ID: nht91-2.17

DATE: March 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry Rowe -- President, Show Trucks U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-11-90 from Terry Rowe to Office of the Chief Council (OCC 4889)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether your company would be considered a vehicle "alterer," within the meaning of 49 CFR Part 567 certification, and Part 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. I apologize for the delay in this response. Based on the statements in your letter that your company modifies only new vehicles before delivery to customers and that the modifications performed by your company do not affect the vehicles' gross axle or gross vehicle weight ratings, your company would be considered an "alterer, and would be subject to additional certification requirements, if the modifications involve something more than the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable" components. A more complete explanation of your responsibilities under NHTSA's laws and regulations follows.

S567.7 imposes additional certification requirements on "a person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with S567.4 or S567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ..." You stated in your letter that your company can provide features such as a 3-piece seating system, removable headrest, custom walnut steering wheel, and tinted windows. Your company is an "alterer" subject to the requirements of S567.7 to the extent that your modifications do not involve "readily attachable" components.

A determination of whether modifications involve readily attachable, components depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching these components. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable" components, the agency in the past has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. Absent extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats, headrests, and steering wheels to involve readily attachable" components. To the extent your company is involved in such modifications, then, it would have to affix an additional certification label pursuant to S567.7. Further, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and remedy for defects or noncompliances with the safety standards, and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

You should also note that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act sets forth certain prohibitions and requirements that would apply to these vehicle modifications, even if the modifications involved only "readily attachable" components. For example, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale, offer for sale,

introduction into interstate commerce or importation of any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This provision of Federal law means that all of the vehicles modified by your company must continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after the modifications have been made. In addition, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. Again I apologize for the delay in this response. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of may staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Information sheet from NHTSA dated September, 1985 titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. (Text omitted)

ID: 1985-04.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R.A. Bynum

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Associate Director, Pupil Transportation Service Virginia Department of Education P.O. Box 6Q Richmond, Virginia 25216-2060 Dear Mr. Bynum:

Thank you for your July 31, 1985 letter to Administrator Steed concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength to your school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

In a telephone call with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that Virginia wants to purchase new school buses for deaf and blind school children and plans to equip those buses with bathrooms. The bathrooms will be installed by a commercial shop after the State receives the vehicles from a dealer. You explained that the joints of the body panels enclosing the passenger compartment would comply with FMVSS No. 221. However, you asked us whether the panels covering the inside of the bathroom, comprising a "Formica-type" material, must comply with the standard. As explained below, the answer is no.

Our safety standards and regulations are not applicable to modifications of motor vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles for purposes other than resale, with one exception. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides, in part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

In your situation, section 108(a)(2)(A) requires the commercial business adding the bathroom to ensure that any device or element of design which was installed in compliance with Federal safety standards continues to comply with those standards after the work has been completed. For example, the installation of the bathroom compartment must not render inoperative the compliance of the school bus seats with FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection or the emergency exits with FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. However, the joints of the panels would not have to comply with Standard No. 221 since the panels are being placed in a used vehicle. The agency does, however, urge persons making modifications to follow voluntarily our safety standards.

We would note that this agency has a set of different requirements that would apply if the bathroom were added to a new school bus before its sale to you. In that situation, the person who installs the bathroom would be an alterer under our regulations, and required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards, including FMVSS No. 221. (49 CFR Part 567.7.)

Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P.O. BOX 6Q RICHMOND 23216-2060 July 31, 1985

The Honorable Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S,W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Ms. Steed:

The Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind for children operating under the auspices or the State Board of Education, need to purchase school buses which contain a bathroom similar to those round in Charter buses. We are not aware or any school buses so equipped which meet April 1, 1977 federal school vehicle regulations.

It would appear that the joint strength standard and possibly others, will be involved. We have contacted several or the major school bus body manufacturers for assistance with development or this project in order that it can be bid as required by Virginia law. Some of these body plants probably will be contacting your agency for guidance in the near future.

We hope members or your agency will be able to help us finalize the planning for this important and much needed feature in an approved school bus for special children. Should a staff member wish to contact me by telephone about this request, they may call 804-225-2037. Sincerely, R. A. Bynum, Associate Director Pupil Transportation Service RAB/ns

ID: aiam3978

Dear Mr. Goodling: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. And Witten of Biglerville, Pennsylvania, concerning our regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.; Mr. Witten believes that Federal law prohibits schools from carryin more than 9 students in a van. He suggested that the law should be changed to allow schools to use the full capacity of 15-passenger vans.; I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for schoo buses. As explained below, there is no Federal law prohibiting schools from transporting 15 school children in a 15-passenger van. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act in 1974 to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date.; The Vehicle Safety act requires any person selling a new 'school bus to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a 'school bus' is defined as a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons and intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. Thus, a 10- or 15-passenger van is considered a school bus if intended for school purposes, and our school bus safety standards apply to those vehicles as well as to larger school buses. If any new school bus does not meet those standards, the seller may be required under the Vehicle Safety Act to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties.; The Federal requirements apply only to the manufacture and sale o school buses, not to their operation. State law determines the requirements which vehicles must meet in order to be licensed for use as school buses. School vehicles that are within Pennsylvania's definition of a 'school bus' are subject to the State's requirements for school buses. We are aware that Pennsylvania has recently amended its definition of a 'school bus' by extending it to vehicles with a capacity of 10 passengers and a driver. Previously, those vehicles were excluded from the definition. Pennsylvania now requires those previously-excluded vehicles to comply with the State's school bus regulations in order to be used as school buses in that State.; The nature of the State's regulations for school bus use is a matte left to Pennsylvania. Our agency has issued recommendations for state highway safety programs regarding the use of school buses in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed), which Pennsylvania may choose to adopt. Program Standard No. 17 is part of a series of program standards covering various aspects of highway safety which are issued by NHTSA under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Pennsylvania may have decided that our recommendations should be made part of the state's comprehensive regulations for school bus usage. Again, however, operating requirements which school buses must meet are determined by State officials.; I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me i you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: GF004408

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in response to your letter of June 22, 2004, in which you requested interpretation of certain vehicle labeling requirements in S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, as amended by a final rule that responded to petitions for reconsideration, published on June 3, 2004 (69 FR 31306).

S4.3 requires that each vehicle subject to the standard contain either a single vehicle placard with certain tire information, or a vehicle placard and a supplementary tire inflation pressure label, affixed to the drivers side B-pillar. S4.3(a) requires that each placard show vehicle "capacity weight" expressed as "The combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kilograms or XXX pounds."

In the context of dealers possibly installing additional equipment onto the vehicles, you ask whether alterations that result in even small changes in vehicle weight necessitate applying a new placard onto that vehicle. In some circumstances, a new placard would be needed.

Vehicle capacity weight is defined in FMVSS No. 110 as the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicles designated seating capacity. As explained in an April 25, 2002, letter to Mr. Kenneth Conway, the term "rated cargo and luggage load" is not defined in our standards, but generally, it refers to the vehicle manufacturers determination of the cargo and luggage carrying capacity of the vehicle. As explained below, the vehicle capacity weight cannot exceed the difference between the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) specified by the manufacturer and the unloaded vehicle weight.

Under 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), vehicle manufacturers cannot specify a GVWR that is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo and luggage load, and 150 pounds times the vehicles designated seating capacity. That is, the GVWR must be equal to or greater than the unloaded vehicle weight plus the vehicle capacity weight.

"Unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use."

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a dealer may not sell vehicles or equipment that do not comply with applicable safety standards. Also, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits dealers and certain other entities from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, a dealer must replace the vehicle placard if, after the dealer installs additional equipment, the information required by S4.3(a) is no longer accurate.

In order to determine if the vehicle capacity weight has changed as a result of installing additional equipment, a dealer can subtract the unloaded weight of the vehicle (with any additional equipment installed by the dealer) from the GVWR. If the resulting vehicle capacity weight is below the amount stated on the placard, the dealer must replace the vehicle placard because the information required by S4.3(a) will no longer be accurate.

If the GVWR specified by the vehicle manufacturer is greater than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight (prior to installation of additional equipment) and the vehicle capacity weight specified on the vehicle placard, then there may be instances where installation of small amounts of additional equipment would not diminish the vehicle capacity weight specified on the placard. That is, the difference between the GVWR and the new unloaded weight of the vehicle (with additional equipment installed by the dealer) would not be less than the vehicle capacity weight specified on the placard.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.9/30/04

ID: nht79-1.40

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 21 1979 NOA-30

Mr. J. C. Eckhold, Director Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Eckhold:

This is in response to your letter of August 3, 1979, asking whether Ford may ship to distributors and dealers vehicles with bumper guards, needed for compliance with Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581), placed inside the vehicles for installation prior to sale of the vehicles to consumers. You state that the bumper guards, which would be attached by dealers and others making use of pre-processed mounting holes in the vehicle bumpers, would reduce railroad car capacity, if installed prior to shipment. You also suggest that absence of reference in the Customs regulations (19 CFR Part 12) to readily attachable components needed to comply with regulations issued under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901), may lead to complications in the importation of vehicles prior to installation of readily attachable bumper components.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to the shipment of vehicles with readily attachable bumper components stored in the vehicles for later installation, provided the components are attached before the vehicles are offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Further, regulations governing importation of motor vehicles (19 CFR 12.80) apply only to compliance with Federal Motor vehicle safety standards, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 571, and the question of compliance with Part 581, therefore, should not arise.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 3, 1979

Mr. Richard J. Hipolit, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

This is to request an interpretation of Part 581, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as to readily attachable and detachable equipment that constitute portions of the bumper system on passenger cars subject to the "Phase II" requirements of Part 581 that become effective on and after September 1, 1979.

Unlike regulations issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Part 581 does not expressly provide that a vehicle which conforms to the criteria of the bumper standard with readily attachable equipment installed -- such as bumper guards --is deemed also to be in conformity when shipped with the readily attachable equipment placed in the vehicle for installation by dealers or others prior to the first retail sale (by means of designated, pre-processed installation points on the vehicle, e.g., bumper guard mounting holes pierced in the bumper).

A number of practical problems can be expected to arise in the absence of appropriate interpretation of Part 581 to deal with the realities of manufacture and distribution. As Mr. D. G. McGuigan informed you last week, Ford has determined, for example, that substantial and wasteful transportation complications can be avoided on one of its 1980 model passenger car lines by shipping front and rear bumper guards inside the vehicles, to be installed by dealers prior to retail sale. That situation involves both tariff restrictions and limitations on the capacity of tri-level rail cars. For 1979 models of the cars in question, shipped without bumper guards, each tri-level rail car can accommodate 18 vehicles. The same capacity would be available for 1980 models if bumper guards were not installed until the vehicles reached their final destinations. If bumper guards are installed at the factory, however, only 15 units could be carried on each rail car, and the resulting three unit reduction in carrying capacity would increase Ford's requirement for rail car use, I am informed, by approximately 151 rail cars per month.

Similarly, in view of the fact that imported cars may be transported to this country with readily attachable equipment placed inside the vehicle to help minimize transit damage on the high seas, we foresee the possibility of unintended complications also arising for imported vehicles if the readily attachable equipment issue is not dealt with. Part 12 of Title 19, the Customs Service regulation jointly developed by the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, expressly recognizes and deals with readily attachable equipment for Safety Act purposes, but there appears to be no parallel provision concerning regulations, such as Part 581, established under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

We believe that the requested interpretation is consistent with the intent and purposes of Part 581 and is in the public interest because it will serve to avoid economic waste in the manufacture and transport of passenger cars while preserving for retail purchasers the protection that the performance requirements of Part 581 are intended to provide. Because production of 1980 models are in the process of manufacture and shipments expected to begin in the next two weeks, we should appreciate this request receiving expedited attention.

Sincerely,

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

ID: 17693.drn

Mrs. June Becklin
397 Jesse James Lane
Mahtomedi, MN 55115

Dear Mrs. Becklin:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether dealers may sell new multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) or passenger cars that they know will be used to transport school children. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not prohibit a dealer from selling a new MPV or car for such a purpose.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Any person selling a new vehicle must sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is a vehicle that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying school children to or from school or related events (49 C.F.R. 571.3). Because any new "bus" that is sold for pupil transportation purposes is a "school bus," the school bus standards apply, and any person selling such a vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting our school bus standards.

We do not require, however, that only school buses can be sold for pupil transportation. Under our regulations, a van that seats fewer than 11 persons is an "MPV," which is defined in 571.3 as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A passenger car is a motor vehicle "except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR 571.3). An MPV or passenger car is a different type of vehicle than a bus or a school bus, and must meet safety standards that apply to their vehicle type. Dealers selling new MPVs and passenger cars must be sure to sell vehicles that have been certified to the applicable standards.

We do not have a policy either for or against the use of MPVs and cars for school transportation. These vehicles must meet safety standards that provide high levels of crash protection. NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed), that establishes minimum recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. To the extent that the guideline distinguishes between vehicles, it does so by distinguishing school buses from non-school buses. For instance, among the recommendations is

Paragraph IV.B.1.h., in which NHTSA recommends that all buses regularly used for pupil transportation should "[c]omply with all FMVSS applicable to school buses at the time of their manufacture." That is, if a bus is regularly used to transport pupils, it should be a school bus. The provision does not apply to MPVs and passenger cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA102(14)#Part 571.3, "multipurpose passenger vehicle"# Part 571.3 "school bus only"
d.7/6/98

ID: nht94-6.12

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Christopher S. Spencer -- Engineering

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/8/93 from Christopher S. Spencer to R. C. Carter (OCC-9128)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the brake reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.121). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are developing a new reservoir design to improve reservoir volume without increasing the need for space. You asked how to test your reservoirs since you believe that "(t)he safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The Standard's reservoir requirements for trucks and buses are set forth in section S5.1.2. That section requires these vehicles to be equipped with one or more service reservoir systems that meet specified performance requirements. Section S5.1.2.2 specifies the following:

Each reservoir shall be capable of withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500 psi, whichever is greater, for 10 minutes.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an air brake system reservoir has a minimum level of structural integrity. NHTSA has long interpreted the term "withstand" to require that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceeding one percent. At one point, the agency issued an interpretation concluding that the term "withstand" meant that a reservoir can deform only slightly and must contain the applied pressure with only a limited pressure drop at any time during the test. However, NHTSA later withdrew that interpretation because it inadvertently increased the severity of the requirement. See 42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977, and 43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978.

You asked about this requirement in connection with a reservoir design that includes a bushing on the inside of an endcap. A weld is placed around the bushing. You describe two different procedures you have used to seal the reservoir.

In what you describe as "Test Criteria 1," a socket head plug is put into

the bushing with 3 full wraps of tape. With this first method, you state that as the pressure is applied to the reservoir, the endcap starts to expand out. The bushing stretches with the endcap, and as the bushing stretches the threads are pulled away from the plug. The plug must therefore be retightened several times before the required pressure is reached. In your "Test Criteria 2," you state that a rubber grommet or washer is placed on the inside of the bushing and forced to expand to seal the bushings from the inside. You stated that this method checks the weld but removes the threads from the test. With the second method, you state that there was no failure at over five times the working pressure.

While Standard No. 121 does not specify a particular test procedure for this requirement, the language of S5.1.2.2 makes it clear that a reservoir must "withstand" for 10 minutes a condition where the reservoir is pressurized at the specified level. Therefore, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would pressurize a reservoir to the specified level. This would necessitate sealing the reservoir.

In considering how a particular reservoir would be sealed, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to evaluate the reservoir's structural integrity and ability to withstand pressurization. I can offer you the following comments on the two alternative test methods you described. The first method (Test Criteria 1) would appear to evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization. The threaded plug would appear to reasonably approximate how the reservoir would be sealed in an actual use situation. I note that the mere fact that the plug needs to be tightened during the test to achieve the specified level of pressure would not indicate a failure but would simply reflect minor air leakage around the plug.

The second method (Test Criteria 2) would not fully evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization, since it would, as you recognized, remove the threads from the test, thereby creating an artificial seal. It is our opinion that a reservoir would not be capable of "withstanding" the specified hydrostatic internal pressure if the threads failed under such pressurization. This would represent a structural failure equivalent to a rupture.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Christopher S. Spencer -- Engineering

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/8/93 from Christopher S. Spencer to R. C. Carter (OCC-9128)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the brake reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.121). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are developing a new reservoir des ign to improve reservoir volume without increasing the need for space. You asked how to test your reservoirs since you believe that "(t)he safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufa cturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The Standard's reservoir requirements for trucks and buses are set forth in section S5.1.2. That section requires these vehicle s to be equipped with one or more service reservoir systems that meet specified performance requirements. Section S5.1.2.2 specifies the following:

Each reservoir shall be capable of withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500 psi, whichever is greater, for 10 minutes.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an air brake system reservoir has a minimum level of structural integrity. NHTSA has long interpreted the term "withstand" to require that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceeding one percent. At one point, the agency issued an interpretation concluding that the term "withstand" meant that a reservoir can deform only slightly and must contain the applied pressure with only a limited pressure drop at any ti me during the test. However, NHTSA later withdrew that interpretation because it inadvertently increased the severity of the requirement. See 42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977, and 43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978.

You asked about this requirement in connection with a reservoir design that includes a bushing on the inside of an endcap. A weld is placed around the bushing.

You describe two different procedures you have used to seal the reservoir. In what you describe as "Test Criteria 1," a socket head plug is put into

the bushing with 3 full wraps of tape. With this first method, you state that as the pressure is applied to the reservoir, the endcap starts to expand out. The bushing stretches with the endcap, and as the bushing stretches the threads are pulled away from the plug. The plug must therefore be retightened several times before the required pressure is reached. In your "Test Criteria 2," you state that a rubber grommet or washer is placed on the inside of the bushing and forced to expand to seal the bu shings from the inside. You stated that this method checks the weld but removes the threads from the test. With the second method, you state that there was no failure at over five times the working pressure.

While Standard No. 121 does not specify a particular test procedure for this requirement, the language of S5.1.2.2 makes it clear that a reservoir must "withstand" for 10 minutes a condition where the reservoir is pressurized at the specified level. The refore, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would pressurize a reservoir to the specified level. This would necessitate sealing the reservoir.

In considering how a particular reservoir would be sealed, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to evaluate the reservoir's structural integrity and ability to withstand pressurization. I can offer you the following comments o n the two alternative test methods you described. The first method (Test Criteria 1) would appear to evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization. The threaded plug would appear to reasonably approximate how the reservoir would be sealed i n an actual use situation. I note that the mere fact that the plug needs to be tightened during the test to achieve the specified level of pressure would not indicate a failure but would simply reflect minor air leakage around the plug.

The second method (Test Criteria 2) would not fully evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization, since it would, as you recognized, remove the threads from the test, thereby creating an artificial seal. It is our opinion that a reservoir would not be capable of "withstanding" the specified hydrostatic internal pressure if the threads failed under such pressurization. This would represent a structural failure equivalent to a rupture.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-2.49

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Registry of Motor Vehicle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1976, question whether specific aspects of Massachusett's requirements for the construction, location, and size of fuel tanks in school buses would be preempted by the Federal requirements for school bus fuel system integrity that become effective April 1, 1977 (Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity). I regret that we have not responded to your questions sooner.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d) does preempt State motor vehicle safety requirements of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal standard applicable to the same aspect of performance. In the cases you cite, it appears that the fuel tank seams and the location of the tank are items of design that are identical to the aspects of performance (integrity of the fuel system) regulated by the barrier impact tests of Standard No. 301-75. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that these aspects of fuel system construction are preempted by Standard No. 301-75, effective April 1, 1977. In developing the performance requirements of the standard, the agency did not intend to regulate fuel tank size.

The second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or its political subdivisions could specify additional fuel system features in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.

SINCERELY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

June 29, 1976

Chief Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Department of Transportation

Enclosed is a copy of current rules and regulations concerning minimum standards for construction and equipment of school buses. We have two distinct bus categories, a type I bus has a seating capacity of seventeen or more passengers and a type II bus has a seating capacity of sixteen or less passengers.

On page 16 under fuel system we specify the minimum capacity of a fuel tank for either type bus and we also state where said tank shall be mounted. We also require both type buses to have a tank meeting Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. On the type II school bus, the chassis manufacturers have a tank that is mounted at the rear of the vehicle. We have always considered this as a hazardous and dangerous location. A small bus hit in the rear, with a fire ensuing in that area would render the emergency door useless for evacuation. The same would apply when such a bus is tipped over on its' right side rendering the service entrance useless. If a fire occurred at the rear, the emergency door could not be used and the children would be trapped inside the vehicle.

In reference to F.M.V.S. Standard 301, Fuel System integrity I am posing several questions.

1. Will this standard pre-empt Massachusetts requirements for special heavy duty welded seam fuel tanks on both type I and type II school buses?

2. Will this standard force us to accept a standard 301 tank mounted wherever the chassis manufacture wishes to mount same or can we retain our requirement of mounting the tank on either side of a type II school bus.

3. Will this standard specify the minimum capacity of a fuel tank?

Charles V. Mulhern Supervisor School Bus Inspection

[ENCLOSURE OMITTED.]

ID: nht90-4.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-90 from S. Nishibori to P.J. Rice (OCC 4943); Attached to drawing (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter dated June 28, 1990 requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, would apply to two vehicle systems Nissan is considering using.

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, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter, and during a discussion between Kazuo Iwasaki of your staff and Mary V ersailles of my staff in our offices on July 13th.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering introducing a car phone in certain passenger cars which has five illuminated displays. The first display shows the number being dialed. The display is illuminated whether or not the phone is in use, and the number dialed continues to be displayed while the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons. The display becomes illuminated when the first button is pushed, and remains illuminated for 10 seconds.

The remainder of the car phone displays are LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use". The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when cellular phone service is not available. The third indicator (RM) is illumina ted when outside the system's local operating area if the system is able to lock onto an available phone line. It is our understanding that there will be times when none of these three LED's will be illuminated and times when more than one of the LEDS c ould be illuminated (for example, both the IU and RM indicators).

None of the car phone displays can be turned off while the ignition switch is in the "ON" position. The illumination is not variable in any display.

You asked whether the car phone displays are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," within the meaning of section S5.3.5, and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

Based upon our understanding of their functioning, the three LED indicators (IU, NS, and RM) would appear to be telltales. Both the IU and RM displays "indicate the actuation of a device", while the NS display indicates "a failure to function". Because the displays are not listed in the standard, and because they are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5 because they are telltales, they are not subject to any illumination requirements.

The other displays are not telltales. The functions of both the first display ("number dialed") and the second display ("push button") are not among those listed in the definition of a telltale. The "number dialed" display provides information in much the same way as a fuel gauge. The illumination of the push buttons functions to facilitate dialing.

Because these displays are not among those listed in Standard No. 101, and because they are not telltales, they are subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. Therefore, these displays must "have either (1) light intensity which is manually or autom atically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off." Based upon your description, none of these requirements are currently met.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated only if both the air-conditioning operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. You indicate that you believe the indicator is a telltale, and that if it is a t elltale "it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions."

Because the indicator light indicates actuation of a device, i.e., the air conditioner, you are correct that it is a telltale. NHTSA would like to clarify that, with the exception of the requirements of section S5.3.5, FMVSS 101 regulates only controls and displays listed in the standard. Since the air-conditioning indicator light you describe is not listed in the standard, and because telltales are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5, there are no illumination requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.