ID: nht94-2.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Rhein -- Fisher-Price, Inc. (East Aurora, NY)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/3/93 from John Rhein to John Womack (OCC 8639)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company.

You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squa res" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement.

Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed Ju ne 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material."

The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address spac e is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or over all organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Martin M. Sackoff -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2/7/94 FROM MARTIN M. SACKOFF TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC - 9646)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Sackoff:

This responds to your letter to this agency with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Your specific question addressed S 4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: "Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S 5.3." You asked for an interpretation of the term "breaking, " whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard.

The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that te st, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire i s continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever-increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things wil l happen:

1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim; or

2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The "breaking" of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although , obviously, a blow-out would constitute a "breaking."

The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction

2

described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure.

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

ID: nht94-5.41

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Martin M. Sackoff -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2/7/94 FROM MARTIN M. SACKOFF TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC - 9646)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Sackoff:

This responds to your letter to this agency with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Your specific question addressed S 4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: "Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S 5.3." You asked for an interpretation of the term "breaking," whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard.

The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that test, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire is continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever-increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things will happen:

1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim; or

2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The "breaking" of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although, obviously, a blow-out would constitute a "breaking."

The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction

2

described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure.

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

ID: nht95-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harry C. Gough -- P. E., State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/28/94 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS D. TURNER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/7/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS D. TURNER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 11/18/94 LETTER FROM HARRY C. GOUGH TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gough:

This responds to your letter to this office asking whether the retroreflective tape required to outline school bus emergency exits can, in the case of the rear emergency door, be placed on the door itself. The short answer is no.

You stated that the State of Connecticut requires that school bus bumpers be black. You further stated that one school bus manufacturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of the retroreflective tape installed on the rear bumper. You then noticed that a number of school buses from a different manufacturer had the bottom part of the tape installed on the door itself. You asked whether the language of S5.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window reten tion and release, permitted the installation of the retroreflective tape on the door itself.

Paragraph S5.5.3 of FMVSS No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, . . . .

This requirement was imposed by amendment to FMVSS No. 217 promulgated by a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). In discussing this requirement in the preamble portion of the final rule, we said at 57 FR 49421:

Accordingly, the final rule requires a minimum 1 inch wide strip of retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, to be placed around the outside perimeter of the emergency exit opening, not the emergency exit itself (emphasis added).

As you may know, the buses with the tape on the emergency exit doors have been recalled by the manufacturer. For information about the recall, you can contact the bus manufacturer, Thomas Built Buses, P. O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261.

Enclosed for your information are two interpretative letters issued by this office on related issues pertaining to the retroreflective tape requirement. See letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, dated July 7, 1993; and letter to Mr. Turner dated March 28, 1994.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht72-2.42

DATE: 04/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: The Budd Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1972, in which you presented a series of questions concerning the meaning of several requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, "Air Brake Systems." Our reply deals with the questions in the order you asked them.

1. Your first question concerns the meaning of the statement in section S5.4 that "a brake assembly that has undergone a road test pursuant to S5.3 need not conform to the requirements on this section." To paraphrase your question, the quoted language means that if a given brake assembly is subjected to the road test, the same brake assembly with the used lining need not conform to the dynamometer requirements. Conformity to the dynamometer requirements will be determined by testing an identical brake assembly with new linings. The petitions for deletion of dynamometer testing would have made the road test the only test. The standard requires both tests, even though two sets of identical brakes will be used, and our statement that the petitions were denied is therefore correct.

2. You point out that the measurement interval used in S5.4.1.1 for determining average torque, which begins when a specified pressure is reached, differs from the interval specified in S5.4 for measuring deceleration, which begins with the onset of deceleration. Although we agree that you may need different instrumentation for measuring average torque and average deceleration, we do not agree that their is any conflict since average torque and average deceleration are not required to be measured at the same time. We consider the present method of measuring torque and deceleration to be the correct methods.

3. The typographical error in section S5.4.1.1, which you have correctly edited to read "Repeat the procedure six times, increasing the brake chamber air pressure by 10 psi each time," has been corrected by a revision in the March 29, 1972, Federal Register.

4, 5, 6. The requirements of S5.4.2, S5.4.2.1 and S5.4.3 concerning average deceleration rates should not be understood to mean that a manufacturer, in his own testing, must test at exactly that rate. It is advisable for him to test in a manner that offers assurance that the brakes will pass when tested in the manner specified in the standard. Typically, where a test value such as 9 fpsps is specified, manufacturers tend to use more adverse values in their own testing. Under the former wording of these sections, the compliance agency could have tested brakes at decelerations higher than the specified minimum, and it would have been much more difficult for a manufacturer to ascertain his "worst case" situation.

The notice proposing to amend the weight conditions for truck-tractors should be issued within the next two months.

ID: nht76-3.42

DATE: 03/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Titan Trailer Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Titan Trailer Corporation's March 2, 1976, question whether certain bulk grain and feed meal trailers manufactured by Titan qualify as bulk agricultural commodity trailers that are permitted until June 30, 1976, to meet emergency and parking brake requirements other than those specified in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Sections S5.6 and S5.8 provide that a trailer manufactured before June 30, 1976, that is designed to transport bulk agricultural commodities in off-road harvesting sites and to a processing plant or storage location, as evidenced by skeletal construction that accommodates harvest containers, a maximum length of 28 feet, and an arrangement of air control lines and reservoirs that minimizes damage in field operations, is entitled to a specified option.

From the descriptive material enclosed, it appears that the Titan models 92 and 24 are designed for field use and conform to the criteria of skeletal construction that accomodates a harvest container, despite the fact that the container is permanently attached to the frame that surrounds it. It is not clear that the trailers are not more than 28 feet in length, or that the design positions air lines and reservoirs to minimize field-related damage. Assuming that the length, air lines, and reservoirs do meet these criteria, it appears that the trailers would qualify for the manufacturer option under S5.6 and S5.8.

YOURS TRULY,

Titan Trailer corp.

March 2, 1976

Frank Burndt Acting Chief Counsel

On December 5, 1975, the NHTSA published an amendment to FMVSS 121 on page 235 of volume 40 of the Federal Register. This amendment exempted certain bulk agricultural commodity trailers from the parking brake requirements which had heretofore necessitated the use of spring brakes.

We manufacture a hopper trailer designed exclusively to haul bulk agricultural products. These trailers are frequently drawn through fields at harvest time by farm tractors - the conditions upon which the spring brake exemption was granted.

Several of our competitors, manufacturing similar hopper trailers, have told potential customers that these trailers are included under the spring brake exemption.

We would like to receive an official communication from your office as to whether or not these hopper trailers are covered under the spring brake exemption granted to agricultural commodities. To assist you in making this decision, we have enclosed photographs and a sales brochure pertaining to our hopper trailers.

Since our material orders and our sales will be strongly influenced by your response, we would greatly appreciate a prompt reply to this letter. Please feel free to contact me at (916) 662-3941 should you have any questions.

Thomas M. Tucker Assistant Manager

ID: 8513

Mr. Carl W. Ruegg
President
Carlo International, Inc.
P.O. Box 250
Selma, CA 93662

Dear Mr. Ruegg:

This responds to your letter of March 27, 1993, to Mr. Eisner of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). You intend to import "car parts" into the United States, and would like to know "the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations". You assume that "a part such as fender or other body parts do not." You have asked this question because some individual parts may arrive as part of assemblies, such as "chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, principally through the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued under its authority such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each part or component of a motor vehicle is motor vehicle equipment subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction.

The Act requires that motor vehicle equipment, whether new or used, meet all applicable FMVSS in order to be imported into the U.S. Some of the FMVSS apply to items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, whether shipped separately or as part of an assembly, equipment such as brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers must comply in order to be admitted into this country.

As your question implies, there is a point at which an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment becomes a "motor vehicle". An assemblage becomes an "incomplete motor vehicle" subject to regulation as a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) when it consists, at a minimum, of "frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle (Sec. 568.3)." As the intention is to import the vehicle without the electric power train, the assemblage you contemplate is not a "motor vehicle" and remains an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment whose individual components, as noted in the preceding paragraph, are required to comply with the applicable FMVSS.

Your letter informs us that "[t]hese parts and partial assembly's (sic) would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle." When the power train is added, the person completing the manufacture of the vehicle is considered to be its manufacturer, required to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

If you have any further questions, we would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591#568#VSA d:5/18/93

ID: nht78-4.5

DATE: 05/10/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: The Barbour House

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 12, 1978, letter asking several questions concerning the applicability of the Federal safety standards to vehicles that are being reconstructed with new chassis. The answers to your specific questions are set forth below.

1. You ask whether the replacement of the engine, transmission, drive train, rear end, frame, front axle, front brakes, wheels, and steering box constitutes the manufacture of a new chassis requiring a new or upgraded body. The answer to your question is yes. Part 571.7(e) of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies the items that must be retained in a truck chassis in order that such chassis be considered used. These same considerations apply to reconstructed school buses since they are built on truck chassis.

2. You ask what parts of a chassis must be retained to ensure that the vehicle could continue to utilize an old body that does not comply with current Federal safety standards. Part 571.7(e) states that, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) must be retained.

3. You ask who must certify a remanufactured vehicle if its chassis is considered old or new. In the case of an old chassis that retains the required components and is therefore considered used, no certification is required of any repair business. In the case of a remanufactured chassis, the chassis manufacturer must certify his chassis for compliance and the shop that installs the body must certify the final compliance of the vehicle.

4. Part 568.8 states that vehicles altered before the first purchase for purposes other than resale must be labeled with an alterer's label. When a new chassis is installed in a vehicle, this is not an alteration, but rather, it is the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Therefore, section 568.8 would not apply. The other provisions of Part 568 relating to the manufacture of a new motor vehicle would apply to this reconstructed vehicle. The person undertaking the remanufacture would be treated like the original manufacturer of the vehicle and would be required to certify it for compliance with the standards.

5. Standards promulgated after 1975 that are specifically applicable to school buses are: Standard No. 217-76, Bus Window Retention and Release, Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity. Many of the other safety standards apply to school buses as well as other vehicles. I am enclosing a sheet detailing the applicability of Federal safety standards. All Federal safety standards are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. By examining the standards in Part 571, you can ascertain when their most recent amendment has occurred.

ID: nht79-1.17

DATE: 11/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. S. Keshav Manager - Research & Development Bajaj Auto Limited Bombay Poona Road Akurdi - Poona - 411 035 India

Dear Mr. Keshav:

This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 1979, to Francis Armstrong asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. SAE Standard J588e August 1970 is the referenced standard for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 4.2 of J588e requires that as mounted on the vehicle "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam". You mentioned that on some motorcycles sold in the United States this requirement is satisfied only with the handlebar in the straight ahead position but not when turned to the full lock position. You asked whether this complies with Standard No. 108.

Table IV specifies that the minimum edge to edge separation between the headlamp and turn signal lamp on motorcycles is 4 inches. Most manufacturers have interpreted this requirement to mean that the separation is permanent, and have supplied turn signals that are mounted stationary with the headlamp, and that turn with it so that the separation distance is maintained. Therefore, the configuration you describe would not comply with Standard No. 108 because Federal requirements for location and mounting of lighting equipment are intended to apply to a vehicle under all its operating conditions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

RD 39363 Date: 2nd September 1979.

Mr. Fransis Armstrong, Director Office of the Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We refer to FMVSS Part 571, S108 Table IV/SAE J 588c 4.2 standand. As per the standard the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamp and head lamp should be 4 inches. We have come across some vehicles sold in U.S.A. wherein this dimension is satisfied only in the straight ahead driving position i.e. when the handle bar is kept straight. In such vehicle, since the turn signal flasher lamps are fitted in the front on the non steered portion of the vehicle, the distance between the turn signal flasher lamp and the head lamp is almost zero when the handle bar is turned to the full lock position. Please let us know whether this is permissible as per the regulation.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

M. S. KESHAV MANAGER - RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

ID: 86-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada;

This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1986, asking for an opinion regarding a "decorative extra lighting device." It appears from the drawing that you enclosed that the device would be a part of a three-compartment housing incorporating also a rear turn signal lamp, and one that performs that tail and stop functions. It would be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. You have informed us that the lens color of the device would be red and its maximum luminous intensity lower than the minimum of the adjacent taillamp.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of lighting devices not required by the standard if such a device would impair the effectiveness of the equipment that is required. It is our impression that your device performs the function of a rear side marker lamp, required to be installed on all motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, you have not told us any of the operational characteristics of the lamp, such as whether it would be steady burning in use and activated simultaneously with the headlamp and taillamp, or whether it would flash with the rear turn signal lamp. Nevertheless, it would appear to be acceptable as a supplemental taillamp or turn signal lamp, or as a side marker lamp, either with or without the decorative trim.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel February 5, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

According to your letter of Nov. 4, 1985, we would ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.

This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp and a rear turn signal lamp. A lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp. There is a possibility of attaching an ornament on this accessory lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Enc. The details of the device