ID: nht94-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 24, 1994

FROM: Larry L. Wessels -- President, Rocky Mountain Technology Engineering Corporation

TO: John Womak -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/6/94 from Larry L. Wessels to John Womack (A42; Stds 106)

TEXT: During the past several months we have been in communication with Dr. Gerald Steward of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Dr. Stewart suggested in his letter dated April 18, 1994, that we provide you with pertinent safety and product i nformation regarding our new invention for a safety product, "Handi-Slide", for semitrailers equipped with sliding axle/undercarriage assemblies.

The "Handi-Slide" has the potential to reduce or eliminate existing safety problems as identified in the U.S. Department of Transportation 49 Code of Federal Regulations. Specific Code of Regulations are identified in our information booklet that is enc losed.

We have also enclosed a "Handi-Slide" video that shows and demonstrates the advantages of our pneumatic/air locking pin system compared to the present manual force pin removal system that has been in use since sliding undercarriages were introduced appro ximately 40 years ago. The state-of-the-art "Handi-Slide" system offers the trucking industry improved safety and increased operating efficiency compared to the old manual cantilever system that is currently in use.

We have installed "Handi-Slide" over-the-road test units on several semitrailers. We are receiving numerous favorable comments from truck owners, drivers and trailer manufacturer engineers regarding the "Handi-Slide" test units.

If you have any further questions, please contact us at (303)922-4518. We look forward to receiving your comments regarding our new invention. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-3.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry Wessels -- President, Rocky Mountain Technology Engineering Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/24/94 from Larry L. Wessels to John Womack (OCC-10032)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation about the use of your product, the "Handi-Slide." You state that your invention is a locking system for securing and releasing a sliding semitrailer undercarriage. You further state that the syst em is tied into the trailer's air brake system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle sa fety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your product is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomp lying product that is subject to an FMVSS is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

NHTSA does not have any specific FMVSS for semitrailer undercarriages. However, since the Handi-Slide is tied to a

2

vehicle's air brake system, your product could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems, and specifies performance and equipment requi rements for the braking systems on these vehicles. Your product could also affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for the air brake hoses, fittings and assemblies on the vehicle.

If the Handi-Slide is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 12 1 and 106. If the device were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify t hat, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the Handi-Slide were installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act requires the installer not to 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 FMVSS. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to vehi cle owners modifying their own vehicles.

I note that you provide an attachment titled "Current NHTSA Locking Pin Safety Concerns" that references several Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Please note that these regulations are administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), n ot NHTSA. If you are interested in the FHWA requirements, you can write to that agency at the address provided in the enclosed information sheet.

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.

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Walter Lavis

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/6/94 from Walter Lavis to John Womack (OCC-10080)

TEXT: We have received your letter of June 6, 1994, with respect to your "Saf-T-Flec" reflectors.

You say that you have been informed by a NHTSA representative that "using the standard DOT approved reflector tape would allow the use of my reflector for the trucking industry." Judging from the red, white, and amber samples you have enclosed, your "ref lectors" appear to be retroreflective tape which adheres to a semicircular aluminum base and is intended for vertical mounting on the side and back of vehicles. Several potential customers have asked whether your concept was "DOT approved", and you have asked for a reply.

The Department of Transportation has no authority to "approve" items of motor vehicle equipment. We advise inquires whether manufacture or use of any particular item of equipment is prohibited or permitted under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard s and associated regulations. However, if an item is deemed permissible, this must not be represented as "approval" by DOT.

Your letter is somewhat unclear as to the intended use and market for Saf-T-Flec. The fact that you have enclosed a highlighted copy of S5.1.1.4 leads us to believe that one application you envision for Saf-T-Flec is as a substitute for original equipme nt side reflex reflectors. This substitution is permitted if the reflective material conforms to Federal Specification L-S- 300 (September 7, 1965) and, as used on the vehicle, meets the performance standards of SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors, Jan uary 1977. Accordingly, if your red and amber samples meet these two requirements, they may be used as the side front, intermediate, and rear reflex reflectors that Tables I and III require on trucks and trailers. However, Standard No. 108 does not all ow sheeting material to be used on the rear of vehicles in lieu of reflex reflectors.

What if your reflectors do not meet the two specifications listed above? In this instance, they may be used as supplementary side reflectors to the reflectors that are

2

required by Standard No. 108, and you may employ amber devices for this use as well as red and white. As supplementary equipment, they are subject to the Federal restriction only that they not impair the effectiveness of the required reflex reflectors. We do not believe that additional reflectors would have this effect. Supplementary lighting equipment such as additional reflectors is subject to the laws of the individual states. We are not able to advise you as to their acceptability under state la ws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) provides opinions on state law. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

As you may know, S5.7 of Standard No. 108 requires red and white retroreflective material to be applied to the side and rear of large trailers that have been manufactured since November 30, 1993 (those whose overall width is 80 inches or more and whose G VWR is more than 10,000 pounds). This material may be retroreflective sheeting or reflectors. If sheeting is used, it must meet the photometric specifications of Figure 29. If reflectors are used, they must conform to SAE J594f, and provide specified minimum millicandela/lux at specified light entrance angles. Your initial question indicates that you may be interested in marketing Saf-T-Flec for use as a substitute for the conspicuity materials that conform to Standard No. 108. Manufacturers of con spicuity sheeting certify it with the material in a flat vertical plane (as evidenced by the DOT-C2 marking on your white sample). We have reservations whether the curved red and white Saf-T-Flec devices could meet the photometric specifications of Figu re 29, for sheeting, or J594f and the millicandela/lux specifications of S5.7.2.1(b) or (c) for reflectors. Amber is not one of the specified colors for conspicuity treatment, and could not be used as a substitute.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht94-3.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1994

FROM: Suzanne C. Onos -- Field Representative, House of Representatives

TO: John Horsley -- Acting Director, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/17/94: Letter from John Womack to Honorable Thomas H. Andrews (Std. 208)

TEXT: I was recently contacted by Betty Williams. She states that the design of the seat belt in her 1991 Chrysler is causing her discomfort. Ms. Williams went to her car dealer to have the seat belt changed but was informed that it is against the law to do so. Ms. Williams would like to know if this is true and if there is any alternative means to address this problem.

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-3.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hellfried Sandig, Reitter & Schefenacker GMBH & Co. KG

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/6/94 from Hellfried Sandig to Richard van Iderstine

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of June 6, 1994, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You present a drawing of a rear combination lamp incorporating one stop lamp and two taillamps. You have asked whether it is "necessary that we must have the ratio 5:1/3:1 between the stop and the tail lamp measurements in this arrangement?"

If the lamp is intended for use on narrower vehicles, the answer depends upon the distance between the optical axes of the stop and taillamp functions. SAE Standard J586 FEB84 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width is in corporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.3 of J586 is the source of the ratio: "[w]hen a tail lamp is combined with the stop lamp, the stop lamp shall not be less than three times the luminous intensity of the tail lamp at any test p oint; except that at H-V, H-5L, H-5R, and 5U-V, the stop lamp shall not be less than five times the luminous intensity of the tail lamp." However, in a multiple compartment lamp such as yours, if "the distance between optical axes for one of the function s exceeds the dimensions specified in paragraph 5.1.5.2 [i.e., 560 mm] the ratio shall be computed for only those compartments or lamps where the tail lamp and stop lamp are optically combined." Although your combination lamp design combines the two func tions, your drawing indicates that they are not optically combined, and the ratio will not apply if the optical axes are more than 560 mm apart. The ratio will apply if the distance between the optical axis of the stop lamp and that of either taillamp i s 560 mm or less.

SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width is the standard incorporated in Standard No. 108 that applies to lamps used on wider

2

vehicles. Its paragraph 5.1.5.2 establishes the same 5:3 ratio (though not including H-5L in the five times ratio), but does not provide an exception based upon spacing of optical axes. Thus, if your lamp is designed for wider vehicles, the ratio appli es regardless of the spacing of the optical axes.

ID: nht94-3.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 11, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carmen Colet -- Vice President, John Russo Industrial, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/24/94 from Carmen Colet to Dorothy Nakama (OCC-10060)

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your "aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle." As ex plained below, the answer is no.

Your letter states that your company is constructing the vehicle "to satisfy proposed U.S.A.F. and D.O.D." specifications. The vehicle is made to operate on airfields. You described the unusual configuration of the vehicle as having a "cockpit" that is "similar to 117A Stealth Fighter," having bumpers that are 5 feet high, and having a "power water turret on top." You further stated that vehicle uses tires 54 inches high and over two feet wide, that are made to be run on only for 20 minutes, at a spee d of up to 65 miles per hour.

Enclosed with your letter is a picture of the vehicle, which you asked be kept confidential. Although your request for confidentiality does not comply with NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 512 Confidential Business Information, in order to save time, I will not publicly disclose the picture.

The FMVSSs apply only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. @ 30102 (a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have interpreted this language to mean that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In an interpretation letter of

2

December 28, 1979, to Walter Motor Truck Company, NHTSA determined that the Walter airport crash-fire-rescue vehicle does not qualify as a motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS. Your description of your aircraft rescue vehicle indicates that the vehicle is to be used only within an airfield. In particular, the size and 20 minute running time of the tires, appears to make the vehicle impracticable for highway use.

Based on the information you have provided, and our understanding that your vehicles are neither used on public roads nor suitable for such use, we conclude that the "aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle" is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, your vehicle is not subject to Standard No. 115. Since you are not a manufacturer of a "motor vehicle," you do not have to furnish NHTSA with information pursuant to 49 CFR part 566 Manufactur er Identification.

Enclosed with this letter is your picture of the aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 11, 1994

FROM: Paul Frink -- Engineering Manager, AVIONIC STRUCTURES, INC.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Ref: Interpretation of 571.206 Standard No. 206; Door Locks and Door Retention Components. S4. Requirements.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/02/94 from John Womack to Paul Frink (A42; STD. 206)

TEXT: Avionic Structures, Inc. is in the process of manufacturing a door/door frame system that is specifically intended to be installed in a vehicle classified as a Recreational Motor Home.

The door/door frame system is located on the passenger side of the vehicle and directly across from the drivers seat. The location and use of this door is as the primary egress for the vehicle.

The passenger seat is in close proximity to this door, however, as shown on the diagram enclosed the passenger seat is behind the step area extending from the door opening into the coach.

The door/door frame assembly, as manufactured by Avionic Structures is installed into the side wall of the vehicle (motor home) and bolted into place by the vehicle manufacturer. The door/door frame assembly is thus a component part of the sidewall. Se e Dwg. 1.

The door hinging is located between the forward vertical post of the door and the forward vertical member of the frame. The locking and latching components are opposite the hinges on the trailing post of the door and frame. See Dwg. 2.

The double rotor latch and striker bolt are components purchased from Tri-Mark Corporation. These components have been subjected to the test requirements of SAEJ839-JUL92 static load testing. The report submitted by Tri-Mark Corporation to Avionic Stru ctures indicates their units met or exceeded these requirements. See enclosed data sheet from Tri-Mark.

Since the door we have described to you is the only egress for occupants and belongings, as generally used in the living quarters of a Motor Home, Avionic Structures feels it is important for us to understand what category (for testing requirements) this installation falls under.

We would appreciate a clarification as to the need for this door/door frame system to conform to a specific portion of DOT Standard No. 206.

Thank you in advance for your help and prompty reply.

DRAWINGS OMITTED

ID: nht94-3.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1994

FROM: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager, Vehicle Regulations, Volkswagen Of America, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation relating to 49 CFR Parts 541 and 543, Theft Prevention Standard (Parts Marking Requirements for Replacement Parts)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/17/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN (A43; PART 543; PART 541)

TEXT: Thank you for your quick response to our request for interpretation dated 17 May 1994 relating to the marking requirements for replacement parts. This letter presents a follow-up question to the interpretation you gave us relative to the Volkswagen Corr ado carline.

Your interpretation concluded that because the Corrado will not be offered for sale in the United States as a 1995 model year carline (the model year for which the exemption from parts marking on the basis of an approved anti-theft device was granted), t he replacement parts for the 1994 model year and prior years would continue to have to be marked. This was because "no Corrados sold in the U.S. will be equipped with the approved anti-theft device".

However, the fact is that all 1994 model year Corrados were sold in the U.S. with the standard anti-theft device that was approved for the 1995 model year exemption. (The 1994 model year Corrado was parts marked in addition to being equipped with a stan dard anti-theft device.)

Volkswagen could not apply for an anti-theft system exemption for the 1994 model year Corrado because only two exemptions are allowed per model year. For 1994, Volkswagen chose to exempt the Jetta III and the Volkswagen Cabrio carlines.

Volkswagen believes that marking of replacement parts for the Corrado carline can be terminated because the 1994 model year Corrado carline was equipped with a standard anti-theft device that was approved for exemption so that the requirement that Corrad o vehicles be sold in the United States with the approved anti-theft device was, in fact, met. Your interpretation on this issue is requested.

Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your early response.

ID: nht94-3.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Associations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to a letter dated 6/1/94 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 1, 1994, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have asked whether the term "underride protection device" as used in S5.7.1.4.1 in Standard No. 108 "only include the device yet to be required by NHTSA or would it include the device described in TTMA RP No. 92?"

At present, the term "rear underride protection device" as used in Standard No. 108 means the common "ICC bumper" described by the Federal Highway Administration in 49 CFR 393.86, or a similar device that the manufacturer of a trailer has provided regard less of whether it is required by 49 CFR 393.86. Thus, it presently includes the device described in TTMA RP No. 92.

You have informed us that some manufacturers are installing guards with round cross sections, and some with square cross sections rotated 45 degrees which results in a "diamond" shape orientation. In addition, on some trash trailers, a curved hook grabs and holds the round cross section guard while trash is loaded into the trailers. You have asked whether a 38 mm wide retroreflective strip of sheeting applied to these guards will comply with Standard No. 108.

S5.7.1.4.1(c) of Standard No. 108 specifies only that the strip shall be applied "across the full width of the horizontal member of the rear underride protection device." Although the reflective material is certified by its manufacturer for photometric c onformance in the vertical position, Standard No. 108 has not been interpreted to require structural changes in trailers for the sole purpose of enhancing the conspicuity installation. The agency's decision to avoid exceptions for trailers with unusual configurations was based on the expectation that manufacturers would use

2

their available structures for conspicuity material, rather than re-engineer them. Thus, we believe that the application of 38 mm wide sheeting to either of these guards would comply with S5.7.1.4.1(c).

ID: nht94-3.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James H. Shuff -- President, Freedom Trailers

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/9/94 from James H. Shuff to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9666)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether tires and wheel rims used with your "park model travel trailers" are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. As ex plained below, the answer is no, because your travel trailers are not motor vehicles.

Your letter provided the following information about your "trailers." The trailers are intended for recreational use, rather than for year round living. Each unit is a maximum of 400 sq. ft., and may be as wide as 12 feet. You state that after your trai lers are constructed, they "will be towed to their campsite and set up," where they may be used for "winter camping in the year round parks." Once your trailers are set up, you would reuse the tires and rims.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. @ 30101 et seq. authorizes NHTSA to regulate new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including tires and rims. Standard No. 120, and all of our safety standards, apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles," w ithin the meaning of the statute. The term "motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(6) as:

"motor, vehicle" means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have determined that your "trailers" are not motor vehicles based on two examinations. First, while the characteristics of your trailers are not entirely clear in your letter (our repeated attempts to reach you by telephone have been unsuccessful), i t appears that your trailers could be considered "mobile homes." Mobile homes are regulated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and

2

are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by NHTSA. Accordingly, tire and rim selection for mobile homes is not subject to Standard No. 120 or any other NHTSA regulation. For information about mobile homes, you can contact the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th St., SW, Washington, DC 20410.

Second, even if your "trailer" is not a mobile home, it does not meet the Safety Act definition of a "motor vehicle." We have interpreted the definition as follows. Vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles, ev en though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles, such as mobile construction equipment, that use the public roads only to travel between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not c onsidered motor vehicles. In such cases, the use of the public roads is incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and re gardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Based on your description, it appears that, analogous to mobile construction equipment, the on-road use of your travel trailers appears to be incidental and not the primary purpose for which they are manufactured. Therefore, your trailers are not subjec t to Standard No. 120's requirements for tire selection and rims. Please note that this conclusion is based solely on the facts presented in your letter. We may reexamine this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant a reexamination.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.