ID: 77-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Michelin's March 23, 1977, letter concerning its February 20, 1976 petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your petition for reconsideration was responded to on February 7, 1977 (42 FR 7140). By this letter, you attempt to resubmit your petition for reconsideration.

Petitions for reconsideration must be received by the agency within 30 days of the publication of a notice. Since the resubmission of your petition is untimely, it has been considered a petition for rulemaking as required by Part 553.35 of our regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 49). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.

Your petition suggests that consumers will be confused by the tire label information if the vehicle is not equipped with the tires identified on the label. The agency has determined that confusion will be minimized by the use of the optional heading "Suitable Tire-Rim Choice."

Your petition raises a second problem concerning tires of identical size designations manufactured by different companies. These tires may have different inflation pressures even though their sizes are identical. The agency understands that this difference in inflation pressure could result in confusion. Manufacturers, however, can avoid this problem through the use of the manufacturer's name on the tire information label as part of the tire information. Use of the manufacturer's name on the label should distinguish between two otherwise similar tires.

SINCERELY,

MARCH 23, 1977

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Reconsideration

Docket No. 71-19; Notice 6

Part 567 - Certification

Docket No. 75-32; Notice 2

Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars We are writing regarding your response to our petition for re-consideration of FMVSS 120 which we submitted February 20, 1976, wherein we requested deletion of the requirement that tire information appear on the certification label. It is our contention that many consumers upon seeing this label will be led to believe that the tires listed are the only tires that can be legally used on the vehicle and that the inflation pressures on the label are the required operating pressures for the tires.

In addition, the inclusion of tire pressures on the FMVSS 120 certification label will be especially confusing since tires of the same size designation can require different pressures for the same load carrying capacity.

In the response to our petition, which appeared in the Federal Register Vol. 42, No. 25 dated Monday, February 7, 1977, it is stated that it is the agency's view that any possibility of confusion can easily be avoided by an indication that the tire designation represents a radial tire, so that a person substituting a non-radial tire size with the same designation is aware that the two tires are not identical.

However, we wish to point out to the agency that we were not only referring to tires of different constructions but also to tires of the same construction. For example, a Michelin 10.00R20 LR G radial tire carrying a tire load of 6040 lbs. requires 100 psi whereas a 10.00R20 LR G radial tire standardized by the American Tire and Rim Association requires 105 psi for the same load.

Since FMVSS 119 does not require tires of the same size designation to have identical load/inflation values, the fact is that many Michelin tires have different pressure requirements than T&RA tires of the same size -- designations, even though they are both radial tires. This fact could, in some cases, cause users to underinflate their tires based on the inflation pressure indicated on the certification label.

We therefore re-submit our petition for re-consideration and once again urge the agency to reconsider the necessity of requiring information on the certification label that will lead to a great deal of confusion. We request that the requirement that tire information appear on the certification label be deleted.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht79-2.9

DATE: 05/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 13, 1979, letter in which you ask whether a seat that does not have another seat immediately behind it must comply with the rearward performance requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The seat to which you refer is abutted by a portion of a lift device for handicapped students. Behind the lift structure, itself, is a restraining barrier and more seats.

Standard No. 222 states that any seat that has another seat behind it must comply with the rearward performance requirements. The effect of this statement is to exclude rear seats from complying with the rearward performance requirements. In the Federal Register notice of April 23, 1975, the agency stated that it was adopting this approach to save costs in school buses without impairing the safety of those vehicles. The agency indicated that the passengers in the rear seat were protected as well as passengers in other seats, because they can "ride down" the vehicle structure rather than the seat back in an accident (40 FR 17855).

The above analysis is equally appropriate for other seats that are directly in front of some substantial vehicle structure. The lift mechanism depicted in your picture and diagram appears to offer similar "ride down" benefits to passengers as does the rear wall structure of a vehicle. Accordingly, the agency considers the rearward performance requirements to apply in situations such as yours only when a seat is immediately in front of another passenger seat. The agency cautions, however, that this interpretation applies only in those instances where the affected seat is in front of some substantial vehicle structure. If the seat does not have the benefit of vehicle structure behind it, it must comply with the rearward performance requirements.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 13, 1979

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 222 PARAGRAPH S5.1.4 SEAT PERFORMANCE REARWARD

REFERENCE: Telephone conversation between W. G. Milby and Roger Tilton March 6, 1979.

Dear Mr. Tilton:

The subject paragraph says "when a school bus passenger seat that has another seat behind it is subjected to the applications of force . . .". The effect of this language is to not require the rear most seats in a school bus to be subject to the rearward performance requirements of FMVSS 222.

The rationale behind this is that the rear structure of the bus body will restrict the seat back from excessive rearward deflection. The purpose of this letter is to seek a similar interpretation for seats which have other structures behind them (such as handicapped passenger lifts as described in the attached photo) which would insure that the rearward deflection does not exceed 8 inches as described in S5.1.4(b). An interpretation is necessary since in some floor plans, such as the ones described on the enclosed form number OE-79122 page 12, it is necessary to have some seating positions rearward of the lift. When this is the case, a barrier is placed between the rear portion of the lift and the next seating position, as shown on the enclosed floor plans. Although these seats are "behind" another school bus passenger seat, they are not immediately behind another seat which is the sense in which the language of S5.1.4 is used.

We thank you for your consideration in this matter and look forward to your early response.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

(Graphics omitted)

SCHOOL BUS

ALL AMERICAN BLUE BIRD'S HANDY BUS 35" LIFT

SUGGESTED SEAT PLANS BODY MODEL AAFC3101 Body Sections Front to Rear: 179" W.B. Floor Plan Number: 0917484 5-28, 2-35, 4-28 Seat Plan Number: 0896696

BODY MODEL AAFC3101 Body Sections Front to Rear: 179" W.B. Floor Plan Number: 0914069(1) 3-28, 2-35, 6-28 Seat Plan Number: 0914325

(Graphics omitted)

(1) NOTE: Option 4594 Relocate 60 gal. fuel tank w/barrier must be ordered. Body Sections Front to Rear: 149" W.B. Floor Plan Number: 0850875 5-28, 3-35, 1-28 Seat Plan Number: 0914309

BODY MODEL AAFC2700 Body Sections Front to Rear: Floor Plan Number: 0850875 5-28, 3-35, 1-28 149" W.B. Seat Plan Number: 0850867

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-1.18

DATE: 05/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 22, 1974, petition to permit the use of the DOT symbol on tires to which no standard applies.

The provisions appearing in the April 3, 1974, Federal Register (39 FR 12104) are amendments to the standard, and your submission is in effect a petition for reconsideration of these changes.

Our reasons for prohibiting the use of the DOT symbol on tires to which no motor vehicle safety standard is applicable are listed in Notice 7. We have found the expense of covering the label to be justified, to avoid confusion in the symbol's meaning and the concept of compliance. We have determined that means are available to securely cover the DOT symbol, or in the alternative, to remove it after the molding process.

For these reasons, your petition is denied.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Date: April 22, 1974

Docket Section -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition on Label Covering the DOT Symbol of @ 574.5;

(Docket No. 71-18 Notice 7)

Gentlemen,

The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, on behalf of six tire manufacturers in Japan, hereby submits petition on the subject proposed Standard published in the Federal Register of April 3, 1974.

It is described in the preamble of subject Docket to the effect;

The DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard is applicable, unless, in the case of tire for which a standard has been issued but which is not yet effective, the symbol is covered by a label that is not easily removable and that states "No Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Applies to This Tire".

As this provision imposes unnecessary burdens on the tire manufacturers and would give very little benefit to the consumer, we would like to request that the NHTSA take following step for the reasons stated below: 1. DOT symbol may be molded into or onto the tires which conform to the final standard of FMVSS #119 even if the tires are manufactured prior to the effective date.

2. And, the tire manufacturers and brand name owners may sell tires without covering the DOT symbol by the label for three months prior to the effective date, in the case of tires for which a standard has been issued but which is not yet effective.

Reasons:

1. We believe that even if we covered the DOT symbol with the label, it could not contribute the safety of the consumer. In addition, there are the following demerits:

1.1 To require the tires which conform to the requirements of FMVSS #119 to have the DOT symbol covered by a label is not only burdensome to the tire manufacturers but also the consumers will ultimately bear the expense of providing labels.

1.2 From our past experience, 5 to 10% of the labels attached to the tire will come off during handling and shipping. Should it fall between the tire and the tube it may cause a flat tire which would involve a possible safety hazard and expose tire manufacturers to a product liability suit.

1.3 In the case of the tire sold as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, each motor vehicle is tested by running check before sending it out, we are afraid that some of the labels may come off before the consumer receives the car.

2. We think it is highly unlikely that any tire manufacturer would produce low quality tires and sell them in this short time before effective date. Some small degree of trust and practicality must exist.

3. We understand the lead time is defined as the period for molding the DOT symbol mark only on tires which conform to the final standard.

We would greatly appreciate your consideration on the above petition.

Very truly yours,

THE JAPAN AUTOMOBILE TIRE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; Keigo Ohgiya, Executive Director

ID: nht78-4.17

DATE: 01/09/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - Wisconsin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 20, 1977, letter asserting that the Wisconsin requirement for minimum seat spacing does not conflict with the Federal requirement for maximum seat spacing found in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) specifies that no State shall have in effect a safety standard concerning an aspect of performance regulated by a Federal safety standard, unless the State standard is identical. The Act provides a limited exception to the above where a State or local municipality has a requirement which applies only to vehicles purchased for their own use and which imposes a higher standard of performance. Both Standard No. 222, which regulates maximum seat spacing, and the Wisconsin standard, which regulates minimum seat spacing, regulate the same aspect of performance. This position is supported by our statements in Notice 5 of Standard No. 222 (41 FR 4016) which expressed the opinion that seat spacing is the regulated aspect of performance (copy enclosed). Since your State standard is not identical to the Federal standard, it is the opinion of the NHTSA that it is preempted.

You should note that although you are not permitted to impose this State standard on all vehicles used in your State, the Federal government does not preclude you from purchasing any buses for your own use from among the several designs now in production. You could, therefore, purchase only those vehicles that afford you the minimum knee space you desire. You should note further that purchase for your own use has been interpreted to mean purchased by a contractor under contract to provide transportation for school children.

SINCERELY,

State of Wisconsin / DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

September 20, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator NHTSA Office of the Administrator

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Re: Letter to you from Mr. Robert Kurre, Wayne Corporation Date September 2, 1977

The State of Wisconsin stoutly defends it's position that there is no point of conflict between the FMVSS 222 relating to seat spacing and the Wisconsin Administrative Code, MVD 17.

FMVSS dictates a maximum space permitted (for compartmentalization) for persons riding in school buses. The Wisconsin rule states a minimum distance that is permissible.

The engineering staff at Wayne Corporation was aware of these two non-conflicting standards as of February 23, 1977. It appears to us that this should have been adequate lead time to design and test seats that can meet both the federal and state standard.

To emphasize this point, we have been advised by one manufacturer of school bus bodies that they are meeting both federal and Wisconsin standards on buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. It is the State of Wisconsin contention that it is merely a matter of proper design by the manufacturer to meet both requirements.

The Wisconsin standard was developed because of the concern for adequate knee room in the seats. The federal standard has no minimum knee room, therefore, if a manufacturer wished to have, for instance only 20 inches of knee room, he could so produce a bus and not be in conflict with the federal standard. This is what we have prevented by the implementation of our minimum spacing measurement. We have observed buses built to less than the 24 inch minimum spacing and they are unacceptable for the cross section of pupil transportation in Wisconsin.

To carry this a bit further, the State of Wisconsin subscribes to the proposal that the federal government interpret the 20 inch measurement from the seating reference point be made at the closest point between the seat back rather than have this at the widest point.

We believe Mr. Kurre is in error by stating that the State of Wisconsin has a standard in conflict with a federal standard. We further believe that our 24 inch measurement is the extreme minimum that is necessary for transportation of any school children in Wisconsin

If I can supply you with additional information in this matter, please advise.

JAMES O. PETERSON Administrator

cc: Col. LEW V. VERSNIK; CARL H. ZUTZ

ID: nht76-4.16

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Midland-Ross' September 30, 1976, question whether the "method" specified by Compliance Testing, Inc., in its December 8, 1975, Technical Proposal for Solicitation NHTSA-6-A212 is consistent with the laboratory procedure contemplated by the NHTSA for its test contractors in evaluating the compliance of air-braked vehicles with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The NHTSA laboratory procedure for compliance contractors in the case of Standard No. 121 states in relevant part:

PROCEDURE:

A. Physically locate check valve or equivalent device.

B. Following manufacturer's recommendation, check the check valve or equivalent device for proper function without disconnecting any air line or fitting. Describe method and technique used.

The Compliance Testing, Inc. (CTI) solicitation was evaluated along with other proposals and has been accepted by the NHTSA. The "method" set forth by CTI as its intended course of action in evaluating the compliance of valves in accordance with the requirements of S5.1.2.3 will not appear in the manual produced for NHTSA compliance testing.

I would like to note in closing that this letter does not constitute an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 121. Although the laboratory procedure sets forth the method by which contractors satisfy NHTSA contracts, it does not mean that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of the standard when tested according to its terms by other methods.

MIDLAND-ROSS

September 8, 1976

Salvatore J. Nicolosi -- Office of Contracts and Procurement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Subject: Laboratory Procedures for Air Brake Systems, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Report #TP-121-00

Midland-Ross Corporation is a manufacturer of air brake actuation equipment for heavy duty trucks. We therefore manufacture components which are used by truck manufacturers for compliance with FMVSS 121. We are asking for interpretation of the requirements for check valves.

In the subject procedures, issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs, Section 1.3.2 states:

"This procedure must be followed by any contractor conducting FMVSS 121 tests for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."

Section 5.7 REQUIREMENT S5.1.2.3 -- SERVICE RESERVOIR SYSTEM AIR LOSS TEST states"

"Each service reservoir system shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and the source of air pressure, by check valves or equivalent devices whose proper functioning can be checked without disconnecting any air line or fitting."

Under the same section PROCEDURE A and B:

"A. Physically locate check valve or equivalent devices.

B. Following the Manufacturer's recommendation, check the check valve or equivalent device for proper function without disconnecting any air line or fitting. Describe method and technique used." (Underscoring added.)

In the submission by Compliance Testing Inc., which we understand was accepted, the Contractor states:

"Method:

1. Build up air in system to maximum

2. Open bleed valve in supply tank

3. Monitor for 10 minutes pressure in primary and secondary tanks - no loss of air allowed"

We submit that on the surface this appears to be not in compliance with requirements of TP121.00 and we would like to have a clear interpretation of what the contractor plans to do with these valves in checking them for leakage. We submit that zero leakage is a physical impossibility and must be interpreted in terms of the accuracy of the equipment being used for measurement.

Further we submit that the contractor is obligated to test for compliance "following the Manufacturer's recommendation" which we in turn would consider to be the engineering specification for the appropriate valve.

We request that this question be clarified and the NHTSA position be stated so that erroneous claims of non-compliance can be avoided. An early response would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

M. J. Denholm -- Director of Engineering, Power Controls Div.

cc: J. Brewster, M-R; D. Gross, M-R; F. Nawalanic, M-R; A. Beier, IHC; R. MADISON

ID: 77-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/77

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

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3-23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598); Also attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacoste; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel

TEXT: This responds to your August 25, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to buses other than school buses.

Your first state your conclusion that paragraph S5.2 of the standard applies only to buses other than school buses. Your interpretation of S5.2 is correct. Secondly, you state that S5.2.1 applies to all buses with GVWR's of more than 10,000 pounds. This assertion is incorrect. See S5.2.3. Paragraph S5.2.1 applies only to buses other than school buses that have GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds.

Your final inquiry pertaining to Standard No. 217 concerns the requirement for unobstructed emergency exits in both school and non-school buses. You first correctly state that paragraphs S5.4 through S5.4.2.1 describe the required size of the unobstructed openings for school buses. You then claim that there is no equivalent description for the size of unobstructed openings required in buses other than school buses. This last statement is not entirely accurate. The amount of unobstructed emergency exit openings required for buses other than school buses is detailed in S5.2. This section establishes requirements for the total area of unobstructed emergency exit openings and for the location of those exits. This section also specifies the extent to which the area of each exit is to be counted in determining compliance with the total unobstructed opening requirement. Therefore, although the standard does not specify minimum size requirements for individual exits in buses other than school buses, the standard does contain other requirements for unobstructed openings in buses other than school buses.

You concluded in your letter that buses other than school buses are not required to use the parallelepiped device in determining whether their rear exits comply with the requirements. This conclusion is accurate. For purposes of clarity, however, you should note that Standard No. 217 does not mandate rear doors in buses other than school buses. Those buses can utilize either rear exits or roof exits. Further, regardless of the fact that you use a rear emergency door in buses other than school buses, you must insure that you also provide the other mandatory exits and the correct area of unobstructed openings as described in paragraphs S5.2 through S5.2.2.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 25, 1977

Office of The Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Chilton

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of FMVSS No. 217 regarding the range of it's application, as follows: Para.S.5.2 - Speaks to buses other than schoolbuses and requires "unobstructed" openings for emergency exit . . ." going on to define the area requirements.

Para.S.5.2.1 - Speaks to "Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds". This presumably covers all buses. It further states that ". . . buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. shall meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing . . . one rear exit that conforms to S.5.3 through S.5.5".

Under paragraph S.5.4 thru S.5.4.2.1.(a) as amended May 25, 1976, the unobstructed opening of a school bus is described as "an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 45 inches high, 24 inches wide and 12 inches deep, keeping . . .". There is no description that pertains to the unobstructed opening of a non-school bus.

We have, therefore, decided that the non-school bus needs only a 12 inch wide clear aisle opening at the rear door to meet the requirements of FMVSS 217. Is this interpretation correct?

We would appreciate an early answer to this query.

Malcolm B. Mathieson, Engineering Manager

ID: nht75-1.1

DATE: 11/26/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Libby-Owens-Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

N41-42

H. M. Alexander, Vice President Technical Development & Services Libbey-Owens-Ford Company 1701 East Broadway Toledo, Ohio 43605

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is a further reply to your letter of September 11, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the test procedures for measuring light transmission of glazing materials in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

As you know, the purpose of the luminous transmittance requirement is to assure that safety glazing used in motor vehicles at levels requisite for driving visibility, does not restrict the vehicle operator's vision below that necessary for safe operation. Further, the apparent effective luminous transmittance of safety glazing as viewed by the human eye is the average transmittance of the entire area surveyed by the eye. In view of this, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would not consider glazing with an average luminous transmittance over its entire area of 70 percent or more to be in non-compliance with the standard.

As you pointed out, the luminous transmittance test procedure specified by Standard No. 205 does not specify the diameter of the measuring light beam. Thus, you are free to use any diameter light beam that is appropriate.

In regard to the distinct bend lines in your back window, we would consider for purposes of determining luminous transmittance, your back window to be divided into three sections - two wings and the central section. Thus, in this case, the distinct bend lines would not be considered as glazing material.

Sincerely,

James B. Gregory Administrator

September 11, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Gregory:

On August 25, we met at the Department of Transportation with Messrs. Guy Hunter, Doug Pritchard and Chuck Kaehn and discussed a new type automotive backlight.

This new type backlight offers advantages toward greater safety by better rear visibility with minimal optical distortion. However, we questioned whether this type backlight meets the 70% light transmission requirement of the ANSI Code Z26 which is a requirement of FMVSS 205.

This new backlight achieves its advantages as the result of bending sharply around a "hot line" electrical conductor which results in a .190" wide opaque line at the boundary between the intersecting bent glass surfaces. In the heated version of such a backlight, the conducting lines in the wing areas are only 17/32" apart whereas in the central area of the backlight, the lines are 1-1/8" apart. See attached sketch of "hot line bent" back window dated September 5, 1975.

The ANSI Code which requires that such an automotive backlight have a light transmission above 70%, does not specify the diameter of the measuring light beam or its placement on the backlight. In the backlight discussed here, if a 1-1/4" diameter measuring beam is used and positioned with one heating line centered in the beam in the central or major rear vision area, it meets the 70% requirement, see Figure 1 in the attached memorandum by Paul Mattimoe dated September 5, 1975. However, if two heating lines are located symmetrically within the same beam as shown in Figure 3 in attached memo, the transmission does not meet the code requirement.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the NHTSA provide an interpretation which will recognize that this improved design of backlight meets the intent of FMVSS 205. Specifically we would suggest that the interpretation specify the positioning of one frit conductor line centered in the light beam as shown in Figure 1 of the attachment. This orientation will provide additional objectivity in the test conditions while the 70% transmissibility requirement will continue to limit the amount of abscuration which could be caused by the electrical conductors. In addition, we suggest that transmission measurements should not be required at the boundaries formed by the intersection of any two glazing surfaces.

We will appreciate your consideration of this request. We will be glad to meet at DOT offices again if advisable. It is urgent that a decision be received since production tooling for the car model involved in this request is proceeding at the present time.

Very truly yours,

H. M. Alexander Vice President Technical Development & Services

HMA:pjp

Attachments

ID: nht94-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1994

FROM: Robert E. Fouts -- President, Earl's Performance Products

TO: Phillip Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Meeting with Mr. Jim Gilkey 11/05/95

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO ROBERT E. FOUTS (A43; STD. 106)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

Flexible brake hose of extruded teflon armored with stainless steel braid have been the worldwide standard for racing cars since the mid 1960s. The reasons are two-fold:

(1) The virtual elimination of hose swell under pressure results in a significant reduction in brake pedal travel.

(2) The same reduction in hose swell gives a much firmer brake pedal feel - allowing the driver to modulate braking force more precisely.

For the same reasons there is a significant market demand for these hoses on road going vehicles, especially high performance vehicles and cars that have been retro-fitted with upgraded brake systems. There is also interest from OEM vehicle manufacturer s for limited production vehicles.

Earl's Performance Products Inc. has been the leading supplier of this type of hose, as well as other types of high performance fluid handling hoses and fittings, to the racing industry for more than twenty years.

The stainless braid armored brake hoses of teflon, supplied to the racing industry, easily meet all of the physical specifications of FMVSS No. 106 with the exception of the whip test. The whip test requires that one end of the hose be fixed to a normal end fitting while the other is attached to a disc of 8 inch diameter. The assembly is pressurized and the disc is rotated at 800 revolutions per minute. The hose assembly must endure 35 continuous hours of cycling without losing pressure.

The standard racing specification hoses typically fail at the interface between the hose and the upstream end of the swedge collar at the fixed end of the assembly. The failure is due to the aggravated cyclic stress.

Earl's determination to develop a flexible brake hose of stainless steel braid armored extruded teflon has led us to design and manufacture our own in house whip test machine to the specifications set forth in FMVSS No. 106.

After some years of experimentation and testing we have developed our "whip dampener" device which allows our hose assemblies to easily surpass the whip test. We have successfully tested hose assemblies from 9.0" to 24.0".

Briefly, the whip dampener consists of a spherical bearing enclosed in a machined housing. The housing clips into the OEM bracket where the OEM hard brake tubing joins to the flexible brake hose. The flexible brake hose of stainless armored teflon is i nserted through the bearing on assembly and cannot be removed. Suitable threaded couplings to JIC, DIN etc. standards are provided at each end of the assembly to match the OEM threads at the end of the hard lines and at the caliper of wheel cylinder. D etails of these couplings are dependant on the specifications of the individual vehicle and installation. No modifications are required (or allowed) to the threaded couplings or ports on the vehicle.

We intend to meet the marking requirements of Section S 5.2.1 by marking a clear plastic extruded overlay with the required lay lines, manufacturer's ID # etc. or by etching the same information onto the stainless steel braid.

Assemblies will be supplied with clear and graphically detailed instructions.

We met yesterday in Washington with Mr. Jim Gilkey of the enforcement division. Mr. Gilkey stated that he felt that our assembly was a reasonable approach to the requirements of Section S 5.3.3 but, since this is a new concept and no device of this natur e had been seen before, your office should be informed. We have left samples, photographs, descriptive literature and a model of the whip dampener test device with Mr. Gilkey.

Upon receipt of a favorable reply we will submit sample assemblies to an independent testing lab for certification with regard to the complete requirements of FMVSS No. 106 and proceed to apply for a manufacturer's ID #.

We are prepared to return to Washington when required. In the meantime, should you or your staff require further information please feel free to contact me at any time.

ID: nht73-5.21

DATE: 09/19/73

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

TO: Pundalik K. Kamath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of August 7 and August 23, 1973, concerning the conformity to Standard No. 121 of certain features in air brake systems submitted to you by suppliers.

Your first question is whether the volume of a supply reservoir that lacks a check valve is to be included in arriving at the required reservoir volume of 12 times the full-travel service brake chamber volume. Our reply is that S5.1.2.1 includes the volume of all service and supply reservoirs, regardless of valving, and that the volume of the supply reservoir in question would therefore be included in the combined reservoir volume.

You next ask whether a system that has no isolated emergency reservoir can rely on its service reservoirs to provide air for the two emergency stops proposed as S5.7.3 by Docket No. 73-13, Notice 1 (38 F.R. 14963). Under this proposal, the stops would have to be accomplished with a single failure of a part (other than a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing or brake chamber housing) designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid. If the system is designed so that no single failure, other than a valve, manifold, or housing failure, will cause a loss of air in both tanks, it would seem to be capable of meeting the proposed requirement even though it does not have an isolated emergency reservoir. However, if a single failure in a brake line would deplete the air in both service reservoirs, the system would be unable to meet S5.7.3 unless an emergency isolated reservoir were provided.

2

In answer to your last question, the emergency stops proposed in S5.7.3 would be conducted from an initial pressure in excess of the compressor cut-in pressure. The reservoirs would not be depleted by prior stops.

Yours truly,

August 7, 1973

Lawrence Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Enclosed are schematic copies of air brake systems provided to OTC by Berg Manufacturing Company and Bendix-Westinghouse Air Brake Division which illustrate air brake systems incorporating provision for secondary brakes per the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket 73-13, Notice 1.

Our concern is if these systems, which are essentially the same, will meet the proposed change to FMVSS 121 when effective, particularly paragraph S5.7.3 as proposed? While we see no reason they would not OTC would like an opinion from your office before we adopt either system.

We would like said opinion as soon as conveniently possible to assist in our brake program execution. Thank you.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Pundalik K. Kamath Senior Safety Engineer

Enclosures

August 23, 1973

Lawrence Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

With reference to my letter dated, August 7, 1973, regarding compliance of the air brake systems proposed by Berg Manufacturing Company and Bendix-Westinghouse Air Brake Division with FMVSS 121 per Proposed Rulemaking, Docket 73-13, Notice 1, particularly with respect to the following questions, I would like to receive clarification from you.

1. Is it correct to use the supply reservoir volume, which is not protected by a check valve, when calculating the total volume of twelve times full stroke chamber volume? Our assumption is that this is acceptable however, we would like confirmation.

2. These systems have no isolated emergency reservoir and rely on air pressure from one of the two service reservoir sources, assuming a failure in the other service reservoir source, for the minimum two stop capability in modulated emergency mode. This implies a single failure affecting only one service reservoir system, it is our understanding that this is acceptable practice per the proposed standard. Please confirm.

3. We understand that a modulated emergency stop condition implies a fully charged service reservoir, that is 100-110 psi in the functional reservoir, that no normal stops which temporarily drop this pressure to 80-90 psi immediately prior to the failure condition are considered. In the latter case two modulated emergency stops may not be obtainable due to the lowered pressure. Please confirm that the baseline condition assumes at least one service reservoir is normally charged to 100-110 psi before simulating failure.

We would appreciate your reply to these questions, as soon as conveniently possible.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

PUNDALIK K. KAMATH Senior Safety Engineer

ID: 001307.Bruno.cmc

Mr. Dick Keller
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
PO Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

This responds to your letter in which you ask about the application of the "make inoperative" provision to the removal of advanced air bag sensors during the installation of driver seats that accommodate individuals with disabilities. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action under the circumstances described in your letter.

In your letter you discussed the installation of a product your company calls the Turning Automotive Seat (TAS) to facilitate vehicle access by individuals with disabilities. You described the TAS as being offered in two models, but you explained that both models are essentially "a swivel seat base mechanism rotating approximately 90 degrees with articulation to clear the B-pillar during entry and egress."You stated that the TAS system is used with the originally equipped (OEM) seat belts and bolts into the OEM seat mounting points. Your letter explained that with the newer air bag systems relying on seat sensors to modulate air bag deployment, replacing the OEM seat with the TAS requires removal of these sensors. You asked if such modifications were covered by the make inoperative exemption in 49 CFR 595.7(c)(14).

By way of background, NHTSA has authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, NHTSA has recognized that it is appropriate to permit some modifications that could cause a vehicle to no longer comply in order to accommodate people with disabilities. 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart C, Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People with Disabilities, lists modifications of certain portions of specific FMVSSs that are exempt from the "make inoperative" provision in order to accommodate people with disabilities.

On May 12, 2000, the agency published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 208 by establishing requirements to reduce the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, especially to small women and young children, and to improve safety for all occupants by means that include advanced air bag technology. (65 FR 30680; Advanced Air Bag Rule.) Motor vehicles certified as complying with the provisions of the Advanced Air Bag Rule will be required to minimize air bag risks by automatically turning off the air bag in the presence of an occupant who is a young child or deploy the air bag in a manner less likely to cause serious or fatal injury to an "out of position occupant."Among the technologies used to comply with these requirements are a variety of seat position, occupant weight, and pattern sensors incorporated into the seat structure. The advanced air bag technology requirements are being phased in beginning September 1, 2003, with full compliance required starting September 1, 2006. ^[1]

While 49 CFR 595.7 includes some specific requirements of FMVSS No. 208 among the requirements subject to the "make inoperative" exemption, the provisions established under the Advanced Air Bag Rule are not included. As you are aware, the agency has granted a petition for rulemaking to include the provisions of the Advanced Air Bag Rule in the exemption list under Part 595. If the agency issues a final rule incorporating the advanced air bag requirements into Part 595, Subpart C, then a vehicle modifier that meets the conditions set forth in that subpart would be permitted to make such modifications as you described.

Until this rulemaking is completed, the agency will use its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action in the limited instance of a vehicle not complying with the advanced air bag requirements because of the installation of a replacement seat to accommodate persons with disabilities. This is conditioned on the vehicle modifier complying with the modifier and modification requirements of Part 595, including the label and documentation requirements of 595.7(b). If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208#595
d.4/8/04





---

^[1] A majority of vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that a percentage of their fleet complies with these requirements according to the following phase-in schedule, with credits for early compliance: September 1, 2003 to August 31, 2004--20 percent; September 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005--65 percent; September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006--100 percent.