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.

ID: nht92-9.31

DATE: February 3, 1992

FROM: Arthur J. Kuminski -- Design Engineer, Eberhard Manufacturing Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Arthur J. Kuminski (A39; Std. 206)

TEXT:

Eberhard Manufacturing manufactures industrial and vehicular hardware. We are presently in the final stages of prototyping a custom lock system for Grumman Olson to be used on their "Route Star Walk-in Vans". Enclosed are a picture and some specifications on the Route Star to help explain how the door is used.

The reason for my letter is to request further interpretation from your organization on the testing standards for sliding doors on cargo vans. The following standards are the ones I have questions about:

Standard No. 206 S4.3 Sliding Doors - The track and slide combination system or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position.

S5.3 Sliding Doors - Compliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members of the door (4,000 pounds total). The demonstration may be performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture.

1. I will need specifications on how to perform this test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and the door latch only.

2. What load must the system withstand in the primary locked position to pass the test?

3. Is their a load requirement that the system must withstand in the secondary locked position to pass the test?

If you have any questions, please call me. Thank you for your help.

ID: nht92-9.32

DATE: February 2, 1992

FROM: A. Volmerange

TO: Mr. Harper -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/92 from Paul J. Rice to Anne Volmerange (A39; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

My toyota dealer needs a written authorization from your office to install an old fashion three points belt on my 92 Tercel.

The two points belt which is on the car just don't fit me. I am five feet tall,and the shoulder belt ties either on my neck or on my breast. As these two body parts are too sensitive to take the pull of a restraining belt, I have to drive without it, in spite of the California Law.

Also, the holder of the shoulder belt can't be reached from my driving position since it is way behind the seat. This create a safety hazard since I would not be able to untie it in case of an emergency. One of my previous car burst in flames, and one of my hand opened the door, while the other untied the three points safety belt which I was wearing that day.

As a Registered Nurse, I am aware of the chest, neck and head injuries, and can't figure out why you have stopped using the three points belt. It was fitting all sizes drivers and all seat positions. Car dealers should be allowed to install them as many new cars owners hate the new system and don't use theirs belts.

ID: nht92-9.33

DATE: January 31, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Suzuki -- Managing Director, Suzusho Trading Co.

TITLE: Your ref: ST-9015/91

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/16/91 from S. Suzuki to Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, NHTSA (OCC 6611)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 16, 1991, to the Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, with reference to the "Safety Shot" lighting device that you have developed. You have enclosed photographs illustrating three types of this device in operation.

In brief, the device consists of a center red highmounted stop lamp, immediately flanked by amber lamps that serve as supplementary turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps. Although the photos are not entirely clear, the device appears to consist of segmented compartments in a common housing, with thicker dividers separating the signal and stop functions. Type I incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the top of the rear window. Type II also incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the bottom of the window. Type III is located at the top of the rear window and uses conventional bulbs for its light source. You have been referred to us by Chrysler Corporation. We assume that you approached Chrysler with a view towards having your device accepted as original motor vehicle equipment. You have asked for our views on whether it is possible to use this device in the U.S. market.

In the United States, the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for rear lighting is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Section S5.4 of Standard No. 108 does not allow a center high-mounted stop lamp to be physically combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Because Safety Shot appears to have a common housing for signalling and stopping functions, the lamps are "combined" within the meaning of the prohibition.

This means that the Safety Shot may not be used as original equipment on motor vehicles, and it may not be offered as a replacement for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps (required on each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1,1985).

If you wish to sell the Safety Shot as an accessory in the aftermarket, for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, different considerations apply. Installation of the Safety Shot by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not permitted if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, the function of any other rear lighting device.

The question, therefore, is whether the effectiveness of the function of any other rear lighting device is compromised by the Safety Shot to the extent that the other device's function is rendered, at the minimum, partially inoperative. We note that original equipment amber signal

lamps are not prohibited from flashing when the stop lamps are operating. It would not appear that the addition of the Safety Shot to a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, would compromise the signals from the original turn signal and stop lamps in a manner to render them, at least, partially inoperative. However, the Safety Shot is subject to regulation by the individual States of the United States in which it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Motor vehicles are also required to be manufactured to conform to Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors. Under this standard, if installation of the Safety Shot prevents the vehicle from meeting the rearview mirror field of view requirements specified, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the Safety Shot must install a rear view mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle (as a practical matter, most vehicles in the U.S. are manufactured with this additional mirror).

ID: nht92-9.34

DATE: January 30, 1992

FROM: David Klopp -- Freedman Seating Company

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Klopp (A39; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Freedman Seating manufactures seating systems which are used in a variety of vehicles including shuttle buses, tour buses, etc. Examples of our seats are attached. The frames are mounted to the floor and, in many cases, to the wall of the vehicle also.

We would like an interpretation of FMVSS 210 regarding seats having multiple seating positions and with their seat belt anchorages located on the seat frame. Does the strength test in FMVSS 210 require simultaneous testing of all seat belt anchorages for each seat?

Please give me a call if you require additional information.