ID: nht94-2.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: John Collins -- Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, American Trucking Associations (Alexandria, VA)

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/2/94 from John Womack to John Collins (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of the test procedure specified in paragraph S5.8.2, "Supply line retention", of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, "Air Brake Systems". The last sentence in this paragraph states:

"A trailer shall meet the above supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pressurized to 100 psi, and the regulator o f the test rig set at 100 psi."

Our interpretation of test conditions specified in this sentence and Figure 1 (copy attached) is that:

1. The test rig remains connected to the shop air, as shown in Figure 1, for the duration of the test.

2. The shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test.

3. The pressure in the test rig's 1000 cu in. reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test.

The basis for our interpretation are:

a. S5.8.2 does not say that the test rig is to be separated from the shop air supply for the test.

b. S5.8.2 does not say to turn the shut-off valve to the "off" position for the tests. The valve is considered to be normally "open" for tests since it is "open" during the tests for which the test rig was originally designed (brake apply a nd releasing timing tests in paragraphs S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of FMVSS 121) and these paragraphs do not say to have the shut-off valve "open" the tests.

c. There would be no reason for S5.8.2 to specify setting the regulator valve at 100 psi if air was not flowing through the regulator valve. Air can only flow through the valve in this test when air is coming from the shop air supply and go ing out through the shut-off valve.

d. When a combination vehicle is moving, the vehicle's air compressor is operating to maintain the air system pressure within a specified range.

Whenever the trailer supply line pressure is less than the tractor reservoir pressure, air is flowing through the supply line.

We would very much appreciate an early answer to this request as The Maintenance Council of the American Trucking Associations is planning tractor- trailer air systems tests during the first week of May. The objective of these tests is to develop inform ation which will help manufacturers and owners build/modify equipment in such a way as to effectively live with the requirements of S5.8.2 as we interpret the.

Attachment

Figure 1. - Trailer Test Rig. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht94-6.27

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: John Collins -- Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, American Trucking Associations (Alexandria, VA)

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/2/94 from John Womack to John Collins (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of the test procedure specified in paragraph S5.8.2, "Supply line retention", of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, "Air Brake Systems". The last sentence in this paragraph states:

"A trailer shall meet the above supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pressurized to 100 psi, and the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi."

Our interpretation of test conditions specified in this sentence and Figure 1 (copy attached) is that:

1. The test rig remains connected to the shop air, as shown in Figure 1, for the duration of the test.

2. The shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test.

3. The pressure in the test rig's 1000 cu in. reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test.

The basis for our interpretation are:

a. S5.8.2 does not say that the test rig is to be separated from the shop air supply for the test.

b. S5.8.2 does not say to turn the shut-off valve to the "off" position for the tests. The valve is considered to be normally "open" for tests since it is "open" during the tests for which the test rig was originally designed (brake apply and releasing timing tests in paragraphs S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of FMVSS 121) and these paragraphs do not say to have the shut-off valve "open" the tests.

c. There would be no reason for S5.8.2 to specify setting the regulator valve at 100 psi if air was not flowing through the regulator valve. Air can only flow through the valve in this test when air is coming from the shop air supply and going out through the shut-off valve.

d. When a combination vehicle is moving, the vehicle's air compressor is operating to maintain the air system pressure within a specified range.

Whenever the trailer supply line pressure is less than the tractor reservoir pressure, air is flowing through the supply line.

We would very much appreciate an early answer to this request as The Maintenance Council of the American Trucking Associations is planning tractor- trailer air systems tests during the first week of May. The objective of these tests is to develop information which will help manufacturers and owners build/modify equipment in such a way as to effectively live with the requirements of S5.8.2 as we interpret the.

Attachment

Figure 1. - Trailer Test Rig. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht71-4.17

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1971, to the Acting Chief Counsel, concerning several matters involving the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). In your letter you request an interpretation of whether @ 573.5(b) requires reports of quarterly production figures irrespective of whether or not the manufacturer has a safety-related defect campaign to report for that or any other quarter. The answer to this question is yes. As indicated in the denial of the petition for reconsideration (36 F.R. 14774), the requirement that production figures be reported is related to more than the particular quarter in which the information is submitted. Consequently, this information must be submitted for each quarter regardless of whether a defect notification campaign takes place during that or any quarter.

In your letter you also petition for certain modifications to the regulation. These are discussed separately below.

1. You petition that, if the quarterly production figures are required regardless of the existence of defect notification campaigns, we exempt "recreational vehicle manufacturers" from this requirement. This request is denied. Under present standards and regulations, as you know, recreational vehicles may be classified in any one of numerous vehicle categories set forth in 49 CFR 571.3. We cannot consider your petition without your specifying the types of vehicles for which you request the exemption and a justification for each particular type of vehicle, based upon the specific characteristics of the vehicle that you believe warrant our granting an exemption. I add, however, that we find your arguments concerning the burden of reporting production figures to be insubstantial. The ability of the NHTSA to monitor notification campaigns clearly outweighs, in our view, the burden of reporting vehicle production figures. Furthermore, we do not agree with the position you

take, that the proposed requirements of Docket 71-11, "Manufacturers Identification", regarding estimated yearly production figures can in any way serve as a substitute for actual production figures in terms of providing hard data on the effectiveness of notification campaigns, on the percentage of production campaigned, or in terms of monitoring manufacturers' estimates of the number of vehicles involved.

2. For the reasons stated in the denial of petition for reconsideration we deem your petition for additional notice on the requirements for reporting production figures (@ 573.5(b)) to be without merit, and it is accordingly denied.

ID: nht93-8.14

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/93 from Ray Paradis to Pat Boyd (OCC-9151)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993, to Pat Boyd of this agency with respect to the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed literature and photos of several of your trailers, and ask for our comments in several areas.

Your first remark is "Deck heights are from 22" to 39 1/2"." We understand this to ask whether these are acceptable heights for mounting conspicuity treatments. Standard No. 108 was amended on October 6, 1993, to specify a mounting range as close to 375 to 1525 mm as practicable, i.e. approximately 15 to 60 inches. Your "deck heights" are within this range.

Your second remark is "(t)he rear design does not allow for continuous tape all models." Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. Paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps, breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps.

Your third remark is (t)he side extension model has fold-up sides #2." We understand this to ask whether striping must be applied so as to be visible only when the extension is folded, or whether striping must also be visible when the extension is in use, i.e., whether striping must be applied to both surfaces of the extension so that it is visible regardless of the position of the extension. Although Standard No. 108 does not directly address this question, we believe that motor vehicle safety requires visibility of conspicuity treatment at all times. The standard does require that striping not be obscured by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo, reflecting the agency's intent that striping be visible when the trailer is performing its intended work-related functions. This means that side extension model trailers should be equipped with conspicuity treatment that is visible both when the extensions are folded and unfolded.

Your final remark is "((d)oes the front require any stripe." Under the assumption that you refer to the front side of a trailer and not the front that is hidden behind the towing vehicle, the answer is yes. Standard No. 108, in pertinent part, requires conspicuity treatment to be applied as close to the front of a trailer as practicable. Goosenecks and tongues are part of the trailer front and are portions of a trailer requiring conspicuity treatment if practicable.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht72-6.57

DATE: 08/07/72

FROM: RICHARD B. BYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM -- DIRECTOR GM ASE

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lundstrom:

This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1972, concerning the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302. Flammability of Interior Materials, n1 to radio speaker cones. You request clarification of an interpretation we sent to American Motors dated June 9, 1972, wherein we stated that "stereo speaker . . . cones incorporated into a door or rear shelf would be considered part of a 'trim panel' and 'compartment shelf,' respectively. You particularly request clarification of the phrase "incorporated into.

The NHTSA's position is that a speaker cone, while not generally subject to Standard No. 302 (we assume that it is not an "energy-absorbing" component), will be subject to the standard if it is "incorporated into" a component that is subject to the standard. We would consider a speaker cone to be "incorporated into" a trim panel or compartment shelf if the cone forms a portion of the surface of the panel or shelf. We would not consider a speaker cone merely attached to an enumerated component, but situated wholly underneath (shelf) or behind (trim panel) its surface to be subject to the standard.

I trust this clarifies our position.

Yours truly,

ID: nht90-1.84

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 23, 1990

FROM: Anthony H. Brett -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice

TO: Malcolm B. Mathieson -- Vice President - Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: Re Letter of August 8, 1989, from the Director of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards to the Executive Director of the National School Transportation Association

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice from M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598); Also attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacos te; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel; Also attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion

TEXT:

This correspondence is in response to your letter of March 20, 1990, to Rod Ligon in our office. As I told you in our telephone conversation yesterday, you have correctly noted the error in the Federal Highway Administration's position concerning emerge ncy exits on school buses.

The letter to Ms. Finkel does not take into account the amendments which occurred in Standard 217 (49 C.F.R. S 571.217) to specifically address the emergency exit requirements of school buses. As you correctly noted in your letter, the predecessor of th e current Standard 217 did not distinguish between school and non-school buses. The application of the old standard to both categories of buses was problematic.

The revision of the standard established two separate categories of buses governed by different emergency exit requirements. Your responsibility as a manufacturer of school buses is to comply with the specific standard for school buses provided in S 5.2 .3.1.

Mr. Trentacoste's letter fails to take into account the revisions in Standard 217, which were adopted to address this very problem. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at your convenience.

ID: 20588.ztv

Mr. Terry Vos
Tioga, Inc.
850 Florida Avenue South
Golden Valley, MN 55426

Dear Mr. Vos:

We are replying to your fax of August 17, 1999, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency, on trailer lighting.

You tell us that you manufacture "air heaters used by the construction industry." The assembled unit "is permanently mounted to an axle and hitch that is suitable for highway transport when necessary, to move from job to job." These units "are used at construction sites nationwide," and their rear lamps are easily broken. You have asked "since these are portable machines, rather than cargo trailers, do the same trailer lightings requirements apply . . . or are there some exceptions that may apply" which would permit you to use reflectors rather than lamps.

Under the laws that we administer, a "motor vehicle" must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, such as the one that specifies requirements for lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (Standard No. 108). For this purpose, a "motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)).

Whether we consider your trailer-mounted equipment to be a "motor vehicle" depends on its use. It is our position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered "motor vehicles" since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

If your equipment typically spends extended periods of time at a single job site and only uses the public road infrequently to move between job sites, it would not be considered a "motor vehicle" subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Assuming this is the case, you may equip the air heater with such lamps and reflectors as you deem appropriate. However, your productwould still be subject to local laws when used on the public roads. If your equipment uses the public roads on more than an incidental basis, it would be considered a "motor vehicle" subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.11/9/99

ID: nht95-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 22, 1995

FROM: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede E Stabilimenti

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for legal interpretation, FMVSS 205.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GIUSEPPE DI VITO (A43; STD. 205; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

INTRODUCTION

Siv hereby request an interpretation for the testing of a Glass-Plastic glazing item 15A, FMVSS 205. We respectfully request the NHTSA's response at the soonest possible date.

PURPOSE

We ask by this letter for your interpretation involving testing of glazing item AS 15A, Glass Plastic (Annealed Glass-Plastic for use in all position in a Vehicle except for Windshield). We request an interpretation of whether or not test no.5 (bake ANSI Z.26.1-1977) may substitute test no. 4 (boil, ANSI Z26.1-1977) for certification of compliance of that glazing.

BACKGROUND

BMW requested our company to develop a security glazing made of:

1. Door glass: Glass - Polyurethane - Polycarbonate, as per enclosed sketch no. 1. 2. Rear Quarterlite: Glass - Polyvinylbutirale, as per enclosed sketch no. 2.

Both these glass plastic parts have an internal safety spall shield to protect occupants against facial injuries coming form glass particles when the side window is broken or in case of accident. This product meets all the ECE R 43 compliance tests, whi ch include a 100 degrees C (212 degrees F) bake test. The product meets all the applicable test of FMVSS 205 except test n degrees 4 (boil test), which is not compatible with adhesion of the internal spall shield.

This type of glazing will be installed on a limited number of 1996 BMW cars to be sold in Europe and USA. BMW and SIV believe that this spall shield is an important safety innovation, whose absence would not allow introduction of these side windows into the USA.

We expect your urgent answer and thank you in advance.

Attachment Bar graphs - security glazing (omitted).

ID: 000576.jeg

Mr. Chris Tinto
Vice President
Technical & Regulatory Affairs, Safety
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
1850 M Street
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036




Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As discussed below, we confirm that paragraph S4.5.1(e) requires only one air bag warning label on the dashboard (or the steering wheel hub).

As you noted in your letter, paragraph S4.5.1(e), Label on the dashboard, includes three sections. Section (1) states that "(e)xcept as provided in S4.5.1(e)(2), each vehicle that is equipped with an inflatable restraint for the passenger position shall have a [specified] label attached to a location on the dashboard or the steering wheel hub. . . ." Section (2) [S4.5.1(e)(2)] specifies requirements for a similar label for vehicles certified to meet requirements for advanced air bags before December 1, 2003, and section (3) specifies requirements for a similar label for vehicles certified to meet requirements for advanced air bags on or after December 1, 2003.

You stated that Toyotas concern is that although S4.5.1(e)(1) makes an exception for S4.5.1(e)(2), it does not make an exception for S4.5.1(e)(3). You indicated that therefore, as written, both sections S4.5.1(e)(1) and S4.5.1(e)(3) apply. You noted the similarity of the labels required by the two sections, and that the one required by section (3) includes details related to advanced air bags. You stated that Toyota believes it was not NHTSAs intention to require vehicles to have both labels.

This confirms your understanding. The agency intended the S4.5.1(e)(2) and (3) labeling requirements for vehicles certified to meet requirements for advanced air bags to supersede the labeling requirement in S4.5.1(e)(1). Therefore, the exception identified in S4.5.1(e)(1) should include S4.5.1(e)(3) as well as S4.5.1(e)(2). We will issue a technical correction concerning this matter in the future.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.3/14/05

ID: 11501ZTV

Mr. Mark A. Evans
Photometric Engineer
Calcoast - ITL
P.O. Box 8702
Emeryville, CA 94662

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1996, in which you ask "what regulations apply to" a rear fog anti-collision laser system. The system consists of a laser diode with a beam diameter of 1 cm, mounted on the rear decklid of a passenger car "near the highmounted stop lamp (where applicable)." The laser would be inclined downward. Its purpose "is to illuminate water vapor present in the air under fog conditions," thereby, as we understand it, improving conspicuity.

The statute that we administer which applies to this device is Title 49 United States Code Chapter 301-Motor Vehicle Safety. Under Chapter 301, the device you describe is considered "motor vehicle equipment." If a defect exists in this product that relates to motor vehicle safety, as determined either by its manufacturer or by this agency, the manufacturer is required to notify purchasers and to remedy the defect. The manufacturer should ensure that its laser does not create a problem that this agency could recognize as a defect in its performance.

There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to this device. However, the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard (Standard No. 108, 49 CFR 571.108) prohibits the addition of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. You mentioned the laser's proximity to the center highmounted stop lamp. This is permissible as long as the laser doesn't impair the effectiveness of the center lamp.

The responsibility for a determination of impairment initially falls upon the installer of the equipment. If the installer is the manufacturer of the vehicle, he must make such a determination in order to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the installer is the dealer, the dealer must make the determination in order to ensure that it is delivering a conforming car to its customer. Of course, NHTSA may make its own impairment determination if it disagrees with the views of the manufacturer or dealer.

If the laser is to be sold in the aftermarket, it may be installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business only if it does not "make inoperative" required lighting equipment such as the center lamp. We view making inoperative as the equivalent of impairment under these circumstances.

Even if acceptable under Federal law, use of aftermarket equipment is subject to State laws. We are not in a position to advise you on these and suggest you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/12/96