ID: aiam5266

"Dear Mr. Backs: We have received your FAX of October 19, 1993, t Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a dump trailer manufactured by your company. With respect to the location of the horizontal side conspicuity treatment, you prefer not to place it on the rubrail because 'our present extrusions have raised ridges on the outer surface.' You propose to apply the conspicuity treatment between each side stake, resulting in 58% coverage of the trailer side. The tape is 'in full view' from a point perpendicular to the side of the trailer, but at approximately 30 degrees from perpendicular, the edge of the tape begins to be obstructed by the side stake. You ask for our concurrence that your proposed treatment is in accordance with Standard No. 108. We are pleased to provide our concurrence. The mounting height requirements of Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 are specified in terms of practicability. The rule was amended on October 6, 1993, to specify a mounting height of 'as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface.' The determination of practicability, in the first instance, is that of the manufacturer certifying compliance with Standard No. 108. NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. Because of raised ridges, you deem the rubrail not as practicable a location as the slightly higher area. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 allows discontinuities in the side treatment as long as not less than half the side is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable. Although the sheeting itself must meet the performance indicated at the observation angles specified in Figure 29, there are no visibility requirements that apply to it once it is installed on a trailer. This mean that the obscuring of the conspicuity treatment that begins at about 30 degrees from perpendicular under your proposed treatment is not prohibited by Standard No. 108. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 08-004775 latouf march 20

ID: nht92-4.4

DATE: September 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Leonard Marks

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 01/01/92 (EST) letter from Leonard Marks to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7689)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you intend to market. According to your letter, this device is "a new adjustable attachment to seat belts which allows the user to lower the level so that it will no longer cut them in the neck and yet give them the safety of the belt." I am pleased to provide the following information.

It is not entirely clear how your proposed device would work. However, we have explained how our regulations apply to several different types of belt positioning devices. One such device is a "comfort clip," which is attached to the safety belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken in by the belt's retractor. We have explained how our regulations apply to comfort clips in a February 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Lewis Quetel (copy enclosed). Another device is one that clips the shoulder belt to the lap belt nearer the middle of the wearer's abdomen. We have explained how our regulations apply to these belt positioning devices in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin (copy enclosed). Yet another device is a covered foam pad that is fastened around the belt. We have explained how our regulations apply to these devices in a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven (copy enclosed). Since your device would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. This information sheet also explains how to get copies of our regulations.

As you will see from reviewing the enclosed letters, aftermarket sales and installation by individual vehicle owners of devices to reposition belts are not prohibited any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the use of such devices could raise serious safety concerns if the devices inadvertently reduce the safety protection afforded by the original equipment safety belts.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam2449

Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's November 8 1976, question whether any provision of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*, prohibits the certification of a vehicle following the addition of an axle system (typically known as a 'tag' or 'pusher' axle) that is not equipped with tires or rims at the time of sale and delivery to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.; The answer to your question is no. The requirement of S5.1.1 that '. . each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet specified requirements . . . ' prohibits the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but it is not a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale.; I would like to point out that S 567.4(g)(4) of Part 567 *Certification*, requires that a gross axle weight rating be assigned to each axle system. Section S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 specifies that the GAWR be not more than the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to the axle in question. While the agency interprets Standard No. 120 to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate for that GAWR, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (such as Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*), would constitute a violation of S108(a)(1)(D) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act:; >>>S108(a)(1) No person shall (A) . . . (c) (sic) Fail to issue a certificate required by section 114 of thi title, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certification is false or misleading in a material respect.<<<; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2447

Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's November 8 1976, question whether any provision of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*, prohibits the certification of a vehicle following the addition of an axle system (typically known as a 'tag' or 'pusher' axle) that is not equipped with tires or rims at the time of sale and delivery to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.; The answer to your question is no. The requirement of S5.1.1 tha '...each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements]...' prohibits the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but it is not a requirements that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale.; I would like to point out that S567.4(g) (4) of Part 567 *Certification*, requires that a gross axle weight rating be assigned to each axle system. Section S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 specifies that the GAWR be not more than the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to the axle in question. While the agency interprets Standard No. 120 to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate for that GAWR, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (such as Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*), would constitute a violation of S 108(a) (1) (D) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act:; >>> S108(a) (1) No person shall (A) ........... (c) Fail to issue a certificate required by section 114 of this title or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reasons to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect,..............<<<; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0088

Dear Mr. Thurber: Thank you for your letter of April 9, 1968, to the Federal Highwa Administration, in which you requested clarification of the requirements for amber side marker lamps and amber side reflectors.; A copy of presently applicable standards, and some proposed standard are enclosed. Note that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, effective January 1, 1968, requires amber front side marker lamps, and amber front side reflectors for vehicles of less than 30 feet overall length, and 80 or more inches in overall width. When the overall vehicle length is less than 30 feet and the front side marker lamps and front side reflectors have been mounted on the cab by the chassis-cab manufacturer, an additional set of the foregoing lamps and reflectors is not required on the body when it is installed.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.; I trust this answers your questions. Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam3469

Dear Mr. Jaworski: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation that th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards or regulations concerning the use of brake hose as a fuel line in commercial vehicles. Mr. Vernon Bloom of the NHTSA apparently told you that the agency has no standards regarding vehicle fuel lines.; Mr. Bloom is correct in his statement that no Federal safety standard or regulations preclude the use of brake hose as a vehicle fuel line, and that there are no standards directly relating to fuel lines. However, the agency does have a safety standard which indirectly involves fuel lines. Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity* (49 CFR 571.301), specifies performance requirements governing fuel systems on new motor vehicles. The standard specifies the maximum amount of fuel leakage that may occur following a barrier crash test of a new vehicle. Although the individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, do not have to meet specific requirements, each component obviously must be durable in order for the entire system to meet the general performance requirement of Standard No. 301. Therefore, you should ascertain whether the brake hose you intend to use as a fuel line would compromise a vehicle's ability to comply with that standard.; I would also point out that, although there are no safety standard directly relating to fuel lines, manufacturers are responsible for any safety-related defects which may occur in their vehicles or equipment. Section 151, *et seq*., of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. Under these provisions, you would be responsible if it were determined that your fuel lines constituted safety-related defects.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0923

Dear Mr. Morris:#This is in reply to your letter of November 7, 1972 about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 as applied to a four speed automatic gear box.#As described, your transmission functions as follows:#>>>'When the gear selector is in any forward position and the vehicle speed falls the automatic mechanism will cause the drive ratio to eventually fall to the lowest gear and thereafter to disengage at about 6 mph leaving the vehicle in a state of 'free-wheel'.'<<<#Paragraph S3.1.2, Transmission Braking Effect, requires that:#>>>'In vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio, one forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds below 25 miles per hour.'<<<#Your transmission, as described, does not meet this requirement, since, in downshifting, the drive ratio would disengage at about 6 miles per hour leaving the vehicle in a state of 'free-wheel' with no engine braking at all.#Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam1573

Dear Mr. White: This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1974, asking for ou interpretation of paragraph 4 of the abbreviated rule making procedures for the addition of tire size designations to the Appendix of Standard No. 109. That paragraph presently states that requests for additional sizes must include a 'statement that the tire size designation and load inflation schedule has been coordinated with the Tire and Rim Association, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation..., etc.' You point out that if coordination with a tire nd rim association is a prerequisite to the approval of a tire size designation, the procedure is inconsistent with the NHTSA policy as expressed in Standard No. 119 that avoids placing final regulatory power in a private organisation.; The abbreviated procedure for adding new tire size designations to th Appendix of Standard No. 109 was initially published on October 5, 1968 (33 FR 14964), and in that issuance, paragraph (4) stated:; >>>A statement *as to whether* the tire size designation and loa inflation schedule has been coordinated with an organisation such as the Tire and Rim Association, The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation...,etc. (emphasis added)<<<; This language was consistent with agency policy of cooperation with th association in setting up the tables, but assumed that manufacturer adherence to association decisions was voluntary. The change to the existing language, which admittedly calls for association coordination, was made in a notice published May $, 1971 (36 FR 8298).; While the issue in Standard No. 109 differs from that in Standard No 119 (in the former it is adding new tire size designations, while in the latter it is matching tires and rims), we agree that the problem of placing regulatory authority in a private organisation is the same in both cases. We have not been able to find an explanation for the change in language made on May 4, 1971. Moreover, the new language was not included in the guidelines for the addition of new tire and rim matching information in Standard No. 110, even though those guidelines were also amended on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 8298). Based on these factors, we have taken steps to amend the guidelines for the addition of new tire size designations to Appendix A of Standard No. 109 to read as originally published. A copy of this amendment, which is effective on publication in the *Federal Register*, is enclosed.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam0515

Dear Mr. Westphal: In response to your letter of September 15, 1971, requesting ou interpretation of certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations:; >>>1. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 'Occupant Cras Protection, 'as amended at 36 F.R. 4600 (March 10, 1971). If trucks over 10,000 pounds GVWR are equipped with a seat belt system as in paragraph S4.3.2, the vehicles need not meet the requirements of paragraphs S5 and S6, which apply only when the complete passive protection system option of paragraph S4.3.1 is adopted. Of course, the seat belt system must conform to the seat belt assembly requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, 'Seat Belt Assemblies.'; 2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, 'Door Locks and Doo Retention Components.' Your interpretation of the standard's coverage is correct: there are no requirements in the standard for the installation of the latches and hinges.; 3. Part 573, 'Defect Reports,' 36 F.R. 3064 (February 17, 1971). Th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations do not require manufacturers to repair defective motor vehicles. Manufacturers are therefore free to make whatever arrangements for repair of defects they wish. Of course, we hope that in making such arrangements the manufacturers will assume the responsibility of assuring that the repairs are made properly.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel