ID: nht92-9.22

DATE: February 5, 1992

FROM: Frederick Harris -- Proprietor, Frederick Harris Associates

TO: National Highway Traffic Safety Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Paul J. Rice to Frederick Harris (A39; Std. 302; VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

I am planning to put on the market a cloth device containing light weight plastic items useful to a baby while in an automobile. The cloth item will be adjacent to but not touching a child sitting or laying in a nearby safety seat.

Please advise what national safety standards/regulations may apply to such a device from the viewpoint of need to be fire-safe, or any other safety considerations.

ID: nht92-9.23

DATE: February 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William A. Boehly -- Associate Administrator for Enforcement, NHTSA

COPYEE: Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TITLE: Subject: ACTION: OVSC's Request for Legal Interpretation, FMVSS 210

TEXT:

This responds to the December 20, 1991, request from the Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for an interpretation of the phrase "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage" in S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210 as it applies to a conversion van manufactured by Glaval, Inc.

These Glaval vans have seats in which a rigid metal bracket is attached to the anchorage by means of a bolt on one end and the webbing of the belt passes through the rigid metal bracket at the other end. The rigid metal brackets can pivot around the bolt, depending on how tightly the bolt is fastened down. Regardless of how much the bolt is tightened, it would seem that the bracket would pivot if the belt system were restraining an occupant in a crash.

S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires a line from either the seating reference point or another point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage to form an angle with the horizontal of not less than 20 degrees and not more than 75 degrees. The issue in this instance is whether the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage" should be determined with reference to where the webbing passes through the upper end of the rigid metal bracket or with reference to the bolt on the lower end of the rigid metal bracket.

Previous agency interpretations have defined the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage" as the contact point between the webbing and the metal or rigid plastic hardware which is nearest the SgRP. Applying this concept to the design in question would result in the nearest contact point being determined with reference to the upper end of the rigid metal bracket through which the belt webbing passes.

An exception to this general rule is belt designs with flexible wire stalks. Even though these stalks are typically plastic-coated metal, the wire stalks are more akin to webbing (because of their flexibility) than to metal or rigid plastic hardware. Because of this flexibility, NHTSA has said that the nearest contact point for these wire stalks is not the upper end of these stalks where the webbing contacts it, but the lower end of the stalk where it is anchored to the vehicle.

In addition, NHTSA said in a February 15, 1973 letter to Mr. Kato of Nissan that, if a rigid bracket can be rotated around its attachment bolt, the centerline of the attachment bolt would be considered the "nearest contact point" for the purposes of S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

It is my opinion that the letter to Nissan is of general applicability to safety belt systems in which the terminal hardware on the belt is free to pivot around the anchorage bolt. The purpose of the anchorage location requirement is to ensure that the webbing crosses an occupant's body at an angle that is neither too shallow or too steep. The effective angle of the webbing is determined by the nearest point on the vehicle that does not alter its location under the influence of non-crash stresses on the webbing. In the case of the Glaval vans, as in the Nissan situation, the anchorage bolt is the fixed point around which the belt and its related hardware pivot and should be used as the "nearest contact point" under S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

You should note that my opinion is premised on the assumption that the metal bracket used by Glaval is free to pivot around the anchorage bolt. If the bracket were fixed in place, the "nearest contact point" for purposes of S4.3.1.1 would be the point at which the webbing contacts the upper end of the bracket.

ID: nht92-9.24

DATE: February 5, 1992

FROM: Robert Salton -- Engineer, Performance Friction Corp.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Robert Salton (A39; Std. 105)

TEXT:

On the recommendation of your staff, I am requesting an interpretation of a regulation contained in the FMVSS-105 Safety Standard.

The sections in question are:

1. S.5.1.4.1 (Regulations) 2. S.7.11.1.1 (Procedures)

We are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade/recovery test - baseline check stops.

The interpretation will make clear to us exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the Fade and Recovery Check Stops. Also, what values of pedal effort would be considered non-compliance (i.e., peak, average, sustained) greater than 10 lbs or less than 0 lbs.

I have spoken with Zack Frazier of your staff and he is familiar with our questions. I regret that no data or vehicle instrumentation traces are available to me at this time.

Please call me if you have any questions. My need is urgent so as to continue brake system development and testing.

ID: nht92-9.25

DATE: February 4, 1992

FROM: Douglas Kubehl -- Technician, Safety Engineering Associates, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/92 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Douglas Kubehl (A39; Std. 209)

TEXT:

As an engineer, I have been asked to obtain a legal translation of FMVSS Part 571.209, which I have enclosed for your reference. Specifically, my interest lies in the wording of parts 209-S4.4 and 209-S5.3.

In 209-S.4.4a(1), it is clearly stated that a loop force of 5000 pounds is required to produce a force of 2500 pounds on each structural component. However, part 209-S4.4b(4) seems to be a bit ambiguous. It states: "The length of the pelvic restraint between anchorages shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when subjected to a force of 2500 pounds". My interpretation of this statement is that one must employ a loop force of 5000 pounds to achieve 2500 pounds of force on each component, as specified in S4.4a(1). I am concerned that one could misinterpret the above statement as requiring a 2500 pound loop force, rather than the intended value of 5000 pounds.

Part 209-S5.3a, which addresses the performance of the belt assembly, refers to Figure 5 and requires a tensile force of 2500 pounds. It goes on to say that this force is equivalent to a 5000 pound force being applied to an assembly loop. Figure five is referred to several times throughout the passage, each reference requiring a specific force. Again, because the relationship of the tensile force to assembly loop force is not explicitly stated, we are concerned that one may mistake the tensile force to be the total loop force applied.

We have previously addressed this question to John Lee of NHTSA's enforcement division. Mr Lee indicated that as per enforcement testing, part 209-S4.4b(4) requires a 5000 pound loop load. When asked for a written confirmation/interpretation, Mr. Lee referred us to your office.

We look forward to your response regarding appropriate interpretation. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

ID: nht92-9.26

DATE: February 4, 1992

FROM: Chris Kuczynski -- Fleet Services Division, City of Seattle

TO: Manager, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/14/92 (est.) from Paul J. Rice to John Faist (A39; Part 571)

TEXT:

I would appreciate any information that you are able to provide in reference to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579. In particular, I am interested in how these regulations pertain to a municipal government agency that transfers, modifies and/or fabricates custom vehicle bodies for use by its own departments. What procedures/steps is such an agency responsible for following, if any, in the customization of truck bodies.

Please send any information you may have on this subject to:

John Faist DAS Fleet Services Division 618 2nd Avenue, 12th Floor Seattle, WA 98104

Thank you.

ID: nht92-9.27

DATE: February 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas A. Gerke, Esq. -- Smith, Gill, Fisher & Butts

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated December 23, 1991 from Thomas A. Gerke to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6865)

TEXT:

This responds to your December 23, 1991 letter concerning Safety Standard 107, Reflectinq Surfaces. You asked us to confirm the interpretation of the standard set forth in my September 3, 1991 letter to Mr. Thomas Steinhagen. The interpretation is correct.

My letter to Mr. Steinhagen was about the applicability of Standard 107 to a replacement windshield wiper arm and blade, a type of motor vehicle equipment that your client, Rally Manufacturing, seeks to sell. You state that Rally ceased producing certain windshield wiper arms and blades after NHTSA's Enforcement office notified Rally that it appeared the products did not meet the requirements of Standard 107.

My letter to Mr. Steinhagen clarified the requirements of Standard 107 and the Vehicle Safety Act. I emphasized the following points in the letter:

1. Standard 107 applies to new motor vehicles, and not to items of motor vehicle equipment, such as a replacement wiper arm and blade. Replacement wiper arms and blades may be sold to consumers without violating Federal law, even if the component does not conform to the requirements of Standard 107.

2. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If a person in the aforementioned categories installed a wiper arm and blade that did not conform to the requirements of Standard 107, the person would violate S108(a)(2)(A).

3. The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

4. Regardless of whether Standard 107 applies to the replacement arm and blade, the device is subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists either in an arm and blade that conforms to Standard 107 or in one that does not, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge.

In your letter, you specifically ask about the sale of a replacement wiper blade "by a wholesaler/distributor to retail stores and other similar customers without any installation service by the wholesaler/distributor." The sale is not prohibited by Standard 107 or S108(a)(2)(A). However, the retail store or "other similar customer" would be considered a dealer under S102(7) of the Safety Act, and thus subject to the "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A). While the dealer may sell the replacement blade, the dealer would be prohibited from installing it on a motor vehicle.

I regret any confusion resulting from NHTSA's letters to your client. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

ID: nht92-9.28

DATE: February 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frank Sonzala -- Senior Vice President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/11/91 from Frank J. Sonzala to Steve Wood (OCC 6781)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a manufacturer of spring brakes may legally add the symbol "DOT" to its spring brake chamber housing. You explained that another manufacturer has adopted this practice which you believe has the potential to confuse consumers since the DOT symbol typically indicates that the item of equipment complies with agency requirements. You requested that the agency issue an interpretation stating that the DOT symbol should not be placed on any chamber and should not serve as a certification of approval by DOT or NHTSA. As discussed below, the DOT symbol should not be marked on brake chambers.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following letter represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter.

NHTSA promulgates safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121), which establishes requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The standard applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems; it does not apply to motor vehicle equipment. Spring brakes are a type of brake design that is often used to comply with Standard No. 121's parking brake requirements.

Nothing in Standard No. 121 addresses labeling air brakes or air brake components with the symbol DOT. Several of NHTSA' standards, however, do require items to be marked with the symbol DOT, which serves as a certification that the item complies with applicable standards. For example, Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), specifies labeling and performance requirements for motor vehicle brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. This standard requires the equipment manufacturer to label brake hoses with the symbol DOT, with this symbol constituting a certification by that manufacturer that the hose conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards (see S7.2).

Since placement of the symbol DOT on an equipment item signifies that the item is certified as complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, use of the symbol for items which are not subject to the standards can be misleading. Standard No. 121 does not directly apply to spring brakes but instead applies to air-braked vehicles. Compliance with the standard is

determined by a vehicle's overall braking performance. Thus, a spring brake cannot "comply" with that standard or any other standard. Any symbol that implies that a spring brake complies with Federal safety standards is thus misleading.

Section 108 (a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act provides, among other things, that no person shall issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. The placement of the DOT symbol on an item to which a Federal motor vehicle safety standard does not apply may be a violation of this section. We are referring your allegations to our Office of Enforcement for appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.29

DATE: February 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harvey D. Benson -- Chief Engineer, Landoll Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/5/91 from Harvey D. Benson to Richard Carter (OCC 6764)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Richard Carter of this agency asking about requirements applicable to heavy hauler trailers. You first asked whether such trailers were required to be equipped with spring brakes. You stated that some users of your vehicles have received tickets for not having spring brakes. Your second question asked whether there are requirements about size and impact capacity for bulkhead (i.e., cab protection) on truck chassis beds. You explained that Landoll manufactures slide back beds mounted on single and tandem axle truck chassis. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following letter represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter.

The Safety Act requires NHTSA to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One such safety standard is Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, (49 CFR 571.121) which specifies requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. In particular, section S5.6 specifies requirements for parking brakes. This section states that the trailer portion of a heavy hauler trailer is required to meet the requirements of section S5.6 or at the manufacturer's option the requirements set forth at 49 CFR S393.43, Breakaway and Emergency Braking (a regulation issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)).

Spring brakes are used by most manufacturers to comply with the parking brake requirements in S5.6 of Standard No. 121. However, those requirements can be met by other types of brake designs. In addition, as mentioned above, a heavy hauler trailer as defined in S4 of the standard is permitted to comply with the requirements set forth in 49 CFR S393.43.

You mentioned that your trailers have capacities up to 120,000 GVWR. Please be advised that Standard No. 121 applies to such vehicles; however, the standard does not apply to trailers that have both a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds and bodies that conform to the definition for "heavy hauler trailer" set forth in S4.

As for your comment that some of your customers are being ticketed for not having spring brakes, I do not have sufficient information to address this situation. If you would like us to look into this matter, please provide details concerning specific instances of such ticketing, including the agency responsible for the ticketing and the regulation being applied.

As for your second question about requirements for bulkhead cab protection on truck chassis beds, NHTSA has no regulations about this topic. However, you should review the FHWA's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which set forth specific requirements for bulkhead protection in commercial motor vehicles. (49 CFR Part 393.106.)

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. If you have questions about the FHWA's in-use requirements, you should contact its Office of Motor Carrier Safety at (202) 366-1790.

ID: nht92-9.3

DATE: February 18, 1992

FROM: Wm. Richard Alexander -- Chief, Pupil Transportation, Maryland State Department of Education

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/19/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Wm. Richard Alexander (A39; Std. 222)

TEXT:

In our phone conversation of February 7, we discussed forward-facing wheelchairs on school buses (CFR 49 Part 571.222).

I am requesting that you verify in print our conversation that forward-facing wheelchairs on school buses do not need a crash barrier located forward of each wheelchair position. This would be based on the premise that each chair and child is restrained in some type of a belting system.

If you have any questions prior to responding, please do not hesitate to call me at (410) 333-2602.

ID: nht92-9.30

DATE: February 3, 1992

FROM: Kenneth R. Brownstein -- Senior Counsel, PACCAR Inc., Law Department

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Clarification of 571.120 - Standard 120

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Kenneth R. Brownstein (A39; Std. 120)

TEXT:

PACCAR Inc, a manufacturer of Kenworth and Peterbilt vehicles, hereby submits a request for clarification of S571.120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

S5.1.3 of 571.120 states:

"In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol."

The standard clearly allows purchasers of vehicles to supply the vehicle manufacturer with retread tires for installation on the new vehicle. The intent of the standard appears to be to allow the purchaser to choose whether or not the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure they have knowledge of this fact. PACCAR manufactures a customized vehicle, allowing retail customers to specify particular components including tires for the vehicle. PACCAR believes that the intent of the standard would be met if a customer specifically orders retreads for his vehicle and the vehicle manufacturer supplied them rather than the purchaser.

It is requested that PACCAR be permitted to install, at the specific request of the buyer, retread tires. The tires installed would comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol. By allowing PACCAR to buy the tires, the process would be more efficient and provide the truck owner an advantage in not having to make a separate purchase, eliminating duplicate paperwork. It would also eliminate extra shipping and handling of the tires.

Your response to this request is respectfully requested.