ID: nht95-4.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 17, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President of Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/6/95 LETTER FROM Earl Eisnhart and Larry W. Strawhorn to John G. Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock power circuit requirements set forth at S5.1.6.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.] This provision states that

S5.1.6.3 Antilock Power Circuit for Towed Vehicles. Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997 and each single unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 that is equipped to tow another air- braked vehicle shall be equipped wit h one or more separate electrical circuits, specifically provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle(s). Such a circuit shall be adequate to enable the antilock system on each town vehicle to be fully operable. (Emphasis added.)

You believe that the phrase "separate electrical circuit" allows for the continued use of the single SAE J560 connector if one of the seven pins provides full-time power for the ABS. You further believe that the ABS malfunction signal can be multiplexed on any circuit of the connector and that the other trailer devices can be powered off the circuit as long as the circuit is adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable.

In the March 10, 1995 final fule, NHTSA decided to adopt the proposed full-time power requirement for trailer ABSs. (60 FR 13216) The agency explained that it amended the standard's wording to clarify that towing vehicles must have a corresponding separ ate cirucit specifically provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle or vehicles. The agency stated that requiring a separate circuit "will ensure the strongest possible source of electrical power from the tractor to ensure the functionin g of all the ECUs and modulators that are employed in the antilock brake system, or systems, on single trailers, or multiple trailers and converter dollies in multi-trailer combinations." It also stated that this requirement will ensure a continuous malf unction indication whenever a malfunction exists. The agency further stated that it has left the decision about which type of connector should be used to the industry.

In response to your question about the use of one of the pins in the seven-pin connector to provide full-time power for the ABS, the use of such a pin would be permissible provided that the

P2 pin services a "separate" electrical circuit to "specifically provide" full time power for the trailers in combination vehicles. This means that the circuit's sole function must be to provide ABS powering, i.e., other trailer devices may not be powered off this separate electrical circuit. This would preclude the use of the pin to power the ABS malfunction signal. Since the requirement for the ABS malfunction circuit did not specify that the circuit used for transmitting the malfunction signal be a " separate" one, ABS malfunction signals can be multiplexed on other circuits with pins in the electrical connector, but no on the circuit and pins used to power the ABS system.

It is important to note that the ABS semitrailer fleet study report (DOT HS 808 059) concluded that the voltages delivered by powering system approaches that employed dedicated separate circuits (i.e., the Cole Hersee, ISO, and 6-pin auxiliary systems) w ere well within the required limits for ECU powering; whereas, the voltages delivered through the stoplamp circuit did not perform as well. The agency concluded that these data indicate the superiority of a separate circuit powering of the trailer ABS a nd therefore, justify the separate circuit requirement.

As you are aware, NHTSA received several petitions for reconsideration about the separate electrical circuit. The agency anticipates that the final rule in response to these petitions for reconsideration will have a detailed discussion of these requirem ents. In addition, the agency may decide to modify these requirements.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam1519

Dear Mr. Kourik: This responds to your May 7, 1974, request to know whether check valve or equivalent devices must be placed immediately adjacent to or within each service reservoir in a trailer air brake system to comply with S4.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, and whether the standard intends each axle subsystem to have a separate service reservoir and check valve system, with particular regard to arrangements for liftable axle systems. S5.2.1.5 states:; >>>S5.2.1.5 Each service reservoir shall be protected against loss o air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.<<<; The answer to both of these questions is no. In an April 3, 1974 letter to Great Dane Trailers, Inc., we interpreted S5.2.1.5 to permit location of the check valve at the isolated reservoir, permitting that valve to also guard the service reservoirs on that axle system. The language of S5.2.1.5 is unclear in this regard, and may be amended in the future. In response to your specific question, it is permissible to use a single check valve to protect more than one reservoir in a subsystem.; Standard No. 121 does not require a separate service reservoir chec valve for each axle system in a tandem axle. As you point out this could decrease total vehicle reliability, and abuse in this area could lead to amendment of the provision. In answer to your fourth question, a single check valve could be utilized to protect the air reservoir or reservoirs required for a liftable axle system or subsystem.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5534

"Mr. Lance Tunick Vehicle Science Corporation P.O. Box 1015 Golden, C 80402-1015 Dear Mr. Tunick: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1995, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, you are concerned with the meaning of the words 'outer lens surface' that appear in SAE Standard J586 Stop Lamps for use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width FEB84, an SAE standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. These words appear as part of the visibility specifications under the installation requirements. You point out that 'outer lens surface' as not been defined either by the SAE or by NHTSA. You believe that the phrase within the context of SAE J586 can mean 'light emitting surface' as defined in SAE J387, and ask for confirmation. According to Standard No. 108 (SAE J586), 'to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface of at least 12.5 square centimeters measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' SAE Information Report J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting OCT88 defines 'light emitting surface' as 'all or part of the exterior surface of the transparent or translucent lens that encloses the lighting or light signalling device and allows conformance with photometric and calorimetric requirements.' We believe that it would be appropriate to substitute the definition of 'light emitting surface' for 'outer lens surface' in SAE J586. The 'outer lens surface' of J586 appears to mean the same as 'the exterior surface of the transparent or translucent lens' of J387. Thus, stop lamp visibility conformance would require an unobstructed view of the light emitting surface of at least 12.5 square centimeters. As always, Taylor will be happy to answer any further questions you may have on this matter (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 18880.nhf

Mr. Jerad Adams
Sales and Purchasing Specialist
Moriden America, Inc.
915 Western Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46241

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your letter concerning the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. I apologize for the delay in my response.

You seek clarification of the flammability test procedure contained in S5.3(f) of Standard No. 302, which states:

Measure the time that it takes the flame to progress to a point 1 inches from the clamped end of the specimen. If the flame end does not reach the specified end point, time its progress to the point where flaming stops.

You ask how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would determine that flaming has stopped.

You explain that when testing a specimen to Standard No. 302, you find that the flame on the leading edge of the fabric often burns out while the flame on the trailing edge of the fabric continues to burn. You believe that NHTSA would continue timing as long as we continue to see a burning flame, regardless of whether the flame is on the leading or trailing edge of the fabric. Your understanding is correct. We would continue timing until we no longer see any flame on the fabric.

If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Fradette at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:302
d.2/25/99

ID: aiam0827

Dear Mr. Haugan: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'. You raise several questions in your letter which are restated below.>>>1. 'To which of the following does the law apply as of September 1, 1972:; a. New vehicles produced after that date. Standard No. 302 applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1972.; b. 'New vehicles produced before that date, but *sold* to the publi after that date.'; Standard No. 302 applies only to vehicles manufactured on or afte September 1, 1972, and does not apply to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1972, but sold to the public after that date.; c. 'Materials for interior repairs (replace headliner, etc.) made afte that date on vehicles produced *before* that date.'; d. 'Materials for interior repairs made after that date on vehicle produced after that date.'; e. 'Products designed for use in vehicles which are not origina equipment and usually not sold by auto dealers, but sold by after-market merchandisers - such items as infant seats, infant car beds, station wagon mattresses, elevating cushions, seat covers, pillows, speaker grills, curtains, gadget holders, litter bags, etc? If 'yes' to some or all of these, is it for those items *produced* by the original manufacturer or *shipped* to distributors or *sold* to the public after the Sept. 1 date?; Standard No. 302 does not apply to replacement parts or aftermarke materials irrespective of the date of their manufacture, shipment to distributors, or sale to the public.; 2. Standard No. 302 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenge vehicles, trucks, and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1972. Among the vehicles you have listed, only the following are included under one of the classes to which the Standard is applicable: Jeeps, dune buggies (where constructed on a new chassis), motor coaches, motor homes, chassis mounted coaches, fire trucks, ambulances, and hearses.; 3. You ask whether testing the removable covering for seat cushions i motor coaches must include the zipper and the welting, and whether the fabric on 'non-visible surfaces' must be tested together with the fabric on the visible surfaces or not at all.; The zipper and the welting are considered part of the seat cover an would be included in the testing of the cover. The surface of the seat covering, irrespective of its visibility, must meet the requirements of the Standard. In your case, since the fabric on the visible surfaces differ from that on the non-visible surfaces, each of these fabrics must meet the requirements of the Standard.; 4. You ask whether the plastic foam used for cushioning in the mattres of a station wagon or multipurpose vehicle is subject to the Standard.; S4.2 of the Standard lists mattress covers only, and does not apply t the filling of the mattress.; 5. You ask whether the 'boot' on a pick-up camper is subject to th Standard.; We would not consider the boot as you describe it to be part of th truck, and it would not therefore be subject to the Standard.<<<; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-3.22

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Superintendent of Public Instruction; Old Capitol Building

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1979, letter asking about modifications of buses to reduce seating capacity so that they no longer must comply with school bus safety standards.

First, let me clarify several points. In applying motor vehicle safety standards, we define a "school bus" as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define "bus" as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The phrase "more than 10 persons" includes the driver. Accordingly, any vehicle that transports 11 people is a bus.

Your first problem appears to involve how to determine whether a vehicle is designed to carry more than 10 persons. You indicate, for example, that some manufacturers have attached labels to their vehicles stating that they are designed to transport 15 passengers. However, some of the vehicles only have 8 or 9 seats. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration measures vehicle capacity by the number of designated seating positions. Therefore, a vehicle that has 8 designated seating positions is not a bus. Such a vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If you are unsure of the vehicle type, refer to the vehicle certification label located on the door pillar post or on the inside of the door. That label lists the vehicle type as established by its manufacturer.

Any vehicle that is sent from its manufacturer and certified in compliance with multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) standards may be used to transport school children. These vehicles, since they are not buses, need not comply with the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, any vehicle that is certified as a bus, but not a school bus, should not be used to transport school children.

You ask whether a bus can be modified by removing seats so that it would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would require it to comply with the school bus safety standards. In theory such a modification is permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, Certification, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type (from bus to MPV), it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to the new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses. However, it is conceivable that the initial vehicle manufacturer might be able to assure the dealer that the vehicle was built in compliance with all necessary standards. In such a case, the dealer could attach a label, and the vehicle would be properly certified.

If a school modifies its own vehicles, it need not attach a label. Also, it need not assure that the vehicles comply with any standards. In the event of an accident, however, a school could incur substantial liability if it were operating a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards.

In your final question you ask what agency enforces the standards against dealers and manufacturers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration enforces all of the motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: aiam4884

"Dear Mrs. Anania: This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke o my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle. You explained that your husband, Vincent Anania, has some paralysis of his right arm and hand as a result of a stroke a year ago. You explained that your husband wishes to begin driving again and was recently evaluated by Bryant Driving School in Raleigh who determined that he was qualified to drive. However, the seat in your automobile does not move far enough back to allow your husband to enter the vehicle. You asked for permission to have your vehicle modified so that the seat can move further back. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulations will be of assistance to you. I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your husband's condition. We caution, however, that only modifications necessary to accommodate your husband's condition should be made to the seat. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0136

Dear Mr. Romney: Thank you for your letter of January 8, 1969, to Mr. Andrew K. Ness National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning your request for an interpretation relative to the mounting of clearance lamps.; It is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 tha clearance lamps be mounted as near as practicable to the upper right and left extreme edges of the vehicle. Lamps mounted at the right and left extreme edges of the widest part of the body panel shown in your sketch would meet the requirements. The mounting height of these lamps should be as high as practicable without causing objectionable glare in the rearview mirror. Retention of cab mounted clearance lamps is optional.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, comments of this Bureau are for information purposes only and in no way relieve any vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam0225

Dear Mr. Niguma: This is in reply to your letter of March 2, 1970, to Mr. Clue D Ferguson, Concerning an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111.; In your letter you indicated that the mirror, as mounted in th vehicle, cannot be hit at a 45 degree angle by a 6.5 inch head form because of the geometric arrangement in your automobile. In this case, we would accept the maximum angle possible with the head form. We must point out, however, that the test also includes any other angle from the one you describe down to a 45 degree angle under the horizontal (re: S3.1.2.2 of Standard No. 111).; Please note that this interpretation in intended to provide you wit information regarding an acceptable test procedure. The Traffic Safety Act places responsibility in the manufacturer to determine whether a given item of equipment meets applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard and he must certify to that effect.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: nht87-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David M. Romansky -- President, Atract Ad

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to J. Mike Callahan (A32; Std. 108); 4/14/87 letter from J. Mike Callahan to Taylor Vinson (OCC 409); 11/19/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Roger M. Cox (Std. 108); 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Bob Sandblom (A33); 5/18/89 letter from Bob Sandblom to DOT (OCC 3584)

TEXT:

Mr. David M. Romansky President Atract Ad 3400 Hwy 427 Sanford, FL 32771

Dear Mr. Romansky:

This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1987 asking for our "evaluation and comments" on your proposed product. This product is an adhesive label that is applied to the center highmounted stop lamp. When the brakes are applied the words "buckle-up" become visible to the driver of the car behind.

Our comments relate to the acceptability of your product under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, and its relationship to State laws. Th e simplicity of the decal is such that it may be readily applied by anyone with no special expertise or tools. There will be no violation of the Act if the decal is applied by the vehicle owner. However, a vehicle in use is subject to the laws of each St ate in which it is registered or operated. We are not familiar with State laws governing partial obscuration of the center lamp. We suggest you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 2 0036 for further information. There is at least the theoretical possibility that it may raise a question of liability, or provide a defense, in accident suits involving rear end collisions.

Questions of compliance would be raised were the decal applied by motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair businesses, either before or after sale of the vehicle. In essence, a new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal moto r vehicle safety standards at the time of its first sale, and the persons listed above must do nothing during the life of the car to affect the compliance of a device installed in accordance with a safety standard. If the decal reduces the effective proj ected luminous area of a lamp to less than 4 1/2 square inches, interferes with light output at any of 13 specified photometric test points, or renders the signal not visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degree s to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the lamp will not conform. A person creating a noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to 000 for each violation.

If you have any further questions we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 11, 1987

Mrs. Erika Jones Chief Counsel NCC-01 National Highway Safety Administration 400 7th Street South West Washington, D.C.

Dear Mrs. Jones,

I have been directed to you by your Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia, by C. V. Rice. Enclosed you will find a product we plan to manufacture and distribute in the United States to be applied to the collision avoidance light.

When this decal is installed on the face of the collision avoidance light lense, upon applying the brake, the message "buckle-up" becomes visible to the driver of the car directly behind it. Thus, reminding them to be sure that their seat belts are buckl ed up properly.

We would like to have your evaluation and comments on this product as our intentions are to promote public safety by the use of this product.

An immediate response would be greatly appreciated as we are working with several state programs at the present time. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, David M. Romansky President

Enclosure/ps