ID: nht87-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/09/87

FROM: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING NATIONAL SALES MANAGER

TO: STEVE KRATZKE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE #217

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K. BROCK; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 08/20/87 FROM TERRY K BROCK TO SEBASTIAN MESSINA; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kratzke,

Pursuant to our telephone conversation regarding Coons Manufacturing, Inc.'s desire to provide adequate emergency escapes per FMVSS Code #217 in our Diamond VIP mini buses, I write.

Mr. S. T. Messina, Chief Motor Carrier Inspections and Investigations of the State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation has denied certification for a 25 passenger bus recently delivered to the State of New Jersey. Please refer to the attached letter dated August 28, 1987.

It is very much a concern to Coons Manufacturing, Inc. that we are meeting the FMVSS Code #217. However, we along with other manufacturers of this type bus, have in the past considered our front entrance door, which is labeled and equipped with the p roper emergency release mechanisms per the above referenced regulation, as an emergency side exit. Please refer to the attached sample materials of two competitors. We have enclosed diagrams of this electric entrance door as well as photos for your ref erence. We are requesting you to better assist us in understanding why this is unacceptable to use as one of the required side emergency exits. Also, on the driver's side we have in the past, considered the driver's window which is 20" x 20" clear open ing or 400 square inches as an additional emergency side exit.

Please respond as soon as possible as to whether or not our existing emergency exits provide adequate escape per FMVSS Code #217. If they do not, please state what would be required in addition to what we are already providing. It is our desire to c ooperate to the fullest regarding this matter. Thank you for your assistance.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht78-1.26

DATE: 03/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: H. A. Bullock

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 29, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, applies to a cruise control device that you manufacture.

In Docket 69-20; Notice 3, to which you refer in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated that Standard No. 124 contains no requirements for cruise controls. Therefore, the standard does not apply to them. There are no other safety standards applicable to these devices.

SINCERELY,

Dec. 29, 1977

Administration Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

Gentlemen:

I have developed a mechanical automobile cruise control which I am considering marketing as an add-on product. The attached Installation and Operating Instructions and the color photos, give you a description of the cruise control and its operation.

I have been in contact with the NHTSA office in Ft. Worth, Texas and have received a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124,Accelerator Control Systems (Docket No. 69-20, Notice 3). After a review of this standard and a discussion with Mr. Robert Weltzer of that office, I was not able to obtain a determination as to whether or not this standard is applicable to my add-on cruise control. Mr. Weltzer instead suggested that I forward all the information to your office for a ruling.

I have test driven the cruise control system on my own car (Honda Accord) on several cross country trips, one of 1100 miles from Texas to Florida, and have found it works exceedingly well and presented no safety complications or compromises. As a matter of fact, my experience is that I can probably disengage my cruise control somewhat quicker than I can the electronic factory installed cruise control on my Monte Carlo because of the proximity of the cruise control knob to the driver's right hand. An added feature is that any malfunction in the operation of my mechanical cruise control device causes it not to be engaged rather than the contrary.

After reviewing the information I have provided, please advise me as to whether Standard No.124 or any other standard is applicable to my device.

Harold A. Bullock [Attachment Omitted]

ID: nht73-1.10

DATE: 07/23/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Gorou Utsunomiya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1973, regarding the application of section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403) to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107 "Reflecting Surfaces". You refer to language in a letter dated April 10, 1973, from this agency to Mr. Kazushi Sakashita of Toyo Kogyo., Ltd., in which we indicated that certification of replacement vehicle parts pursuant to section 114 is required only with respect to parts to which a safety standard specifically applies.

Standard No. 107 applies to motor vehicles -- passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses (paragraph S2 of Standard No. 107) -- and not to items of motor vehicle equipment. Consequently the certification of conformity to the standard required by section 114 is accomplished by the label affixed to each vehicle in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, "Certification". That label represents a certification of conformity to all standards, including Standard No. 107, applicable to the vehicle. There is no requirement that the individual components listed in S4 of the standard, i.e. the windshield wiper arms and blades, the inside windshield moldings, the horn ring and hub of the steering wheel assembly, and the inside rearview mirror frame and mounting bracket, be certified independently.

Yours truly,

June 11, 1973

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. Government of Transportation

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Re: Replacement Vehicle Parts.

Enclosed is a letter from NHTSA, which states:

"There are no requirements for the certification of replacement vehicle parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present, Standards Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act."

By the way, is MVSS 107 Reflecting Surfaces, a requirement under S. 114 of Safety Act, or not? Your answer to this question would be appreciated. Thank you.

Yours truly

Gorou Utsunomiya --

Branch Manager,

Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office

ID: nht68-1.14

DATE: 03/15/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Gruppe Autoelektrik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1968, to Mr. George C. Mield, concerning the requirements for motorcycle headlamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

On motorcycles Standard No. 108 permits the use of unsealed head-lamps conforming to SAE Standard J524. You will note that this SAE Standard(Illegible Words)not reference bulb sockets conforming to SAE Standard J567, which is intended to insure functional compatibility between bulb sockets and the bulbs lasted in SAE Standard J573. Therefore, the bulbs used in motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584 need not conform to SAE Standard J573.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau Attention George C. Nield Acting Director

Subject: Safety Standard 108

Dear Mr. Nield,

With your letter of July 10, 1987, you informed me that secondary and related SAE standards are indirectly part of the above-mentioned standards.

I have concluded from your statement that employment bulbs according to SAE standard J573 is compulsory from the date of entering into force of standard 108.

A special problem is the design of motor cycle head-lamps to conform with the new safety standard 108 of January 1, 1969.

Indeed, safety standard 108 prescribes for motor cycle headlamps SAE standard J 584 of April 1964. This standard relates to J 575 d of August 1967. Both standards allow in principle unsealed units for motor cycle headlamps.

However, in the next related standard J 573 "lamp bulbs and sealed units" no appropriate bulb can be found suitable for unsealed headlamps.

Therefore I feel that also for motor cycle headlamps only sealed units are permitted from January 1, 1969.

I should be very grateful to have a rapid answer from you since we have no more much lead time for redesigning and re-tooling our motor cycle headlamps.

Sincerely yours, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH Gruppe Xutoslektrik,

ID: nht74-4.33

DATE: 07/08/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 28, 1974, question whether a short neoprene connector of two steel vacuum brake lines in the Bendix Hydrovac unit is subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses.

The neoprene connector functions as a brake hose under the definition set out in the standard:

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit that transmits or contains the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

The determination of the "flexibility" of a particular brake line material is a difficult but important decision. Flexibility is required in brake lines for at least two reasons. First and most important is the flexibility required to accommodate large amounts of relative motion in service, in frame-to-axle applications for example. Less obvious but important is the flexibility required in the event a brake line is displaced during repair or alteration of the brake system or other nearby vehicle components. A mechanic's decision to bend a brake line during repairs may depend on whether it "looks" flexible, and therefore appearance becomes an important element of the determination. On this basis the NHTSA has concluded that copper and steel chassis plumbing, for example, do not invite bending during repairs because their appearance makes their relative inflexibility obvious.

In contrast, plastic air brake chassis plumbing and small sections of hose used to connect steel or copper tubing, are examples of "flexible conduits" that invite bending in order to make repairs. To ensure that these "flexible conduits" are not damaged when they are displaced, they are considered brake hose subject to the bend and deformation requirements of the standard. In the case of the Hydrovac, the presence of the neoprene connector would appear to permit flexibility to compensate for component misalignment and to permit removal and repair of the steel tubing. It therefore is considered a brake hose under this standard.

Sincerely Yours,

The Bendix Corporation

Docket Section

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

May 28, 1974

Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Clarification of Certain Portions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106

Clarification is requested concerning the requirements of FMVSS 106 (published in Notices 8 and 10 of Docket No. 1-5) as applied to the Vacuum Tube - Fig. 1 (Enclosure 1) used in our Hydrovac in-line vacuum/hydraulic brake booster. For convenience, a detail drawing of the Vacuum Tube is shown in Fig. 2 (Enclosure 2

On October 17, 1973, Bendix stated its opinion to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) regarding applicability of its regulations to the above-mentioned Vacuum Tube (Enclosure 3) and requested comments from BMCS. In reply, BMCS (Enclosure 4) concurred with Bendix' interpretation stating that "the use of 'tubing' rather than 'hose' is appropriate."

The request to BMCS was concerned primarily with BMCS' requirements for cord or duck ply in hose construction. We do not believe there is a question of construction of the tube as related to FMVSS 106; however, Enclosres 3 and 4 are included herewith only to help clarify the nature of the present request.

Reviewing the text of the Standard and the introductory comments to Notices 8 and 10, we are led to the conclusion that the definition of "Brake Hose" (S4, Paragraph 2) does not apply to the Bendix Vacuum Tube because of the lack of any requirement for flexibility. This conclusion seems to be supported by the lack of any bend requirement in Table V for hoses shorter than fourteen (14) inches in the diameter in question. On the other hand, the Bendix Vacuum Tube does "transmit or contains the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes". Hence, NHTSA is requested to verify Bendix' interpretation that FMVSS 106 is not applicable to the Bendix Vacuum Tube.

Your consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated in order to clarify the status of this part of the Hydrovac, which is a high volume component.

Respectfully submitted,

J. R. Farron

Group Director of Engineering

Enclosures (4)

FIG 1. SINGLE DIAPHRAGM HYDROVAC

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

The Bendix Corporation

October 17, 1973

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Attention: Docket Clerk

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety

Subject: Request for Clarification of Subchapter B - Motor Carrier

Safety Regulation, Part 393 - Parts and Accessories

Necessary for Safe Operation

Our review of Docket No. MC-41; Notice 73-9 has brought to our attention a need for clarification of the Part 393 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

The vacuum tubes for Bendix' Hydrovacs, an in-line vacuum/hydraulic brake booster, may fall within the provisions of Parts (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(ii) of Section 393.45 of the above reference. The item under discussion is noted as "Vacuum Tube" in Fig. 1. The cited Parts of the Regulation call for conformance of vacuum brake hose to SAE Standards which requires cord or duck ply reinforcement, whereas Bendix' tube is solid neoprene rubber. The detail drawing of the Vacuum Tube is given in Fig. 2.

One logical interpretation of the Regulation could conclude that it is intended to specify vacuum hose only between brake system components, and not specify hose where it is an integral part of a component such as the tube used in our Hydrovacs. It appears the Regulation's thrust is to avoid arbitrary selection from many types of hose which are available in bulk form, particularly in the field, and to assure sound installation of a flexible member that is formed as it is installed. This reasoning is exemplified by Part (a) of the Regulation which covers "General Requirements".

Our vacuum tube, on the other hand, is fully specified as to type, and is formed before installation, just as is any other part of the Hydrovac.

Bendix' historical experience indicates that the tube has been used in 8,000,000 Hydrovacs produced since 1947, and to our knowledge there have been no tube failures. It is not of SAE grade hose because it is used as a connector, as opposed to flexible plumbing in the vehicle vacuum system.

For purposes of clarification due to ambiguity in the language of the cited Parts, it is requested that you confirm our interpretation that the cited Sections of the Regulation do not apply to the vacuum tube used as an integral part of the Hydrovac.

If this request cannot be granted, we hereby enter a petition to change the cited sections as follows (added words underlined):

(b) (1) Change to read: "except as provided in Paragraph (c), brake hose installed on a motor vehicle for connection between brake system components on or after October 1, 1973, must conform to one of the following specifications"

(b) (2) Change to read: "except as provided in Paragraph (c), brake hose installed on a motor vehicle for connection between brake system components before October 1, 1973, must conform to either"

Your consideration and response to this request will be appreciated.

J. R. Farron

Group Director of Engineering

ID: nht68-2.47

DATE: 05/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph R. O'Gorman; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 16, 1968, your reference 61.A218. A1115, to the National Highway Safety Bureau concerning applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 108 and 205 to compers.

Your questions along with our corresponding answers are listed below: uestion: 1. Do Federal Standards Nos. 108 and 205 apply to Camper bodies which are not manufactured as a part of a vehicle but which may be purchased separately and later installed on a pickup truck by its owner? Answer: The enclosed Notice of Making Regarding Compare affirms the applicability of Federal Standard No. 205 to camper bodies. Federal Standard No.

108 is a standard applicable to chassis cabs and to complete motor vehicles. Question: 2. Do Federal Standards Nos. 108 and 205 apply to campers which are sold by the pickup truck dealer as part of a new vehicle even though the camper body itself is actually a load on the pickup and is designed to be recovered from the pickup when the owner decides to transport other types of loads? Answer: The applicability of Federal Standard No. 205 is covered in the enclosure. Federal Standard No.

108 is a requirement upon the dealer who sells a motor vehicle. If the vehicle is designed for more than one configuration in use, the dealer must provide that both configurations are in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The enclosed information on the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 are provided to further assist you.

ID: nht74-1.5

DATE: 09/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Technical Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 (ZTV) Sep 19 1974

Mr. Bernard Belier U.S. Resident Engineer for Citroen, S.A. U.S. Technical Research Corporation 801 Second Avenue New York, New York 10017

Dear Mr. Belier:

This is in further reply to the petition of November 16, 1973, by Citroen, S. A. for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

The petition has been thoroughly reviewed by engineering and legal staff personnel of this agency. Before a recommendation is made to the Administrator on the merits of your petition, we request that you furnish further information to us.

First of all, NHTSA is interested in obtaining any available data which will support the contention that the Citroen central power braking system provides a level of safety equivalent to a fully split system with indefinite residual failure mode performance such as is currently required by FMVSS 105-75. Do the highway accident statistics provide such support? Is the incidence of accidents occurring to Citroen vehicles attributable in whole or part to brake failures significantly different from the norm for other European passenger cars? Can it be demonstrated that when failures of the service brakes do occur in emergency situations, drivers are able to adjust their behavior patterns sufficiently quicly to bring the vehicles to a safe stop using the hand operated emergency brakes?

We wuld also like Citroen to provide data to substantiate that the "emergency" system can meet the deceleration requirement of 10 fpsps. What are Citroen's views on an appropriate burnish procedure for testing the emergency braking system? In addition to this, can the 10 fpsps deceleration requirement be achieved using the service brakes with a subsystem accumulator depleted?

Finally, we request data on the costs and leadtime required for Citroen to convert the single central power system to a dual, or full split system.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Maurice Clavel Assistant to the President S.A. Automobiles Citroen

ID: nht89-2.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 6, 1989

FROM: Bob Jones -- Triple J Motors Saipan, Inc.

TO: Ben Blas -- Congressman

TITLE: Re Ref: 704-11

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to l etter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz

TEXT:

I am enclosing copies of a number of letters which create more confussion than they eliminate.

The problem is quite simple. Triple J Motors on Saipan is in compliance with FMVSS and FMCSR Safety and EPA Regulations with all vehicles which we sell. No other dealer is 100% in compliance. All have sold or are selling vehicles which do not meet the Department of Transportation Safety Requirements and/or EPA Regulations.

I want one of two things; either the Federal Government, through its U.S. Attorneys Office, should enforce the laws or set them aside so we all can play on a level ground. I am afraid to violate the regulations and wind up in a law suit as a result of a n accident or some late late action from the Federal Government.

Any assitance you can give would be greatly appreciated. We don't care which way it goes; just a clarification that the CNMI must comply and enforce the regulations or that the regulations don't apply, so that we can import the same non compliance type of vehicles as the competition.

ID: nht79-1.24

DATE: 01/10/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. M. Ashbrook - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 10, 1979

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Honorable John M. Ashbrook House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Ashbrook:

This responds to your December 19, 1978, letter asking whether it is required that school buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers.

As you suggest in your letter, there is no requirement that school buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers. The school bus safety regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require the compliance of those vehicles used to transport more than 10 children to or from school and related events. Vehicles with smaller passenger capacities may also transport children to and from school and need not comply with the school bus safety standards.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 19, 1978

Mr. David Soule Department of Transportation Room 5319 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Soule:

According to the attached findings of the Congressional Research Service, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that school buses be built for a minimum of nine passengers plus the driver. Could you please confirm or contradict this conclusion for me in writing as soon as is conveniently possible?

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

John M. Ashbrook Representative to Congress 17th District

ID: nht90-4.61

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1990

FROM: Jeffrey S. Malinowski -- Small Business Center

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeffrey S. Malinowski (A37; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

This letter is a request for information in regards to an inventor who has designed a tie rod "safety bracket." He needs to know if it would have to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations.

I am a private consultant employed with the Small Business Center, located in Port Huron, Michigan. I was informed by Mr. Carl Clark from the Department of Transportation that you would be the person to contact for this information.

Product Feature Benefits and Advantages:

This new product is composed of five sub-parts that once installed will require no maintenance and will virtually last the life of the vehicle.

The Product is:

1. Simple in design requiring less than three minutes to install. The bracket can be installed by the do-it-yourselfer.

2. Universal in application, probably requiring less than six different part numbers to fit all the vehicles currently making up the new and used vehicle market.

The Product will:

1. Reduce tie rod end wear by up to 300%, thereby extending the tie rod end life by up to three times its normal life expectancy.

2. Increase safety by eliminating any possible tie rod seperation due to excessive wear.

3. Improve steering by giving the vehicle a tighter response and feel.

We will be waiting for your reply to confirm our belief that the tie rod "safety bracket" does not have to adhere to the Code of Federal Regulations.

Attachment

Diagrams and accompanying text regarding Tie Rod Safety Brackets (for the outer and inner tie rod ends). Invented by Leo McCallum. (Text and graphics omitted)