ID: nht92-6.22

DATE: June 1, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7172); 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:

Thank you for your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Your company is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling your product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. I am pleased to provide you the following information.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI.

The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (you use the term "original equipment manufacturers") relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with "any single leakage-type failure" of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage-type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired.

For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. Your letter states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e.,

they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. You argue that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting your position.

After reviewing this matter, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm.

As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with ANY single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing.

We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure.

You also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-6.23

DATE: May 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John J. Jacoby -- President, Cleartec

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/6/92 from John J. Jacoby to Samuel K. Skinner (OCC 7236)

TEXT:

I have been asked to respond to your April 6, 1992 letter to former Secretary Skinner, because our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is the part of the Department of Transportation that administers the program about which you asked. Specifically, your letter asks whether there are any Federal regulations that affect a new product Cleartec has developed. The product, Clean Sweep Strips, is a transparent material applied to the windshield in a herringbone pattern, in the path of the wipers, to clean the wipers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, S 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Your letter states that Clean Sweep Strips could be manufactured into new windshields. If a windshield with Clean Sweep Strips were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Clean Sweep Strips installed, complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has issued two safety standards, compliance with which might be affected by the installation of your Clean Sweep Strips. First, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a number of requirements for light transmittance, abrasion resistance, and optical deviation and visibility distortion for windshields. Second, Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, establishes requirements for a minimum area that must be wiped by the wiping system, and the frequency at which the wiping system must operate. Any manufacturer that installed your product as original equipment on a windshield would have to certify that the windshield continued to comply with Standards No. 205 and 104 with your product installed.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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...

This provision means that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business cannot install your Clean Sweep Strips on any vehicle if such installation results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 205 or 104. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation.

I note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, individual vehicle owners may install your Clean Sweep Strips on their own vehicles, even if this installation causes the vehicles to no longer comply with applicable safety standards. Such installations may be regulated, however, by State law. If you are interested in further information on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Additionally, under the Safety Act, Clean Sweep Strips would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in SS 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Finally, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

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

ID: nht92-6.24

DATE: May 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herr Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Herr Spingler to Richard van Iderstine (OCC 7289)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for a "quick answer" to your question regarding the acceptability of a new headlamp design. Please be advised that my Office is the one to which questions of interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 should be addressed, and that correspondence addressed to the Chief Counsel allows us to respond more quickly to the concerns of the writer.

We understand that you discussed the headlamp with Mr. Van Iderstine on his recent trip to Europe, and that it will be used in a replaceable bulb headlighting system that is governed by S7.5 of Standard No. 108. Your proposed headlamp incorporates a lower beam provided by an ellipsoid and an upper beam provided by a parabola. The drawing you enclosed shows the lower beam source above the upper beam source. When the upper beam is on, both bulbs will be activated simultaneously.

Where, as in your design, each headlamp contains two light sources, S7.5(d)(2) (i)(A) and S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A) specify that the lower beam shall be provided by the outboard or uppermost light source. S7.5(d)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) and S7.5(e) (2)(ii)(A) and (B) specify that the upper beam shall be produced by the lowermost, or both, light sources. The beams in your headlamp are provided in this manner, and, therefore, are in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht92-6.25

DATE: May 29, 1992

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TO: John J. Duncan, Jr. -- House of Representatives, Washington, D.C

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from John J. Duncan, Jr. to Jerry R. Curry

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Clarence Lowe, an instructor for Campbell County Comprehensive High School, concerning the use of 15-passenger vans to transport school children. Campbell County has been informed by the Tennessee State Department of Education that vans cannot be used to transport children to school or school-related events. In light of school budget constraints, Mr. Lowe would like to use these vehicles for transporting students to off-campus vocational programs. Your letter also enclosed a letter from Ernest Farmer, Tennessee Director of Pupil Transportation, explaining why the State of Tennessee has instructed schools not to use vans to transport school children. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less; vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Thus the 15-passenger vans referred to by Mr. Lowe are classified as buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may USE a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for Campbell County to use its 15-passenger vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Tennessee law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Campbell County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-6.26

DATE: May 29, 1992

FROM: Berkley C. Sweet -- Vice-President, School Bus Manufacturers Institute

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/92 from Paul J. Rice to Berkley C. Sweet (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Based on the requirements specified in the Standard No. 222 for Seat Performance Forward, Seat Performance Rearward and the Head Protection Zone, what was the minimum size of the passenger (eight and height) used to establish the design criteria of this standard?

Several school districts are now transporting new born and under school-age children with their parents to a school that provides a day-care service, while the parent attends classes.

The School Bus Manufacturers Institute has received inquiries as to limits, if any, on passenger size and age that can be safely transported on school bus seats.

ID: nht92-6.27

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Dave Durenberger -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/28/92 from Dave Durenberger to Jerry R. Curry

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1992, concerning a product developed by your constituent, McNaughton Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The product is a device to prevent a child from opening the buckle of a safety belt without adult assistance. You requested information on any regulations that pertain to this product.

The agency has received inquiries about similar products in the past. While we understand parents' concerns that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about these types of products because they could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. I am enclosing an August 6, 1986, letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Ms. Ann Boriskie. As this letter explains, your constituent's product could not be installed by a commercial entity without violating Federal law. In addition, installation of your constituent's product by any person would be inconsistent with this agency's policy to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

You also asked for information on how McNaughton Incorporated could become involved in the national safety belt campaign. The Agency is currently working with a variety of public and private sector organizations to increase safety belt use to 70 percent by the end of 1992. The strategy focuses on increased law enforcement efforts coupled with aggressive community-based public information.

There are many ways McNaughton can support these efforts. They can consider developing and implementing an in-house safety belt education program targeting their employees or applying for the 70 percent Honor Roll Program. They might be interested in supporting community awareness initiatives that promote the campaign, including the posting of billboards and the inclusion of safety belt messages in their on-going advertising. An expanded list of ideas is attached. If McNaughton Incorporated is interested in additional campaign information, they can contact Susan Gorcowski, Office of Occupant Protection, (202) 366-2683.

I appreciate your interest in the safety of motor vehicles and hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-6.28

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Steven Rovtar -- General Manager, Blazer International Corp.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Steven Rovtar (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Our company, Blazer International Corp., intends to introduce a new product for the vehicle towing trailer market. Our purpose in writing is to request a written ruling that this product meets current SAE/DOT guidelines.

All trailer wiring assemblies currently available require the installer to splice into the vehicle's wire harness. Blazer's new product eliminates the need for this type of hard-wiring. Our product, which is solid-state, utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle.

More specifically, these photodetectors are embedded into suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. Our device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into our device. When the brake or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors in our device read the light emitted from the towing vehicle lamps, and the lamps on the towed vehicle are activated via the completed circuit.

Your prompt response in issuing a written ruling with respect to this product will be appreciated. I can be reached at the number listed below should you have any questions or require any additional information.

ID: nht92-6.29

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Christian Hammarskjold -- Vice President, USSC Group, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Dan Cohen

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Christian Hammarskjold to Paul J. Rice; Also attached to letter dated 8/10/92 from Paul J. Rice (signed by John Womack) to Christian Hammarskjold (A39; Std. 207; Std. 208)

TEXT:

On a separate issue, USSC requests clarification on when, if ever, shoulder belts (3 point systems) will be required on suspension seats.

ID: nht92-6.3

DATE: June 19, 1992

FROM: Tim Flagstad

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/92 from Paul J. Rice to Tim Flagstad (A39; Std. 115; Part 591)

TEXT:

I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Taylor Vincent, Legal Counsel, regarding the FMVSS 115 Standard and exemption from the seventeen digit Vehicle Identification Number requirement.

On February 12, 1990, I imported a 1981 Kenworth from Canada where it was manufactured by Kenworth of Canada. At the time of manufacture the vehicle complied with all applicable United States Federal Safety Standards and was labeled from the factory as such. I am faxing you a letter from Kenworth of Canada stating this, along with a letter form Catapillar Inc., the United States manufacturer of the motor, stating that the motor was in compliance with E.P.A. requirements.

The truck was brought into the United States through a licensed broker and all necessary declarations and papers were properly submitted. The vehicle was given Entry Number 551-1346915-3 by U.S. Customs.

I am faxing you another letter from Kenworth of Canada which states that until January 1, 1983 and the implementation of CMVSS 115, a seventeen digit vehicle Identification Number was not required in Canada. As this truck was manufactured prior to this date, it was given the seven digit Vehicle Identification Number M911042.

At my request, Joyce Chapman at the NHTSA office in Seattle faxed me a copy of the FMVSS 115. In paragraph S2, it states that "Vehicles imported into the United States under Article 591 are exempt from requirements of S4.2" which states "each Vehicle Identification Number shall consist of seventeen characters".

Does paragraph S2 of the FMVSS 115 exempt this vehicle from the seventeen digit number requirement and make it legal in the United States with a seven digit number?

United States Customs didn't question the number at time of entry. I subsequently titled the truck in California and the California Department of Motor Vehicles had no problem with the 1981 year model and the seven digit identification number. I have since sold the truck to someone in another state and he is having a problem registering it because the identification number consists of only seven digits.

On June 18, I discussed this situation with Mr. Taylor and his opinion was that the truck was exempt and could be legally imported into the United States with the seven digit number. When I asked for a written statement to that effect, he told me the procedure was to submit a written request for clarification and address it to your attention.

I also discussed with Mr. Taylor whether this truck should have been imported through a "registered importer". He told me that as U.S. Customs had accepted the vehicle's compliance to U.S. Safety Standards and had not required a bond, a registered importer was not required. Could you please also address this matter in your written reply?

I would appreciate anything you could do to process this request for clarification as quickly as possible. Please call me at (619) 477-2515 if you have any questions.

P.S. Please fax your written response to this letter to (619) 477-6249 and mail me the original at this address:

Tim Flagstad 220 West 14th Street National City, CA 91950

Attachments

Letter from Tracy Muncaster, Kenworth Company regarding Canadian Kenworth S/N 911042.

Letter dated 3/6/91 from Jean-Guy Urbain, Kenworth, to Jacques Beauchemin.

Letter dated 3/26/92 from Marvin Monroe, Caterpillar Inc.

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht92-6.30

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Christian Hammarskjold -- Vice President, USSC Group, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Dan Cohen -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/10/92 from Paul J. Rice (signed by John Womack) to Christian Hammarskjold (A39; Std. 207; Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Christian Hammarskjold to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

I have spoken with Mr. Cohen who asked me to direct my questions to you in writing.

USSC is a supplier of suspension seats for drivers to transit buses. Our customers, SCRTD in Los Angeles, has asked us to develop a system whereby our suspension seats can tilt from side-to-side. This is meant to compensate for the slanted roads in LA that facilitate water run off.

We are, of course, aware of 207/210 and do not believe that tilt system will meet the performance requirements. In addition, USSC is concerned that there are not applicable FMVSS requirements that address a side-to-side strength requirements. 207/210 requires a pull from the front of the seat. What happens if there is a side impact on a suspension seat that has a ball and socket joint. Are there any applicable performance requirements that may apply to such a system.

We request an answer by mail or fax by June 15, 1992. This will allow us enough time to respond to SCRTD's June 19th deadline.

If you have any questions, please call.

(Drawings omitted)