ID: 1984-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lufkin Industries, Inc. -- LaVan Watts, Chief Engineer, Trailer Div.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1984, concerning the permissibility of additional lighting equipment to the fronts of closed van and flat bed-type trailers, specifically the "additional amber reflectors" shown on the sheet you enclosed.

You have asked whether you may manufacture trailers with "additional lamps or reflectors . . . in the manner shown . . . and a customer not be cited in violation of present standards." As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires wide trailers to be equipped with two clearance lamps at the front, but does not require them either to have identification lamps, as are required on the other wide motor vehicle, or front amber reflex reflectors, which are not required on any motor vehicle. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 precludes the addition of non-required motor vehicle equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Your addition of these reflectors would not appear to impair the effectiveness of other lamps and reflectors and therefore would be permitted by Standard No. 108.

Although your drawing does not indicate it, your question indicates that you are considering supplementary front amber clearance lamps, instead of the reflectors depicted. Thus, the question is whether they would impair the effectiveness of the required clearance lamps, or front side marker lamps and reflectors. We assume that these additional lamps would have the same or less candela as the required front clearance lamps, and in that event they too would appear not to impair the other lighting equipment mentioned.

You have expressed concern that customers not be cited for violation of "the standard." Local enforcement officers, of course have no authority to interpret Federal lighting requirements. Those who add supplementary lighting equipment risk running afoul of State prohibitions. The preemptive provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibit a State from having safety standards that differ from Federal ones covering "the same aspect of performance." Thus, a State could not require four front clearance lamps when Standard No. 108 requires only two. Whether it could prohibit four front clearance lamps or two front reflectors is another question. Because of the possibility that a court could narrowly construe the preemption provisions of the Act in favor of a State prohibition against front reflex reflectors or supplementary clearance lamps, even if permitted by Standard No. 108, we suggest that you contact local officials in the areas where your trailers will be operated to obtain their views.

Sincerely,

OCC-1513 November 12, 1984

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Low Mounted Reflectors On The Front Of Highway Type Trailers

Dear Mr. Berndt:

A question has arisen to which an opinion is needed regarding the placing of amber reflex reflectors on the lower front corners of all highway-type trailers regardless of whether there is clearance lamps present or not. Particularly on a closed van trailer where the clearance lamps are required to be placed "as near the top as practicable." These lamps can be as high as 13' from the ground. So the question: can additional lamps or reflectors be placed in the manner shown on the attached drawing and a customer not be cited in violation of present standards?

Your earliest response is certainly appreciated.

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC. Trailer Division

LaVan Watts Chief Engineer

BY ELW DATE 11/12/84 SUBJECT FMVSS 108 ADDITIONAL REFLECTORS

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. C.O. Marti -- General Manager, Compenhia Pnmeus Tropical (Brazil)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking how to proceed to have your products certified to conform to the standards issued by this agency, so that you can sell your tires in the United States.

All tires for use on passenger cars imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109), and all tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). I have enclosed copies of both of these standards for your information. You will see that the standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger cars only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements which must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States.

With respect to the performance requirements, you asked how you should proceed to have your products certified to conform to the appropriate standard. The European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires for testing by a governmental entity. However, the United States follows a different procedure. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that its tires comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable standards. Certainly, we recommend that a manufacturer selling tires in the United States test those tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts spot checks of tires after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken.

If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires which fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:

(1) repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or

(2) replace the tire with an identical or reasonably equivalent tire which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy.

It is a simple matter to check the tires to see that the marking requirements in the respective standards have been satisfied. I should point out that the U.S. Customs Service will not allow tires without the DOT marking to enter the United States.

With respect to the tire and rim matching, this information, as well as the loading schedules for the tire size (showing the maximum load the tire can carry at designated inflation pressures) must eitner be set forth in a current standardization organization publication or be furnished by the manufacturers to each of their dealers and in duplicate to this agency. You may wish to obtain a copy of the most current publication by the American standardization organization to see if your company can use the loading schedules and tire and rim matching information published therein for the particular tire sizes you wish to sell in the United States. That publication may be ordered by sending $ 8.50 plus postage costs to: The Tire and Rim Association, 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. If the tire sizes and corresponding rims listed in that publication for those sizes are satisfactory, you will have complied with this requirement. However, if the sizes are not listed or you believe different values should be assigned, you may consult the publications of other standardization organizations or you may elect to furnish the appropriate information to this agency and to each of your dealers. I should note that the Brazilian standardization organization to which you refer in your letter is not recognized by this agency for the purposes of either of the tire standards, so you can not rely on its publications.

I am also enclosing a copy of another regulation that applies to your tires, 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. This requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see @ 574.5), including the manufacturer's identification mark. To obtain an identification mark, you should follow the steps set forth in @ 574.6 of this regulation.

Further, this regulation requires each manufacturer to furnish forms to its tire dealers to record the names and addresses of the first purchasers of these tires. The completed forms will then be returned to the tire manufacturer, or some party designated by the manufacturer to receive those forms. This is necessary in case the manufacturer must recall the tires to remedy a noncompliance with an applicable standard or a safety-related defect. It may be necessary for you to make arrangements with some party in this country to store the completed forms for your.

Finally, I am enclosing a procedural rule which applies to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency (49 CFR Part 551). This regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. The manufacturer identification mark which Part 574 requires you to mold on one sidewall of each of your tires will not be assigned until we have received a valid designation of agent from your company. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the six following items of information:

1. A certification that the (Illegible Word) is valid in form and binding on your company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of your company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of your tires which do not bear the name of your company;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by your company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by your company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

If you need any further information or a clarification of some of the information set forth in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ENCLS.

April 10, 1984 GG-042/84

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Office of Chief Council

Gentlemen,

CIA PNEUS TROPICAL is a Brazilian private manufacturer of tires, tubes and related items, with sales in the domestic and Latin American markets. Our plant, located at Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil, has a daily nominal production capacity of over fifty two metric tons, and its buildings occupy an area of nearly fifty thousands square meters; started production on the last quarter of 1976 and produces bias ply tires for passenger cars, commercial vehicles, trucks, buses and motors graders, of which we are enclosing one set of descriptive leaflets.

Our Quality Control, designed and operated according to the model of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio, USA, through its Brazilian branch, besides the high level of automation of our production equipment, assures the high uniformity of our products and its compliance with the standards of the Associacao Brasileira de Pneus e Aros, an organism with scopes similar to those of the American Tire and Rim Association, as well as with the Brazilian Standards on Traffic Safety.

We are sure that our tires and tubes will have a good acceptance at the American market, moreover if we make some small adjustments of load range in our truck and buses tires, aiming the preferences of the American users, what can be done most easily.

We will very much appreciate your kind notices on how to proceed to have our products certified to conform to the standards of NHTSA, in order they can be placed into the United States of American market.

Looking forward to hear from you, we remain,

C.O. Marti General Manager

ID: 1984-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gerald D. Peltzer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 18, 1984, requesting information on what safety regulations apply to a "sleeper-passenger carrier" that you manufacture. The following discussion explains the regulations applicable to your product.

Since your product is sold as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers it to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has issued several Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to your product. Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading, requires camper manufacturers to provide certain certification, identification and loading information on a label affixed to their product. The standard defines "camper" as "a structure designed to be mounted in the cargo area of a truck, or attached to an incomplete vehicle with motive power, for the purpose of providing shelter for persons." Since your product is designed to be mounted in the cargo area of a pickup truck and provides shelter for its occupants, it would be considered a camper and thus must comply with Standard No. 126.

You indicate in your letter that your product contains windows with "safety glass." Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, sets requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles, including campers. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highway," Z26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (ANS-Z26). The standard established both performance and labelling requirements for the glazing used in your camper.

You state that your product has a bench seat across the back and a cushion across the front. Since you describe your product as in part a "passenger carrier," it is likely that the seat and the cushion will be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion and thus would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies and Standard NO. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, and 210. However, we strongly recommend you do provide seat belts properly anchored at each seating position.

You are also required to comply with Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, a copy of which is enclosed. That regulation requires you to submit certain identifying information and a description of the product you produce.

Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. ENCLS.

July 18, 1984

Peltzer Manufacturing

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Chief Council

Dear Sirs:

I am writing in regard to the safety regulations that apply to the manufacture of a sleeper-passenger carrier that mounts in the front 40" inches of a pickup box. The main outside structure is fiberglass approximately three-sixteenths of an inch thick, completely carpeted inside. It has a bench seat across the back with a backrest on each side of the door and a cushion across the front that can be folded down to make a sleeper bunk.

The unit has a 15" x 54" bi-parting safety glass in front to match the rear window of the truck cab. The side windows are 22" X 30" safety glass slider windows with screens. The front of the unit is bolted into brackets that are bolted into the front stake pockets of the truck box. The rear of the unit has 1 1/2" x 3/16" "L" shaped metal brackets that are bolted to the sleeper-passenger carrier and go under the upper ledge of the pickup box. The 22" x 36" x 1 3/8" door in the rear of the unit is mounted in an aluminum frame. I am using a Bargman L-300 motor home lock.

Enclosed find a picture and a diagram of the unit. Please send me information on how to get this unit safety approved.

Gerald D. Peltzer

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Burt McMillian

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for information about rebuilt steel wheels for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. For the purposes of this response, I will respond only for the rim portion of the wheel, since both the regulations you inquired about apply only to rims, and not the entire wheel assembly. Specifically, you asked about the applicability of a regulation issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and this agency's Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR @ 571.120). This agency does not offer opinions on the applicability of other Federal agency regulations, and Standard No. 120 does not apply to rebuilt rims.

You stated in your letter that one of OSHA's regulations states that "no cracked, broken, bent or otherwise damaged rim components shall be reworked, welded, brazed, or otherwise heated", and that OSHA interprets the center disc as a rim component subject to the requirements of that regulation. You further stated that a staff member in our Office of Defect Investigations offered his opinion that the OSHA regulation did not apply to the center disc. This agency does not interpret the regulations administered by other Federal agencies, unless and until such time as that regulation appears inconsistent with our statutory authority. There is no apparent conflict between the OSHA regulation and our authority, so we defer to their interpretation of that regulation.

You further stated in your letter that "the only other regulation concerning rebuilding wheels is NHTSA Standard No. 120 concerning identification of rebuilt wheels." We have stated in several past interpretations that Standard No. 120 does not apply to remanufactured or rebuilt rims. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 does set forth rim marking requirements, but these apply only to new rims. Section 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (hereafter referred to as "the Safety Act") (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) specifies that the requirements of our safety standards shall not apply after the first purchase of a rim in good faith for purposes other than resale. Since the components of rebuilt rims have already been used on the public roads, the requirements of Standard No. 120 do not apply to the rebuilding of those rims.

You concluded your letter with the observation that these rims are subject to significantly more stress today than they were ten years ago, and that repaired or rebuilt rims should be "looked at". There is a course of action you might wish to pursue if you believe this perceived problem presents a serious threat. You may file a petition for rulemaking with this agency, asking us to establish some strength requirements for new rims. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall "knowingly render inoperative any . . . element of design installed on or in . . . an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, . . . " If Standard No.

120 were amended to include some strength requirements for new rims, those persons could violate section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act if they knowingly weaken the rims. For your information I have enclosed a copy of our regulation which sets forth the requirements for petitions for rulemaking (49 CFR Part 552). Should you choose to file such a petition, please pay particular attention to the requirements of @ 552.4, which explains the information which must be included in the petition.

I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, and believe that the safety concerns of people like yourself who are daily involved with tires and rims are an invaluable help to this agency. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns.

ENCLS.

LES SCHWAB WAREHOUSE CENTER INC.

June 26, 1984

Steve Kratzke Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

During a recent telephone conversation with Gary Woodford of NHTSA, he suggested I write to you and get your opinion on rebuilding truck wheels.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion over several regulations regarding rebuilding of steel truck wheels. OSHA regulation 1910.77 (F) 9. states "no cracked, broken, bent or otherwise damaged rim components shall be reworked, welded, brazed or otherwise heated". It is OSHA's opinion that the center disc is a rim component, therefore, cannot be welded. Mr. Woodford's opinion was that OSHA's jurisdiction only concerns lock rings or parts involved in mounting safety.

The only other regulation concerning rebuilding wheels is NHTSA standard120 concerning identification of rebuilt wheels. As I understand this regulation all that is required is some sort of stamp such as date, initials or trademark that is not registered or otherwise traceable.

My concern is that there are people welding and/or rebuilding wheels that have no concept of the engineering or design of steel wheels. As an example; recently I ran across a rebuilder who was cutting out the mounting surface of the disc and welding in a new one. When he bored the stud holes he was putting a chamfered or beveled seat instead of a ball seat. It is highly probable that unless excess amount of torque were applied to the cap nuts this wheel would come loose. The problem is that any tire service store that changes that wheel in the future then becomes liable if the wheel comes loose. The difference between a chamfered or beveled seat and a ball seat is so minute that most service people would never notice the difference.

With the advent of the radial tire, greater allowable weight limits and deregulation, wheels are subjected to a lot more stress than they were ten years ago. Therefore, wheels today must be of much better quality and it would seem that repairing of wheels or rebuilding them should be looked at.

I would appreciate you sending me any information or opinions on this subject that would help clear up this muddy situation.

Thank you.

Burt McMillan

ID: 1984-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: F.H. Tubbert -- Vice President, Operations, Ottawa Truck Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. F. H. Tubbert Vice PReside, Operations Ottawa Truck Corporation 415 E. Dundee St. Ottawa, KS 66047

This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. (49 CPR 371.120). Specifically, you stated that your company has entered an agreement with a French manufacturer to market their multi-purpose vehicle in the United States. You further stated that while you have been upgrading the vehicle to comply with applicable safety standards, you have found a problem with Standard No. 120 as it applies to the tires on this vehicle. The vehicle is equipped with industrial class tires intended to provide "high flotation over various terraine". Standard No. 120 does not prohibit these multi-purpose vehicles from being equipped with industrial class tires.

Section 3 of Standard No. 120 specifies that the requirements of that standard apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, and some other vehicle types not relevant here. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is defined in 371.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." You have apparently tentatively determined that the vehicle you plan to market would be classified as a type of motor vehicle subject to Standard No. 120. Section 5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 reads as follows:

Except as specified in 3.1.3 each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 19, and with rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires, in accordance with 4.4 of Standard No. 109 or 3.1 of Standard No. 119, as applicable. (Emphasis added)

Apparently the difficulty you perceive with this requirement is that the tires with which the vehicle is equipped are not certified as complying with Standards No. 109 or 119, nor are the rims listed as suitable for use with the tires, pursuant to the relevant sections of those standards.

However, the requirement in Standard No. 120 applies only to vehicles which are equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service. The language in section 3.1.1 of Standard No. 120 was intended to exclude these vehicles which the manufacturer decides to equip with tires other than "tires for highway service." See 42 FR 7140, at 1741; February 7, l977.

Your letter stated that the vehicle you plan to market will be equipped with "an industrial class tire which provides high flotation over various terraine". This agency does not consider industrial class tires to be tires for highway service and therefore vehicles equipped with such tires need not satisfy section 5.1.1 of Standard No. 120. For your information, a check by our Rulemaking division of the listings of industrial class tires shown in the American, Japanese, and European tire standardization organizations found no listing of the tire size which you stated would be original equipment on this vehicle (16.3/75 R 20TL). You may wish to contact the vehicle manufacturer to be sure that this size is correct, and to be sure that it is promptly categorized as an industrial class tire.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

July 23, l984 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC

Dear Sirs: Ottawa Truck Corporation has entered into an agreement with Brimont, S.A., a french company, to market their multi-purpose vehicle in the United States.

In our efforts to upgrade the vehicle to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards we find a problem with Standards ll9 and 120, Tires and Rims. These Standards apply primarily to on-highway vehicles.

Our vehicle is an all terrain vehicle designed to be fitted with a variety of attachments to perform work off-highway and to operate occasionally on-highway between job sites. For this reason the vehicle is equipped with an industrial class tire (16.5/75R 20TL) which provides high flotation over various terrains. We request an interpretation of the application of these standards to our vehicle, whose primary use is off-highway. Sincerely, Ottawa Truck Corporation F. W. Tubbert Vice President, Operations FHT:jt

ID: 1984-4.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Allen Manufacturing Systems, Inc. -- Gene W. Campbell

TEXT:

Mr. Gene W. Campbell Allen Manufacturing Systems, Inc. 100 East Broadway Roscoe, TX 79545

This is in response to your letter concerning a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for the Tow Dolly manufactured by your company.

The Tow Dolly is required to have a VIN because it is considered a trailer. A trailer is defined under our regulations as any motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle.

Copies of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements, 49 CFR 565 - Vehicle Identification Number, Content Requirements, 49 CFR 566 - Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR Part 567 - Certification are enclosed.Section 567.4 describes the contents of the required certification label.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

ALLEN MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS, INC. November 7, 1984

Frank Burndt Chief Council NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

At the request of Betsy Harrison, I am sending this picture of the Tow Dolly we will be manufacturing. In our telephone conversation, she has indicated that the unit will need to have a V. I. N. Please inform me as to what we need to do in order to establish this number.

Any assistance you can give will be greatly appreciated.

Yours Truly,

Gene W. Campbell

GWC/jt

ID: 1984-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Seating and Passenger Protection, and FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your first question concerned your interpretation of FMVSS No. 222. You stated that Illinois has told school bus sellers and users that an aisle facing seat may not be installed in vehicles characterized by your state as Type I school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more), unless the seat is necessary in order to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger. Moreover, your state determined that aisle facing seats "installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs" will not be allowed. You asked whether your state has correctly interpreted the requirements of Standard No. 222.

Standard No. 222 exempts from its requirements aisle facing seats which are installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. The term "installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers" includes seats installed longitudinally to provide space for moving wheelchairs through the aisles. Thus, our interpretation of the word "accommodate" is broader than that of Illinois.

We would like to point out that a state requirement that regulates the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard is preempted under @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1381 et seq.), unless the state standard is identical. A state standard which disallows aisle facing seats installed to accommodate the handicapped regulates the same aspect of performance, i.e., seat orientation, as FMVSS No. 222, and would be preempted under @ 103(d).

Your second question stated your understanding that the forward facing requirement in Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 222 does not apply to aisle facing seats in school buses characterized by Illinois as "Type II" school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). You have told school bus sellers and users that aisle facing seats may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. You asked whether your interpretation of the standard is correct.

The answer to your question is that the language of Standard No. 222 does not require school bus passenger seats on a school bus with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds to be forward facing. The requirement for forward facing seats found in S5.1 was not included in S5(b), the section that lists the requirements that smaller school buses must meet.

Your third question concerned the applicability of FMVSS No. 222 to aisle facing seats on school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (your "Type II" school bus). As discussed earlier, Standard No. 222 excludes aisle facing seats installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers from the definition of "school bus passenger seat." Since the performance requirements of the standard that are specified in S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.5, and S5.3, are expressed in reference to the "school bus passenger seats," the requirements do not apply to aisle facing seats which are installed solely to accommodate handicapped passengers. However, Standard No. 222 does require that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, be met "at all seating positions other than the driver's seat." Therefore, the agency concludes that aisle facing seats must have seat belts and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of these standards.

Your fourth question concerned FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, and the use of "theater" type seat cushions. You described that type of seat cushion as containing a hinge near the seat back which allows the cushion to swing up against the seat back. The first part of the question asked whether this type of seat cushion would be allowed by the Federal safety standards. The answer is that the safety standards would not prohibit the use of these folding seats if such seats meet all applicable performance requirements.

The second part of the question asked whether the use of "theater" type seat cushions eliminates the requirements of S5.4.2.1(b) that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. The answer is no. As indicated above, folding seats may be used only if they meet all of the standard's applicable requirements.

The third part of the question asked, "How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?" The answer is that no variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible.

The fourth part of the question concerns S5.4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 217 as it applies to your "Type I" and "Type II" school buses. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(b) states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. You asked whether the transverse plane may be positioned 4 to 12 inches forward of the forward edge of the emergency door. The standard specifies that the plane shall pass through the forward edge of the side emergency door and thus no variation is permissible.

You requested copies of previous interpretations made by the agency concerning school bus seating. These interpretations may be obtained from NHTSA's Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. We will forward your request to them.

SINCERELY,

Illinois Department of Transportation

OCC-1254

September 24, 1984

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Earlier this year during a telephone conversation our Standards Engineer (M. Post) asked Mr. Robert Williams, of your Crash - Worthiness Division, a few questions about requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards governing school bus seating. Mr. Williams said such questions should be submitted to the Chief Counsel's Office and suggested they be sent to your attention. Last May I addressed and sent the attached letter but have received no reply.

When should I expect a reply?

Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ATTACH.

REF. OCC-662

Illinois Department of Transportation

May 21, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Except for certain transit, interurban, charter, and shuttle buses, Illinois standards for Type I school buses (GVWR more than 10,000 pounds) and Type II school buses (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) apply to vehicles owned or operated by or for a school and designed to carry more than ten persons. These Illinois standards include, by reference, each federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS -- 49 CFR 571) that applies to school bus. The State owns very few, if any, school buses, but each school bus registered in the State must conform to State school bus rules and standards. Under 15 USC 1392(d) our State requirements for school bus seats must be identical to federal requirements stated in applicable FMVSS.

1. Each Illinois school bus must have an aisle extending from front service entrance area to rear emergency exit. Because of the forward facing and limited spacing requirements in FMVSS 222, S5.1 and S5.2, we have told school bus sellers and users an aisle facing seat may NOT be installed in a Type I school bus unless the seat is required to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger who uses that aisle facing seat. (See definition of school bus passenger seat in FMVSS 222, S4.) For example, an aisle facing seat may be installed to accommodate a student with limited knee movement who cannot sit in forward facing seat close behind barrier or seat back. In Type I school buses we have disallowed aisle facing seat(s) installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs because the aisle facing seat(s) would accommodate, or seat, either normal student passengers or student passengers not requiring the extra space because of limited knee movement or other handicap. The transportation of handicapped student(s) shall NOT be used to deny any other student in a Type I school bus the full protection of a forward facing seat conforming to FMVSS 222. Are these correct interpretations of FMVSS 222 requirements?

2. Because the forward facing requirement in S5.1 and the limited spacing requirement in S5.2 do not apply to Type II school buses we have told school bus sellers and users aisle facing seat(s) may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. In some Type II school buses ALL seats face the aisle. Is "aisle facing seat for any student in Type II school bus" a correct interpretation of FMVSS 222?

3. Recently, additional questions have arisen. In a Type II school bus (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) does FMVSS 222:

a. Require seat belts at each seating position, including seating positions on aisle facing seats?

b. Require seat belts and anchors meet requirements of FMVSS 209 and 210 at each seating position on aisle facing seat?

c. Require aisle facing seat meet requirements of S5.1.2. S5.1.3, S5.1.4 and/or S5.1.5?

d. Require an aisle facing seat be equipped with a seat back?

e. Require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between each seating reference point of aisle facing seat and the seat(s) or other object(s) across the aisle, or require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between the forwardmost seating reference point of an aisle facing seat and the seat or other object(s) forward of that seating reference point?

f. Require that S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both, or neither, be complied with in the case of an aisle facing seat?

4. Both Type I and Type II school buses in Illinois have been equipped with one or more "theater" type seat cushions. This type cushion is arranged with a hinge near the seatback allowing the seating surface of the cushion to swing up against the seatback. The cushion might swing up automatically, under action of spring(s), or might require manual raising and securing into the "up" position. The "theater" type cushion has been used on forward facing seat adjacent to side emergency door and also on forward facing or aisle facing seat(s) in other locations to provide optional use of space either for seating (cushion down) or for wheelchair (cushion up).

a. Do FMVSS either allow or disallow the "theater" type seat cushion?

b. Does the presence of "theater" type seat cushion eliminate the requirement in FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), for a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back to pass through forward edge of side emergency door?

c. How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?

d. Does FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), merely require the forward edge of door be located at or rearward of the plane; i.e., allow the plane to be 4 -- 12 inches forward of forward edge of door? (This condition has been observed on school bus certified under 49 CFR 567 without "theater" type seat cushion.)

Thank you very much for answering these questions. We would also appreciate your providing us with any available earlier interpretations of the FMVSS's governing school bus seating.

Melvin Smith, Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ID: 1984-4.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Melvin Smith -- Illinois Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/3/89 (est.) from Stephen P. Wood to L.T. Mitchell (Thomas Built Buses) (Redbood A33; Std. 217); 2/24/89 letter from Dan Trexler (Thomas Built) to Joan Tilghman (NHTSA); 4/27/88 letter from L.T. Mitchell to Erika Jones (NHTSA)

TEXT: This responds to your letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Seating and Passenger Protection, and FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your first question concerned your interpretation of FMVSS No. 222. You stated that Illinois has told school bus sellers and users that an aisle facing seat may not be installed in vehicles characterized by your state as Type I school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more), unless the seat is necessary in order to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger. Moreover, your state determined that aisle facing seats "installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs" will not be allowed. You asked whether your state has correctly interpreted the requirements of Standard No. 222.

Standard No. 222 exempts from its requirements aisle facing seats which are installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. The term "installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers" includes seats installed longitudinally to provide space for moving wheelchairs through the aisles. Thus, our interpretation of the word "accommodate" is broader than that of Illinois.

We would like to point out that a state requirement that regulates the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard is preempted under @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), unless the state standard is identical. A state standard which disallows aisle facing seats installed to accommodate the handicapped regulates the same aspect of performance, i.e., seat orientation, as FMVSS No. 222, and would be preempted under @ 103(d).

Your second question stated your understanding that the forward facing requirement in Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 222 does not apply to aisle facing seats in school buses characterized by Illinois as "Type II" school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). You have told school bus sellers and users that aisle facing seats may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. You asked whether your interpretation of the standard is correct.

The answer to your question is that the language of Standard No. 222 does not require school bus passenger seats on a school bus with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds to be forward facing. The requirement for forward facing seats found in S5.1 was not included in S5(b), the section that lists the requirements that smaller school buses must meet.

Your third question concerned the applicability of FMVSS No. 222 to aisle facing seats on school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (your "Type II" school bus). As discussed earlier, Standard No. 222 excludes aisle facing seats installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers from the definition of "school bus passenger seat." Since the performance requirements of the standard that are specified in S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.5, and S5.3, are expressed in reference to the "school bus passenger seats," the requirements do not apply to aisle facing seats which are installed solely to accommodate handicapped passengers. However, Standard Nos. 222 does require that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, be met "at all seating positions other than the driver's seat." Therefore, the agency concludes that aisle facing seats must have seat belts and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of these standards.

Your fourth question concerned FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, and the use of "theater" type seat cushions. You described that type of seat cushion as containing a hinge near the seat back which allows the cushion to swing up against the seat back. The first part of the question asked whether this type of seat cushion would be allowed by the Federal safety standards. The answer is that the safety standards would not prohibit the use of these folding seats if such seats meet all applicable performance requirements.

The second part of the question asked whether the use of "theater" type seat cushions eliminates the requirement of S5.4.2.1(b) that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. The answer is no. As indicated above, folding seats may be used only if they meet all of the standard's applicable requirements.

The third part of the question asked, "How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?" The answer is that no variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible.

The fourth part of the question concerns S5.4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 217 as it applies to your "Type I" and "Type II" school buses. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(b) states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. You asked whether the transverse plane may be positioned 4 to 12 inches forward of the forward edge of the emergency door. The standard specifies that the plane shall pass through the forward edge of the side emergency door and thus no variation is permissible.

You requested copies of previous interpretations made by the agency concerning school bus seating. These interpretations may be obtained from NHTSA's Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. We will forward your request to them.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Illinois Department of Transportation

September 24, 1984

Frank A. Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Earlier this year during a telephone conversation our Standards Engineer (M. Post) asked Mr. Robert Williams, of your Crash-worthiness Division, a few questions about requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards governing school bus seating. Mr. Williams said such questions should be submitted to the Chief Counsel's Office and suggested they be sent to your attention. Last May I addressed and sent the attached letter but have received no reply.

When should I expect a reply?

Sincerely,

Melvin H. Smith -- Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

Attachment

Illinois Department of Transportation

May 21, 1984

FRANK BERNDT -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Except for certain transit, interurban, charter, and shuttle buses, Illinois standards for Type I school buses (GVWR more than 10,000 pounds) and Type II school buses (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) apply to vehicles owned or operated by or for a school and designed to carry more than ten persons. These Illinois standards include, by reference, each federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS -- 49 CFR 571) that applies to school bus. The State owns very few, if any, school buses, but each school bus registered in the State must conform to State school bus rules and standards. Under 15 USC 1392(d) our State requirements for school bus seats must be identical to federal requirements stated in applicable FMVSS.

1. Each Illinois school bus must have an aisle extending from front service entrance area to rear emergency exit. Because of the forward facing and limited spacing requirements in FMVSS 222, S5.1 and S5.2, we have told school bus sellers and users an aisle facing seat may NOT be installed in a Type I school bus unless the seat is required to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger who uses that aisle facing seat. (See definition of school bus passenger seat in FMVSS 222, S4.) For example, an aisle facing seat may be installed to accommodate a student with limited knee movement who cannot sit in forward facing seat close behind barrier or seat back. In Type I school buses we have disallowed aisle facing seat(s) installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs because the aisle facing seat(s) would accommodate, or seat, either normal student passengers or student passengers not requiring the extra space because of limited knee movement or other handicap. The transportation of handicapped student(s) shall NOT be used to deny any other student in a Type I school bus the full protection of a forward facing seat conforming to FMVSS 222. Are these correct interpretations of FMVSS 222 requirements?

2. Because the forward facing requirement in S5.1 and the limited spacing requirement in S5.2 do not apply to Type II school buses we have told school bus sellers and users aisle facing seat(s) may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. In some Type II school buses ALL seats face the aisle. Is "aisle facing seat for any student in Type II school bus" a correct interpretation of FMVSS 222?

3. Recently, additional questions have arisen. In a Type II school bus (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) does FMVSS 222:

a. Require seat belts at each seating position, including seating positions on aisle facing seats?

b. Require seat belts and anchors meet requirements of FMVSS 209 and 210 at each seating position on aisle facing seat?

c. Require aisle facing seat meet requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4 and/or S5.1.5?

d. Require an aisle facing seat be equipped with a seat back?

e. Require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between each seating reference point of aisle facing seat and the seat(s) or other object(s) across the aisle, or require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between the forwardmost seating reference point of an aisle facing seat and the seat or other object(s) forward of that seating reference point?

f. Require that S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both, or neither, be complied with in the case of an aisle facing seat?

4. Both Type I and Type II school buses in Illinois have been equipped with one or more "theater" type seat cushions. This type cushion is arranged with a hinge near the seatback allowing the seating surface of the cushion to swing up against the seatback. The cushion might swing up automatically, under action of spring(s), or might require manual raising and securing into the "up" position. The "theater" type cushion has been used on forward facing seat adjacent to side emergency door and also on forward facing or aisle facing seat(s) in other locations to provide optional use of space either for seating (cushion down) or for wheelchair (cushion up).

a. Do FMVSS either allow or disallow the "theater" type seat cushion?

b. Does the presence of "theater" type seat cushion eliminate the requirement in FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), for a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back to pass through forward edge of side emergency door?

c. How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?

d. Does FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), merely require the forward edge of door be located at or rearward of the plane; i.e., allow the plane to be 4 -- 12 inches forward of forward edge of door? (This condition has been observed on school bus certified under 49 CFR 567 without "theater" type seat cushion.)

Thank you very much for answering these questions. We would also appreciate your providing us with any available earlier interpretations of the FMVSS's governing school bus seating.

Sincerely,

Melvin Smith -- Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ID: 1984-4.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rivkin Sherman and Levy -- Donald M. Schwentker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Donald M. Schwentker, Esq. Rivkin Sherman and Levy 900 17th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses, to what you referred to as "semi-rigid" brake tubing. In your letter, you stated your belief that the term "flexible conduit" in FMVSS No. 106 excludes semi-rigid tubing of metal or plastic. You requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to concur in your interpretation that the word " flexible" designates a conduit that is "flexible in operation rather than flexible to facilitate installation on the vehicle." You also asked whether a coupler designed for attachment to the end of such a semi-rigid tube is included in the standard's definition of a brake hose end fitting.

By way of background information, you should be aware that NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

Your first question asked whether the concept of flexibility is limited solely to conduits designed to flex in operation. The answer is no. The agency has included semi-rigid tubing in the definition of brake hose even if such tubing does not bend or flex during normal vehicle operation. In a November 28, 1975 preamble on Standard No. 106 (40 FR 55f65), the agency stated that:

(The functional definition of "brake hose" would be retained. There would thus be no exception for flexible chassis plumbing, even though such tubing is also outside the scope of the traditional conception of brake hose. The NHTSA remains convinced that such tubing, because it invites bending during repairs, should remain within the coverage of the standard.

The agency also explained in a February 26, 1974 preamble (39 FR 7425) that a safety need exists to include flexible chassis plumbing in Standard No. 106, because it is used in the same environment as hose located at articulating points and is subject to the same types of stress. That notice denied petitions requesting that tubing be excluded from the standard.

Under Standard No. 106, therefore, flexible chassis-mounted vacuum brake tubing which transmit or contain the vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes are included in the definition of brake hose.

Your second question asked whether a coupler designed for attachment to the end of a semi-rigid tube is a "brake hose end fitting." Standard No. 106 defines a brake hose end fitting as "a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." The answer to your question, therefore, depends on whether a particular conduit is a brake hose. If a coupler attaches to a brake hose, then the coupler is a brake hose end fitting subject to FMVSS No. 106.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 15, 1984

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Applicability of FMVSS 106 to Chassis-Mounted Vacuum Brake Tubing

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Brake hose is defined in FMVSS 106 (49 CFR S571.106-74) as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes". We interpret the word flexible in the definition to mean a conduit that is flexible in operation rather than flexible to facilitate installation on the vehicle. Typically, metal, plastic or polyamide tubing is used for that portion of the brake line that is attached to the vehicle's chassis. Such tubing usually is non-rigid so as to facilitate installation, but, once installed, does not bend or flex during normal vehicle operation.

Therefore, it is our understanding that the brake hose requirements of FMVSS 106 apply only to conduits that are designed to be flexible in operation -- that is those linking the brake tubing fitted to the chassis to unsprung parts of the suspension system. But for convenience of installation, the tubing attached to the chassis could be absolutely rigid, and therefore clearly outside of the standard's definition of brake hose. The standard was intended to apply to brake hose required to be flexible in operation, and therefore usually made of rubber. For example, the FMVSS 106 whip test and the ozone resistance test have no real applicability to a relatively stiff plastic or polyamide tube. In fact, the primary concern with such tubing is not ozone, but ultra-violet, and no such durability requirement is specified in FMVSS 106.

In summary, we would like your confirmation of our interpretation that the term flexible conduit as used in the definition of brake hose in FMVSS 106 does not include semi-rigid tubing of metal or plastic not designed to flex during normal vehicle operation, nor does the term brake hose end fitting apply to a coupler designed for attachment to the end of such a semi-rigid tube.

A timely response would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

RIVKIN SHERMAN and LEVY

Donald M. Schwentker

DMS:kg

ID: 1984-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Western Star Trucks Inc. -- Stan R. Gornick, MVSS Compliance Specialist

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/20/84 letter from Frank Berndt to Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc.

TEXT:

Stan R. Gornick, P. Eng. MVSS Compliance Specialist Western Star Trucks Inc. 2076 Enterprise Way Kelowna, British Columbia V1Y 6HB Canada

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1984, informing us of compliance difficulties with respect to braking systems on two concrete mixer trucks which "are scheduled to be shipped the last week of December." You have asked for an "exemption to the certification requirements of FMVSS 105 and FMVSS 121."

Although you have stated that the mixer is being installed elsewhere, your letter implies that Western Star will nevertheless be the certifier of the assembled vehicle and not must its initial stage manufacturer. That you are the certified as the assumption on which this letter is based. We have reviewed your letter and have determined that it is the air brake standard, No. 121, with which these vehicles must comply. I enclosed a copy of a recent interpretation covering air-over-hydraulic systems similar to yours which reiterate earlier interpretations. I would like to point out that there is no legal requirement in the United States that a manufacturer conduct the tests specified in the safety standards before he certifies compliance. Your certification may be based on a good faith conclusion that were the vehicles to be tested in the manner specified they would conform to the stopping distance requirement. This conclusion can be based, for example, on computer analyses (such as that provided you by Rockwell International with respect to requirements other than stopping distances), engineering studies or mathematical analyses.

We have no authority to provide exemptions within a time frame that is responsive to your problem. There are detailed requirements for petitions and the public must be offered an opportunity to comment on them. The entire process requires three to four months.

Having filed two inconsequentiality petitions in 1984, Western Star is familiar with that procedure, but the agency has no wish to encourage manufacture of nonconforming vehicles with the implied promise that such petitions would be granted. We therefore advise you to reconsider the compliance status of the two concrete mixers in light of our comment that certification need not be based upon actual vehicle testing, with the thought that you may conclude that the trucks can be certified as meeting Standard No. 121.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure (7/20/84 Letter from Frank Berndt to Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc. omitted here.)

December 10, 1984

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Western Star Trucks Inc. has been awarded the contract to manufacture two only concrete mixer trucks. These vehicles are 6X6's with LRockwell SSHD 44,000 lb. tandem rear axles arid Fabco SDA23 -23,000 lb. front axles. The load distribution is 21,780 lbs. on the front axles and 44,000 lbs. on the rear.

The problem I am facing is that the Fabco front driving axle cannot accomodate air chambers, therefore it is manufactured with hydraulic brakes.

Now I have a vehicle with air brakes on the rear wheels and hydraulic brakes on the front wheels with an air over hydraulic actuator.

FMVSS 121 and FMVSS 105 do not indicate how to deal with vehicles equipped with both air and hydraulic systems.

We have had Rockwell International do a computer analysis of our braking system and they agree with the sizes of brakes, linings, air chamber sizes, etc. and have issued a certificate stating "THE BRAKES APPROVED ARE CERTIFIED TO MEET APPLICABLE DYNAMETER REQUIREMENT OF FMVSS 121 PARAGRAPH 55.4 WHEN APPLIED WITHIN THE LIMITING CONDITIONS OF VEHICULAR BRAKE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL NO. C-04817 - CERTIFICATION NOT APPLICABLE TO VEHICLE STOPPING REQUIREMENTS".

The test data we have on file does not cover this brake configuration, therefore, we would have to perform a complete set of brake test; to verify FMVSS compliance.

The problems I have with this are: 1) We are not installing the mixer on the vehicle. It is being installed elsewhere.

2) To do a proper brake test the vehicle should be equipped as it will be used in the field.

3) A mixer contains an unstable load as it will shift as the brakes are applied. Therefore, to conduct a test in the laden condition it should contain concrete so that the weight transfer effects will be taken into account.

As the truck manufacturer we cannot certify compliance to FMVSS 105 and 121 for the reasons stated above and the mixer installer will not have the facilities or experience to conduct the required tests.

From our experience with 6X4 mixer vehicles with air brakes on all wheels we are confident the vehicle will pass all required braking tests.

In view of the above circumstances we are applying for an exemption to the certification requirements of FMVSS 105 and FMVSS 121.

These vehicles are scheduled to be shipped the last week of December. If an answer to my request can be made prior to this date it would be greatly appreciated. I may be contacted via a collect call to 604-860-3319, ext. 526.

If you require any additional information please contact me by telephone as letters from the United States generally take two weeks to arrive here.

Sincerely,

WESTERN STAR TRUCKS INC.

PER:

Stan R. Gornick, P. Eng. MVSS Compliance Specialist

SRG/az

c.c. Glen Ashdown Bruce Mabbett