ID: nht88-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/01/88

FROM: PETER CAMERON-NOTT

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL D.O.T.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/10/88 TO PETER CAMERON FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32; IMPORT REGULATION; LETTER DATED 11/13/86 TO PETER CAMERON FROM FRANCIS ARMSTRONG, NEF 32GSH

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

I would first of all like to thank you for your assistance last year in clarifying certain DOT import regulations.

Once again I need to call upon your assistance. I wish to import an incomplete vehicle that is in kit form. The kit requires complete assembly as well as the purchase of additional parts - which include engine, transmission, drive-shaft, wheels, tires and seat belts here in the U.S.

I understand from a previous letter (copy enclosed) that a vehicle imported in kit form requires that certain items must be FMVSS certified at time of importation. The kit includes items #106,116,205 and all of these carry the appropriate DOT certificat ion markings. Items #109,209, 211 and 213 will be purchased here in the U.S.

My question is can these items be entered with Customs on form HS7 under box #2 as they conform with the FMVSS standards listed in the attached letter.

Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht92-6.35

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Mark W. Russo

TO: Charles Gauthier -- Director, Defects Investigation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/13/92 from Paul J. Rice to Mark W. Russo (A39; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I want to thank you for taking the time and interest to discuss the "R-BAR" subject with me in the past.

The purpose of this letter is to request from NHTSA an official "review and comment" on the topics outlined below. I have enclosed a coy of the "Test Data" booklet I received from Micho a few weeks ago as it contains information not included in the original package sent to me in October '91.

I am mainly interested in addressing the following:

A. The "applicability" of FMVSS 222 to be used as a "test" or "certification" criteria for the "R-BAR restraining system".

B. The use of "alternate testing methods" to comply with FMVSS 571: S 222-2. "S5.1.4 Seat performance rearward". as appears to be the case in the last three pages of section "3" in Micho's booklet.

C. Background of NHTSA's contacts with Micho Ind. regarding the above subjects and copies of correspondence (if permissible).

D. Any other general comments or technical concerns which might be important, for any school districts to consider, regarding the installation of such a device.

Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated by all concerned for the safety of our children.

ID: nht95-7.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Tom Byrne -- Vice President, Goodridge (USA) Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/12/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Tom Byrne (Redbook (2); Std. 106)

TEXT: Goodridge (UK) Ltd. has been awarded approval/certification for its Brakelines by the TUV Manheim, Germany. The test procedures and requirements were those of FMVSS 106. We are therefore now able to offer Stainless Steel Braided Brakelines that are legal for Street and Highway use in Europe and we believe the United States. We have completed the necessary paperwork and have filed for a USA DOT Manufacturers number.

In order to avoid any possible confusion or irregularity, can you please confirm: * an independent laboratory certification that the line meets the requirements of FMVSS 106 is valid for the United States. * that such a brakeline can be used with an adapter into the master cylinder or caliper (for example, where pipe thread has been used). * are there any special marking requirements for the United States? We are required to tag with our manufacturers name, type of assembly and date of manufacture.

I am submitting to you a copy of our TUV Certificate and an English translation. This is confidential material and I ask that you please give it confidential treatment. I thank you for your consideration of my request and look forward to your timely response. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 452-1664.

ID: 002101GF

Mr. Charles W. Lawhon
C & S Trailer World
4111 E. Loop 820 S.
Fort Worth, TX 76119

Dear Mr. Lawhon:

This letter is in response to your phone call and a subsequent letter asking about the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to a trailer with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) at or above 10,000 pounds that was manufactured in 1987. Specifically, you asked about any regulations applicable to such a trailer equipped with an "electrical braking system." It is our understanding that this electrical system actuates brakes via an electro magnet and does not utilize air or hydraulics. You also asked us to elaborate on any other safety requirements for "manufactured utility or gooseneck trailers."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. As a preliminary matter, we note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with those standards.

There is only one Federal motor vehicle safety standard that regulates the braking performance of trailers.[1] That standard, FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121) establishes performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The standard applies to new trucks, buses, and trailers. A trailer manufactured in 1987 would have been subject to the standard as it existed at that time. An air brake system is defined in paragraph S4 of the Standard as follows:

Air brake system means a system that uses air as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake, but does not include a system that uses compressed air or vacuum only to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components.

Based on your correspondence, it is our understanding that the trailer in question uses electricity to actuate or control its brakes. Accordingly, the trailer you described is not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121.

In addition to Standard No. 121, Standard Nos. 106 and 116 are also applicable to trailers manufactured in 1987 and today. Standard No. 106 regulates brake hoses and Standard No. 116 regulates brake fluids. Again, it is our understanding that the trailer in question was equipped with an electrical braking system. Therefore, Standard No. 106 and Standard No. 116 do not apply to that vehicle, because the system does not contain brake fluid or brake hoses.

In you letter you state: "there were no safety regulations in regards to trailers with straight electrical brakes or any other safety devices in 1987." This statement is not correct. There are several safety standards that applied to all trailers manufactured in 1987. Specifically, Standard No. 108 regulates certain lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment installed on trailers. The specific requirements under this standard depend on the size of the trailer, which you have not provided. Standard No. 119 applies to new pneumatic tires installed on trailers manufactured after 1948. Standard No. 120 applies to tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, including trailers.

In sum, there was no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to electrical braking systems installed on trailers manufactured in 1987. However, several other safety standards were applicable to trailers manufactured in 1987. For your convenience, I have enclosed a package of information for trailer manufacturers, published by our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. This information is also available on the web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/maninfo/.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.2/28/03





---




[1] In 1987, FMVSS Standard No. 105 Hydraulic brake systems, applied only to passenger cars, MPVs, trucks, and buses. We note that the application section of the current version of Standard No. 105 states that it applies to "hydraulically-braked vehicles with a GVWR greater then 3,500 kilograms." The application section does not exclude trailers. However, this is an error, and we intend to issue a correcting amendment to exclude trailers, as was the case in 1987.

ID: nht87-1.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. l.Daihatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. regret the delay in this response. We will be resp onding to each of your questions concerning the other two standards in separate letters.

Your questions about Standard No. 219 concerns the requirement of S5 of the standard. That section provides as follows:

When the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 mph impacts a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, under the conditions of 57, no part of the vehicle outside the occupan t compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, affixed according to 56, to a depth of more than one-quarter inch, and no such part of a ve hicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the DLO, below the protected zone defined in 56. (Emphasis added.)

Your specific question concerns a situation in which a windshield wiper penetrates the protected zone template during a crash test because, for example, the wiper was pushed rearward by the deformation of the cowl or the wiper switch was contacted by the test dummy during the crash, thus turning on the wiper. You noted that the wiper blades are normally in contact with the windshield, but that the wiper arms only contact the windshield through the wiper blades. You asked whether the agency would conside r the penetration of the wiper blade and arm into the protected zone template to be a violation of the standard. As discussed below, the answer is no, the penetration of the wiper blade and arm would not be a Violation of the standard.

As you observed in your letter, the wiper blade is designed to be normally in contact with the windshield and is thus exempt from the requirements of the standard. While the arm Hill not be in direct contact with the windshield, the blade attached to the arm does contact the windshield. Also, the wiper arm is a small, light structure which, while not in direct contact with the windshield, is mounted only h fraction of an inch above the surface of the windshield and should pose little or no penetration h azard. Thus, the agency will consider the wiper arm, which is an integral part of the exempted wiper blade, to be exempted as well.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dec. 24, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3)

cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (3)

FHVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion Paragraph 55 of FMVSS No. 219 provides When the vehicle .. no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...." In the case that the wi ndshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template ( by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the vehicle is deemed in complia nce or not: (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision. SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: nht90-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TIMOTHY A. KELLY -- PRESIDENT SALEM VENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/29/90, FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217; OCC 4382; LETTER DATED 01/29/90 FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR / ESCAP E HATCH - FMVSS 217

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release as it applies to roof exits. You asked four specific questions which I have addressed below.

First, you asked for confirmation that the only specification in Standard No. 217 concerning the size of roof exits is the requirement that the exit be able to accommodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches pushed h orizontally through the exit opening. Your understanding is not entirely correct. The ellipsoid requirement to which you refer, set forth in S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, is the only provision in the standard that specifies a minimum size requirement for roof exit opening. Although there is no maximum size limit, you should be aware that S5.2 of Standard No. 217 provides that, in determining the total unobstructed openings for emergency exit provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. Thus, if a roof exit is larger than 536 square inches, only 536 square inches will be counted for the exit in determining whether the bus complies with the unobstructed op enings requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 217.

Second, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 does not permit the use of escape hatches or ventilators in the roof of school buses as a substitute for any of the emergency exits required on school buses by S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. This und erstanding is correct. Additionally, you should be aware that the agency has a longstanding position that any emergency exits, including any roof exits, installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by S5.2.3 must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 217 for emergency exits installed on buses other than school buses. See the enclosed July 6, 1979 interpretation to Robert Kurre on this issue.

Third, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 permits the use of roof exits as a substitute for the rear exit door on buses other than school buses. This statement is not entirely correct. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 requires the use of a rear exit door on all non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., except where the configuration of the bus precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. In that case, S5.2.1 requires the installation of a roof exit in the rear half of th e bus in lieu of the rear exit. This substitution of a roof exit for a rear exit door is allowed only where the bus design precludes the use of a rear exit (such as on rear-engine buses). It is not an option allowing the substitution of a roof exit for the rear door in any design.

Fourth, you asked whether the addition of more than one roof exit on a non-school bus would allow a manufacturer to delete any other required exits in addition to the rear door. It is possible that increasing the total exit space on the bus by adding ro of exits could enable a manufacturer to reduce the number or size of other emergency exits on the bus and still comply with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2. You should be aware that exit space provided by roof exits is not counted in deter mining compliance with the requirement in S5.2 that 40 percent of the total unobstructed openings be located on each side of the bus. Whether this substitution of additional roof exits could be made on any particular non-school bus would depend upon whe ther the bus complied with the exit space and location requirements of S5.2.1 (if the bus has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and the applicable requirements of S5.2.2 (if the bus has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht79-4.22

DATE: 02/07/79

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We understand that a question has arisen concerning the testing of "P-type" tires under the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)). Under the terms of the regulation, candidate tires are to be inflated to 24 psi prior to the traction test (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D), and (f)(2)(viii)), and are to be loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), for the tires' size designation, at a cold inflation pressure of 24 psi (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(viii)). However, Appendix A lists cold inflation pressures for "P-type" tires in kilopascals, with no stated inflation pressure corresponding precisely to 24 psi.

NHTSA chose 24 psi as the stated inflation pressure for UTQG traction testing since it represents the recommended tire inflation pressure for most passenger cars. In the situation where no cold inflation pressure exactly equivalent to the specified pressure of 24 psi is stated in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 for a tire size designation, the tires to be tested are inflated to the pressure, listed for the tire size designation in Appendix A, which is nearest to 24 psi, i.e., 180 kPa for tires with inflation pressures measured in kilopascals. The tires are then loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A for the inflation pressure thus determined. The agency plans to issue an interpretive amendment to the regulation clarifying this point.

ID: nht92-1.16

DATE: 12/18/92

FROM: CHRISTOPHER J. DANIELS -- NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO CHRISTOPHER J. DANIELS (A40; STD. 109; STD. 119; PART 574)

TEXT: I have recently inspected a tire manufactured in Canada, on which the DOT number had been obliterated with a cutting tool to the point that the DOT number is completely gone.

It is my belief that the tire was knowingly and improperly sold with the tire's DOT number removed. On this basis, would you or someone at the Department of Transportation advise on the following:

1. If it is illegal for a tire to be exported from Canada to the United States without a DOT serial number in violation of customs, UCC, or FMVSS regulations.

2. If it is illegal to sell, or use, a tire for highway use without a DOT serial number.

After reviewing FMVSS Nos. 109 and 119 and Part 574 regarding tire identification regulations, I have not been able to find language which specifically and clearly states that it is illegal to sell or use a tire for highway use without a DOT serial number, although that is my interpretation.

I inquire as to whether or not you can provide or assist me in locating any documentation which could address the above questions.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Please call me if you would like to discuss this further.

ID: nht92-9.15

DATE: February 10, 1992

FROM: Jeff Ruff -- Director of Fleet / Government Sales, The Braun Corporation

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeff Ruff (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Several months ago I wrote you voicing my concern with FMVSS 208 and how it affects the transportation needs of the physically challenged. My concern in that letter was the head clearance needed for wheelchair passengers and our inability to cut the "B" pillar support brace from the chassis.

Since my first letter, we at The Braun Corporation have been busy adapting the new vehicles to the needs of our customers. One of our more recent observations concerns the location of the front passenger shoulder belt anchorage point. As you will see in the pictures, the original anchorage point for this vehicle was above the front side cargo door. Because the transportation needs of the physically challenged sometimes demand extended doors for added head clearance, this anchorage point must be moved. The obvious choice for relocating this is at the "B" pillar. (Please note picture.) However, when relocating the anchorage point the OEM FMVSS 208 certification is voided.

Please advise us as to how our industry can adapt to this requirement. I would appreciate a response to not only this letter, but the letter dated October 30, 1991.

Your immediate response to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht76-3.43

DATE: 02/18/76

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

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Oshkosh Truck Company's January 22, 1976, question whether a vehicle that complies with S5.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake System, when it is moving must also comply with the requirement when it is stationary. Section S5.1.1 specifies an air compressor of sufficient capacity to increase air pressure in the supply and service reservoirs from 85 p.s.i. to 100 p.s.i. within a limited period when the engine is operating at the vehicle manufacturer's maximum recommended rpm.

Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is moving as a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they affect the outcome of testing.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

January 22, 1976

T. Herlihy -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

Based on discussions with Sid Williams it is my understanding that section 5.1.1 of FMVSS 121 does not require that compressor buildup time be tested when the vehicle is stationary. If the vehicle meets compressor buildup time when it is moving, but exceeds compressor buildup time when the vehicle is stationary, it is my understanding that the vehicle qualifies. Please confirm.

Sincerely,

Danny Lanzdorf -- Supervising Engineer

cc. J. Westphal; D. Thekkanath