ID: aiam0301

Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which yo submitted for our review a draft of a label that you intend to use on your Bobby-Mac baby chair in accordance with paragraph S4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. We have restated the parts of your label whose compliance with the requirements of S4.1 is questionable, followed by our comments.; >>>1. 'In each position, reclining to upright, Bobby-Mac exceed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requirements for child seating systems.'<<<; We assume that you intend this statement to be your certification pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the Bobby-Mac seat complies with Standard No. 213. While certification is not required to be placed on the label by S4.1, placing it there is not inconsistent with either Section 114 of the Act of Standard No. 213. However, we do not consider the statement you have used to be an adequate certification statement. This is because when read literally, the statement deals only with the static force requirements of the standard, as the other requirements, such as those for labeling (S4.1), providing instructions (S4.2), adjustments (S4.3), and others, are neither concerned with the 'position' of the child seat nor can they be 'exceeded.' You must certify compliance with all the requirements of the standard, and your statement should be changed accordingly. Should you wish to use it, the following statement, for child seats manufactured on or after April 1, 1971, would be satisfactory: 'This child seating system conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it on the date of manufacture shown below.'; >>>2. 'Bobby-Mac can only be used in cars with standard auto seat bel which must be used to secure Bobby-Mac safely on front or rear auto seat. In vehicles with seats more elevated from floor than usual passenger auto, thereby not permitting sufficient length in auto seat belt to loop around Bobby-Mac, or if for any reason auto seat belt is short, auto dealer or auto belt manufacturer can supply belt lengthener.'<<<; You have apparently placed this statement on the label to comply wit paragraph S4.1(e) of the standard which requires a statement describing in general terms the types of vehicles and designated seating positions in those vehicles in which the system is recommended or not recommended for use. It is your responsibility under the requirement to make certain that the types of vehicles you recommend have seat belts that are long enough to use the Bobby-Mac as recommended. You have stated that the Bobby-Mac can be used with a standard auto seat belt, but you have also indicated that there are types of vehicles or belt conditions with which the Bobby-Mac should not be used without some modification. We believe that your exceptions should be stated more objectively, such as prescribing the minimum belt loop length above the seat cushion that is required, so that a consumer can more accurately determine whether you are recommending the Bobby-Mac for use in his vehicle.; With reference to your recommendation concerning seat belt lengthener if these lengtheners are not available by April 1, 1971, your label would not comply with the requirement. If they are available your label should describe them in sufficient detail, such as by part number, so that consumers will know precisely what they must obtain in order to properly install the Bobby-Mac seat. Your seat would be required to meet the force requirements of the standard when tested in the vehicles in which you recommend it for use and using any of the seat belt modifiers that you recommend for use with it.; >>>3. 'When Bobby-Mac is used for older, taller youngster, it must b used on auto seat whose seat back or head restraint extends at least 6 inches above top of Bobby-Mac seat bucket.'<<<; In this case, you indicate that a child of a certain height must b placed at only certain seating positions. In order to provide consumers with some objective criteria by which they can determine whether Bobby-Mac is appropriate for their vehicles, the minimum height of the child that needs the additional head restraint protection should be provided, rather than describing him as merely 'older' or 'taller.' In addition, it would be preferable if you specified the total seat back height above the seat cushion that is necessary for the children you have in mind, rather than indicating this measurement as the distance from the top of the child seat bucket. The information would be more useful to consumers, as it would allow them to determine the appropriateness of the Bobby-Mac without first obtaining one.; >>>4. Finally, based upon the photographs submitted with your letter the Bobby-Mac seat does not appear to be a rearward-facing child seat. If this is the case, the statement, 'For use only on forward-facing vehicle seats,' as required by S4.1(g), must be included on the label.<<<; Please write if you have further questions. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4094

Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Stee concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.; You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of th requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of '(s)eat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly' at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.; You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existin language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard No. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.; You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since a owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle 'B' pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency's April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 210's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.; Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additiona anchorages is not minimal. You said that 'the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.'; While we believe that you have raised a number of important issue concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency has consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as 'a strap, webbing, or similar device' used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 209, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides 'pelvic and upper torso restraint.' Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.; The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts an automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used 'in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by' S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by S4 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that 'an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be used...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option.'; Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, w believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0347

Dear Mr.Jones: The 'Flash Notice' that you forwarded to us on April 23, 1971, and you telephone conversation of May 10 with Mike Peskoe of my staff have raised certain questions concerning your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, 'Retreaded Pneumatic Tires.'; On page 1 of the 'Flash Notice' you state, 'But, so far as testin goes, it's apparent the risk for retreaders not to do their own testing to prove compliance is substantially greater than anticipated.' You proceed to discuss whether manufacturers should test their own tires in order to prove 'due care.' As part of this discussion you refer to the statement in the preamble in the Notice of March 5, 1970, concerning what could suffice for a valid certification, and state that we have told you that this preamble is 'still basically valid.'; There is evidently some confusion as to the purpose and meaning of 'du care' under the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act, and also as to the difference between compliance and certification.; A manufacturer of a retreaded tire that did not comply with th standard but who used due care in manufacturing the tire to comply with the standard cannot be subject to a civil penalty. The answer to your hypothetical question on page 3, 'What if due care is used, but the tire doesn't comply' is that the manufacturer cannot be subject to a civil penalty in this situation. (He may, however, be required to send defect notification letters and be urged to recall.) We do not agree that one is 'guilty until proven innocent.' A finding of noncompliance must first be made by the agency. Once the agency, through testing or otherwise, discovers a noncompliance, it is then up to the manufacturer to show that he exercised due care. Although the issue of due care is one that is ultimately decided by a court, the agency, in determining whether to seek a civil penalty, will make a preliminary determination on this issue.; You asked in your conversation of May 10 that we amplify what is mean by 'due care.' 'Due care' is a legal concept embodying the care that would be exercised by a reasonable man under the circumstances, and the circumstances of each situation must be considered in determining whether due care has been exercised. The set of circumstances set forth in the preamble of March 5, 1970, might constitute 'due care' in a large number of situations. To be sure, a manufacturer who tests his own tires might be considered in some cases to have exercised more care to insure that his tires complied with the standard than one who relied on tests by a third person on other tires that were similarly manufactured. Each potential case would be considered, and decided, by the agency on the facts peculiar to it.; The 'Flash Notice' also motions 'certification' in such a way tha clarification of the term is indicated. First, all tires manufactured after the standard's effective date must be certified. Certification is accomplished, as you know, by placing the symbol 'DOT' on the tire in a prescribed location. In practice, all tires will have the symbol 'DOT' affixed to them after January 1, 1972, as manufacturers could not manufacture these tires without placing the mark on them. The answer to your question on page 3, 'What if one certified does not comply' is that even if the tire fails to comply, if the manufacturer has exercised due care, in the view of the court, in manufacturing the tires to comply to the standard, his certification will not be considered 'false or misleading,' and no civil penalty can be imposed. The same 'due care' that will suffice for compliance will suffice for purposes for certification. Manufacturers' efforts should be directed to manufacturing tires that conform to the standard.; Your 'Flash Notice' also incorrectly explains certain provisions of th standard. First, with reference to which tests a particular tire must pass, S5.1.1 requires each tire to be able to pass every test, but when a single tire, during the agency testing, is subject to one of the groups of tests specified in S5.1.1, that particular tire will not be tested further. As indicated to you on the phone, this is similar to the test procedure of Standard No. 109. It merely reflects that fact that certain test, such as strength, normally destroy the tire.; Your statement on page 4 concerning the labeling requirements, tha retreaders can 'buff off the labeling required in retreading without worry, since it is displayed in other areas,' is unclear to us. The standard requires each item of information required by Standard No. 109 to be retained in at least one location (Standard No. 109 requires each item to be on both sidewalls) on the complete retreaded tire. Retreaders must therefore take care that each tire retains the original marking to this extent.; Finally, with reference to the physical dimensions requirements o S5.1.2, the 10 percent tolerance refers only to the maximum dimension, with respect to the section width specified in the tables of Standard No. 109. Your reference on page 4 to '10% under' is incorrect, since no minimum measurement is stated in the standard. However, the section width is a variable in computing the size factor which must be at least the minimum specified for the tire in the tables in the Appendix.; If you have further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Mizuguchi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Mizuguchi Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd. 12, 4-chome Yokobori, Higashi-ku Osaka, Japan

Dear Mr. Mizuguchi:

Your letter of February 28, 1985, was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether the webbing attached to a buckle you intend to use must meet the webbing width requirement of S4.2 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The webbing is enclosed in a plastic sheath. As explained below, the webbing must meet the width requirement of the standard.

S4.2 of Standard No. 209 provides that the "width of the webbing in a seat belt assembly shall be not less than 1.8 inches, except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position when measured under the conditions prescribed in S5.1(a)." The purpose of S4.2 is to ensure that belt webbing which comes into contact with an occupant has a minimum width that spreads the load imposed by the belt in a crash. By requiring webbing to spread rather than concentrate the load, the belt width requirement helps minimize the possibility of webbing-caused injury.

In the case of your design, the webbing is enclosed in a tightly-fitting plastic sheath. You state that the webbing/sheath combination can come into contact with an occupant. The sheath enclosed with your sample is made from an easily deformable plastic. Thus, when the crash loads are imposed by the belt, the sheath will deform and the crucial factor in concentrating the load on an occupant is the width of the belt. Since the webbing/sheath combination can contact and impose crash loads on an occupant, the agency concludes that the webbing must meet the minimum width requirement of S4.2.

If the webbing were encased in a reinforced sheath that did not appreciably deform under loading, the agency would consider both the width of the webbing and its encasing sheath in determining whether the requirement of S4.2 was met.

I have enclosed the sample of your product sent with your letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref. No M/M02-28 Osaka Feb, 28, 1985

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

Attn: Mr. Francis Armstrong Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement

Dear Mr. Francis Armstrong,

We'd like to ask you the following question. Recently, we are trying to make a soft and flexibility seat belt system, and then the enclosed buckle is one of our sample. This sample is composed of narrow webbing and a little solid plastic boot. However, according to FMVSS NO. 209 item 4.2 (a) "webbing width" describing it's width should be not less than 1.8 inches (about 46mm), the problem of elongation and etc, it is very difficult for us to judge whether our sample does conform to regulation N0.209 on the view of interpretation of the Law or not. Of course, this assembly does meet with the requirement of seat belt assembly prescribing in NO. 209. When this sample is located in vehicle, we are afraid that this sample will touch slightly or enough to person's body. Here, we enclosed please find our sample of buckle side of seat belt assembly herewith. So could you pleases inform us of your official comments very soon. Your earliest written answer will be highly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd.

M. Mizuguchi

encl. sample of bucket seat

ID: 18065.nhf

Mr. Ron Smith
Vice-President
Access Wheels, Inc.
7101 North 55^th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter in which you asked whether you are required to conduct impact crash tests as a prerequisite to complying with federal safety requirements. I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you modify minivans and full-size vans, both before and after the first retail sale, to accommodate persons with disabilities. The modifications you perform typically involve installing wheelchair lift mechanisms in full-size vans and wheelchair ramp assemblies in lowered floor minivans. You explain that you install various combinations of equipment acquired from a large number of manufacturers and suppliers in your modifications. You explain that you rely on an assortment of impact crash test data, other testing, and engineering analysis in determining whether the vehicle complies with the safety standards. You state that you believe you have exercised due care with respect to these determinations and compliance with all the applicable safety standards. In light of these circumstances, you have asked whether you are required to conduct multiple crash tests. As discussed below, Access Wheels is required to assure that each of the vehicles it manufactures complies with all applicable safety standards, but it is not required to conduct crash tests of any of its vehicles to certify compliance with these standards.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item conforms to all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or their vendors. Instead, the motor vehicle safety statutes, found in Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, establish a self-certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Each of the safety standards specifies performance requirements. Dynamic tests are prescribed under some of the standards, such as Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. However, the agency does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating a vehicle or equipment item to determine whether it complies with the requirements of an applicable standard, provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment item will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

According to 49 U.S.C. 30115, a person may not certify a vehicle as complying with all applicable safety standards "if, in exercising reasonable care, the person had reason to know the certification is false or misleading in a material respect." NHTSA has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstance in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

Since some of your modifications occur after the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, you should also be aware of the statutory prohibition against making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements or the safety standards, please contact Ms. Nicole Fradette of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.10/22/98
ref:VSA

ID: 1983-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Company -- Paul Scully, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Scully Vice President Peterson Manufacturing Company 4200 East 135th Street Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of July 22, 1983, to Mr. Cavey of this agency.

With respect to paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Standard No.108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment you have stated your understanding that paragraph applies only to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978, and that turn signal lamps must now comply with SAE Standard J588e, September 1970.

Paragraph S.4.1.1.7 did allow vehicular compliance with SAE J588d as an option to J588e. J588d required that any turn signal lamp used on a vehicle whose overall width was 80 inches or more have a minimum of 12 square inches effective projected luminous lens area. On the other hand, SAE J588e requires a minimum of 8 square inches effective projected luminous lens area on all single compartment rear turn signal lamps, regardless of vehicle width. However, on vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width, two turn signal lamps or compartments per side may be mounted closer together than 22 inches provided each meets single compartment photometric requirements and each has a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 12 square inches. Thus, your understanding is correct.

I would also point out that, pursuant to Section S4.7.1 of Standard No. 108, the continued manufacture of turn signal lamps meeting J588d is permissible as replacement equipment for vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978.

Mr. Cavey has provided the copy of BMCS regulations which is enclosed.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 22, 1983

Mr. Kevin Cavey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Kevin:

I need a copy of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and I no longer have in my files the address of that agency. Would you be kind enough to telephone them and request that a copy of that booklet be forwarded to me. I would certainly appreciate it.

On a completely separate subject, a question arose today concerning the meaning of Paragraph S4.1.1.7 in FMVSS 108. The specific question related to the square inches of area needed for a turn signal on vehicles over 80".

My interpretation of the regulation has been that turn signal lamps for vehicles over 80" must comply with J588e dated September, 1970. This standard requires 8 square inches of area for single compartment lamps. That standard also spells out that when lamps are mounted closer together than 22" on vehicles over 80", they must then individually meet all of the requirements and must be 12 square inches.

Paragraph S4.1.1.7 only applies to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978 and simply permitted compliance with the prior standard J588d. This specific paragraph, in my judgment, only relates to vehicles built between the dates spelled out above and does not impact the area requirements as otherwise spelled out in J588e. Specifically, it is our understanding that the rear turn signal area for single compartment lamps is eight square inches regardless of the width of the vehicle. The only exception to this requirement is spelled out in the SAE standard which states that the area must be 12 square inches if indeed the units are placed closer together than 22". Can you please advise me if my interpretation is correct?

Very truly yours,

Paul Scully Vice President

PS/sld

ID: nht76-1.17

DATE: 07/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Parker Hannifin Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter concerning the application of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to thermoplastic tubing of 1/8 inch nominal outside diameter that is used in "auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself."

You have pointed out that it is difficult to label tubing of this diameter with letters that are 1/8 inch high, and requested an amendment of the standard to permit the labeling of such brake hoses with letters that are 1/16 inch high.

Because the tubing that you have described is not manufactured for use in the brake system itself, it is not "brake hose" as that term is defined in Standard No. 106-74 and is therefore not subject to any of the standard's requirements. In fact, although the standard does not prohibit the manufacture of air brake hose of 1/8-inch outer diameter, we are unaware at this time of the existence of any hose or tubing of that diameter that meets the definition of "brake hose". Therefore, the conformity or nonconformity of the tubing in question with the performance or labeling requirements of the standard is a matter of private contract between Parker Hannifin Corporation and those truck manufacturers that are requesting conformity.

In consideration of the possibility that 1/8-inch outer diameter tubing may in the future be used in brake systems, however, the NHTSA has decided to grant your petition to reduce to 1/16 inch the minimum required lettering height on brake hoses of such diameter. Accordingly, a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION

M. Schwimmer -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 24, 1976

Subject: CFR 571, STANDARD 106 SECTIONS 5.2.2 and 7.2 "MARKING"

Gentlemen:

As presently constituted, FMVSS 106 requires that the Department of Transportation marking shall be a minimum of 1/8" high. Note specifically Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.2 (a), 5.2.2 (b), 5.2.2 (c), 5.2.2 (d), and 7.2 We have determined that legible marking of this height cannot be printed efficiently by existing production equipment upon thermoplastic tubing of 1/8" nominal outside diameter. This height of letter would cover a total span of 114.5 degrees if in perfect alignment. Even with a grooved marking wheel, we have established that 60 degrees is the practical upper limit for the lettering height to span. Beyond this span, the skewed movement between type and its own printing at the top and bottom of each letter causes perceptible smudging, so that the printing actually becomes less readable instead of more so.

Major usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter thermoplastic tubing on highway trucks seems to be in auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself. Nevertheless, the truck manufacturers have required that this size conform to FMVSS 106 for safety reasons. If a complete failure of these lines should occur, they reason that the volume of compressed air supply momentarily lost could create a significant adverse effect upon the brake system. Not holding this size to the same requirements as all others would thus be inconsistent with the stated purpose of FMVSS 106:

"To reduce deaths and injuries occurring as a result of brake system failure from pressure . . . lost due to hose or hose assembly rupture."

We wish to make the following two alternative petitions in this regard:

1. We petition that the minimum lettering height of required marking on 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing be changed from 1/8" to 1/16".

2. In the event that it is determined that the usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing lies beyond the scope of FMVSS 106, we petition for a clear directive which excludes this size from the standard and requires that it must not bear the marking called out in the sections of the standard which are referenced above.

Very truly yours,

W. E. Currie -- Chief Engineer

cc: W. Hertel; C. Foote; T. Landy

ID: 9194

Mr. Ulrich Metz
Automotive Division
Robert Bosch GmbH
K4/ERW3
Postfach 1163
77813 Buel
Germany

Dear Mr. Metz:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshields. I apologize for the delay in responding.

The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A", "B", and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe pattern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels through a cycle) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement during system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme and return" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met.

As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at least 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of engine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system.

Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, however, apply only to passenger cars.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:104 d:4/7/94

ID: DNBA_B.Nicolle_Parts_573_and_579

ID: nht93-6.29

DATE: September 2, 1993

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: TTMA Engineering Committee; Tank Conference Engineering Committee; The 3M Company; Reflexite

TITLE: Conspicuity

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We request three interpretations pertaining to S5.7 of FMVSS 108.

Conversion from S1 to English linear dimensions

May we consider the following nominal English dimensions equivalent for the purpose of compliance with S5.7 of FMVSS 108?

FMVSS 108 English English Citation Item Metric (actual**) (nominal)

5.7.1.3(b) Length of 300 mm 11.8 inches 12 inches red or white +/- 150 mm +/- 5.9 inches +/- 6 inches block of (150 mm (5.9 inches (6 inches sheeting to 450 mm) to 17.7 in.) to 18 inches)

5.7.1.3(d) Width of Grade 50 mm min* 1.9 inches 2 inches DOT C2 sheeting

5.7.1.3(d) Width of Grade 75 mm min* 2.9 inches 3 inches DOT C3 sheeting

5.7.1.3(d) Width of Grade 100 mm min* 3.9 inches 4 inches DOT C4 sheeting

5.7.1.4(b) Edge of white 75 mm min. 2.9 inches 3 inches sheeting to any lamp

5.7.1.4(c) Edge of red 75 mm min. 2.9 inches 3 inches sheeting to an amber lamp

5.7.1.4.1(a) Height of 1.25 m 49.2 inches 49 inches horizontal sheeting on rear

5.7.1.4.1(b) Length of 300 mm min* 11.8 inches 12 inches sheeting in upper contours of trailer

5.7.1.4.2(a) Height of 1.25 m 49.2 inches 49 inches horizontal sheeting on side of trailer

5.7.1.4.2(b) Alternative 25 mm min* 0.98 inches 1 inch width of two strips of Grade DOT C2 sheeting and their separation 25 mm max 0.98 inches 1 inch

5.7.1.5 Sheeting 3 mm min 0.118 inches 1/8 (0.125) certification inch character height

5.7.1.5 Sheeting 300 mm max 11.8 inches 12 inches certification marking separation

5.7.2.2(b) Alternative 100 mm max 3.9 inches 4 inches reflex reflector center to center separation

5.7.2.3 Reflex 3 mm min 0.118 inches 1/8 (0.125) reflector inch certification character height

* Assumed to be minimum. ** Significant decimal places for comparison.

The nominal English dimensions without underlining would appear to be acceptable conversions since they exceed the minimum metric dimensions. The nominal English dimensions underlined would, however, exceed the metric maximum dimension.

SAE J1322 JUN85, "Preferred Conversion Values for Dimensions in Lighting - Inch-Pound Units/S1," describes how English units may be converted to S1 (metric) units, but does not describe how to convert S1 units to English Units.

Vertical Location of Rear and Side Sheeting Cargo tank trailers may have a "vertical" surface only at their "belt line" which may be as high as 90 inches (2.3 m) above the ground. Retroreflective sheeting could, however, be located much closer to the ground, but for some

cargo tank trailers this may place the sheeting on non-vertical surfaces. In our comment of March 31, 1992 to Docket No. 80-9; Notice 4 we stated that "it is not clear from the proposed rulemaking as to where retroreflective material should be placed on curved surfaces of tank and some dump trailers or angled surfaces of some dump trailers."

One manufacturer of retroreflective sheeting states that "the sheeting could be applied at a maximum angle of 30 degrees to the vertical." This manufacturer reports that "An angle greater than this provides less conspicuity as defined by NHTSA."

May retroreflective sheeting be located significantly higher than 1.25 m above the road surface if there is no vertical surface lower than this height without installing structure just for the sheeting?

Upper Contour Sheeting

May the horizontal and vertical sheeting to the right and left upper contours of the trailer body required per S5.7.1.4.1(b) be of the dimensions and location shown in the enclosed figures 1 through 5?

Since a number of trailer manufacturers are presently installing conspicuity treatments in accordance with S5.7 of FMVSS 108 as standard equipment or at the request of their customers, your timely response is desirable.