of the identification lamps, with red material used in the remaining outboard areas.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: 9151

Mr. Ray Paradis
Manufacturing Manager
Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.
Box 1188
Mitchell, SD 57301

Dear Mr. Paradis:

This responds to your FAX of November 18, 1993, requesting a clarification of our letter of November 16 as it applies to the rear of the trailers shown in items #5 and #7 which accompanied your letter of August 31, 1993.

As we advised you with respect to rear markings, Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. With respect to the trailer shown in #7, retroreflective tape can be applied across the full width of the "approach ramp" to meet the requirements since the ramp will be in the down position when the trailer is moving.

As we further advised you, paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps, breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps. With respect to #5, we recommend applying red/white conspicuity treatment on either side of the identification lamps, with red material used in the remaining outboard areas.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/16/93

ID: nht70-2.28

DATE: 09/29/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Aractho Motors Distributors

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I wish to express my apology for the fact that you have not received a response to your letter of August(Illegible Words) of our correspondence records does not indicate that it ever reached my office.

From information available on the Bureau Mini-bike, it would appear that it would fall within the scope of the Mini-Bike interpretation,(Illegible Words)(Illegible Word) -- October 3, 1969), a copy of which is enclosed for your information and guidance.

Each manufacturer must decide whether his vehicles are manufactured primarily for off-the-road use. This is usually determined by the manufacturer after his review of the aforementioned interpretation.

Your attention is directed to the fourth paragraph of that document which states in part, "Thus, if a vehicle is operationally capable of being used on the public thoroughfares, and in fact, a substantial proportion of the consuming public actually view it that way, it is a 'motor vehicle' without regard to the manufacturer's intent, however(Illegible Word)."

At this time, the Bureau would have no reason to challenge your off-the-road(Illegible Word) only" classification.(Illegible Word) on the other hand, we find that the vehicles are in fact being used for other than the intended purpose, your classification could be questioned by the Bureau.

Thank you for your letter and I trust this will answer your question.

ID: aiam2641

Dear Mr. Alderson: This responds to your June 3, 1977, request for confirmation that 572.7(b) of Part 572, *Anthropomorphic Test Dummy* (49 CFR 572), specifies a minimum time period during which the pendulum used in testing may not reverse direction rather than an exact time.; Your interpretation is correct. The specification that the pendulu 'shall not reverse direction until T=123 ms' means that reverse travel must not occur earlier than 123 milliseconds after chordal displacement begins. The agency believes that this language can be improved and intends to clarify it at the next opportunity.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0517

Dear Mr. Latzer: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1971, to Mr. Sta Haransky, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., concerning the mounting height of lamps and reflectors on your motorcycle trailers.; A copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lamps Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment' is enclosed for your information. The minimum mounting height for lamps and reflectors listed in Table IV of this Standard is 15 inches. We do not have the authority to exempt any motor vehicles from meeting these requirements.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht94-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: Jerry Miller -- Director of Operations, Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans

TO: Chief Console -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/19/94 Letter from John Womack to Jerry Miller (Std. 222)

TEXT:

Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans is a builder of conversion vehicles for the transportation of handicapable individuals, both private and commercial. We are embarking on the manufacture of associated equipment to go into these vehicles. One such pie ce of equipment is a wheelchair tie down.

After conversations with Mark Levine, NHTSA, trying to obtain rules and regulations on this type of equipment and at the suggestion of Charles Hott, NHTSA Rulemaking Office. I am writing your office requesting information on or an official letter statin g there are no rules or regulations on wheelchair tie downs for vehicles other then school buses

I am looking for regulation and legal requirements for transporting persons in vehicles with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraints, both private and commercial, other then school buses. It is my understanding NHTSA standard No. 57 CFR Pa rt 571.222 "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" only applies to school buses and does not apply to any other vehicles.

I need to know specifically what the legal specified performance requirements are for the wheelchair securement devices. 1. What are the minimum strength requirements for the securement devices and systems themselves? 2. What are the minimum strength r equirements for the anchorage of those devices and systems to the vehicle?

I appreciate your cooperation and quick response in advising us on NHTSA's rules and regulations on wheelchair tie downs used for transporting the handicapable person in a vehicle other then a school bus.

ID: nht94-8.9

DATE: February 17, 1994

FROM: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TO: Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from Barry Felrice to Karl-Heinz Ziwica (Part 543)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gray:

This letter is to inform the agency that beginning with the 1995 model year, BMW will be utilizing the 7-carline parts marking exemption granted by the NHTSA on October 9, 1986 (51 CFR 3633). As was explained to you by Mr. James C. Patterson of my staff on February 7, 1994, there have been three updates to the anti-theft device previously approved on the 7-carline. Accordingly, BMW requests that the NHTSA determine these updates constitute de minimus changes to the 7-carline's anti-theft device.

The following paragraphs describes the updates:

1. The remote device has become an integral component within the vehicle key and is the actuator for the alarm system. This change is identical to the change that BMW made on the 8-carline anti-theft device, which NHTSA has already determined to be de minimus (NHTSA letter from Mr. Barry Felrice to K.-H. Ziwica dated 10/04/93).

2. The monitoring circuits for radio theft and glove box entry, now, monitor glass breakage to further ensure the security of the entire occupant compartment, rather than, the individual components. All other monitoring (e.g. doors, hood, trunk, etc.) has remained as when the device was previously approved.

3. The anti-theft device's siren has been changed to a 112db siren.

If further information is needed or you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Patterson on (201) 573-2041.

ID: nht68-3.44

DATE: 07/26/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1968, in which you requested clarification of the term "optically combined" as applied to motor vehicle lights.

"Optically combined" in this context means that the same lens area is used for more than one function such as tail and stop lights or stop and turn signal lights or tail, stop and turn signal lights. The normal means used to accomplish this "optically combined" lamp has been to incorporate a single dual-filament bulb with a reflector and lens.

Since the design of your Toyota Crown combination stop, tail and turn signal lamp is such that a different part of the lamp area is used for the turn signal lamp, we do not interpret it to be optically combined with the tail and stop lamp.

The concurrence of the above interpretation with yours and that of the California Highway Patrol should not be construed to be an approval of your design. The results of recent research on lighting and signaling reviewed by this Bureau indicate that signal lights should be separated 4 1/2 to 5 inches minimum (centerline to centerline separation.) Although no dimensions are specified on your drawing it appears to be approximately full scale with a separation distance of 2 1/2 inches between the stop and turn signal lamps. The steady-burning stop lamp may therefore "wash out" or significantly reduce the effectiveness on the turn signal lamp. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require a minimum separation distance between signal lights; however, upon completion of our present research contracts on rear lighting and signaling, we may consider such a requirement in the future.

ID: aiam4900

Dear Mr. Johannessen: This responds to your letter seeking a interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). More specifically, you asked about the meaning of the requirement in S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 that '...the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this provision. You explained that some have asserted that a safety belt fails to comply with S4.1(b) if it actually moves off an occupant's pelvis during a crash. To reach such a conclusion, one must ignore the words 'be designed to' and treat the requirement as though it read '...the pelvic restraint shall remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle.' Such a reading is plainly incorrect, because it reads the phrase 'be designed to' out of the regulation. You explained that you believe S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory phrase that is essentially meaningless. According to your letter, this language first appeared in a standard developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and was subsequently adopted verbatim in the safety belt standard issued bye the Department of Commerce and in Standard No. 209. You asserted that the SAE committee that developed this language included it as a design goal only, since the committee members 'were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal,' and 'were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field.' We cannot agree with your suggestion that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory design goal. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires each safety standard to meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that the standard be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. When NHTSA adopted Standard No. 209 as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency concluded that Standard No. 209, including S4.1(b), met all applicable statutory criteria. It is true that there is no compliance test procedure specifically for S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. However, the meaning of that provision becomes clear when it is viewed in the context of the occupant protection requirements in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and the rest of Standard No. 209. Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that vehicles be equipped with safety belts and that the lap belt portions of those belts adjust to fit persons ranging in size from a 6-year-old child to a 95th percentile adult male (See S7.1.1). Standard No. 209 requires that safety belts meet specified strength, durability, and other performance requirements. Standard No. 210 requires that the anchorage holding the safety belt in the vehicle meet stringent strength requirements, so that the belt will remain attached to the vehicle in a crash, and lap belt location requirements (S4.3.1), including a minimum lap belt mounting angle, to reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining, i.e., having the lap belt move off the pelvis. See the detailed discussion of the minimum lap belt mounting angle at 55 FR 17970, at 17974, April 30, 1990. Viewed in this context, we believe that the requirement of S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 means that safety belts must be designed to be capable of being properly adjusted and positioned on the pelvis of occupants ranging from 6-year-old children to 95th percentile adult males. The belts must also be capable of remaining on the pelvis of such occupant during collision or roll-over. A belt system that was not capable of being positioned on the pelvis and remaining there during crashes would not comply with S4.1(b). Given this meaning and purpose, we offer the following observations. First, the fact that a lap belt moved off the occupant's pelvis during a collision would not of itself show that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. Compliance with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is determined by the design of the safety belt system, not the performance of individual safety belts while in service. Second, the actual performance of a safety belt in a vehicle (e.g., a lap belt moving off the occupant's pelvis during a crash) could indicate that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. If the agency had information indicating that a particular belt design was not capable of being properly positioned on the pelvis or not capable of remaining on the occupant's pelvis when installed in particular vehicles in particular crash modes, the agency might well investigate whether that safety belt design complied with S4.1(b). However, NHTSA has no such information about any safety belt systems at this time. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5082

"Dear Mr. Gould: This responds to your letter asking about th dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term 'average deceleration rate' and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as 'only a target' in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force- -relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. With respect to your question about the meaning of 'average deceleration rate,' that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows: For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration. We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are 'only a target' in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates. We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +0.5 ft/s/s. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure: The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";