ID: 77-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ward School Bus Mfg., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 7, 1976 and January 8, 1977, questions whether 53 described intersections of bus body components qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. This also responds to your question whether the seating reference point in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, can be located using nominal seat cushion deflection.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 53 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that the areas corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs of your letter are bus body joints and therefore must meet the 60-percent joint strength requirements: 1 through 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 51. Additionally the joint described in your January 8, 1977, submission must comply with the standard.

The illustration accompanying paragraph 16 shows a second joint between a door post and exterior trim panel with the notation that this joint is "Not Required To Meet Std." The agency concludes that this joint also must meet the requirements of the standard, because it is a connection of a body component with a body panel that encloses occupant space.

The lower skirt section described in paragraph 35 is not a body panel that encloses occupant space, because it is located entirely below the level of the floor line and, therefore, is excluded from the standard's requirements.

In the control console area, the interior side panel described in paragraph 38 and the shoulder cap (wire cover) described in paragraph 43 are considered maintenance access panels, whose joining with the bus body is excluded from the requirements only if a wire is installed behind them.

The turn signal housings described in paragraph 40 and 41 are not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and are therefore not considered body components for purposes of the requirements.

The front and rear headers described in paragraphs 47 and 48 are considered primarily structural and have only an incidental role in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered "body panels" for purposes of the requirements.

The rubrail described in paragraph 49 is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, is not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which it is fastened, it should be modified as necessary to prevent it from affecting testing of the underlying joint.

Because the plywood described in paragraph 50 is attached to a floor panel and is only added to some buses for insulation purposes, it is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

The NHTSA concludes that parts A, E, and F of paragraph 52 describe joints between maintenance access panels and the bus body. The heater ducts in parts B, C, and D are the type of ventilation space that is not subject to requirements for joint strength.

In response to your question concerning the effect of seat cushion deflection on the location of the seating reference point, the NHTSA has determined that the definition of seating reference point contemplates some deflection of seat cushions to simulate compression of padding material under the weight of a human torso and thigh. As noted in the preamble of the second proposal for a school bus seating standard (39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974), "It can be seen that the manufacturer's freedom to locate the point is sharply restricted by the definition which specifies that it actually simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh, following SAE placement procedures." However, since the seating reference point is an approximation of the pivot center, the NHTSA permits the manufacturer to locate the point based upon nominal seat cushion deflection.

SINCERELY,

Ward SCHOOL BUS MFG., INC.

December 7, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength

We have interpreted FMVSS 221 and are currently working on design changes which will enable us to meet this specification in the future. Since there is some latitude for interpretation in the specification, the purpose of this letter is to convey to you exactly our interpretation of FMVSS 221 as it relates to our body design and request that you review the interpretation.

We ask that you reply to each item as to the validity of our interpretation. This review is being requested in order to eliminate the possibility of erroneous designs due to incorrect interpretation of the standard.

We have chosen a format which we feel is concise and will minimize the paperwork involved. The subject joints are numbered consecutively with the first group being those which we have determined must meet FMVSS 221. It should be noted that there are a few compound joints in this group which contain areas which we feel are not required to meet the standard. These situations are noted on the drawings.

The second group is those joints which we have determined as not being required to meet FMVSS 221. Our reasons for the classification are included with this second group. Drawings and photographs have been used to illustrate each joint. The drawings are not necessarily to scale but were drawn in a manner designed to best illustrate the joint configuration. Individual joint drawings and photographs have been numbered to correspond with the joint descriptions contained herein.

If you need any additional descriptive information, please let us know.

We ask that the drawings and photographs be given confidential treatment.

It should be noted that it is our understanding that any components which are completely below the bus floor level or forward of the windshield are not required to meet the provisions of FMVSS 221.

BY OUR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 221, THE FOLLOWING JOINTS (NUMBERS 1-34) ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE 60% JOINT STRENGTH STANDARD.

1. Front cap joint to upper front cowl.

2. Upper front cowl joint to lower front cowl.

3. Rear cap joint to header and rear outside panel.

4. Rear panel (interior and exterior) joints to emergency door frame.

5. Rear exterior panel joint to rear bottom frame.

6. Rear cap inside lining joint to header.

7. Rear inside lining joint to header.

8. Rear interior lining joint to frame bottom channel.

9. Rear emergency door drip trough joint to header and end cap.

10. Rear inside lining joint to bow.

11. Side skirt joint to floor.

12. Skirt section joints.

13. Center skirt section joint to wheel well.

14. Floor section joints.

15. Wheel well joint to floor.

16. Exterior trim panel (immediately adjacent entrance door) joint to bow and side sheet.

17. Interior trim panel (immediately adjacent entrance door) joints to entrance door frame and bow.

18. Interior side sheet joint to rear interior lining and rear frame corner post.

19. Interior sheet joint to exterior side panel and sill.

20. Interior sheet joint to skirt and back-up angle.

21. Interior side sheet overlap and joint to bow.

22. Interior top lining joint to bow.

23. Interior front header lining joint to header.

24. Interior front header lining joint to interior top sheet and bow.

25. Side window header joint to inside and outside lining.

26. Exterior front cap joint to top skin and bow.

27. Top skin joint to top skin and bow.

28. Exterior side sheet joint to skirt.

29. Rear sheet joint to aft edge of exterior side sheet and reinforcing channel.

30. Exterior rear sheet joint to bow.

31. Left front exterior panel---top section joint to bottom section.

32. Left hand exterior panel forward edge joint to front cowl and post.

33. Left front exterior panel to driver window sill.

34. Aft edge of left front exterior panel joint to side sheet and bow.

BY OUR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 221, THE FOLLOWING JOINTS (NUMBERS 35-52) ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 60% JOINT STRENGTH STANDARD.

35. Lower center skirt section joint to upper center skirt section.

Reason: In view of the joint configuration, the lower section does not act to enclose occupant space. The joint between the upper center skirt section and the floor is required to meet the standard.

36. Exterior bow cover joint to sill, side sheet, and bow.

Reason: This is a small panel which is insignificant in enclosing occupant space. The vertical edges of this panel are also curved around the bow edges and do not present a flat edge.

37. Exterior trim panel at driver's window joint to "Z" bar and bow.

Reason: This is a small panel which is insignificant in enclosing occupant space. The vertical edges of this panel are also curved around the bow edges and do not present a flat edge.

38. Control console area interior side panel joint to front framework.

Reason: This is considered a maintenance access panel because the bus body wiring passes through it and the control console is installed against it.

39. Front cowl leg, left and right hand, joint to front framework and cowl.

Reason: These legs are structural members.

40. Rear turn signal housing joint to rear panel.

Reason: The turn signal housing is not considered a panel and it does not join the rear panel at a panel edge.

41. Front body mounted turn signal housing joint to front cowl.

Reason: The turn signal housing is not considered a panel and it does not join the cowl at a panel edge. Also, these turn signals are optional items which are not installed on every bus.

42. Inside lining joint to outside lining at rear visibility windows.

Reason: The grazing rubber for glass mounting is installed along this joint. The window area is excluded from the 60% requirement in Section S4 of Standard 221. Also this is not a panel edge but rather a hole in the panel. The edges of the panel are required to meet the standard.

43. Shoulder cap (wire cover) joint to interior side sheet and window sill.

Reason: In most cases, bus body wiring is routed inside this cap thus making it a maintenance access panel and excluding it from the joint strength standard. It is understood that in cases where there are no wires beneath the cap, the subject joints are required to meet the 60% joint strength requirement.

44. Exterior side sheet forward end cap joint to side sheet and doorway trim panel.

Reason: As seen in the photo, this is a small piece which provides the transition from the formed body fairing to the flat doorway area and plays no significant role in "enclosing occupant space."

45. Interior "brite-kote" aluminum panel joint to side sheet (no photo available).

Reason: This is an optional decorative item which is furnished on only a limited number of buses.

46. Interior bow cap joint to bow.

Reason: This panel must be removed in order to replace the window, thus it is considered a maintenance access panel.

47. Rear header joints to bow.

Reason: The rear header is a structural member with only a small amount of surface area exposed to the inside of the bus occupant space.

48. Front header joint to upper front cowl and posts.

Reason: The front header is a structural member with only a small amount of surface area exposed to the inside of the bus occupant space.

49. Rub rail joint to side panel.

Reason: These exterior rails do not serve to "enclose occupant space."

50. Plywood floor on standard metal floor.

Reason: This is an optional insulating material.

51. License plate inset panel joint to exterior rear sheet.

Reason: The license plate inset panel is welded into a hole which is cut in the rear body panel, thus the edge of the rear body panel is not included in the joint.

52. Several items located primarily in the forward section of the bus are designed for functional purposes and are thus excluded from the standard. These items include the following (see photographs):

A) Left hand control console;

B) Left hand heater;

C) Heater duct;

D) Right hand heater;

E) Instrument panel;

F) Transmission cover plate.

We believe that these categorized lists illustrate the fact that we have tried to objectively interpret FMVSS 221. Your review of those items and subsequent reply will serve to indicate the accuracy of our interpretation.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Raymond Titsworth, Project Engineer

ID: 77-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harley Murray, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 25, 1977, question whether a row of eight wheels arranged in a line that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of a vehicle constitute an "axle" as that word is used in S3(b) of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You note that the wheels are not mounted on a single solid axle but rather are mounted on two walking beam assemblies that also constitute the suspensions for a separate set of eight wheels across the vehicle.

The answer to your question is yes. When asked for a definition of "axle system" in connection with Standard No. 121, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated:

In answer to Wagner's request for a definition of "axle system," the term is used in the same sense as it is used in the definition of GAWR found at 49 CFR 571.3. "Axle system" is used instead of "axle" to avoid confusion in situations where a suspension system does not employ an axle. The term has not created difficulty in the GAWR definition (39 FR 17553, May 17, 1974).

The agency's use of "axle" in S3 is intended to be identical to its use of the phrase "axle system." Thus, "axle" means the arrangement of wheels that lie across the vehicle in a line that is perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. This understanding of "axle" and "axle system" is used regularly in the assignment of gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) on vehicles that employ independent suspensions in place of solid axles.

From your description, it appears that each row of eight wheels on your trailer constitutes an "axle" or "axle system" that could be rated at a GAWR in excess of 29,000 pounds, qualifying the vehicle for exclusion from Standard No. 121.

SINCERELY,

HARLEY MURRAY, INC.

January 25, 1977

Duane A. Perrin, P.P. Handling & Stability Division

SUBJECT: Application of exemption 121 S3 (b) to Murray 16 tire trailer

Thanks for the copy of "Standard 121" which we discussed over the phone on December 29th.

I am requesting your confirmation that our 16 tire expandable trailer comes under the exemption provided for any vehicle with "(b) An axle that has a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 29,000 pounds or more."

Our 16 tire trailer has two rows of eight wheels each. For purposes of permit loading these rows of wheels are designated as axle number 4 and 5 on the State of California Department of Transportation permit form (copy enclosed). My question is this: Do the rows of eight wheels constitute an "axle", as provided for in exemption (b) quoted above? They are not mounted on one solid axle, but are mounted in a walking beam assembly (see picture marked exhibit B).

In California, the allowable permit load on this trailer axle grouping is 58,400 pounds when the trailer is expanded to 10 feet. That is a maximum of 29,200 pounds for axle number 4 and 29,200 for axle 5 using the California permit definition of axle.

We are using Rockwell-Standard axles with a capacity rating of 20,000 pounds for four wheels or 40,000 pounds for each row (axle?) of eight wheels. That's a total rated capacity of 20,000 pounds for the 16 wheel axle grouping.(two rows).

I hope you will agree that the exemption (b) does indeed apply to our 16 tire trailer and that each row of eight wheels constitutes an axle in the federal law 121, as it does in the State of California permit form. If this is the case, we do not need to persue a petition for exemption. If, on the otherhand, wording of the Standard 121 does not exempt our 16 tire trailer we will petition for a modification due to the very tight fit of the brake/ axle/ walking beam assembly on this trailer, which is required to meet height limitations when loaded with heavy oversized equipment as shown in some of the enclosed photos.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If I can clarify this situation or answer any questions please give me a call at (209) 466-6639.

Dave Murray

ID: 77-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/77 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Calvin Burkhart; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 1, 1977, requesting that the period for submission of comments to the Federal Register notice proposing rules for determining the manufacturer of multistage automobiles (42 FR 9040; February 14, 1977) be extended for at least forty-five days. The comment closing date established in the notice is March 9, 1977.

According to 49 CFR Part 553.19, petitions to extend the period for comments must be received by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration not later than 10 days before the expiration of the comment period specified in the notice. Since Chrysler's petition was received on March 2, only 7 days before the comment closing date specified in the notice, it was not a timely submission.

The agency wishes to emphasize the importance of issuing without delay the rules governing the identity of the manufacturer of multistage automobiles for purposes of Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). The final rule establishing fuel economy standards applicable to nonpassenger automobiles manufactured in model year 1979 should be issued in the immediate future. It is essential that the individual responsible for complying with those standards be clearly specified.

A meeting with Chrysler representatives has been scheduled for Friday, March 11, 1977, at Chrylser's request. The agency will be pleased to discuss any issues involved in the NPRM. However, it must be pointed out that analysis of comments and action on the NPRM will continue without delay after the comment closing date. As stated in the notice, comments field after the closing date will, to the extent possible, be considered.

SINCERELY,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

March 1, 1977

The Honorable John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Docket FE 77-02; Notice 1

This letter is in regards to your NPRM of February 14, 1977 concerning Multistage Automobile Fuel Economy Regulations published in the Federal Register as Notice 1 of Docket FE 77-02.

Upon reviewing this notice, we have determined that this regulation could have broad implications regarding our ability to manufacture and market our future incomplete vehicles. It also would have an impact on the manner by which we certify and label incomplete light-duty trucks for emissions and fuel economy purposes and possibly presents some timing requirements that cannot be achieved by Chrysler.

We, therefore, request that a meeting be held at NHTSA to discuss this NPRM further and that the comment closing date be extended for at least forty-five days.

Michael W. Grike Office of the General Attorney

CC: KAREN DYSON -- OFC. OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ID: 77-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/77 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1977, asking whether 49 CFR Part 577 conflicts with Section 153(c)(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Pursuant to Section 153(c)(4) notification by a manufacturer to a dealer must be "by certified mail or other more expeditious means." On the other hand, Part 577 require notification to be given by first class mail to the first or most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer, in your view, which could mean a dealer. You stated that the "apparently conflicting" requirements affect the mailing of notices to dealers when they are the last known purchasers.

There is no conflict. Part 577 is a regulation for the notification of owners of vehicles, not dealers. The regulation sets forth -- "requirements for notification to owners of motor vehicles" (577.1) and its purpose "is to insure that notifications of defects or noncompliances adequately inform and effectively motivate owners . . . to have such vehicles . . . inspected and, when necessary, remedied as quickly as possible" (577.2). A dealer is not an "owner" within the intent of Part 577 and a manufacturer's notification obligation to its dealers is that set out in Section 153(c)(4).

Therefore, we cannot confirm that first class mailings from a manufacturer to a dealer conform to Part 577, and your letter offers no facts upon which to base a finding that first class mail is a "more expeditious means" of dealer notification than certified mail.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 18, 1977

Frank Bendt, Acting Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Interpretation Part 577 Defect and Noncompliance Notification

Dear Mr. Bendt:

White Motor Corporation requests an interpretation of Part 577 as it applies to the Act @ 153 (c)(4).

Part 577 as published in 41FR56813 (December 30, 1976) requires defect notification to be sent by first class mail to the first or most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. In the case of vehicles and equipment, the purchaser may be a dealer. The Act, however, states:

"@ 153(c)(4) by certified mail or other more expeditious means to the dealer or dealers of such manufacturer to whom such motor vehicle or replacement equipment was delivered." (emphasis added)

These apparently conflicting statements affect the mailing of notices to dealers when they were the last known purchaser. This condition is expected to occur for motor vehicles when the defect was discovered shortly after the vehicle was shipped from the factory and for replacement equipment.

White Motor Corporation sends defect notification to all its dealers for each recall campaign regardless of the expected geographical location of the suspect vehicles. These are presently sent by certified mail. In view of both the time and expense involved in preparing the hundreds of certification documents and the additional postage, we would like to send these by first class mail.

We request confirmation that such first class mailings conform to Part 577 and the Act, either as "other more expeditious means" (Act @ 153(c)(4)) or by some other clause.

Sincerely,

J. W. Lawrence, Manager -- Safety Safety & Environmental Engineering, WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

ID: 77-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harman International Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 77-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack Gromer -- Vice President, Timpte

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTSA regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, Certification and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As you are aware, Part 567 of regulations requires a statement by the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (@ 567.4(g)(4)). The term "GAWR" is defined in @ 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire-ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.

Standard No. 120 specifies that "each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements]" (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.

In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.

With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty new trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and @ 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.

SINCERELY, TIMPTE, INC.

JANUARY 11, 1977

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

AS MANUFACTURERS OF SEMI-TRAILERS, WE ARE CERTIFYING VIRTUALLY 100% OF OUR PRODUCTION TO ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. ONE PROBLEM DEVELOPS OCCASIONALLY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN INTERPRETATION ON THIS MATTER.

THE CONDITION IS ONE WHERE WE HAVE BUILT A SEMI-TRAILER FOR A PARTICULAR CUSTOMER AND THAT CUSTOMER CHOOSES TO FURNISH THE TIRES. IN OUR MANUFACTURE, WE WILL SPECIFY THE AXLE SUSPENSION AND OTHER COMPONENTS AS WELL AS INDICATING THE TIRE SIZE WHICH THE CUSTOMER WILL FURNISH. OCCASIONALLY, THE NEW TIRES ARE NOT SENT TO OUR MANUFACTURING FACILITY HERE, BUT RATHER, TIRES ARE INSTALLED BY THE CUSTOMER AT THE TIME HE TAKES THE TRAILER TO HIS OWN FACILITY. PICK UP OF THE TRAILER IS ACCOMPLISHED BY A DRIVER WITH A TRUCK TRACTOR BELONGING TO THE CUSTOMER AND HE MAY BRING WITH HIM ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES WHICH ARE ON THE "RUN OUT" VARIETY. THEY REQUEST US TO INSTALL THESE ON THE VEHICLE AND CHAIN UP THE REAR AXLE OF THE TANDEM SO THAT THE DRIVER CAN THEN TAKE THE NEW TRAILER EQUIPPED WITH ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES IN LIEU OF EIGHT BACK TO HIS FACILITY. NOW, OUR CERTIFICATION WOULD NORMALLY BE FOR THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF TIRES AND THE GAWR RATINGS AS WELL AS THE GVWR RATINGS WOULD BE STAMPED ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL AS IF THE TRAILER WERE EQUIPPED WITH THE INTENDED RUBBER.

BY COMPLYING WITH THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST AND INSTALLING OLD TIRES AID FEWER TIRES THAN INTENDED FOR THE TRAILER AND ALLOWING HIM TO TAKE DELIVERY FROM OUR PREMISES, ARE WE MAKING OURSELVES LIBEL IN ANY WAY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CERTIFICATION REGULATIONS OR WHATEVER? UNDERSTAND PLEASE, THAT THIS WOULD BE DONE AT CUSTOMER REQUEST AND INSTRUCTION WITH HIS FULL INTENTION BEING TO EQUIP THE TRAILER WITH A FULL SET OF GOOD TIRES, POSSIBLY RECAPS, AT THE TIME THAT HE GETS IT TO HIS FACILITY.

CERTAINLY, WE DON'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN A COMPROMISING POSITION AND IT WOULD NOT BE OUR INTENT TO DEVIATE OR BE IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE NHTSA REGULATIONS; AT THE SAME TIME WE WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMODATE OUR CUSTOMERS SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE AN OPINION FROM YOU REGARDING THIS TYPE OF CONDITION. IT IS AN INFREQUENT ONE; HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS TYPE OF REQUEST.

JACK GROMER VICE PRESIDENT - ENGINEERING

ID: 77-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your frank letter of January 13, 1977, commenting upon the lack of clarity you feel exists in my letter to you of December 6, 1976, interpreting Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As a lawyer it is obvious to me that the best regulatory practice is to be as specific as possible in establishing requirements and prohibitions. When a regulation itself is unclear, however, its interpretation may necessarily be imprecise. Because the term "optical combination" in S4.4.1 is not defined, my answers were necessarily worded in general terms though with the thought of establishing a general framework of guidance for you. They were not intended to be "a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words." My letter meant, in plain English, that where tail lamps and clearance lamps are in a single compartment we don't want one lamp to perform, or to be perceived as performing, the function of the other. It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

SINCERELY,

January 13, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: N40-30 Your letter of December 6, 1976

A combination of a Christmas holiday with the family in Arizona and year end activity here in our plant has prevented our sending you a reply to the referenced letter at an earlier date.

As far as we are concerned, your response to our October 28 letter is a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words and one which avoids positive answers or defensible positions on the specific questions we submitted.

Discussing first your lengthy second paragraph; from line 6 we quote: ". . . . Standard 108 does not require separate compartments (i.e. and opaque barrier) for tail lamps and clearance lamps . . . " Perhaps you can give some scientific explanation how two lamps can be in the same compartment and not interfere optically with one another. The degree of candlepower emanating from each bulb is dependent on their respective candlepowers and in the case of tail and clearance lamp bulbs, the lumens generated are not very far apart since clearance lamp bulbs deliver 2 c.p. and tail lamp bulbs 3 c.p. If tail lamp and clearance lamp bulbs were positioned relatively close together in the single compartment (a condition you state is permissible) I submit that a "driver in a following vehicle" could not possibly interpret one lamp from the other.

May we refer you to line 15 of the second paragraph of your letter and we quote: "there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp . . . " To any engineer or attorney involved with compliance regulations, the words "appreciable amount" are incongruous when applied to a standard such as 108, the purpose of which is to spell out specific optical values, tests, and locations for lights. DOT 108 standard permits no deviation from the SAE standards referenced, which standards positively indicate optical values for lamps. Nor does DOT 108 permit any option on the number and types of lamps required on a trailer or where these lamps shall be located. "Appreciable" has no measureable value, therefore, we ask, whose judgement will prevail when evaluating the design and testing of a lamp, the manufacturer or your compliance people. How would you legally defend your position that a light has an "appreciable" amount of spill, hence is illegal, in the absence of an applicable photometric standard.

We also object to the language: "The amount of light spill appears to be so small . . ." (sce para. 2 line 17). What numerical candlepower value do you assign to the words "appears to" as a measure of whether or not a lamp conforms to the published standard? Would we receive approval from your compliance group on a lamp we have marked "DOT" on the basis of our contention that to us the lamp "appears to" meet the photometric standards?

How evasive can a response to our specific question be than your blanket reply of: "If you apply this general principle to the questions you asked, then I think you will have the answers."

We refer you to page 2, lines 2, 3, and 4 of your letter, which we quote: "The principle is necessarily dependent upon the candlepower output of any lamp to which it is applied, a value not given in your questions." Of course we didn't specify "candlepower output". Those values are specified in DOT 108. Or perhaps you were unaware that clearance lamp bulbs and tail lamp bulbs are manufactured to *SAE J573f which specified: Typical Service Trade No. Mean Spherical Candela M ** 57 2 candlepower at 14 volts T *** 1157 3 candlepower at 14 volts

* Photometric tests performed under SAE J592e and SAE J585d are always made using 2 c.p. and 3 c.p. bulb respectively.

** M - Marker, Clearance, Identification

*** T - Tail

These are the lamps and respective candlepowers you will find in all tail lamps and clearance lamps.

Therefore, with such a small candlepower difference between clearance and tail lamp output, the "spill" (to quote your letter) from one to the other, with bulbs exposed in the same compartment, equate one another.

We read with surprise in your letter that "certification is dependent upon a manufacturer's good faith in attempting to achieve compliance." We would like to believe that statement, but the actual experiences of many trailer manufacturers with your compliance people, doesn't bear out what you say. The compliance man recognizes but one criteria: does it or does it not meet the specific requirements of the published standard.

At this moment in time the DOT is quibbling over a specific interpretation of S 4.4.1 with such indecisive language as: "appears to be", "appreciable amount", "good faith". It could be that your indefinite position merely covers a too hasty interpretation by one of your staff, but whatever the reason, please either resolve this problem in terms of specific numbers, or rewrite S 4.4.1 so that there can be no possible misinterpretation of your requirements.

You asked the writer to comment on combining tail and clearance lamp. This combination for boat trailers and some camping trailers is an extremely sensible approach. The 108 standard blankets big semi trailers and small duck boat trailers with the same sets of rules, which rules for a semi trailer are as totally practical as they are totally impractical for a small boat trailer.

In the matter of boat trailers, the over 80" lighting requirements are almost impossible to meet. For example, consider a boat trailer carrying a sail boat. It is virtually impossible to locate an identification light bar that won't be swept off or severely bent when the boat is launched. Use of an identification light bar on a trailer should be eliminated. Very few are operable after a launching.

The trailer manufacturer certifies his trailer as meeting the DOT standards, when it leaves his plant. The dimensions of the boats that trailer may carry vary wiedely and many a trailer's actual width is exceeded by the hull it carries. This is knowledge the trailer manufacturer would not have when he produced the trailer.

It would be economical as well as practical to permit a boat trailer manufacturer to mount his tail lamp in such a position that it would serve the dual purpose of clearance and tail lamp, with no detriment to safety. If anything, we would consider such an arrangement a safer condition than the use of seperate lights.

In conclusion, would you please give us specific answers to the questions posed in paragraph 6 of letter of October 28, 1976, at your earliest convenience. For your convenience a copy of same is attached.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

cc: SEN. WILLIAM PROXMIRE; SEN. GAYLOR NELSON

ID: 86-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Burdick:

Thank You for Your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Lorraine Holgerson concerning requirements for identifying school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Ms. Holgerson is concerned that yellow school buses in North Dakota lack identifying features which notify following motorists that the bus is a school bus. Your constituent suggests Federal law address this problem by setting school bus identification requirements for features such as "School Bus" signs, or distinctive lights.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Ms. Holgerson's concern. would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA has two sets of regulations for school buses that contain special requirements facilitating the recognition of those vehicles by motorists. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes the motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, are the highway safety program standards applicable to Federal funding of states' highway safety programs.

One of the motor vehicle safety standards applying to school buses issued under the Vehicle Safety Act is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This standard requires school bus warning lamps on the rear of all new school buses. The presence of the lighting system alerts other motorists that the vehicle is a school bus, and activation of the lights warns motorists around the vehicle that school children are boarding or leaving the bus. Each school bus manufactured in or imported to this country must be equipped with the distinctive warning lamp system.

The additional identifying features that your constituent recommends for school buses have been included in the highway safety program standard we issued for pupil transportation safety (Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17). I have enclosed a copy of this standard for your information.

Standard No. 17 recommends that states require additional features for school buses such as prominent "School Bus" signs and the familiar yellow paint and black trim for the bus body, to distinguish them from other types of vehicles. Requirements for school bus identification are regularly included in states' highway safety programs to facilitate safe transportation of school children, and some or all of the recommendations of Standard No. 17 have been adopted by most of the states.

While we urge states to adopt a strong pupil transportation program consistent with Standard No. 17's guidelines, the effect of the standard on school buses operating in North Dakota is a matter for the State to decide. State officials are given discretion in adopting Standard No. 17 and may specify requirements for school bus operation that are appropriate for their particular highway safety needs. Ms. Holgerson might want to express her concerns and suggestions to North Dakota state officials, since they have the authority to set requirements for "School Bus" signs and other identifying features of school buses.

We appreciate Ms. Holgerson's concern for school bus safety. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Burdick:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Lorraine Holgerson..

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

David P. Sloane Director, Office of Congressional Affairs February 27, 1986

Mr. David Sloane Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

Enclosed is a letter I have recently received from Lorraine Holgerson regarding her concern about the lack of appropriate reflectors on the back of North Dakota school buses.

I would appreciate your Looking into the matter Ms. Holgerson has described and responding to my office with your findings. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

Quentin N. Burdick QNB:mvj Honorable Senator Burdick:

Dear Mr. Burdick,

Could it be possible that a bill be passed to make North Dakota school buses more visible from the back?

School buses now have two directional lights back there, and a row of small lights across the top. This is really not very much on that large background of yellow.

Even the words "School bus" in black or reflective letterings should help.

Some truckers that drive the big rigs have lights all around the top of their cabs, and even a row of lights around the trailer.

Anything that could be done to make the school buses safer would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Lorraine Holgerson

ID: 86-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Geral L. Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Geral L. Cox FLIRRZ 8931 Upper DeArmoun Road Anchorage, Alaska 9951

Dear Mr. Cox:

This responds to your letter seeking this agency's opinion of a reflective device you plan to sell to be installed on semitrailers and other motor vehicles. As explained in your letter, these reflective devices would be installed on the center plug hub of wheels on semitrailers and trailers. You asked me to send you a letter stating either that your devices comply with applicable Federal standards or that you don't need DOT approval to sell these devices. You are correct that you do not need approval from this agency to market your product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq., hereinafter "the Act") does not permit this agency to assure a manufacturer that its products comply with all applicable requirements or to "approve" a manufacturer's products. Instead, section 114 of the Act (copy enclosed) requires the manufacturer itself to certify that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this statutory requirement, the National highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot "approve" products or offer assurances of compliance by the product.

With respect to your reflective devices, there is no provision in our standards expressly prohibiting such reflectors. The installation of those reflectors would be subject only to the requirement set forth in section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 2571.108). That section provides that no additional reflectors that impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 shall be installed on motor vehicles. This prohibition applies to parties installing your product on vehicles, and not to you as the manufacturer of the product. This is because the installer is the only party that can ensure that the reflectors are installed so that they do not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Generally speaking, this requirement of Standard No. 108 applies only to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories added to a vehicle after that purchase. The general rule is that aftermarket accessories may be added to vehicles.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section specifies: "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..." NHTSA considers it an element of design on vehicles that they have lighting and other equipment that are required by Standard No. 108 and whose effectiveness is not impaired by additional lights or reflectors. If the installation of your reflectors would impair that effectiveness, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing such reflectors would be rendering inoperative that design element of the vehicle, and thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each vehicle on which this element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation. You should note that the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to a vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design on his or her vehicle. Hence, if your aftermarket reflectors are sold to and installed by vehicle owners, those persons would not be subject to the prohibition of section 108 referenced above.

It appears from the materials enclosed with your letter that these reflectors would be installed so that they project outwards several inches beyond the wheel of the vehicles on which they are installed. have enclosed a copy of standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps, for your information. This standard does not apply to trucks, trailers, or large buses, which are the vehicle types on which you indicated your reflectors would be installed. However, Standard No. 211 prohibits passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles from incorporating winged projections on their wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. This prohibition is intended to prevent the potential hazard to pedestrians and cyclists from projections extending beyond the wheel of these vehicles. I hope that this potential hazard will not be present on vehicles on which your reflectors are installed.

You should also be aware of the responsibilities imposed by the Act on manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as your reflectors. If either you, as a manufacturer, or this agency determines that your product does not comply with an applicable safety standard or that the products contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would be required to remedy that noncompliance or defect. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if an item of motor vehicle equipment fails to comply with an applicable standard or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either:

1. repair the product so that the noncompliance or defect is removed: or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the noncompliance or defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, you as the manufacturer must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Jan. 30, 1986

To the Chief Counsel

Mr. Kennerly Digges National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington,D.C.

Mr. Diggs,

Back in December we had a phone conversation about D.O.T. approval on new safety devices to be introduced to the trucking industry. It is my understanding that I don't need to have any D.O.T. approval as long as I fall within all of the guidelines listed in the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Regulations handbook.

I have enclosed a few sketches and a brief explanation as to what my invention and safety device are designed to do. According to my understanding of the rule book, I feel that I fall well within the Federal guidelines. I have read section #393.26(e) lines 1-5 concerning non-required reflectors, which is the only section I could find that would relate to my device, I feel that I fall well within these guidelines.

What I would like to have from the NHTSA is a documented letter stating that they feel that I fall well within the Federal guidelines and/or that I don't need any D.O.T. approval to go ahead on manufacturing and sales of my device. We hope to hear from you soon as we hope to start manufacturing these devices as soon as the first week of March, our future is riding on a letter from you and the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Division, we hope to get a letter from them in the very near future.

I want to thank you for your co-operation and any and all that you could do to help us on to what we hope to be a very prosperous future.

Again thank you,

Sincerely

Geral L. Cox

"FLIKRZ"

A TRUCK/TRAILER WHEEL MOVEMENT INDICATOR

"FLIKRZ" are a safety device for all Semi-Trucks that operate this nations highways. "FLIKRZ" are the idea, design and invention of Gerry Cox, a long time professional Truck-driver in Alaska.

After many years of hands-on operation and observation of heavy-duty Semi-Trucks in Alaska's harsh environment, Gerry noticed a very hazardous, expensive and to common occurrence, locking, skidding trailer tires.

The most common cause of unnoticed wheel skids occurs during the winter months when a trailer is parked after normal, trouble free operation and ice forms between the brake shoe and brake drum setting the brakes in the lock position. A driver will release his brake switch and drive away with what he believes to be free wheeling trailer, when in reality he may be skidding one or more of the trailer wheels behind him without realizing he is in the process of destroying hundreds of dollars worth of tires.

Another common cause of unnoticed tire skidding occurs with over application of the trailer brakes on slippery downhill grades. During slippery conditions, one or more wheels can lock-up without indication causing unnecessary tire wear or even throw the trailer dangerously out of control.

"FLIKRZ" are a simple, install in seconds wheel reflector that allows a driver at all times, at any speed, day or night to know exactly if and when his trailer wheels are moving or not.

"FLIKRZ" are made to fit most 15-24 inch trailer wheel assemblies equipped with the common 1-1/8 inch removable center plug hub. They install in seconds and come in a variety of colors (RED, WHITE, BLUE, ORANGE, YELLOW AND GREEN) FOR EASY IDENTIFICATION OF EACH AXLE ASSEMBLY.

"FLIKRZ" are not only an effective, maintenance reducing device, they are also a public safety aid. If and when a Truck loses all tail and marker lights to the trailer, traffic approaching from the front, rear or sides will see the "FLIKRZ" in motion and be aware of a moving Semi-Truck or one that may be parked on the side of the road for that matter. During the winter months, snow blowing up and covering the tail-lights is a far to common and dangerous problem. If by chance a Semi-Truck and trailer are parked on the edge of the road with no lights and safety flares or safety markers aren't available for the moment, then "FLIKRZ" will allow a driver the time he needs to place the necessary safety devices for warning on coming traffic.

In addition to being a wheel movement indicator, public safety aid or skid detector, "FLIKRZ" also aid a driver in backing his trailer into dark places during night time operations. With the aid of back-up light, the reflector will let him know exactly where his trailer tires are at all time.

I feel so strongly about the safety, maintenance reduction and striking appearance that this simple, inexpensive device has to offer to any independent trucker or an entire fleet for that matter, that I forsee the day that near all Semi-Trailers on this nation's highway will be willingly and satisfactorily equipped with FLIKRZ"....

NOTE

DRIVE WHEEL ADAPTERS AVAILABLE FOR SEMI-TRACTORS, DELIVERY TRUCKS, SCHOOL, MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC BUS LINES, ETC....

ID: 86-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ron Luce, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/14/77 letter from F. Berndt to Sergio Campanini, The Berg Manufacturing Co.; 8/27/79 letter from F. Berndt to the Berg Manufacturing Co.; 9/30/77 letter from R. L. Carter to R. W. Hildebrandt, The Bendix Corp.

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Luce President International Transquip Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 590169 Houston, Texas 77259

This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You asked several questions relating to whether vehicles equipped with "Mini-Max" brakes, a type of brake produced by your company, comply with the standard. Your questions are responded to below. We note that while Question 4 was not asked directly by your letter, the question is implicit with respect to one of the questions you did ask.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicle 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 or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Question 1: Is delayed mechanical parking permissible under section S5.6.3 as long as the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 are satisfied?

The second sentence of section S5.6.3 provides that "(o)nce applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means." As discussed by a recent notice granting a petition for rulemaking submitted by the California Highway Patrol (copy enclosed), there are at least two issues relating to whether a braking system such as Mini-Max complies with these requirements.

The first issue is whether the system meets the requirement that once applied, the parking brakes must be held solely by mechanical means. As currently designed, the Mini-Max parking brake can be held by air and not by mechanical means, solely or otherwise, for many hours. Indeed, since a driver will often park the vehicle for a period of time shorter than that required to obtain mechanical holding, there will be many instances when the vehicle is parked and the parking brake never is held by mechanical means. The second issue is whether the parking brakes are held in the applied position. With the current design of the Mini-Max braking system, the air pressure leaks down over time until the mechanical lock is activated. Since the position of the brake components necessarily changes during this time, resulting in reduced parking brake force, there is an issue whether the parking brake is being held in the applied position.

While NHTSA has never concluded that a brake system resulting in false parking is safe or provided an interpretation that the current Mini-Max system complies with section S5.6.3, we recognize that some past interpretations, as well as one issued by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, could contribute to ambiguity concerning whether some of the features incorporated in the Mini-Max design are permitted by the standard. In light of that ambiguity and for the other reasons discussed in the grant notice, NHTSA decided to grant the CHP petition to initiate rulemaking on the delayed mechanical park issue rather than issuing an interpretation whether or not such a braking system complies with these requirements.

Question 2: Is an external pressure separation assembly consisting of a two-way check valve and accompanying steel hex nipple considered to be a component of a brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3 if the assembly is "permanently bonded" to the housing?

The answer to this question is no. Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part that "(t)he parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing)." (Emphasis added.) The dictionary defines "housing" as "a fully enclosed case and support for a mechanism." See Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). Thus, the term "brake chamber housing" refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. An external pressure separation assembly does not become part of the brake chamber housing merely because it is attached to the housing, whether by "permanent bonding" or some other means. However, a brake chamber housing could be cast or molded to include a fitting, serving the same purpose as the external pressure assembly, as an integral part of the brake chamber housing.

Question 3: Is an internal assembly consisting of a diaphragm within the brake chamber housing considered to be a component of the brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3?

The answer to this question is no. As discussed above, the term "brake chamber housing" refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. A diaphragm within the brake chamber is not a component of the case enclosing the brake chamber.

Question 4: Does section S5.2.1.1 require that capability of release must be unaffected or that air pressure in the tank must be unaffected?

Section S5.2.1.1 provides that "(a) reservoir shall be provided that is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system." (Emphasis added.) The word "unaffected" refers back to "reservoir". Thus, the required reservoir is not permitted to be "affected" by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system, i.e., it must be protected. A reservoir would not meet this requirement if a loss of air pressure in the service brake system resulted in a loss of air pressure in the reservoir, even if the reservoir was still capable of releasing the parking brakes.

Question 5: If the emergency brakes on trailers can be modulated so as to provide a driver with several applications and releases to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system, is it unnecessary for an S5.2.1.1 reservoir to be capable of releasing the brakes?

The capability of modulation after activation of the low air warning system does not satisfy the requirements of section S5.2.1.1 (quoted above). That section requires that the reservoir not be affected by loss of service air, i.e., that it be protected, and that, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i. (a pressure that corresponds to the lower end of the range of pressures maintained by compressors), it be capable of releasing the parking brakes at least once. A vehicle's emergency brakes could be capable of modulation after activation of the low air warning system and not meet either of these requirements.

In addition to the notice granting the CHP petition, we are enclosing copies of interpretation letters concerning the Mini-Max system addressed to Navistar, P.T. Brake Lining Company, and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures August 20, 1985 U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 ATTN: Duane Perrin

Subject: Our letter of August 6, 1985 and Docket No. 75-16: Notice 27. Request for immediate interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121.

Dear Mr. Perrin:

After our July 31, 1985 meeting in Washington, DC and subsequent to my letter of August 6, 1985 I have requested, received and reviewed copies of all information contained in all volumes of the "Red Book" of 121 interpretations maintained in the document section of the D.O.T. After review of this information it is very evident that the NHTSA has offered several interpretations with respect to delayed mechanical parking that clearly allows this means of parking to satisfy the requirements of S5.6.3 as long as either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 can be achieved. The references are as follows.

1. Berg Mfg. Co. letter dated February 9, 1977 that describes a system that is air applied on initial emergency or parking application and is held by spring application only in the event of service application pressure loss. The NHTSA response N40-30 (TWH) dated March 14, 1977 does not allow all design features of the Berg system but does clearly allow delayed mechanical parking as stated in the last sentence of the reference letter.

"In other respects the system you described does not appear to violate the requirements of Standard No. 121. The use of service air pressure to actuate the parking brakes has been used in certain bus applications and is permissible as long as a source of energy to apply the parking brakes is usable at all times and is unaffected by any single failure in the service brake system."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit A".

2. Berg. Mfg. Co. letter dated June 28, 1979 that describes a parking brake system that employs delayed mechanical parking. This system, I believe, was later denied because of non compliance to section S5.2.1.1 because emergency springs were released by supply air rather than from a protected reservoir. However, the NHTSA interpretation is clear with respect to application by service air and subsequent spring application as the air supply is depleted. The NHTSA response NOA-30 dated August 27, 1979 covers this point in the second paragraph.

"You first ask whether section S5.6.3 allows the use of service air to apply the parking brakes as long as a source of energy to supply the parking brakes is available at all times and is unaffected by a single failure in the service brake system. The answer to this question is yes. On August 9, 1979, the agency published in the federal register a notice amending section S5.6.3 of the standard to permit the type of parking brake system that you outlined in your letter."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit B".

3. Bendix letter dated September 14, 1977 that explains the many benefits of delayed mechanical parking by use of service air for initial application and spring application only after service pressure has depleted. This system also was later determined to not be in compliance to S5.2.1.1 because no reservoir was provided for release of brakes. However it clearly describes the delayed mechanical parking mode. The NHTSA response dated September 30, 1977 states in the last paragraph:

"You also requested written confirmation that the interpretation of S5.6.3 of FMVSS No. 121 given by NHTSA to Motor Coach Industries Inc., on April 14, 1976, would pertain to the air/spring parking brake system described in your letter. Your assumption is correct, and this letter constitutes such written confirmation."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit C".

Upon review of the information presented we respectfully request written confirmation that our assumption is correct that our delayed mechanical system as outlined in the information provided with our August 6, 1985 letter does comply with S5.6.3 of the 121 Standard.

We also request an interpretation with respect to the use of an external pressure separation assembly detailed in the information provided with our August 6, 1985 letter. Is our assumption correct that both the external and internal assemblies are a component of the brake chamber housing in this unique brake chamber design.

We further request an interpretation with respect to S5.2.1.1. Is our assumption correct that as discussed in our August 6, 1985 letter and detailed in the enclosures with the same letter that our "system" complies to section S5.2.1.1 of the 121 Standard. Without considering the above, in our letter of August 6, 1985 page 6, we also disclosed the fact that our trailer system allows modulation of emergency brakes. Are we correct in assuming that if we are able to modulate emergency brakes on trailers, this improvement in safety would also dictate that no release is necessary because a modulated emergency system provides a driver with several applications and releases of the emergency brake system to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system. We understand that this would not exempt us from the requirement that "a reservoir shall be provided..." however it should remove the release requirement in emergency situations and would result in improved vehicle safety.

Please respond as quickly as possible to these requests for interpretations. We again point out that the absence of compliance checks at the OE level have placed us at an extreme disadvantage when compared to systems that were being marketed prior to discontinuation of compliance inspections. Thanks again for your assistance and early reply.

Regards, Ron Luce enc.:

See 3/14/77 letter from F. Berndt to Sergio Campanini, The Berg Manufacturing Company. See also 8/27/79 letter from F. Berndt to The Berg Manufacturing Company. See also 9/30/77 letter from R.L. Carter to R.W. Hildebrandt, The Bendix Corporation.