ID: nht92-8.49

DATE: February 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard W. Balsama, Esq.

TITLE: None

TEXT:

In response to your inquiry concerning the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment offered for sale in the territories of the United States, I refer you to the definition of "State" in section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391):

(8) "State" includes each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, and American Samoa.

Section 108 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) in turn provides that a new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment may not be offered for sale in the United States unless it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Based on these provisions, the answer to your inquiry is that the vehicles and equipment in question must conform to the standards.

ID: nht92-8.5

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Frank J. Sonzala -- Senior Vice President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Single Service Diaphragm Failure Test per FMVSS 121

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/1/92 from Paul J. Rice to Frank J. Sonzala (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 5/20/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Phil Gramm (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Phil Gramm (OCC 7206)

TEXT:

Under the current FMVSS 121 regulation, a diaphragm has been ruled as not being part of a brake chamber housing. The current regulation amendment, which is effective December 9, 1991, states:

In S5.6.6.2 and S5.6.6.3, the test sequence for S5.6.6.1 is as follows: The engine is turned off. Any single leakage type failure in any other brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (excluding failure of a component of a brake chamber housing, but including failure of any brake chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake system, including a diaphragm which is common to the parking brake system and any other brake system) is then introduced in the brake system.

An application actuation of the parking brake control is then made.

Thirty seconds after such actuation, a release actuation of the parking brake control is made. Thirty seconds after the release actuation, a final application actuation of the parking brake control is made.

During this particular test, it is assumed that the diaphragm has been failed. However, there is no determination as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm. ITI's testing and years of experience have shown that a hole in a diaphragm starts as a small tear, a wear point between the push rod plate and the diaphragm. By design, the diaphragm has a scrim of layered material interwoven and sandwiched between two pieces of neoprene or rubber.

As the rubber or neoprene wears, a part of the surface wears away, and the scrim material, made of a nylon glass woven material will start to be exposed. This woven material is a rip-stop design which does not allow the diaphragm to rip quickly or cultivate further tearing. Once the rip-stop has been worn by the push rod plate to an 1/8" hole, then any subsequent parking brake application in the ITI system, after such an 1/8" hole, will cause the brake chambers to apply, hold the proper grade as per FMVSS 121, and not be able to release. Original equipment manufacturers generally do not recognize that an 1/8" hole is sufficient to call a diaphragm failed. ITI has tested diaphragms extensively for their tear proclivities, and those test results are found in Exhibit C, attached.

In the ITI system, a hole as small as 1/8" in the diaphragm is detected and the brakes are automatically held in a mechanically locked position by the first parking application after the hole is created. In a spring brake system, a hole in a service diaphragm on the service side of a spring type parking brake goes physically undetected, so that a hole in a spring brake diaphragm can be ripped at 1/8" to 1/2" to 1" and beyond. This design fault in spring brake

systems allows vehicles to be on the highway without proper service brake applications. A soft or weak brake may not even be noticeable to a driver at low air pressure applications. But in the need for a hard application such as in a panic stop, this service diaphragm can be ripped too far, causing the vehicle to go beyond a safe stopping mode.

In the case of the ITI Air Brake System, the system incorporates a constant air check of every component that is designed to hold compressed air. If a component that is designed to hold compressed air has failed, and specifically if a diaphragm has failed, it is detected at the moment of its failure. In the case of the diaphragm, a hole of approximately 1/8" would still allow the brake to be applied, therefore meeting the sequence testing. But an 1/8" hole will not allow the mechanical locking piston to release, therefore holding the retardation force through the second phase of this test sequence. Because the retardation force is being held, the brake remains applied through all phases of the test procedure. By design, the ITI Air Brake chamber cannot develop over 1/8" hole in its parking or service diaphragm. This particular chamber uses one diaphragm to accomplish both tasks.

In a demonstration done at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's offices on October 31, 1991, a failed diaphragm with an 1/8" hole was shown to the following parties: Blaine Laubis, Richard Carter, George Entwistle, Scott Schadle, and Larry Minor.

The demonstration showed clearly that the brakes can be applied with adequate air pressure and mechanically locked. Because the system senses the failure, the chamber cannot be released from that park position, and it will remain applied in a safe failure mode. The demonstration was done because many of the original equipment manufacturers with whom we wish to do business have a problem with the testing sequence of the failed diaphragm, and we hoped that NHTSA would be able to clarify the test procedure and the failed diaphragm parameters. The problems with S5.6.6.1 are as follows:

#1 The size of the failure hole in a diaphragm has not been defined.

#2 The common position of the failure hole in the diaphragm has not been defined.

International Transquip Industries has designed a fail safe mode into their non-spring brake type brake actuator that prevents any vehicle from being put on the road with a hole in the diaphragm greater than 1/8". This design is far superior to the spring brake systems that are now in use on our highways. A hole in a parking diaphragm in a spring brake system may begin or start while the vehicle is in motion. Once that hole starts, air pressure will allow the spring to creep on, possibly causing fires, possibly causing jackknifes, possibly causing a moving vehicle accident. This cannot happen with the ITI Air Brake System. ITI's system prevents spring brake accidents such as the one reported in Docket Part 571 (amended) Docket 87-04 Notice 6 (copy of which is enclosed - Exhibit A).

ITI requires a ruling that will state that an 1/8" hole in a service system diaphragm constitutes a failed diaphragm for the purposes of the test sequence in S5.6.6.3, and that the hole must be placed on the service diaphragm within 1 inch of where the push rod plate meets the diaphragm. A drawing accompanies this letter showing the common area where these failures tend to occur.

(Exhibit B). A hole much larger than 1/8" or placed anywhere else in the diaphragm would not constitute a realistic and valid test. Additionally, in the ITI Air Brake System, the hole in the diaphragm can only be put into the system after the system is fully aired up to 100 psi with all brakes released. The diaphragm must be taken out of the chamber and reinserted with a 1/8" hole for the test procedure as outlined in S5.6.6.3.

It should be borne in mind that the OEM test for all components is performed on new vehicles and all items are to pass a performance test to meet the regulations as outlined in FMVSS 121. It takes up to two million applications for a hole to wear into a diaphragm and therefore the failed diaphragm test under FMVSS 121 does not seem realistically justified. (We recommend that the diaphragm in a brake chamber should be considered a brake chamber component that does not require a separate test under FMVSS 121. If a torn diaphragm is to be tested, then the suggested test and size and placement of the diaphragm tear should be as stated in the previous paragraphs.

Our questions, therefore, for interpretation are:

1. Should a torn diaphragm be considered during a FMVSS 121 test, and if so, should the parameters as requested by ITI of 1/8" tear at one inch from the push rod plate area be used by OEMs for compliance testing?

2. Should other broken components such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, lining and drums be part of the OEMs FMVSS 121 test requirements, based on the premise that a torn diaphragm should be tested?

Your prompt and positive response to these questions will prevent further loss of revenue to our company. Because of the ambiguity of the test procedure, and comments made by NHTSA personnel to OEM inquiries that refer to larger diaphragm failures as "being possible", International Transquip Industries, Inc. has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales to major customers.

Attachments

Exhibit A. Letter dated 3/26/90 from Bob Brinton, owner, Friction Advisory Service, to NHTSA regarding Docket Revision Part 571 (Amended) - Docket #87-04 Notice 6.

Exhibit B. Drawing.

Exhibit C. Summary of Diaphragm Test Results.

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht92-8.50

DATE: February 18, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Russell J. Eisert

COPYEE: American International Conversions

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/25/91 from Russell J. Eisert to Steve Kratze (OCC 6617)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 25, 1991, requesting a waiver from the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards so that you can purchase a new vehicle that has been modified to allow you to operate the vehicle from your wheelchair.

The safety requirements for new light trucks and vans were upgraded as of September 1, 1991. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals like yourself, suggesting that the new light truck and van requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, this agency granted that petition. You should understand that the granting of a petition for rulemaking signifies that the agency believes a further review of the issues raised in the petition appears to have merit, but it is not a determination that the light truck and van crash test requirement should be amended. Any determination to amend the crash test requirement would be made in the course of a rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. By addressing the issue comprehensively, in response to this petition for rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to each of the individual requests, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection.

However, we are aware that you and others need more immediate relief than rulemaking can offer. To afford more immediate relief, we announced in a January 21, 1992 letter to Representative Porter Goss that this agency will not conduct any crash testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending.

We have also notified the van converter mentioned in your letter of rulemaking action is pending.

With regard to your request for a waiver to have the rear seats in the van you will purchase moved rearward of the side door, the agency is not aware of any reason that would prevent a van converter from making this modification in such a way that the rear seats would continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after they were moved. There is, therefore, no need for us to grant such a waiver.

If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-8.6

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Herr Spingler -- Entwicklung Lichttechnik Systeme, Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Richard van Iderstine -- Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Herr Spingler (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

For a new Porsche-car, we have decided to develop a headlamp as shown in the attached drawing. The lowbeam will be provided by an ellipsoid, the highbeam by a parabola. When highbeam is on, both bulbs will be on simultaneonsly.

My question is:

Will this headlamp meet the FMVSS-108-requirements concerning the location on a car?

Thanks in advance for a quick answer.

ID: nht92-8.7

DATE: April 2, 1992

FROM: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: M. Dunn; R. Rogers

TITLE: Re: R-BAR Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 3/10/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 1/8/90 from Jerry Ralph Curry (signed by Jeffrey R. Miller) to Robert J. Lagomarsino (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 1/31/91 from Paul J. Rice to Scott K. Hiler (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 11/3/88 from Erika Z. Jones (signed by Stephen P. Wood) to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222)

TEXT:

As you are aware Micho Industries is the licensed manufacturer of the R-BAR passenger restraint which was developed to further the safety of children who ride in school buses. This system was designed by Safety Research and Manufacturing (SRM) of Jessup, PA.. For the last three years we have worked with SRM in the continuing development of the product in order to assure that it does not violate any applicable federal and state motor vehicle safety requirements. In addition it is our joint goal that the R-BAR establish a new standard for passenger protection in school bus transportation.

I am writing you in regards to a particular specification in 49 CFR, 571.222. As stated, the "purpose" of the standard is to reduce the number of deaths and the severity of injuries that result from the impact of school bus occupants against structures within the vehicle. We are, however, concerned with possible interpretations of the 4" seat performance rule as stated in 49 CFR, 571.222, section S5.1.2(c). With this in mind, we feel that:

A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint.

B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of 571.222.

In support for this position we offer the following reasons:

1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure.

2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended.

(This was proven in tests conducted in May 1991 at Calspan on their HYGE sled -- see attached Report No. 7925-1).

3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.2(c) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use.

We recognize that any final interpretation will be in the hands of your department and respectfully request your advice on this matter. We would ask that you advise us, prior to issuing a final interpretation, of any additional

concerns you may have so that we can supply the necessary information to address those concerns. In order to further aid you, we have available a test data book that summarizes the testing that the R-Bar has been subjected to, over the last seven years, and would gladly send it to you if you so desire. In addition video clips of the various tests can be assembled for you review.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

Attachment

Calspan Advanced Technology Center SRM SLED TEST report no. 7925-1, May 20, 1991 prepared by David J. Travale, prepared for SRM, Inc. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht92-8.8

DATE: April 1, 1992

FROM: Charles Chun -- General Manager, Kia Motors

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: S5. Dynamic Performance Requirements in FMVSS 214 - Side Impact Protection

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/22/92 from Paul J. Rice to Charles Chun (A39; Std. 214)

TEXT:

We would like to make clear the Manufactured Date in the captioned regulation.

A) What does Manufactured Date exactly mean?

Does it mean whether production date at Kia factory in Korea or the date of U.S Customs clearance ?

B) Does it mean that Manufactured Date has the same meaning with the same Model Year?

Appreciated your authoritative interpretation. Thank you.

ID: nht92-8.9

DATE: March 31, 1992

FROM: Tom Mario -- Vice President Sales, Sealco Air Controls, Inc.

TO: Steve Wood -- Office Staff Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to Tom Mario (A39; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I had recent phone conversation with Mr. Richard Carter about trailer manufacturers using the standard 121 air brake system, "protected separate reservoir", after October 8, 1992.

Mr. Carter said his interpretation is that you could use, "protected separate reservoir" or 49 CFR part 571 (Docket No. 90-3; Notice 2).

Also requesting your interpretation, for full trailer, rear axles with new system (Docket No. 90-3; Notice 2) which air brake system is required for front axle (turntable) with service brake chambers?

Also multiple axle trailers, with new system (Docket No. 90-3; Notice 2) on some axles and other axles with service chambers, which air brake system is required?

ID: nht92-9.1

DATE: February 18, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William F. Russo, Esq. -- Margolis, Sakayan & Holtz

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/21/92 from William F. Russo to Steven P. Wood (OCC 6901)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Specifically, you were interested in the requirement in S4.1 that "seat belt anchorages" for particular types of seat belts shall be installed at particular seating positions. You asked for an explanation of precisely what this requirement obliges a vehicle manufacturer to do.

The term "seat belt anchorage" is defined in S3 of Standard No. 210 as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." When S4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires a "seat belt anchorage" for a seat belt to be installed at a given seating position, the manufacturer must provide a point or points for that seating position that comply with the strength requirements of S4.2 applicable to that type of anchorage and with the location requirements of S4.3 applicable to that type of anchorage. The designated point may simply be a point on the vehicle structure (floor, sides, or room, or a point on the seat itself, for instance.

The point designated by the vehicle manufacturer in response to the requirement in S4.1 need not be a prepunched or prethreaded hole, it need not be visible, and it need not include the anchorage hardware. If the agency were seeking to impose these additional conditions on anchorages, it would have included specific language to that effect in the standard. See, for example, the proposal to amend Standard No. 210 at 45 FR 81625; December 11, 1980. When these additional conditions are not expressly set forth in the text of the standard, they are not required to be included as part of the anchorage at that seating position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.10

DATE: February 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: H. Ino -- Manager, Quality Assurance, Diamond Star Motors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/26/91 from H. Ino to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6723)

TEXT:

I am writing in response to your letter requesting confirmation that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR S571.115) applies only to vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. This letter confirms that Standard No. 115 and all the rest of our safety standards apply only to vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States.

Please note that in general section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A); the Safety Act) prohibits any person from manufacturing, offering for sale, or importing into the United States any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect, unless the vehicle conforms with the standard. One such standard that is presently in effect is Standard No. 115. However, section 108(b) (3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)) provides that this prohibition of the manufacture and sale of vehicles in the United States that do not conform with all applicable safety standards does not apply to a vehicle that:

1) is intended solely for export; 2) is labeled or tagged to show that it is solely for export; and 3) is actually exported out of the United States.

Any vehicle that meets all three of these conditions need not comply with Standard No. 115 or any other of our safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.11

DATE: February 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Woodruff Carroll -- Carroll, Carroll, Davidson, & Young

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/91 from Woodruff Carroll to Kathleen DeMeter

TEXT:

This responds to your letter inquiring about how NHTSA's regulations relate to snowplows. Ms. Kathleen DeMeter, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, has already responded to your Freedom of Information request in a letter dated January 6, 1992. I am pleased to have this opportunity to further explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. A snow plow that is designed and intended to be attached to a motor vehicle would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, within the meaning of the Safety Act. However, NHTSA has not issued any specific standards setting forth performance requirements for snow plows.

While there are no safety standards directly applicable to snow plows, the following circumstances are relevant to equipping motor vehicles with snow plows. If before the first consumer purchase, the original equipment manufacturer or an alterer equips a motor vehicle with a snow plow, the manufacturer or alterer must certify that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards when equipped with the snow plow.

This leads to the question of what conditions would be used to determine if the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards when equipped with a snow plow. This question is answered in the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" set forth in 49 CFR S571.3. "Unloaded vehicle weight," which is used to determine a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating for the purposes of the tire and braking standards and to specify the test conditions for NHTSA's crash testing standards, is defined as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use."

Thus, those parts of the snow plow which are permanently attached to the vehicle and any snow plow parts that are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle would be in place and their weight would be considered in determining compliance with applicable standards. However, the snow plow blade and any other parts of the snow plow that are ordinarily removed when the snow plow is not in use would not be attached to the vehicle and the weight of these parts would not be considered in determining compliance with the applicable safety standards.

Another relevant provision of Federal law with respect to equipping a vehicle

with a snow plow is S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies that, "no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business added a snow plow to a motor vehicle in such away that any of the elements of design installed on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard were "rendered inoperative," that entity would have violated the Safety Act.

This agency also has authority to investigate allegations that motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects related to motor vehicle safety, and to order the manufacturer to notify owners and to remedy without charge any vehicles or items of equipment determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, as provided in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1411-1420.) If there were indications that any snow plows contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would investigate and take appropriate action. Of course, as with any investigation of alleged safety-related defects, the outcome would depend on the facts of the specific investigation.

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