ID: prevost_applicability

Mr. Deny Bertrand
Prevost Car Inc.
Sainte-Claire, Quebec
G0R 2V0
Canada




Dear Mr. Betrand:

This replies to your inquiries regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)  Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles. You explained that your company manufactures over-the-road coaches and is thus required to comply with the requirements specified in the two standards. You focused your inquiries on two areas, the requirements for threshold warning signals and the application of the standards to vehicles and lifts that were manufactured prior to the effective date. I have addressed each of your questions below.

By way of background, in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that certain vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. On December 23, 2004, the agency published a final rule that extended the compliance date of FMVSS No. 403 until April 1, 2005, and compliance date of FMVSS No. 404 until July 1, 2004 (69 FR 76865) .

1.    Threshold warning signal

In a letter and e-mail correspondence, you asked about the threshold warning signal requirements of FMVSS No. 403 for public use lifts. Specifically, you asked whether:

(a)  a "flat light" could comply with the beacon requirement,
(b)  S6.1.4 requires that a passenger backing onto a platform lift be able to see the actual beacon,
(c)  the vehicle manufacturer or lift manufacturer is solely responsible for compliance with the threshold warning system requirements,
(d)  optical sensors could be used to detect an occupant in the threshold area, and
(e)  the threshold warnings could be activated based on whether an access door were open.

As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency established a threshold warning signal requirement for platform lifts to minimize the risk of a lift user backing off a vehicle before a lift is properly positioned. For public-use lifts, S6.1.3 requires that:

A visual and audible warning must activate if the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  below the platform threshold area and portions of a passenger's body or mobility aid is on the platform threshold area defined in S4 when tested in accordance with S7.4.

(a)  Visual warning beacon

Under S6.1.4, the visual warning required in S6.1.3 must:

[B]e a flashing red beacon as defined in SAE J578, June 95, must have a minimum intensity of 20 candela, a frequency from 1 to 2 Hz, and must be installed such that it does not require more than 15 degrees side-to-side head rotation as viewed by a passenger backing onto the platform from the interior of the vehicle.

While the standard specifies several criteria for the visual warning, it does not specify design criteria such as size or shape for the beacon. Therefore, a flat light may be relied upon to comply with S6.13, so long as when installed according to the lift manufacturers instructions, it complies with the color, intensity, frequency, and line-of-sight requirements in S6.1.4.

(b)  Line-of-sight requirement

In a telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you stated that your companys lift supplier intends to provide a beacon that mounts above the access door such that a passenger backing onto the platform from interior of the vehicle will not see the beacon directly. You further explained that this supplier stated that it intends to rely on light reflected from the beacon in order to comply with the requirement.

This would not be acceptable. Compliance with the line-of-sight requirement is based on the location of the beacon and not by light emitted from the beacon. S6.1.4 states that the beacon must be installed such that it does not require more than 15 degrees of side-to-side head rotation to be viewed by a passenger backing onto the platform from the interior of the vehicle.

A warning system that relied on reflected light, as opposed to the physical location of the beacon, would be more susceptible to environmental light conditions, thereby reducing its effectiveness.

(c)  Compliance responsibility

Your e-mail further asked if compliance with the threshold warning signal requirements is the responsibility of the lift or vehicle manufacturer.

The threshold warning signal requirements are part of FMVSS No. 403, which as previously explained, applies to platform lifts. Lift manufacturers are required to certify that their lifts comply with all applicable requirements under the standard. S6.13 of FMVSS No. 403 requires that lift manufacturers provide installation instructions with each lift, including procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational and compliant with requirements such as the threshold warning signal requirements (see S6.13.2) . Therefore, it is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to provide a lift that, when installed according to manufacturer instructions, complies with all the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403.

Under S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 404, it is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to install an FMVSS No. 403-compliant platform lift according to the instructions provided by the platform lift manufacturer. Under S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404, the platform lift as installed must continue to comply with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403.

(d)  Optical sensors

In your letter, you asked whether a platform lift could comply with the threshold warning signal requirements through the use of optical sensors, as opposed to a sensitive floor pad.

S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires the appropriate threshold warning signal to be activated when any portion of a passengers body or mobility aid occupies the platform threshold area defined in S4 of that standard, and the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  below the vehicle floor reference plane. A platform lift must meet this requirement when tested in accordance with S7.4 of the standard. S7.4 specifies that the appropriate signals must be activated when one front wheel of the wheelchair test device, as described in S7.1.2, is placed in the platform threshold area and the platform is more than 25 mm (1inch)  below the vehicle floor reference plane.

The standard specifies the performance requirements for a threshold warning system, but not the design. Therefore, a lift manufacturer may use optical sensors to comply with the threshold warning requirement, as long as it satisfies the performance requirements of the standard.

(e)  Access Door Condition

In your letter you asked whether a lift that activates the threshold warnings whenever the lift is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  from the vehicle floor level and the access door is open would comply with the standard. You explained that in such a case, a lift would not be required to be equipped with detection equipment.

Again, the threshold warning signal minimizes the likelihood of an individual backing off of a vehicle when a platform lift is not in proper position. An appropriate signal must be activated when a platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  out of position and one front wheel of the wheelchair test device is in the platform threshold area. Under S7.4.2, removal of the test device from the platform threshold area must deactivate the alarm. The deactivation requirement ensures that a signal is only activated when an occupant is at risk of off-loading onto a lift before the lift is in position.

If an alarm were permitted to be activated whenever an access door were open and the lift were more than 25 mm (1 inch)  from the vehicle floor, the effectiveness of the alarm would be diminished. In that instance, the alarm would continue to signal even when a lift user were safely on the lift and being lowered to ground level. Additionally, the prolonged signaling may irritate the lift user and other vehicle occupants.

2. Applicability to the Installation of Lifts on Used Vehicles

Under FMVSS No. 403, as recently amended, all lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005, must comply with that standard. Under FMVSS No. 404, all vehicles with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005, and later that are manufactured with a platform lift must comply with the vehicle standard. Vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with a FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

Based on your phone conversation with Mr. Calamita, you asked about two situations: (a)  the installation of a lift on a used vehicle that was manufactured before the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date, and (b)  the installation of a lift on a used vehicle that was manufactured on or after the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date.

(a)  Installation of a lift on a used, pre-July 1, 2005 vehicle

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale) . See 49 CFR 30112. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

Vehicles manufactured prior to July 1, 2005, whether originally manufactured with or without a lift, are not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. Therefore, a non-FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift may be installed on such a vehicle, so long as the installation does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the standards to which it was originally certified. For example, if a vehicle were manufactured with a platform lift on September 1, 2004, a vehicle modifier would be permitted to replace the original lift with either a non-FMVSS No. 403-complaint lift or a FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

Further, the agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system or interlock system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

(b)  Installation of a lift on a used vehicle manufactured on or after July 1, 2005

After first retail sale, the "make inoperative" provision only applies to standards to which a vehicle is certified as complying. If a vehicle with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005 or later is manufactured with a lift, that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if after first retail sale a platform lift is added to a vehicle that was not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404, a modifier need not bring that vehicle into compliance with a FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

In your letter, you asked about a specific situation in which vehicles are manufactured to accept a removable lift, but as manufactured and certified, are not equipped with a lift. A removable lift would then be installed by the vehicles owner.

First, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by a vehicle owner to his/her own vehicle. Additionally, even if a removable lift were added by a repair shop or dealer after first retail sale, these vehicles would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. Again, these vehicles were not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. If a removable lift were added by a modifier, the addition of the lift must not cause any applicable FMVSS to be made inoperative.

However, modifications made to a vehicle that was certified as complying with FMVSS No. 404 must not remove that vehicle from compliance with that standard. If an automotive repair business were to replace a lift on a vehicle that complied with FMVSS No. 404, the lift must be replaced with a FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift and in a manner that would maintain the vehicles compliance with FMVSS No. 404.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202)  366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.1/21/05

ID: 86-5.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Ernst

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ernst Westfalische Metall Industrie, KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Federal Republic of Germany

Dear Dr. Ernst:

This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, to August Burgett of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a center highmounted stop lamp that your firm has developed. Your design contains "a large number of integrated fixed miniature bulbs...a device with a small height and a large width." It has been reported to you by a prospective purchaser that the device may not be permissible because the height is too low in relation to the width, and because the use of fixed bulbs is prohibited.

Standard No. 108 does not establish permissible dimensions for center high-mounted stop lamps, and a manufacturer may establish whatever height/width relationship it wishes, as long as the effective projected luminous area is not less than 4 1/2 square inches. However, the agency's research which substantiated the efficacy of the concept was limited to lamps of a rectangular design narrower than the one you contemplate. Some agency research has indicated that the width of the device should not be more than seven times its height.

As for the issue of fixed or replaceable bulbs, this question arises in the context of paragraph S4.1.1.41(e) of Standard No. 108 which requires that the lamp "provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools". This paragraph was written with the thought that center high-mounted stop lamps would be equipped with a single bulb or light source. If your lamp is sealed, so that the individual bulbs cannot be replaced in the event of burnout but is nevertheless designed so that the entire unit may be replaced with a new lamp without the use of special tools then your lamp design would appear to meet the intent of paragraph S4.1.1.41(e).

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Subject ACTION: Interpretation of Sealed Bulb Date

Reply to Attn of Burgett 426-1351

From Barry Felrice Attn of Burgett Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

To Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The attached request for interpretation has been received from Hella. The issues are similar to those that have been raised in she request from Stanley Electric Company for interpretation relative so use of Light Emitting Diodes. If feasible, we suggest combining both interpretations into a single response.

Attachment

Mr. Dr. August Burgett c/o National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 USA

K1 DrE/lb 7300

February 18, 1986 High Mounted Stop Lamps

Dear Dr. Burgett,

Long before High Mounted Stop Lamps became mandatory in the US, we were concerned with this subject. We now understand from Mercedes Germany that your agency does not approve of our design.

In order to keep vision through the rear windshield as unimpaired as possible we have developed a design with reduced dimensions and, in particular, with a reduced height.

This design makes use of special miniature bulbs with increased durability. These special bulbs have been used in a display, produced by our company, with excellent results for many years. They have a life of more than 2000 hours.

We are sure that this is much more than the expected durability of a car.

For safety, technical, and cost reasons we designed a HMS with a large number of integrated, fixed miniature bulbs. This enables us to realise a device with a small height and a large width. The attached drawings show this design.

The objections of NHTSA to a design of this type, as reported by Mercedes, are

1. The relation Width: Height must be fixed within certain limits.

If this is true, it would prohibit our design.

2. The use of fixed bulbs is prohibited, replaceable bulbs being obligatory.

We cannot find any paragraph concerning these matters, neither in MVSS 108 nor in any other regulation or standard.

Moreover, we argue that signal lamps with fixed bulbs in sealed units are known and available on the market. They are approved by US testhouses. Examples are described in the attached copies of catalogues.

We should be grateful if you would kindly consider this matter and give us binding information.

With best regards

Westfalische Metal Industrie Kommanditgesellschaft Hueck & Co.

ppa. Dr. Ernst

ID: 6953

Mr. Robert Salton
Performance Friction Corp.
83 Carbon Metallic Highway
P.O. Box 819
Clover, S.C. 29710-0819

Dear Mr. Salton:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You stated that you are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade and recovery test baseline check stops, and that an interpretation would make it clear exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. You also asked what values of pedal effort would be "considered non-compliance," i.e., whether peak, average or sustained control force must be within the specified limits under section S5.1.4.1. You indicated in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff that you are primarily interested in the requirements for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests, each of which consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops or snubs, (2) fade stops or snubs (the heating cycle), and (3) recovery stops or snubs. The pedal force requirements for the baseline check stops or snubs are set forth in S5.1.4.1, which reads as follows: The control force used for the baseline check stops or snubs shall be not less than 10 pounds, nor more than 60 pounds, except that the control force for a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more may be between 10 pounds and 90 pounds.

S5.1.4.1 must be read in conjunction with S7.11.1, which sets forth the procedure for the baseline check stops or snubs. S7.11.1.1 provides the following procedure for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less:

Make three stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop. Control readings may be terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. Average the maximum brake control force required for the three stops.

The baseline check stops or snubs are thus made at a constant deceleration (10 fpsps), with the control force varying as necessary to maintain that constant deceleration. Under S5.1.4.1, the control force is required to stay within a prescribed range (10 pounds to 60 pounds for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds) throughout the entire stop or snub (from the time in which application is started until the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph, other than the initial momentary period it takes to go from 0 to 10 pounds). Thus, compliance with S5.l.4.1 is not determined based on peak, average or sustained control force. Instead, for a vehicle to comply with this test, the control force must never fall below 10 pounds or be above 60 pounds during any part of the test (for the period described above).

Your other question concerned how calculation of pedal effort during the baseline check stops or snubs is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. As indicated above, S7.11.1.1 specifies that an average is taken of the maximum control force for the three stops. The term "maximum" refers to the peak control force for each of the stops. I note that this average is not related to whether the vehicle complies with S5.1.4.1. Instead, as discussed below, this average establishes a baseline control force, which is used to derive certain of the control force limits for the recovery stops.

The requirements for the recovery stops are set forth in S5.1.4.3, which reads as follows:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable or making five recovery stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop, with a control force application that falls within the following maximum and minimum limits: (1) A maximum for the first four recovery stops of 150 pounds, and for the fifth stop, of 20 pounds more than the average control force for the baseline check; and

(2) A minimum of--

(A) The average control force for the baseline check minus 10 pounds, or

(B) The average control force for the baseline check times 0.60, whichever is lower (but in no case lower than 5 pounds). . . .

Thus, the minimum and (for one stop) the maximum control force limits for the recovery stops are calculated using the average control force for the baseline check stops or snubs. This average control force is the one calculated under S7.11.1.1 using the maximum control force of each of the baseline check stops or snubs.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref:105 d:4/14/92

ID: nht92-8.37

DATE: March 2, 1992

FROM: Nathan W. Randall

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to Nathan W. Randall (A39; Part 571)

TEXT:

I am planning to start a business assembling classic automobile replicas for individual collectors. My intention is to construct approximately four-to-eight vehicles annually. Each vehicle will be constructed around a new, previously unused, NASCAR-style tubular-steel spaceframe chassis. This chassis features a safety engineered cockpit surrounded by designed crush zones to absorb impact energy, heavy steel inner door frames, roll bar, and a safety fuel cell located to minimize the possibility of rupture.

Each vehicle will utilize a new and previously unused body, and new unused components for braking, steering, suspension, cooling, fuel delivery, etc. In compliance with EPA emission requirements for rebuilt vehicles, these vehicles will incorporate previously used engine/transmission/drive axle/gearing combinations from previously certified configurations.

These vehicles will be fully compliant with EPA regulations for rebuilt automobiles and the Colorado State Motor Vehicle code.

My situation appears to be analogous to that of the Porsche replica builder in the "copy" interpretation letter (see attachment) provided by the NHTSA Compliance Office. As I understand the "copy" interpretation letter, your agency would tend to view my automobile as "used", even though its body and chassis are previously unused, because its running gear is not new. Also, due to the safety design incorporated into the vehicle, plus the low level of production, you would not consider my vehicles to contribute to any overall degradation of traffic safety.

I understand that I will be viewed as a "manufacturer" of used motor vehicles and will be responsible for notification and remedy of any safety related defects occurring in my product.

Please review the above facts and tell me if I have correctly applied the "copy" interpretation letter to my situation.

If I can answer any further questions you may have, please call me at (719) 593-5533.

Attachment

This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1980, asking about the applicability of Federal regulations to the Porsche replica which you plan to build.

You have explained that the vehicle will be constructed from new parts except for the front suspension and axles, engines, and transmissions which will be taken from Volkswagens of the mid-1960's. Your present intention is to construct a total of 200 vehicles on an annual basis of 24 units.

As Mr. Vinson discussed with you on the telephone, you will be a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles because you are the assembler of the machine. The regulation of vehicles assembled from both old and new parts is a complex subject. Because such vehicles appear to comprise an infinitesimal portion of motor vehicle production, we have not developed a comprehensive set of regulations specifically designed for them. Each case is treated individually on the basis of the facts as we understand them. For example, the combination of a new body and the chassis of a vehicle previously in use has been considered a "used" vehicle to which Federal motor vehicle safety standards (which cover only new vehicles and equipment) do not apply. Similarly, the agency has again that even where a new frame is involved, if the vehicle is to be assembled by the ultimate owner who has a choice of new or used components (such as suspension, engine, radiator and tires and wheels) compliance appeared impossible and common sense required that it be treated as "used."

We have taken a more formal position in situations that are somewhat analogous: combining new and used components in refabricating trucks (glider kits) and in trailer manufacturer, fact situations covered by Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.7(c) and 7(f). Where a new cab is installed, the resultant vehicle will be considered "used" if the engine, transmission, and drive axles (as a minimum) are not new and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. Similarly, a reconditioned trailer is "used" if, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axles, wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and (1) was taken from an existing trailer whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to its Vehicle Identification Number and (2) that is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicles.

You will see from the above that the agency tends to view as "used" a motor vehicle whose running gear is not new even though its body and chassis may be previously unused. We therefore would consider your vehicle as one that is "used." The list of safety related designs you intend to incorporate in your vehicle, plus the low level of production, indicates that it should not contribute to any overall degradation of traffic safety. As a "manufacturer" of a motor vehicle, however, new or used, you would be responsible for notification and remedy of any safety related defects occurring in your product.

There is one final possibility. If your vehicle is intended primarily for competition purposes with special features such that it cannot be licensed for on-road use, it would no longer be a "motor vehicle subject to our jurisdiction.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-2.22

DATE: 02/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your petition for reconsideration of 49 CFR 575.103 dated January 12, 1973, you enclosed a copy of "International Camper's Manual for Truck-Camper Leading(Illegible Word) and asked whether its data content and format complied with the requirements, and especially @ 575.6.

Section 576.6 allows a document provided with a vehicle to "contain more than one table", but it "must clearly and unconditionally indicate which of the tables applies to the vehicle with which it is provided". Although pages 8 and 9 of the Guide explain how to use the tables, and page 6 refers the owner to the "capacity plate" for the proper weight rating, there appears to be nothing within the booklet itself that indicates which of the 16 tables applies to "the vehicle with which it is provided".

Other issues raised in your petition will be considered in the agency's response which will be published shortly.

Sincerely,

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY

MOTOR TRUCK DIVISION

January 12, 1973

Douglas W. Toms -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration -- 49CFR 575.103, Truck Camper Loading, Docket No. 71-7; Notice 5

Dear Mr. Toms:

International Harvester Company (IH) respectfully files this petition requesting the Administrator to amend the new Consumer Information Regulation as published in the Federal Register p. 26607 on December 14, 1972.

On August 15, 1972 the NHTSA issued a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Truck Camper Loading, with a mandatory effective date of January 1, 1973. On December 14, 1972 the NHTSA by issuance of 575.103 rescinded Standard No. 126 and enacted the new Consumer Information Requirements as a replacement for Standard No. 126.

IH is deeply concerned since it has put forth considerable time, effort and expense in developing and publishing information required to comply with the January 1, 1973 effective date of Standard No. 126. As a means of complying with Standard No. 126, production quantities of a 28-page IH Truck Camper Loading Guide (10 copies enclosed) were recently printed. We believe that this Camper Guide would be quite beneficial and effective in providing information to the consumer to assure proper selection of a compatible slide-in camper unit. In view of above, IH must support and favor the NHTSA's previous position of regulating requirements for truck camper loading information as a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard in preference to a Consumer Information Regulation.

It is apparent that revisions would have to be made to the above mentioned IH Camper Guide in order to comply with 575.103. We will not be able to implement these necessary revisions in time to meet the February 1, 1973 availability deadline as required by Docket No. 71-7, Notice 5. The amount of additional lead time needed by IH is, of course, dependent on the nature of the changes that would have to be made to the attached MVSS 126 Camper Guide to make it compliant with 575.103. Some of the obvious changes include certain references, definitions and effective dates that have been modified by NHTSA in the transition from MVSS 126 to 575.103.

There is one additional area in which some question exists. Heretofore IH has not been required to furnish consumer information under Part 575. We are therefore requesting an official interpretation from the NHTSA that the data content and format as presented in the attached IH Camper Guide - Part No. 1086777-R1 does in fact comply with 49 CFR Part 575. We are particularly concerned about Section 575.6.

As noted earlier IH will not be able to comply with the 3/1/73 effective date of 575.103 due to the time that would be required to revise and republish our Truck Camper Loading Guide. If the changes are of a minimal nature (i.e correction of references, definitions and dates) we will need approximately 60 days beyond the date that NHTSA responds to this Petition. If more extensive revisions are required, we anticipate that a minimum of six months lead time would be needed.

The following points will summarize the basic content of this Petition:

1. IH favors promulgation of subject requirements as Safety Standard No. 126 instead of a Consumer Information Regulation.

2. However, if NHTSA sees fit to implement as a Consumer Information Regulation IH is requesting a favorable interpretation that the basic content and format of the IH Camper Guide that has been developed to meet MVSS 126 would likewise satisfy the statutory requirements of 575.103. Consequently, if only minimal changes are required to the existing IH Camper Guide, the revised information can be made available within 60 days after the NHTSA response to this Petition is received by IH. If more substantive changes are required, it is estimated that approximately six months lead time will be required by IH.

IH would further point out that NHTSA's promulgation of 575.103 has, in fact, violated procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act in that interested parties were not provided opportunity to comment upon providing the subject information under Part 575 Consumer Information prior to final enactment of 575.103. Therefore, should NHTSA decide not to grant any of the alternative modifications requested herein, we request that the subject regulation be reissued as a Notice of Proposed Rule Making as stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act.

D. E. Schmidt -- Assistant Manager of Engineering

ID: nht92-7.40

DATE: April 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Salton -- Performance Friction Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/5/92 from Robert Salton to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 6953)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You stated that you are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade and recovery test baseline check stops, and that an interpretation would make it clear exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. You also asked what values of pedal effort would be "considered non-compliance," i.e., whether peak, average or sustained control force must be within the specified limits under section S5.1.4.1. You indicated in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff that you are primarily interested in the requirements for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests, each of which consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops or snubs, (2) fade stops or snubs (the heating cycle), and (3) recovery stops or snubs. The pedal force requirements for the baseline check stops or snubs are set forth in S5.1.4.1, which reads as follows:

The control force used for the baseline check stops or snubs shall be not less than 10 pounds, nor more than 60 pounds, except that the control force for a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more may be between lo pounds and 90 pounds.

S5.1.4.1 must be read in conjunction with S7.11.1, which sets forth the procedure for the baseline check stops or snubs. S7.11.1.1 provides the following procedure for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less:

Make three stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop. Control readings may be terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. Average the maximum brake control force required for the three stops.

The baseline check stops or snubs are thus made at a constant deceleration (10 fpsps), with the control force varying as necessary to maintain that constant deceleration. Under S5.1.4.1, the control force is required to stay within a prescribed range (10 pounds to 60 pounds for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds) throughout the entire stop or snub (from the time in which application is started until the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph, other than the initial momentary period it takes to go from 0 to 10 pounds). Thus, compliance with S5.1.4.1 is not determined based on peak, average or sustained control force. Instead, for a vehicle to comply with this test, the control force must never fall below 10 pounds or be above 60 pounds during any part of the test (for the period described above).

Your other question concerned how calculation of pedal effort during the baseline check stops or snubs is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. As indicated above, S7.11.1.1 specifies that an average is taken of the maximum control force for the three stops. The term "maximum" refers to the peak control force for each of the stops. I note that this average is not related to whether the vehicle complies with S5.1.4.1. Instead, as discussed below, this average establishes a baseline control force, which is used to derive certain of the control force limits for the recovery stops.

The requirements for the recovery stops are set forth in S5.1.4.3, which reads as follows:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable or making five recovery stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop, with a control force application that falls within the following maximum and minimum limits:

(1) A maximum for the first four recovery stops of 150 pounds, and for the fifth stop, of 20 pounds more than the average control force for the baseline check; and

(2) A minimum of--

(A) The average control force for the baseline check minus 10 pounds, or

(B) The average control force for the baseline check times 0.60, whichever is lower (but in no case lower than 5 pounds). . . .

Thus, the minimum and (for one stop) the maximum control force limits for the recovery stops are calculated using the average control force for the baseline check stops or snubs. This average control force is the one calculated under S7.11.1.1 using the maximum control force of each of the baseline check stops or snubs.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 22843

Mr. Matz Larsson
Sales Manager
Broderna Holmbergs Fabriks AB
Box 63
SE-334 21 Anderstorp
Sweden





Dear Mr. Larsson:

This is in response to your letter of March 7, 2001, asking whether the buckle release on your child restraint system meets the area requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." The answer is yes.

S5.4.3.5(c) of Standard No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209," which reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.

Since your buckle requires a sliding action to activate the buckle release, we consider your buckle release to be designed for slide application rather than pushbutton or lever application. Thus, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category.

Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), a buckle having other design for release must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release. You claim that your buckle release meets this requirement. We agree. All of our staff working on this response were able to place two fingers into your slide action release button to actuate release. Thus, we have determined that your buckle release meets the requirement of S4.3(d)(2).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213#209
d.4/10/01

ID: nht79-2.21

DATE: 08/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Halliburton Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Bechtel Halliburton Services Drawer 1431 Duncan, Oklahoma 73533

Dear Mr. Bechtel:

This is in response to your letter of May 1, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the definition of "incomplete vehicle" contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and in confirmation of your subsequent telephone conversations with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

The term "incomplete vehicle" is defined in S3 of the standard to mean "an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed trailer."

You are correct in saying that most of the components listed in the definition are not meant to be part of a trailer. Consequently, an incomplete trailer would consist of only those components, such as a frame, listed in the definition which are meant to be part of the completed trailer. The outfitting of an incomplete trailer for a specific purpose would not be sufficient to make Halliburton Services responsible for assigning the vehicle identification number.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

(405) 251-3565 May 1, 1979 RB-90-79

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

VIN Standards

I would like to request an interpretation as to the definition of an "incomplete vehicle" in regard to trailers. The definition as contained in S571.115(s)(3) is only applicable to powered vehicles as the stated minimum requirements are not relative to trailers.

Very truly yours,

Ron Bechtel

RB:im

ID: nht93-7.8

DATE: October 4, 1993

FROM: James E. Walker -- Manager, LSI Laboratories, Lighting Sciences Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to James E. Walker (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Richard Van Iderstein, NHTSA; recently, LSI Laboratories conducted a test on a customer's product - a tail light. At the conclusion of the test LSI Laboratories was unable to determine pass/fail criteria. Our discussion with Mr. Van Iderstein lead us to believe CFR 49, Ch. V Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has a discrepancy. The discrepancy exists in paragraph S5.1.1.11 referencing the tail lamp. S5.1.1.11 states:

A ..., tail lamp, ..., shall meet the minimum percentage specified in Figure 1a of the corresponding minimum allowable value specified in Figure 1b. The values specified in Figure 1a and Table 1 and Table 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps are substituted for those specified in Table 1 of the Following SAE Standards: ..., J585e Tail Lamps (maximum at H or above), ... .

The discrepancy is that para. S5.1.1 requires equipment to be designed to Tables I, II and S7, which references SAE J585e for the Tail Lamp. Para. S5.1.1.11 requires Table 1 of this specification to be substituted for the values achieved by Figures 1a and 1b, and in addition, to substitute Table 1 of SAE 585e by the values achieved by multiplying the percentages of Figure 1a by Tables 1 and 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps.

LSI Laboratories would assume that the photometric requirements are those of Figure 1a, 1b, and 1c of 49 CFR Ch. V Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

It is hoped your clarification would allow LSI Laboratories to compare performance to establish pass/fail criteria. This would allow our customer to begin production or re-design.

ID: nht95-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1995

FROM: Mark Warlick

TO: Ed Glancy -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MARK WARLICK (A4; PART 571)

TEXT: Re: FMVSS 208

The attached document is taken from the R.V.I.A. handbook A Guide to FMVSS, April 23, 1991. My questions pertain to item number 3. Is the statement about the minimum number of designated seating positions required as there are sleeping accommodations s till in effect? If so, where can I find it in the October 1, 1993, CFR 49 manual? And, what is the "definition" or "defined area" that makes up one sleeping position?

Attachment

FMVSS 208: Occupant Crash Protection

This standard specifies requirements for both active and passive occupant crash protection systems.

Applicability: Passenger cars, MPVs, trucks, and buses

Requirements: All designated seating positions (DSP) must be belted

1. MPVs with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less

a. Other than motorhomes: Type 2 at each front outboard DSP; Type 1 elsewhere; warning system for front (See Figure 208-1 for description of Type 1 and 2 seat belts)

b. Motorhomes: Type 1 may be used for front outside DSP, unless windshield header is within head impact area (Type 2 must be used); Type 1 elsewhere; warning system for front

2. MPVs with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds

Either a Type 1 or Type 2 at each designated seating position

3. There must be a belt at each DSP; it is the NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many DSPs as there are sleeping accommodations (if the vehicle actually has that many "seats")

4. "Designated Seating Position": Any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion

5. Belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS 209