ID: 1984-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Western Star Trucks Inc. -- Stan R. Gornick, MVSS Compliance Specialist

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/20/84 letter from Frank Berndt to Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc.

TEXT:

Stan R. Gornick, P. Eng. MVSS Compliance Specialist Western Star Trucks Inc. 2076 Enterprise Way Kelowna, British Columbia V1Y 6HB Canada

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1984, informing us of compliance difficulties with respect to braking systems on two concrete mixer trucks which "are scheduled to be shipped the last week of December." You have asked for an "exemption to the certification requirements of FMVSS 105 and FMVSS 121."

Although you have stated that the mixer is being installed elsewhere, your letter implies that Western Star will nevertheless be the certifier of the assembled vehicle and not must its initial stage manufacturer. That you are the certified as the assumption on which this letter is based. We have reviewed your letter and have determined that it is the air brake standard, No. 121, with which these vehicles must comply. I enclosed a copy of a recent interpretation covering air-over-hydraulic systems similar to yours which reiterate earlier interpretations. I would like to point out that there is no legal requirement in the United States that a manufacturer conduct the tests specified in the safety standards before he certifies compliance. Your certification may be based on a good faith conclusion that were the vehicles to be tested in the manner specified they would conform to the stopping distance requirement. This conclusion can be based, for example, on computer analyses (such as that provided you by Rockwell International with respect to requirements other than stopping distances), engineering studies or mathematical analyses.

We have no authority to provide exemptions within a time frame that is responsive to your problem. There are detailed requirements for petitions and the public must be offered an opportunity to comment on them. The entire process requires three to four months.

Having filed two inconsequentiality petitions in 1984, Western Star is familiar with that procedure, but the agency has no wish to encourage manufacture of nonconforming vehicles with the implied promise that such petitions would be granted. We therefore advise you to reconsider the compliance status of the two concrete mixers in light of our comment that certification need not be based upon actual vehicle testing, with the thought that you may conclude that the trucks can be certified as meeting Standard No. 121.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure (7/20/84 Letter from Frank Berndt to Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc. omitted here.)

December 10, 1984

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Western Star Trucks Inc. has been awarded the contract to manufacture two only concrete mixer trucks. These vehicles are 6X6's with LRockwell SSHD 44,000 lb. tandem rear axles arid Fabco SDA23 -23,000 lb. front axles. The load distribution is 21,780 lbs. on the front axles and 44,000 lbs. on the rear.

The problem I am facing is that the Fabco front driving axle cannot accomodate air chambers, therefore it is manufactured with hydraulic brakes.

Now I have a vehicle with air brakes on the rear wheels and hydraulic brakes on the front wheels with an air over hydraulic actuator.

FMVSS 121 and FMVSS 105 do not indicate how to deal with vehicles equipped with both air and hydraulic systems.

We have had Rockwell International do a computer analysis of our braking system and they agree with the sizes of brakes, linings, air chamber sizes, etc. and have issued a certificate stating "THE BRAKES APPROVED ARE CERTIFIED TO MEET APPLICABLE DYNAMETER REQUIREMENT OF FMVSS 121 PARAGRAPH 55.4 WHEN APPLIED WITHIN THE LIMITING CONDITIONS OF VEHICULAR BRAKE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL NO. C-04817 - CERTIFICATION NOT APPLICABLE TO VEHICLE STOPPING REQUIREMENTS".

The test data we have on file does not cover this brake configuration, therefore, we would have to perform a complete set of brake test; to verify FMVSS compliance.

The problems I have with this are: 1) We are not installing the mixer on the vehicle. It is being installed elsewhere.

2) To do a proper brake test the vehicle should be equipped as it will be used in the field.

3) A mixer contains an unstable load as it will shift as the brakes are applied. Therefore, to conduct a test in the laden condition it should contain concrete so that the weight transfer effects will be taken into account.

As the truck manufacturer we cannot certify compliance to FMVSS 105 and 121 for the reasons stated above and the mixer installer will not have the facilities or experience to conduct the required tests.

From our experience with 6X4 mixer vehicles with air brakes on all wheels we are confident the vehicle will pass all required braking tests.

In view of the above circumstances we are applying for an exemption to the certification requirements of FMVSS 105 and FMVSS 121.

These vehicles are scheduled to be shipped the last week of December. If an answer to my request can be made prior to this date it would be greatly appreciated. I may be contacted via a collect call to 604-860-3319, ext. 526.

If you require any additional information please contact me by telephone as letters from the United States generally take two weeks to arrive here.

Sincerely,

WESTERN STAR TRUCKS INC.

PER:

Stan R. Gornick, P. Eng. MVSS Compliance Specialist

SRG/az

c.c. Glen Ashdown Bruce Mabbett

ID: aiam1974

Dear Mr. Asbury: This is in response to your letter dated March 25, 1975, requesting a opinion as to whether safety helmets for firemen are covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; The answer to your question is no. Firemen's helmets are not designe primarily to protect their wearers in the event of a motor vehicle accident, but are intended to provide protection from falling debris and sparks while firefighting. Consequently, different design criteria apply and the designs commonly used differ rather greatly in appearance and performance from most motorcycle helmets.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1976

Dear Mr. Asbury: This is in response to your letter dated March 25, 1975, requesting a opinion as to whether safety helmets for firemen are covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; The answer to your question is no. Firemen's helmets are not designe primarily to protect their wearers in the event of a motor vehicle accident, but are intended to provide protection from falling debris and sparks while firefighting. Consequently, different design criteria apply and the designs commonly used differ rather greatly in appearance and performance from most motorcycle helmets.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: 15236hon.kon

Mr. Raymond Ho
Transport Department
Room 3501
Hopewell Centre
183 Queen's Road
East Wan Chai
HONG KONG

Dear Mr. Ho:

This responds to your letter to the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), a private organization that represents automobile dealers, asking about the "latest list of approved types and standards of seat belts and child restraints." NADA referred your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), because NHTSA is the Federal agency that regulates motor vehicle safety in this country.

You indicate that you would like our latest list of approved seat belts and child restraints to update your list of approved types and standards of the equipment. NHTSA does not keep such a list. This agency does not have a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which a manufacturer is required to deliver its equipment to a governmental agency for testing and approval before the product can be sold. Instead, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ("the Safety Act"), each manufacturer must certify that each of its items of equipment fully satisfies all requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of seat belts and child seats, each belt and child restraint that is sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Safety Standard No. 209 and 213 (49 CFR 571.209 and 571.213), respectively. The standards set forth both performance and labeling requirements that must be satisfied by the belts and the child restraints.

Further, NHTSA does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the equipment item or on any tests at all. Pursuant to the Safety Act, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its equipment complies with the standards. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling its belt systems or child restraint systems in the United States test those systems according to the test procedures specified in the standards.

I hope this answers your questions. If you need further assistance, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213
d:6/11/97

ID: 9050

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 223l4

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We have reviewed your letter of September 2, 1993, asking for three interpretations of S5.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions that relate to heavy trailer conspicuity.

You have set forth the metric dimensions specified in S5.7, together with corresponding values under the headings "English (actual)," and "English (nominal)." The latter is a rounding off of the values of "English (actual)." Your first question is whether you may consider the English (nominal) dimensions equivalent for the purpose of compliance with Standard No. 108.

We assume that you would like to provide measurements in the conventional manner to your members who may not be familiar with the metric system, as a means of assisting them to comply with the conspicuity requirements that become effective December 1, 1993. However, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not expressed in equivalents, but in precise values, whether metric or conventional, and there can be no rounded "equivalences" for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. SAE J1322 JUN85 "Preferred Conversion Values for Dimensions in Lighting" which you reference has not been incorporated into Standard No. 108. In implementation of Departmental and national policy, NHTSA has begun to specify the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards using metric system values, and manufacturers are expected to learn and to comply with them.

We would also like to correct a misimpression indicated in your letter. You have placed a single asterisk by certain metric values reflecting your assumption that these are minimum values. This is incorrect; the standard expresses these values as fixed values rather than minimum ones. However, you are correct in your identification as minimum of those values that are not designated by an asterisk. Your second question concerns the location of rear and side sheeting. You point out that cargo tank trailers may have a "vertical surface" only at their "belt line" which may be as high as 2.3 m above the ground. You ask whether retroreflective sheeting may be located higher than 1.25 m if there is no vertical surface lower than this height "without installing structure just for the sheeting." As adopted, Standard No. 108 specified a mounting height as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface". The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance as mounted on a vehicle in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers are expected to mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers. In the case of your hypothetical tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at the belt line, whether 2.3 m or higher, would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

Your third question presents five Figures and asks with respect to each whether the vertical and horizontal sheeting for the upper right and left contours, as specified by S5.7.1.4.1(b), may be of the dimensions and locations shown. This section requires application of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair consisting of strips 300 mm long, applied "vertically" and "horizontally" to the contours "as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable." With respect to Figures 1 and 2 (van trailers), we shall assume that the horizontal strips are mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable. Figure 1 depicts two separate strips at right angles to each other, each 300 mm in length. This design is not in accordance with Standard No. 108. The side strip does not appear mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable, and the top strips do not appear to be mounted as far apart as practicable. While the presence of door hinges may necessitate designs similar to Figure 1, this design, as drawn on an unobstructed surface, does not comply. To effect compliance, either the side strips should be moved upwards, or the top strips should be moved closer to the outside corners.

Figure 2 depicts two strips joined at the corners to make an inverted "L." Each leg of the "L" is 300 mm in length when measured from the outside, top to bottom, or side to side. This configuration is in accordance with S5.7.1.4.1(b).

Figures 3 and 4 present alternative conspicuity treatments for liquid tank trailers where the body is curved rather than rectangular. In Figure 3, two strips 300 mm in length intersect at an angle greater than 90 degrees. In Figure 4, a curved strip 600 mm in length follows the contour of the body. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(b) of Standard No. 108 requires marking the upper outer contours of the body with strips "applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body . . . ." However, the rear contours of a tank body are rounded rather than vertical and horizontal. In view of this fact, the agency accepts the treatment shown in your Figure 3 as meeting the requirement for horizontal and vertical application. The design of Figure 4 does not differ in any significant way, and we consider that it is equivalent.

Finally, Figure 5 depicts a dry bulk trailer with a 300 mm strip centered horizontally at the top of a round body, and two strips of the same length placed lower, at an angle slightly off of vertical, but far from the edges of the body contour. We understand that the body of the trailer tapers to a blunt end represented by the circle upon which the horizontal conspicuity treatment is placed. As the approximately vertical strips cannot be placed on the tapering trailer body, they should be located as far apart as practicable, and the depicted location appears to represent that placement. Similarly, if two horizontal strips cannot be placed on the trailer body, NHTSA will not question the compliance of the vehicle based on the provision of a single, centered strip of retroreflective material.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d.2/7/94

ID: nht88-1.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nuvatec/Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. William B. Huber Senior Vice President Nuvatec/Inc. 3110 Woodcreek Drive Downers Grove, Illinois 60515

Dear Mr. Huber:

This response to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You stated that you manufacture an electronic instrument cluster for use with van conversions and class "A" motorhomes and other vehicles. The gauges ar e of a bar graph type, and associated with each graph is an icon or symbol to indicate the graph function. During normal operation, the icons are illuminated to the same light intensity as the graphs. You stated that as an added feature, the icons blink when, and only when, that function becomes critical or dangerous, such as for low fuel, high temperature, low oil pressure, and low battery. You stated that some of your customers have expressed concern about using your instrument cluster because it may not comply with Standard No. 101, and you requested a formal opinion. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, 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 (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements.

The Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with Part 567, Certification. Persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer are consi dered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers, dis tributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety not from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or it em of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Standard No. 101 (49 CFR Part 571.101) specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. The standard's requirements for displays are applicable only to vehicles with a gross vehicle Height rating of less than 10,000 pounds. See section @5. For these vehicles, the gauges identified in your letter (fuel, temperature, oil pressure, and electrical charge) are displays regulated by the standard.

The primary issue raised by your letter is whether the identification of gauges may flash. As discussed below, Standard No. 101 does not prohibit such flashing.

Section @5.3.3 states:

@5.3.3(a) Means shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions.

(b) The means for providing the required visibility-- (1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in @5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adopted to dark ambient roadway conditions.

(2) May be operable manually or automatically, and

(3) May have levels of brightness at which those items and their identification are not visible.

(c) Effective September 1, 1989, if the level of brightness is adjusted by automatic means to a point where those items or their identification are not visible to the driver, a means shall be provided to enable the driver to restore visibility. (d) For a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1989, the requirements of @5.3.3(b)(1) shall not apply to any gauge during the actuation of a telltale which shares a common light source with the gauge.

Under section @5.3.3(a), means must be provided for making the identification of gauges, i.e., the icons or symbols in your design, visible to the driver under all driving conditions. The on-and-off cycling of the identification occurring during flashing would create momentary periods of time when the identification is not visible.

However, it is our opinion that a flashing identification or other item is considered visible so long as it is visible during the on part of the cycle.

This opinion is limited to the specific issue addressed above and does not constitute an opinion an to whether your electronic instrument cluster complies with Standard No. 101.

As you may know, several amendments were made to Standard No. 101 during 1987. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the current standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

October 1, 1987

Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Association 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Yesterday I talked with a Mr. E. Glancy about an interpretation of FMVSS 101. Mr. Glancy indicated that it was against department policy to make interpretations over the phone, and we should make a written request with your office for a formal opinion.

Nuvatec manufactures an electronic instrument cluster for use with van conversions and class "A" motorhomes and other vehicles. The gages are of the bar graph type and associated with each graph is an icon or symbol to indicate the graph function. During normal operation, these icons are illuminated to the same brilliance as the graphs (as required by @101). As an added feature, we blink these icons when, and only when, that function becomes critical or dangerous, such as low fuel, high temperature, low oil pressure, and low battery. This blinking is similar to the blinking symbol for low fuel in the Lincoln electronic instrument cluster.

Some of our customers have expressed concern about using or instrument cluster because they may not comply with the referenced standard. Therefore, we are requesting a formal opinion. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Should you require any additional material or information, please give me a call.

Sincerely,

William B. Huber Senior Vice President

WBH/slp

ID: aiam3610

Dear Mr. Howard: This responds to your August 18 letter to Roger Fairchild of thi office, regarding the use of cross-view mirrors on certain Postal Service vehicles. These mirrors are convex and have a non-uniform radius of curvature. They would be used to assist drivers in viewing the area immediately in front of the vehicle.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 sets forth rear vie mirror requirements for new motor vehicles. Vehicles such as Postal Service trucks are required to comply with one of three specified alternative sets of requirements for mirror systems. The first alternative requires a plane inside mirror providing a specified field of view and a plane exterior driver side mirror, also providing a specified field of view. The second alternative is the same as the first, except that it permits the interior mirror to have a more narrow field of view as long as the vehicle also uses an exterior mirror on the passenger side. The third alternative requires two plane exterior mirrors of at least 19.5 square inches surface area each, with one placed on the driver's side and the other on the passenger's side of the vehicle.; The agency has taken the position that mirrors used on a vehicle i addition to the required mirrors are not subject to any requirements of FMVSS 111. If the cross-view mirrors you wish to use would supplement mirrors which fully comply with one of the alternatives in the standard, the installation of the cross-view mirrors on new Postal Service trucks is in no way prohibited by our standard.; Further, our requirements do not apply to aftermarket modifications t the original equipment mirror system, when those modifications are performed by the vehicle owner. Modifications to the required system would be deemed unlawful only if done by vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. Thus, the use of the cross-view mirrors is permissible in any case, so long as one of these designated businesses does not perform the modification. However, we recommend that the cross-view mirror be used in addition to the original equipment mirrors, and not as a substitute for those mirrors. Based on our experience with non-uniform radius mirrors, these mirrors should not be used when the vehicle is in motion, since the mirror produces an image which can distort distances. Rather, the mirror should be used to detect people in front of the vehicle while the vehicle is stopped.; NHTSA would appreciate the opportunity to review the results of you test program once it is completed. If we can be of assistance to you in evaluating the mirrors, please feel free to contact us.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0209

Dear Mr. Curran: This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1970, to Mr. W. S Scott, and to your recent inquiry to Mr. James Gilkey, concerning your safety belt system.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 specifies the number o belt anchorages that must be provided and the performance and location requirements of these anchorages in passenger cars. This standard does not apply to seat belt assemblies.; Seat belt assembly performance requirements are specified in Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; I am enclosing copies of Standards Nos. 209 and 210 for your reference. Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Standards o Crash-Injury Reduction, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam3117

Dear Mr. Knight: This is in response to your letter of August 17, 1979, regarding th requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, pertaining to the emergency release warning system for automatic belts.; Paragraph S4.5.3.3(b)(1) of the standard requires an audible an visible warning if the driver's automatic belt system is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened. On one of your automatic belt designs the latch mechanism consists of a pivoting bar which slips through a small stitched loop on the end of the belt webbing. You note that this latch mechanism can be fastened without the webbing being connected to the pivot bar, and that in such a case the warning system would not operate even though the belt is not in use. Therefore, you ask if you can install a switch in the automatic belt retractor to detect when insufficient webbing is extended from the retractor to engage with the latch on the door frame. You ask if such a system could be used as an alternative to the existing requirement or, if the standard could be amended to allow the alternative.; In answer to your question, a switch in the retractor of an automati belt system would not satisfy the current warning system requirement if the system did not also include a switch in the emergency release latch mechanism. Further, the Agency does not believe that it is necessary to amend the standard to allow such an alternative. Although it may be true that the existing warning system could be defeated in a belt system such as you describe, the same is true with most warning system requirements. For example, if the standard provided the alternative you suggest, the automatic belt could be 'tied-off' after sufficient webbing was withdrawn from the retractor and the warning system would be defeated. As you know, this method has been used to defeat the warning systems of many manual belts in the past. Therefore, we believe the existing requirement is sufficient to warn vehicle occupants that their automatic belt has been released and should be reconnected.; The 'pivot-bar' release mechanism described in you letter appears t comply with the requirements of the standard. However, we believe that the bar should remain in the released position after the belt webbing has been removed so that the warning system will activate. In other words, we assume that the pivot bar does not re-latch automatically after being released but, rather, requires manual re-latching by the occupant.; Regarding your third question we have enclosed, for your information Notice 14, Docket No. 1- 18, which establishes the new requirements related to controls and displays.; Sincerely, Ralph J. Hitchcock, Chief, Crashworthiness Division, Offic of Vehicle Safety Standards;

ID: nht68-1.7

DATE: 11/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Arcoa

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 2, 1968, to Mr. David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance, requesting an interpretation on the visibility of backup lamps on truck bodies.

The optical center of the lens surface must be visible from any eye point in the area you have indicated on your drawing.

This Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment; therefore, the above comment is for your information only, and in no way relieves the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,