ID: nht88-1.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C.I. Nielsen -- Vice President, General Sales Manager, Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen Vice President General Sales Manager Wesbar Corporation P.O. BOX 577 West Bend, WI 53095

This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1988, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which applies to turn signal lamps. In pertinent part this section requires turn signal lamps for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more to "have an effective projected luminous area not less than 12 square inches." Your design has a lens area of 12 square inches incorporating an integral Class A reflex reflector, and you have asked whether you may include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" in your calculation.

We assume from your letter that the light shines through the reflector when the turn signal is activated, and that the reflector is not opaque. In this instance, the reflector area may be included as part of "the effective projected luminous area" within the meaning of S4.1.1.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 17, 1988

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel-DOT Room 5219 NASSIf Building 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, DC 20590

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE INTERPRETATION 54.1.1.7

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are writing to you for clarification of 54.1.1.7 of FMVSS 108. Our request involves turn signal lamps on trailers 80-inches or more in width and, practically speaking, centers around the wording "shall have an effective project luminous area not less than 12 square inches".

Our design calls for a multifunction lens of 12 square inches, which incorporates an integral Class A reflex reflector. QUESTION: When the turn lamp is activated, may we include, for the square inch calculation, the illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens: We know we are allowed to optically combine two, or more, functions (except for the tail light with the clearance light function), therefore, we don't see this concept as the hurdle. Instead, we find the question lying with the definition of "effective projected luminous area".

Thank you for looking into this matter, Ms. Jones, and we look forward to receiving your written interpretation on the "effective projected luminous area".

Respectfully,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C.I. NIELSON III Vice President General Sales Manager

CIN:mm cc: J. Karrenbauer S. Johnston A. Cunningham DOT

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: nht93-4.17

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Michael H. Dunn -- Vice President, Marketing, Micho Industries

TO: Greg Fera -- Pupil Transportation Specialist, Department of Education, Bureau of Pupil Transportation

COPYEE: M. Hecker; J. Heritscko; G. Gruber

TITLE: Re: R-Bar Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-29-93 from John Womack to Michael H. Dunn (A41; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 11-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael H. Dunn; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Michael H. Dunn to Paul Jackson Rice.

TEXT: To confirm our recent telephone conversation, Micho Industries is now making the arrangements to complete the testing of the R-Bar, with the latest modifications, for compliance with FMVSS 222, specifically for rear impact (4" clearance) requirements.

This testing should put to rest the only remaining concern about the safety of the R-Bar and its compliance with all applicable Federal standards, since all other aspects of those regulations have previously been tested and "certified" to meet those requirements.

We hope to have the complete test data package very soon and I will forward a copy to you immediately for evaluation. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions.

May 17, l993

Mr. Greg Fera, Pupil Transportation Specialist Department of Education Bureau of Pupil Transportation, CN-500 225 W. State Street Trenton, NJ 08625-0500

Re: R-Bar Passenger Restraint System

Dear Greg:

To confirm our telephone conversation, I wish to advise you that, due to several improvements made in the R-Bar design, we can not "CERTIFY" that it is in full compliance with all requirements of FMVSS No. 222, including the rear impact tests described in S5.1.4(c) of that regulation. Please advise Linda Wells for me and, if either of you have any questions, please let me know.

As you know, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer of a product to provide that certification and Micho Industries can now offer you that assurance.

While details of specific changes will not be made public for awhile, I wanted you to be one of the first to be aware of the fact that we can now offer the R-Bar for sale in New Jersey and other states that are looking for a practical and safe alternative to seat belts for school buses.

Thanks for your patience with us. I am sorry it took to so long to get here.

Regards,

Michael H. Dunn V.P. Marketing

MHD/md CC: M. Hecker, J. Heritscko, G. Gruber

ID: nht78-1.36

DATE: 05/11/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1978, letter asking how to measure the head form contact area in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In your first paragraph, you indicate that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has allowed the knee form contact area measurement to be undertaken on or within a line 1 1/2 inches from the edge of the leg protection zone to ensure that the knee form will contact the entire surface. You ask that a similar line be established for the head protection zone contact areas.

As you know, the head form contact area requirements apply to more areas than do the knee form contact area requirements. The knee form contact area requirements apply only to seat backs and the backs of restraining barriers. The head form contact area, on the other hand, includes anything falling within a specified zone which might include the sides or tops of seats. Therefore, it is impossible to create fictional lines around the outer edges of objects that fall within the head protection zone for purposes of testing the compliance of those objects with the requirements. The agency notes further that it never stated that it would test knee form contact area on or inside a line 1 1/2 inches from the edge of a seat back or restraining barrier. The agency did state that it would test in a manner that "provides opportunity for the knee form to contact with the seat back or restraining barrier to the fullest extent possible." That interpretation can also be applied to the head form contact area requirements.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 9, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Reference: 1. W. G. Milby to Frank Berndt, December 20, 1976 2. Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby, February 23, 1977, N 40-30

Reference number 1 requests an interpretation that the centerline of the knee impact tests of FMVSS 222 only be required on or inside of a line 1 1/2" (same as knee form radius) from the edge of the leg protection zone. The reason for the request was to insure that it is physically possible to obtain the required contact area and to insure that enough padding of the correct composition is available for the knee form to contact.

Reference number 2 grants the request of reference number 1.

The purpose of this letter is to confirm our assumption that the same reasoning should be applicable to the head protection zone.

Thank you for your early response.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht76-3.42

DATE: 03/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Titan Trailer Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Titan Trailer Corporation's March 2, 1976, question whether certain bulk grain and feed meal trailers manufactured by Titan qualify as bulk agricultural commodity trailers that are permitted until June 30, 1976, to meet emergency and parking brake requirements other than those specified in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Sections S5.6 and S5.8 provide that a trailer manufactured before June 30, 1976, that is designed to transport bulk agricultural commodities in off-road harvesting sites and to a processing plant or storage location, as evidenced by skeletal construction that accommodates harvest containers, a maximum length of 28 feet, and an arrangement of air control lines and reservoirs that minimizes damage in field operations, is entitled to a specified option.

From the descriptive material enclosed, it appears that the Titan models 92 and 24 are designed for field use and conform to the criteria of skeletal construction that accomodates a harvest container, despite the fact that the container is permanently attached to the frame that surrounds it. It is not clear that the trailers are not more than 28 feet in length, or that the design positions air lines and reservoirs to minimize field-related damage. Assuming that the length, air lines, and reservoirs do meet these criteria, it appears that the trailers would qualify for the manufacturer option under S5.6 and S5.8.

YOURS TRULY,

Titan Trailer corp.

March 2, 1976

Frank Burndt Acting Chief Counsel

On December 5, 1975, the NHTSA published an amendment to FMVSS 121 on page 235 of volume 40 of the Federal Register. This amendment exempted certain bulk agricultural commodity trailers from the parking brake requirements which had heretofore necessitated the use of spring brakes.

We manufacture a hopper trailer designed exclusively to haul bulk agricultural products. These trailers are frequently drawn through fields at harvest time by farm tractors - the conditions upon which the spring brake exemption was granted.

Several of our competitors, manufacturing similar hopper trailers, have told potential customers that these trailers are included under the spring brake exemption.

We would like to receive an official communication from your office as to whether or not these hopper trailers are covered under the spring brake exemption granted to agricultural commodities. To assist you in making this decision, we have enclosed photographs and a sales brochure pertaining to our hopper trailers.

Since our material orders and our sales will be strongly influenced by your response, we would greatly appreciate a prompt reply to this letter. Please feel free to contact me at (916) 662-3941 should you have any questions.

Thomas M. Tucker Assistant Manager

ID: nht76-3.49

DATE: 03/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bock Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 11, 1976, question whether two trailer designs you describe would qualify as "Heavy Hauler Trailer[s]" as defined in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. A copy of that definition is enclosed for your information.

Both of your trailer designs include a primary cargo-carrying surface that inclines from a height of 24 inches in the rear to a height of 47 inches in the front of the trailer. In one case, part of the inclined portion is removable, leaving a 6-foot length of the surface that is flat and 40 inches above the ground in the unloaded condition. In both cases somewhat more than one-half of the primary cargo-carrying surface is 40 inches or less in height.

The exclusion from Standard No. 121 for heavy hauler trailers applies (in relevant part) only to trailers "whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition." The trailer designs you describe would not qualify for the exclusion, because only a portion of the surface qualifies as "not more than 40 inches above the ground."

SINCERELY,

BOCK PRODUCTS, INC.

Feb. 11, 1976

Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

Att: M.J. Herlihy

Mr. Sydney Williams of NHTSA suggested we write for a ruling on the enclosed designs to see if they would be exempt from the FMVSS #121.

They appear to fall within the description of the "Heavy Hauler Trailer", in that the bed height is below 40" over the primary cargo carrying length of the trailer.

However, to be sure of our position we are in need of a ruling by your office.

These designs would be used in the recreational vehicle industry as transporters for manufacturers of travel trailers and mini-motor homes.

Design #2 describes a 6'-0" section of removable ramp which would be left in position when transporting their product. It would install by pins at both ends.

We require your immediate attention on this matter as a rush order is pending.

Robert Fisher Sales Engineer/Coordinator

PROPOSED DESIGN PROFILE #2

DATE: 2-10-76

BOCK PRODUCTS 1901 W.HIVELY AVE. ELKHART, IND. 46514

NOTE! GROUND HEIGHT DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE UNLOADED HEIGHTS

(Graphics omitted)

PROPOSED DESIGN PROFILE #1

DATE: 2-10-76

BOCK PRODUCTS

1901 W. HIVELY AVE. ELKHART, IND. 46514

NOTE! GROUND HEIGHT DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE UNLOADED HEIGHT

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-4.6

DATE: 02/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Hal H. Newell -- Eaton Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Eaton Corporation's January 21, 1976, questions whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stay of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, eliminated all requirements of the standard for the period of the stay, whether complying vehicles built prior to the stay may be modified so they do not comply, and whether non-complying vehicles built during the stay would have to be retrofitted upon reinstatement of the standard. Your other questions are no longer relevant in view of the recent reinstatement of the standard by the Supreme Court.

The NHTSA has interpreted the stay to have had the effect, nationwide, of voiding the standard's force and effect as a whole during the period of January 16 through January 29, 1976.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale of a vehicle unless it is in conformity with applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. Therefore, a vehicle manufactured in conformity with Standard No. 121 prior to January 16, 1976, would have to conform to the standard when sold. Non-complying vehicles built during the stay would not be required to be retrofitted under this provision, because the standard was not in effect on the date of manufacture.

SINCERELY,

Eaton Corporation Government Relations Office

January 21, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Eaton Corporation desires clarification as to the effect the order, issued on January 16 by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in PACCAR Inc., vs. NHTSA and DOT, has on the current status of FMVSS 121 and the proposed changes thereto. Are the requirements mandated under Standard 121 totally eliminated during the duration of the order? Does the Government plan to appeal the order or seek to have it reconsidered by the Court? Can equipment installed on vehicles prior to January 16 in order to meet the requirements of the Standard now be removed? If a vehicle is produced while the Court order is in effect which cannot meet the requirements under the Standard, should the Standard ultimately be sustained, would the purchaser be required to refit the vehicle to meet the Standard's requirements? In the event the stay order is lifted will NHTSA permit a delay in requirements under the Standard until supply lines have been re-established.

As a brake system supplier to the truck industry, there is considerable uncertainty at Eaton as to what type of equipment should be manufactured during this interim period. We would appreciate receiving your thoughts on the problems described above as early as convenient.

Hal H. Newell

ID: nht74-4.10

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 11, 1974, request for approval of Toyota's banding design to meet the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for labeling brake hose assemblies.

The NHTSA interpretes a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. You should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. It does appear that the Toyota label does not encircle the assembly and attach to itself. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance, in any case, because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of a specific design.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

June 11, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 106

We would like to request clarification of S5.2 of Standard No. 106, "Labeling," as published in theFederal Register on November 13, 1973 and amended on February 26, 1974.

S5.2.4 reads as follows:

"Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, . . . , shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly. The band may at the manufacturer's option be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall be permanently etched, embossed or stamped, in block capital letters and numerals at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the following information: . . ."

On the basis of our understanding of this section, we constructed a prototype plastic band to be attached to the neck of the end fitting. The band was made of plastic because of the rust problem that occurs in metal bands during corrosion testing. On the band the figures "DOT TG A/B," where A represents the numeral for the month and B the last two digits of the year of production, are permanently etched. While the band can be removed manually if desired, it will definitely not fall off during vehicle usage.

With the original of this letter, we have attached a sample of this band. Please let us know whether or not you think that it will meet the requirement.

As this is a very urgent matter, your expeditious reply will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Y. Veda

for K. Nakajima

Director/General Manager

Factory Representative Office

ID: 77-5.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 4, 1977 letter asking whether Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window Systems, prohibits the operation of power windows when the ignition key is in the "Accessories" position.

Standard No. 118 requires only that power windows be inoperable when the key is in the "off" position or is removed from the lock, with certain exceptions outlined in S3. It is permissible for the windows to operate normally when the key is in the "Accessories" position.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

October 4, 1977

Joseph J. Levin Office of the Chief Counsel NHTSA

This letter is to ask for your interpretation concerning FMVSS 118 "Power-operated Window Systems".

S.3 of that standard requires that no power-operated window or partition shall be movable when the ignition key is in an off position or is removed from the lock.

In the case of the 5-position ignition switch as shown in the attachment, should the power-operated windows not be movable when the ignition key is in an "Acc" (Accessories) position?

Thank you for your attention to the above matter. We look forward to hearing your reply of the above in the near future.

Tokio Iinuma Staff Safety -- ENGINEERING OFC. OF NORTH AMERICA

Ignition switch

The 5-position ignition switch is located on the right side of the steering column. The switch includes the antitheft steering lock device and also controls the ignition system and most of the electrical equipment:

"LOCK" Normal parking position The ignition key can be inserted and removed at the "LOCK" position only. The steering can be locked by turning the key to the "LOCK" position, removing it, and rotating the steering wheel until the locking plunger clicks into position.

To unlock the steering, insert the key and turn it to the "OFF" position. For easier key operation when unlocking, rotate the steering wheel slightly to relieve pressure on the steering lock.

"OFF"

This position permits turning the engine off without locking the steering wheel.

"ACC" (Accessories)

This position allows you to use all the electrical accessories controlled by the switch.

"ON" Normal operating position

This position turns on the ignition system and electrical circuits.

"START"

This position starts the engine. After the engine has started, release the key. It will automatically return to the "ON" position.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-5.3

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: CIMS COS.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1974, requesting information on the labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117. The agency has recently amended Standard No. 117 in accordance with the Court of Appeals decision in National Tire Dealers' and Retreaders' Association v. Brinegar. The standard as amended requires only that retreaded tires be permanently labeled with maximum load. All the other information required -- size, tubeless or tube-type, maximum inflation pressure, and radial and bias/belted designations -- may appear on affixed labels. The amendment does allow the use of one permanent label to apply all of the required information

JANUARY 15, 1974

Mr. L. R. Schneider, Chief Counsel NHTSA

Subject: - FMVSS # 117 & RECENT ACTION OF U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

We are aware of the recent United States Court of Appeals action concerning the permanent labeling requirements of Retread Std. 117, and assume that NHTSA will promptly issue a notice to help clarify the requirements.

It is our understanding that; -- Effective February 1st, 1974, each retread tire must have the following information permanently molded into or on one sidewall of the tire:

---Maximum Load Pressure*

---Actual Number of Plies*

* (Required information can be retained from the casing, or added in the retreading process if missing or buffed off.)

Further, -- that the following labeling information is required and must appear on the finished retreaded tire, either- or by use of a permanent or temporary type labeling method:-

-- The Tire SIZE

-- TUBELESS or TUBE-TYPE

-- RADIAL or BIAS/BELTED designation

-- MAXIMUM INFLATION PRESSURE

Our concern in this matter is a sincere interest to help eliminate confusion. We are a major supplier to the Industry of retread tire identification systems and have had considerable contact with Retreaders concerning the labeling requirements of #117.

Evaluating the recent action, we conclude that the Retreader can use one permanent labeling method to comply with both the required permanent and temporary labeling requirements. Many Retreaders have indicated to us their interest in using one permanent labeling method to eliminate the additional burden and cost of using both a permanent and temporary labeling method.

Assuming the use of a permanent labeling method is acceptable for both requirements, a clear statement of this in your notice would be of considerable help to all Retreaders and the Industry.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Paul J. Kruder, President

cc: Mr. M. Kushnick

ID: nht75-4.44

DATE: 08/14/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wenger Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 10, 1975, question whether an air-braked trailer which was begun before the effective date of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, can be completed after the effective date of the Standard without complying with the requirements of the standard.

Section 571.7 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, establishes the point at which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to the manufacture of motor vehicles and states in part: ". . . each standard . . . applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard." Therefore, the trailer you describe must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121 if it is completed after January 1, 1975.

I have enclosed a copy of a Federal Register notice that concerns the manufacture of air-braked trailers, and which explains that a trailer may be certified as conforming as a completed vehicle when it is substantially completed. You should be able to determine if the trailer in question was substantially completed prior to January 1, 1975, for purposes of certification.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 10, 1975

National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration -- U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am writing in an effort to clarify a point I have regarding FMVSS 121 covering trailer air brake standards.

I am faced with the following situation. In February of 1972, we commenced work on manufacturing a 5th wheel mobile stage trailer which we sell to park and recreation systems across the country. Previous to that point in time, we manufactured these units utilizing a ball and hitch towing arrangement with electric brakes. However, this new design called for a 5th wheel towing arrangement with brakes. In November of that same year, we shelved the project indefinitely. At that point in time, we had completely assembled the frame, super-structure, axles, and brake system. We are presently thinking about re-opening this project and completing the unit.

Since the project was begun prior to the March 1, 1975, effective date for FMVSS 121 but will not be completed until well after that date, my question is, do I need to incorporate the new safety brake standards on this unit?

Your prompt reply to this inquiry will be greatly appreciated since your answer to this will have some bearing upon whether or not we decide to go ahead with this project.

Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Richard A. Fisher -- Traffic Manager, WENGER CORP.

cc: Erich Harfmann; Tom Springmeyer; Len Nordman; Vern Smith