ID: nht79-4.2

DATE: 10/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wanger Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. J. W. Kourik Chief Engineer, Brake Products Wagner Electric Corporation 11444 Lackland Road St. Louis, Missouri 63141

Dear Mr. Kourik:

This responds to your September 17, 1979, letter asking whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, permits manufacturers to install antilock devices on only one axle of a multi-axle vehicle. The answer to your question is yes.

As you know, the decision in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1978); cert. den'd, 439 U.S. 862 (Oct. 2, 1978) invalidated the antilock requirements as they apply to trucks and trailers. Accordingly, the anti-lock provisions of the standard no longer apply to those vehicles. A manufacturer that desires to install anti-lock devices can do so at its own discretion and to any extent that it considers appropriate. This includes the installation of antilock devices on only one axle. Of course, any installation of devices affecting braking must not impair the brake system's compliance with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 17, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Wagner agrees with the NHTSA position recognizing the benefits of antilock in their recommendation that antilock systems on existing vehicles be maintained in proper working condition.

In regard to existing and newly manufactured equipment, Wagner is aware that according to Notice 26 of Docket 75-16 dated 8/9/79:

"...the court's remand (9th District Court of Appeals, PACCAR vs. NHTSA and DOT)...precludes the agency from enforcing compliance with any road test requirement for trucks and trailers at any speed on wet or dry surfaces."

And also, as stated in Notice 01 of Docket 79-03 dated 2/15/79:

"...users...may order antilock according to their choice on new vehicles."

Wagner interprets that it is acceptable for manufacturers to equip fewer than all axles of a multi-axle vehicle for antilock control. Therefore, users who do elect to use antilock may choose, for example, a single anti-lock system for only one axle (in lieu of tandem control or axle-by-axle control) on a tandem axle trailer.

Wagner requests confirmation on our interpretation regarding acceptability of installations where fewer than all axles on a vehicle are under antilock control.

Very truly yours,

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

J. W. Kourik, Chief Engineer Brake Products

JWK:DSQ:san

ID: nht80-1.24

DATE: 03/05/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Stumbaugh, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please accept my apologies for our delay in responding to your letter of September 17, 1979. You asked whether your client would be required to submit to this agency's inspection or gain its approval before installing a device which connects the gas cap of an automobile to the horn by wires and switches so that the horn blows continuously when the gas cap is removed by a potential thief.

Your client would not be required to obtain an inspection of his product by this agency or to obtain an approval of his product. However, he would be required to comply with other requirements should he begin to manufacture or install his device.

Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed) requires every person who begins the manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to submit certain information about his business to this agency not later than thirty days after he begins manufacture. The information consists primarily of the name and address of the manufacturer and a description of the types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to be produced.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (copy enclosed) is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, he would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this information helpful. If you have further questions please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

PAUL STUMBAUGH ATTORNEY AT LAW

September 17, 1979

Dept. of Transportation Auto Safety Standards

Gentlemen:

I have a client who has invented a device for use on an automobile. His unit involves wires and switches which connect the gas cap to the horn, and the horn blows continuously when someone removes the gas cap for stealing gas; but the same can be disconnected by a switch in the front seat of the automobile for the purpose of filling your tank with gas, etc.

I need to know if any type of inspection, is required and approval by your department before this device can be installed in vehicles for every day use.

Your advice would be appreciated.

PAUL STUMBAUGH Attorney at Law

ID: nht80-1.28

DATE: 03/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 10, 1980

Copies to:

RAR,RS,RLL,JGB,DPD,MRB,CTT,RAW, WLW,MLT,DAL,RFH,WCC,CRS,GPT,RGS

Mr. David Martin, Director Director, Enviromenental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren, Michigan 48090

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is in response to your recent request for an interpretation of the term, "capacity", as used in Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard provides that "the fuel tank is filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard solvent...." "You ask whether "capacity" should include the vapor volume in the air dome plus the volume of the fuel filler pipe when filling a fuel tank for compliance purposes. (Total tank volume = usable capacity + unusable capacity + vapor volume + fluid in filler pipe.)

The vapor volume can be filled with solvent if the solvent is added very slowly to force the air vapors out of the dome. This has been done in past compliance testing by the agency. Upon reconsideration, however, it is our opinion that the term, "capacity", should not be interpreted to include the vapor volume in the air dome, since fuel tanks are never filled to this level by vehicle users. Fuel tanks are designed to include an area for fuel vapor and pressure build-up. Vehicle users never fill their tanks so slowly that this area is displaced with fuel. Therefore, it would be an unrealistic test to require manufacturers to fill tanks in this fashion. Apparently, fuel is actually squeezed out of the filler pipe during compliance testing if the tank is filled to this absolute level. This would not seem to be an accurate test of fuel tank integrity, since it is leaks or punctures in the tank itself that generally cause fuel loss in real-world crashes.

In consideration of these facts, the agency interprets "capacity" to mean "usuable capacity", as used in the vehicle manufacturer's Part I submission to the EPA, plus "unusable capacity" (i.e.. the volume of fuel left in the tank when the engine fuel pump sucks air).

It should be emphasized that the "usable capacity" should be determined only after the tank has been filled to its "unusable capacity". In other words, when testing a tank that has never been filled, the unusable, residual fuel level should be reached before the "usable capacity" is added to the tank. If this is not done, the actual volume of fuel in the tank will be somewhat below the "usable fuel capacity.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-1.37

DATE: 03/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Aeroquip Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 17, 1980, letter asking whether the performance requirements of the parking brake sections of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, permit the use of a common piston for both the service and parking brakes.

In our August 9, 1979, Federal Register notice (44 FR 46850), we stated that the performance requirements of the parking brake system must be achieved with any single leakage-type failure in the service brake system, including a ruptured diaphragm. The use of the diaphragm example was intended only to clarify a question that had been raised by a commenter to the notice proposing the parking brake amendment. The diaphragm example does not limit the requirement that any single leakage-type failure of a component of the service brake system must not affect the performance of the parking brake system.

With respect to your question, you state that a piston does not fail in the sudden manner of a diaphragm. Although this may be accurate, it is not the correct approach for interpretation of the performance requirements of the parking brake sections of the standard. If your parking brake system would comply with the requirements of the standard once the piston in the service brake system has failed, then you would be permitted to use a common piston. If, on the other hand, a failure of the service brake piston would cause the parking brake system to fail the requirements, a common piston would not be allowed.

SINCERELY,

AEROQUIP CORPORATION JACKSON, MICHIGAN 49203

January 17, 1980

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: (Docket No. 75-16; Notice 26) FR Vol. 44, No. 155, page 46850 Thursday, August 9, 1979

Dear Mr. Tilton:

The following statement in regard to the performance of emergency-parking brakes applied by air pressure rather than by spring force appears in the subject Federal Register:

"Thus, the prescribed performance must be achieved with any type of failure in the service brake system, including a ruptured diaphragm".

This statement makes it plain that the service and emergency-parking brake systems may not share a common diaphragm.

Since it is not dealt with in the ruling and because a piston brake does not fail in the complete and usually sudden manner of a diaphragm, we are interpreting the ruling to allow the use of a common piston, assuming all requirements of the ruling are met.

Would you please confirm our assumption at your earliest convenience. You may contact me at (517) 787-8121. Thank you for your cooperation.

C. Crissy Manager, Mechanical Products

ID: nht78-2.44

DATE: 03/29/78

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

TO: Stanley Kuny

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Joan Claybrook has asked that I respond to your February 24, 1978, letter asking whether the seller of a school bus that contains a safety-related defect is responsible for correcting the defect, whether the buyer would otherwise be entitled to a refund for the price of the defective equipment, and whether a brake pressure limiting valve may be installed on the front axles of school buses whose antilock systems are disconnected pursuant to a recall campaign. You also ask about the status of the reimplementation of requirements for school bus service brake stopping distance performance contained in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Section 154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1414) requires the vehicle manufacturer to provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects found in its products, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of its purchase price is undertaken. International Harvester (IH) is in the process of field-testing its remedy for these school buses and it should be available fairly soon.

As for the installation of front-axle brake pressure limiting valves, Federal regulations for vehicles in interstate commerce prohibit the installation of manual limiting valves in 121-equipped vehicles and regulate the installation of automatic limiting valves. Also, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits, with one exception, the knowing rendering inoperative by commercial facilities of a device or element of design installed in satisfaction of a Federal safety standard such as Standard No. 121. A private party is not prohibited under this provision, but the vehicle manufacturer should be consulted about safest configuration of the vehicle brake system. In this case, IH's notice on antilock disconnection explained that the deactivation would render the brake system identical to those produced by IH since the "no lockup" requirement was suspended in January 1976. Thus IH does not recommend any further modification of the brake system.

With regard to your belief that the antilock systems may have cost $ 1200.00, I would like to clarify that Standard No. 121 contains many requirements for improved braking, and the incremental price increase for the improved brakes is attributable only in part to the antilock systems. At present, the Kelsey-Hayes antilock system used on IH school bus chassis costs $ 412.11, and this price would presumably be lower if the system was installed on all bus production as standard equipment.

As for the status of the reimplementation of service brake stopping distance requirements for school buses on April 1, 1978, the NHTSA expects to reach a decision soon and publish it in the Federal Register. I have asked a member of my staff to call you when a decision is made public.

ID: nht78-2.9

DATE: 06/30/78

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

TO: Christy Electronics, Inc.

COPYEE: AMER. ASSOC. OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Our regional office in White Plains has forwarded your letter of May 29, 1978, for reply.

You have requested "approval" of your vehicle lighting system which flashes the stop lamps at a rate three times per second when the brake pedal is depressed.

We do not "approve" lighting devices but we do provide interpretations whether such devices are permissible under Federal lighting requirements. As an item of original vehicle equipment your device would appear to be prohibited by paragraph S4.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This paragraph requires that all lamps be steady - burning in operation except for turn signal lamps, hazard warning, signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps, and it also allows headlamps and side marker lamps to be flashed for signalling purposes.

As an aftermarket device, however, it would be subject to regulation by the individual States. We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion on this point.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

June 8, 1978

Frank B. Caristia Christy Electronics, Inc.

Dear Mr. Caristia:

We are forwarding your letter of May 31, 1978 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Crash Avoidance in Washington D.C. for their review and action.

Irving Rodness Motor Vehicle Program Specialist

CHRISTY ELECTRONICS, INC.

May 29, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We hereby request approval of our new product, for vehicular use, with function as described below:

1. When the brake pedal is depressed the stop lights will flash three times, at a rate of approximately three flashes per second, and then remain lit as long as the brake pedal is held depressed.

2. When the brake pedal is released, the stop lights go off and the circuit resets, ready to flash the stop lights when the brake pedal is again depressed.

This rapid flashing of the stop lights is intended as a means of "waking up" the driver of the vehicle behind you when making stops on highways.

In case of product failure, a by-pass switch can be thrown to restore the vehicles original stop light circuitry.

Please note that many drivers pump their brakes to cause the stop lights to flash, risking an accident because of increased stopping distance.

Frank B. Caristia President

ID: nht78-3.3

DATE: 09/13/78

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

TO: Department of Transportation - Rhode Island

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in answering your letter. This responds to your questions concerning the recent amendment of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, that permits the use of rigid plastics in the side windows of buses. Specifically, you ask whether the amendment includes school buses and whether plastic glazing would be allowed in entrance doors and in rear emergency doors of school buses.

Safety Standard No. 205 was amended to permit the use of rigid plastic glazing in all doors and windows of buses, except windshields or in windows to the immediate right or left of the driver (42 FR 61465, December 5, 1977). This amendment is applicable to school buses, since they are a special sub-category of "bus." The plastic glazing would not be allowed in a bus entrance door since this would constitute a "window to the immediate right" of the driver. Plastic glazing would be allowed in the rear emergency door, however, since that location was not excepted in the amendment.

Please contact Hugh Oates of this office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

Department of Transportation

July 12, 1976

Joseph J. Levine -- Chief Counsel, N.H.T.S.A.

RE: Docket No. 71-1; Notice 06 Final Rule, Glazing Materials. Amended Safety Standard No. 205

Dear Sir:

During a recent telephone conversation with Ms. Nancy Egar it was suggested that I submit my request for an interpretation of the above mentioned amendment relative to glazing material to be used with the use of school buses.

In preparing our school bus inspection for the start of the September 1978 school year, I am in need of guidelines in interpreting whether or not rigid plastic glazing material is allowed for use in the school buses in particular locations such as the rear emergency door which is a visible location via the rear view mirror and the entrance door which is a visible location for children prior to the door being opened. Further to this, the overall amendment includes buses but I was wondering if school buses per say may be exempt in the interpretation of the word bus.

I would appreciate your reviewing the above comments and notifying me in writing as to the N.H.T.S.A. interpretation relative to these questions as soon as possible so that I in turn may respond to the school bus owners before August 15, 1978.

Sincerely yours, Alfred Massarone, Chief -- MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY AND EMISSION CONTROL DIVISION

ID: nht78-3.33

DATE: 04/05/78

FROM: FRANK BERNDT FOR JOSEPH J. LEVIN; NHTSA

TO: General Engines Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 13, 1978, letter asking whether prior to September of 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) required the GAWR determination to be based upon an "unrestricted" speed of 60 miles per hour.

The NHTSA requires that a vehicle's GAWR be based upon an unqualified speed of 60 miles per hour. This GAWR computation is then inserted on a vehicle's certification plate by the manufacturer to inform users of the safe GAWR. However, it is permissible to then list at the bottom of a certification plate different GAWR's based upon reduced speeds. If you intended one of your vehicles to operate under a reduced speed with a higher GAWR, you should have marked the correct GAWR on the certification label computed at 60 miles per hour and listed the higher GAWR's for the reduced speeds at the bottom of the plate.

The 1976 amendment to which you refer, Standard No. 120, continues to require the same approach to GAWR as has been the agency's practice for many years. The only difference incorporated by the 1976 amendment is that those vehicles that are unable to attain speeds of 50 miles per hour in 2 miles need not base their GAWR determination on the 60 mile per hour figure. These vehicles may compute their GAWR's at a reduced speed. Nonetheless, they are still permitted to list at the bottom of the certification plate higher GAWR's for further reduced speeds.

SINCERELY,

JANUARY 13, 1977

Joseph Levine U.S. Department of Transportation NHSTA

Reference: NMV-22 GSh CIR 1711-1

Dear Mr. Levine:

Our company has been charged by NHSTA (Office of Standards Enforcement) of building trailers during the period 1972 to September 1976 "which had tires with weight ratings less than the GAWR." This statement is true if the GAWR is calculated at the unqualified speed of 60 M.P.H. Our GAWR's were based on reduced speeds, which to the best of our knowledge was permissible at that time.

We request a legal interpretation of the following:

During the period of 1972 to August 1976 was there a specific requirement in FMVSS 49 CFR Part 567 or 571 which stated that semi-trailers were required to use an unqualified speed rating of 60 M.P.H. to determine GAWR?

To the best of our knowledge the "unrestricted" or "unqualified" speed rating requirement for GAWR certification became a requirement in September of 1976, under 571.120.

Your early attention to this question would be appreciated. We have discussed this problem with Mr. Shifflet, Mr. Buckley, and Mr. Ness.

F. W. Flowers, Jr. Vice-President

ID: nht78-4.30

DATE: 06/09/78

FROM: LAWRENCE W. HENNEBGERGER; ROBERT L. GREEN -- ARENT FOX

TO: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: Z. TAYLOR VINSON, GERALD M. BLOOM; JOSEPH WALSH, ROBERT BRENNER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/31/78 FROM JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER AND ROBERT W. GREEN; REDBOOK A26(3); STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Levin:

Our client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company, has manufactured and distributed its well-known diesel engine retarder (the "Jake brake") for a number of years. The Jake R brake is sold both in the OEM market as original engine equipment (by such companies as Cummins Engine Co. and Mack Truck, among others) and as an aftermarket installation. This retarder provides auxiliary retarding capabilities independent of the vehicle's foundation brakes and perm[Illegible Words] a heavy truck to travel at normal traffic speeds on long downgrades, under full control, as well as extending the service life of the foundation brakes.

In recent years, the retarding force generated by current-design engine retarders has increased considerably, and electric driveline retarders with markedly greater retarding horsepower have become available. For example, Jacobs is now marketing an electric retarder (the "Jake ERR"), rated at some two to three times the retarding force of a typical large diesel engine equipped with the Jake R brake.

Because retarding forces of this magnitude are capable of producing significant deceleration of a large truck so equipped, Jacobs believe that some means should be provided to warn following vehicles when a retarder is in use. In addition, since a truck tractor equipped with a retarder may be used to pull a variety of different semi-trailers, the warning system must utilize existing vehicle equipment and operate both on the tractor alone ("bob-tail" configuration) and with any semi-trailer that may be hooked up.

After careful analysis and based upon a meeting with NHTSA and BMCS representatives on June 6, 1978, Jacobs has concluded that use of the existing hazard warning flasher system would best provide such warning to following drivers. Many states now require trucks moving less than 40 m.p.h. on limited access highways to use their hazard warning flashers to alert other motorists that they are slow-moving.

In order to provide this retarder warning signal automatically, Jacobs proposes to connect the retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system when a retarder is installed, either at the OEM or aftermarket level. Accordingly, the Company requests an advisory opinion that such use and connection of the hazard warning system is permissive and will not violate the requirements of FMVSS 108, nor will it violate the "antitampering" provisions set out in section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

Sincerely,

ID: nht79-1.6

DATE: 12/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Manning Equipment, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Mr. Denis Urban Manning Equipment, Inc. P.O. Box 23229 Louisville, Kentucky 40223

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to the questions raised in your December 5, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the application of Federal safety standards to devices designed to aid the handicapped. In your conversation, you indicated that you will manufacture some devices that enable the handicapped to operate their own vehicles. These would be sold by you to individuals and installed in either new or used vehicles. You also will install lifts in vehicles.

The agency has no specific safety standards applicable to handicapped control devices or other devices designed to aid the handicapped. Therefore, we have no special guidelines that you must follow in constructing these devices. However, other Federal agencies, such as the Veterans Administration, have guidelines for such devices and we suggest that you comply with those guidelines.

The agency requires new vehicles to comply with all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, if you manufacture and install handicapped devices in new vehicles, those vehicles should comply with the standards. However, the agency has long realized that, in the instance of handicapped driver controls, it may be difficult to comply with some safety standards, particularly Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (copy enclosed). As a result of compliance problems and the need for these devices to promote the mobility of the handicapped, the agency has stated that it will not enforce standards whose compliance may be impaired as a result of the installation of handicapped driver control devices. Nonetheless, the agency encourages manufacturers to try to comply with all of the safety standards.

The compliance of vehicles with the safety standards, however, should not be affected by the installation of lifts. Many companies now install lifts in regular vans and in school buses. In all instances the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards is maintained. Therefore, the agency will not allow any noncompliances to result from the installation of lifts in vehicles.

For used vehicles that you modify by the addition of devices to aid the handicapped, you need not ensure that the vehicles comply with all safety standards. You should not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards, however. As in the case of new vehicles, if the addition of handicapped driver controls interferes with the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards, the agency would not enforce the noncompliance.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure