ID: 86-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Burdick:

Thank You for Your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Lorraine Holgerson concerning requirements for identifying school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Ms. Holgerson is concerned that yellow school buses in North Dakota lack identifying features which notify following motorists that the bus is a school bus. Your constituent suggests Federal law address this problem by setting school bus identification requirements for features such as "School Bus" signs, or distinctive lights.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Ms. Holgerson's concern. would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA has two sets of regulations for school buses that contain special requirements facilitating the recognition of those vehicles by motorists. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes the motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, are the highway safety program standards applicable to Federal funding of states' highway safety programs.

One of the motor vehicle safety standards applying to school buses issued under the Vehicle Safety Act is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This standard requires school bus warning lamps on the rear of all new school buses. The presence of the lighting system alerts other motorists that the vehicle is a school bus, and activation of the lights warns motorists around the vehicle that school children are boarding or leaving the bus. Each school bus manufactured in or imported to this country must be equipped with the distinctive warning lamp system.

The additional identifying features that your constituent recommends for school buses have been included in the highway safety program standard we issued for pupil transportation safety (Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17). I have enclosed a copy of this standard for your information.

Standard No. 17 recommends that states require additional features for school buses such as prominent "School Bus" signs and the familiar yellow paint and black trim for the bus body, to distinguish them from other types of vehicles. Requirements for school bus identification are regularly included in states' highway safety programs to facilitate safe transportation of school children, and some or all of the recommendations of Standard No. 17 have been adopted by most of the states.

While we urge states to adopt a strong pupil transportation program consistent with Standard No. 17's guidelines, the effect of the standard on school buses operating in North Dakota is a matter for the State to decide. State officials are given discretion in adopting Standard No. 17 and may specify requirements for school bus operation that are appropriate for their particular highway safety needs. Ms. Holgerson might want to express her concerns and suggestions to North Dakota state officials, since they have the authority to set requirements for "School Bus" signs and other identifying features of school buses.

We appreciate Ms. Holgerson's concern for school bus safety. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Burdick:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Lorraine Holgerson..

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

David P. Sloane Director, Office of Congressional Affairs February 27, 1986

Mr. David Sloane Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

Enclosed is a letter I have recently received from Lorraine Holgerson regarding her concern about the lack of appropriate reflectors on the back of North Dakota school buses.

I would appreciate your Looking into the matter Ms. Holgerson has described and responding to my office with your findings. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

Quentin N. Burdick QNB:mvj Honorable Senator Burdick:

Dear Mr. Burdick,

Could it be possible that a bill be passed to make North Dakota school buses more visible from the back?

School buses now have two directional lights back there, and a row of small lights across the top. This is really not very much on that large background of yellow.

Even the words "School bus" in black or reflective letterings should help.

Some truckers that drive the big rigs have lights all around the top of their cabs, and even a row of lights around the trailer.

Anything that could be done to make the school buses safer would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Lorraine Holgerson

ID: 86-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Geral L. Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Geral L. Cox FLIRRZ 8931 Upper DeArmoun Road Anchorage, Alaska 9951

Dear Mr. Cox:

This responds to your letter seeking this agency's opinion of a reflective device you plan to sell to be installed on semitrailers and other motor vehicles. As explained in your letter, these reflective devices would be installed on the center plug hub of wheels on semitrailers and trailers. You asked me to send you a letter stating either that your devices comply with applicable Federal standards or that you don't need DOT approval to sell these devices. You are correct that you do not need approval from this agency to market your product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq., hereinafter "the Act") does not permit this agency to assure a manufacturer that its products comply with all applicable requirements or to "approve" a manufacturer's products. Instead, section 114 of the Act (copy enclosed) requires the manufacturer itself to certify that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this statutory requirement, the National highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot "approve" products or offer assurances of compliance by the product.

With respect to your reflective devices, there is no provision in our standards expressly prohibiting such reflectors. The installation of those reflectors would be subject only to the requirement set forth in section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 2571.108). That section provides that no additional reflectors that impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 shall be installed on motor vehicles. This prohibition applies to parties installing your product on vehicles, and not to you as the manufacturer of the product. This is because the installer is the only party that can ensure that the reflectors are installed so that they do not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Generally speaking, this requirement of Standard No. 108 applies only to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories added to a vehicle after that purchase. The general rule is that aftermarket accessories may be added to vehicles.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...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..." NHTSA considers it an element of design on vehicles that they have lighting and other equipment that are required by Standard No. 108 and whose effectiveness is not impaired by additional lights or reflectors. If the installation of your reflectors would impair that effectiveness, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing such reflectors would be rendering inoperative that design element of the vehicle, and thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each vehicle on which this element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation. You should note that the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to a vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design on his or her vehicle. Hence, if your aftermarket reflectors are sold to and installed by vehicle owners, those persons would not be subject to the prohibition of section 108 referenced above.

It appears from the materials enclosed with your letter that these reflectors would be installed so that they project outwards several inches beyond the wheel of the vehicles on which they are installed. have enclosed a copy of standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps, for your information. This standard does not apply to trucks, trailers, or large buses, which are the vehicle types on which you indicated your reflectors would be installed. However, Standard No. 211 prohibits passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles from incorporating winged projections on their wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. This prohibition is intended to prevent the potential hazard to pedestrians and cyclists from projections extending beyond the wheel of these vehicles. I hope that this potential hazard will not be present on vehicles on which your reflectors are installed.

You should also be aware of the responsibilities imposed by the Act on manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as your reflectors. If either you, as a manufacturer, or this agency determines that your product does not comply with an applicable safety standard or that the products contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would be required to remedy that noncompliance or defect. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if an item of motor vehicle equipment fails to comply with an applicable standard or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either:

1. repair the product so that the noncompliance or defect is removed: or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the noncompliance or defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, you as the manufacturer must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Jan. 30, 1986

To the Chief Counsel

Mr. Kennerly Digges National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington,D.C.

Mr. Diggs,

Back in December we had a phone conversation about D.O.T. approval on new safety devices to be introduced to the trucking industry. It is my understanding that I don't need to have any D.O.T. approval as long as I fall within all of the guidelines listed in the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Regulations handbook.

I have enclosed a few sketches and a brief explanation as to what my invention and safety device are designed to do. According to my understanding of the rule book, I feel that I fall well within the Federal guidelines. I have read section #393.26(e) lines 1-5 concerning non-required reflectors, which is the only section I could find that would relate to my device, I feel that I fall well within these guidelines.

What I would like to have from the NHTSA is a documented letter stating that they feel that I fall well within the Federal guidelines and/or that I don't need any D.O.T. approval to go ahead on manufacturing and sales of my device. We hope to hear from you soon as we hope to start manufacturing these devices as soon as the first week of March, our future is riding on a letter from you and the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Division, we hope to get a letter from them in the very near future.

I want to thank you for your co-operation and any and all that you could do to help us on to what we hope to be a very prosperous future.

Again thank you,

Sincerely

Geral L. Cox

"FLIKRZ"

A TRUCK/TRAILER WHEEL MOVEMENT INDICATOR

"FLIKRZ" are a safety device for all Semi-Trucks that operate this nations highways. "FLIKRZ" are the idea, design and invention of Gerry Cox, a long time professional Truck-driver in Alaska.

After many years of hands-on operation and observation of heavy-duty Semi-Trucks in Alaska's harsh environment, Gerry noticed a very hazardous, expensive and to common occurrence, locking, skidding trailer tires.

The most common cause of unnoticed wheel skids occurs during the winter months when a trailer is parked after normal, trouble free operation and ice forms between the brake shoe and brake drum setting the brakes in the lock position. A driver will release his brake switch and drive away with what he believes to be free wheeling trailer, when in reality he may be skidding one or more of the trailer wheels behind him without realizing he is in the process of destroying hundreds of dollars worth of tires.

Another common cause of unnoticed tire skidding occurs with over application of the trailer brakes on slippery downhill grades. During slippery conditions, one or more wheels can lock-up without indication causing unnecessary tire wear or even throw the trailer dangerously out of control.

"FLIKRZ" are a simple, install in seconds wheel reflector that allows a driver at all times, at any speed, day or night to know exactly if and when his trailer wheels are moving or not.

"FLIKRZ" are made to fit most 15-24 inch trailer wheel assemblies equipped with the common 1-1/8 inch removable center plug hub. They install in seconds and come in a variety of colors (RED, WHITE, BLUE, ORANGE, YELLOW AND GREEN) FOR EASY IDENTIFICATION OF EACH AXLE ASSEMBLY.

"FLIKRZ" are not only an effective, maintenance reducing device, they are also a public safety aid. If and when a Truck loses all tail and marker lights to the trailer, traffic approaching from the front, rear or sides will see the "FLIKRZ" in motion and be aware of a moving Semi-Truck or one that may be parked on the side of the road for that matter. During the winter months, snow blowing up and covering the tail-lights is a far to common and dangerous problem. If by chance a Semi-Truck and trailer are parked on the edge of the road with no lights and safety flares or safety markers aren't available for the moment, then "FLIKRZ" will allow a driver the time he needs to place the necessary safety devices for warning on coming traffic.

In addition to being a wheel movement indicator, public safety aid or skid detector, "FLIKRZ" also aid a driver in backing his trailer into dark places during night time operations. With the aid of back-up light, the reflector will let him know exactly where his trailer tires are at all time.

I feel so strongly about the safety, maintenance reduction and striking appearance that this simple, inexpensive device has to offer to any independent trucker or an entire fleet for that matter, that I forsee the day that near all Semi-Trailers on this nation's highway will be willingly and satisfactorily equipped with FLIKRZ"....

NOTE

DRIVE WHEEL ADAPTERS AVAILABLE FOR SEMI-TRACTORS, DELIVERY TRUCKS, SCHOOL, MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC BUS LINES, ETC....

ID: 86-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ron Luce, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/14/77 letter from F. Berndt to Sergio Campanini, The Berg Manufacturing Co.; 8/27/79 letter from F. Berndt to the Berg Manufacturing Co.; 9/30/77 letter from R. L. Carter to R. W. Hildebrandt, The Bendix Corp.

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Luce President International Transquip Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 590169 Houston, Texas 77259

This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You asked several questions relating to whether vehicles equipped with "Mini-Max" brakes, a type of brake produced by your company, comply with the standard. Your questions are responded to below. We note that while Question 4 was not asked directly by your letter, the question is implicit with respect to one of the questions you did ask.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Question 1: Is delayed mechanical parking permissible under section S5.6.3 as long as the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 are satisfied?

The second sentence of section S5.6.3 provides that "(o)nce applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means." As discussed by a recent notice granting a petition for rulemaking submitted by the California Highway Patrol (copy enclosed), there are at least two issues relating to whether a braking system such as Mini-Max complies with these requirements.

The first issue is whether the system meets the requirement that once applied, the parking brakes must be held solely by mechanical means. As currently designed, the Mini-Max parking brake can be held by air and not by mechanical means, solely or otherwise, for many hours. Indeed, since a driver will often park the vehicle for a period of time shorter than that required to obtain mechanical holding, there will be many instances when the vehicle is parked and the parking brake never is held by mechanical means. The second issue is whether the parking brakes are held in the applied position. With the current design of the Mini-Max braking system, the air pressure leaks down over time until the mechanical lock is activated. Since the position of the brake components necessarily changes during this time, resulting in reduced parking brake force, there is an issue whether the parking brake is being held in the applied position.

While NHTSA has never concluded that a brake system resulting in false parking is safe or provided an interpretation that the current Mini-Max system complies with section S5.6.3, we recognize that some past interpretations, as well as one issued by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, could contribute to ambiguity concerning whether some of the features incorporated in the Mini-Max design are permitted by the standard. In light of that ambiguity and for the other reasons discussed in the grant notice, NHTSA decided to grant the CHP petition to initiate rulemaking on the delayed mechanical park issue rather than issuing an interpretation whether or not such a braking system complies with these requirements.

Question 2: Is an external pressure separation assembly consisting of a two-way check valve and accompanying steel hex nipple considered to be a component of a brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3 if the assembly is "permanently bonded" to the housing?

The answer to this question is no. Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part that "(t)he parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing)." (Emphasis added.) The dictionary defines "housing" as "a fully enclosed case and support for a mechanism." See Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). Thus, the term "brake chamber housing" refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. An external pressure separation assembly does not become part of the brake chamber housing merely because it is attached to the housing, whether by "permanent bonding" or some other means. However, a brake chamber housing could be cast or molded to include a fitting, serving the same purpose as the external pressure assembly, as an integral part of the brake chamber housing.

Question 3: Is an internal assembly consisting of a diaphragm within the brake chamber housing considered to be a component of the brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3?

The answer to this question is no. As discussed above, the term "brake chamber housing" refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. A diaphragm within the brake chamber is not a component of the case enclosing the brake chamber.

Question 4: Does section S5.2.1.1 require that capability of release must be unaffected or that air pressure in the tank must be unaffected?

Section S5.2.1.1 provides that "(a) reservoir shall be provided that is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system." (Emphasis added.) The word "unaffected" refers back to "reservoir". Thus, the required reservoir is not permitted to be "affected" by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system, i.e., it must be protected. A reservoir would not meet this requirement if a loss of air pressure in the service brake system resulted in a loss of air pressure in the reservoir, even if the reservoir was still capable of releasing the parking brakes.

Question 5: If the emergency brakes on trailers can be modulated so as to provide a driver with several applications and releases to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system, is it unnecessary for an S5.2.1.1 reservoir to be capable of releasing the brakes?

The capability of modulation after activation of the low air warning system does not satisfy the requirements of section S5.2.1.1 (quoted above). That section requires that the reservoir not be affected by loss of service air, i.e., that it be protected, and that, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i. (a pressure that corresponds to the lower end of the range of pressures maintained by compressors), it be capable of releasing the parking brakes at least once. A vehicle's emergency brakes could be capable of modulation after activation of the low air warning system and not meet either of these requirements.

In addition to the notice granting the CHP petition, we are enclosing copies of interpretation letters concerning the Mini-Max system addressed to Navistar, P.T. Brake Lining Company, and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures August 20, 1985 U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 ATTN: Duane Perrin

Subject: Our letter of August 6, 1985 and Docket No. 75-16: Notice 27. Request for immediate interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121.

Dear Mr. Perrin:

After our July 31, 1985 meeting in Washington, DC and subsequent to my letter of August 6, 1985 I have requested, received and reviewed copies of all information contained in all volumes of the "Red Book" of 121 interpretations maintained in the document section of the D.O.T. After review of this information it is very evident that the NHTSA has offered several interpretations with respect to delayed mechanical parking that clearly allows this means of parking to satisfy the requirements of S5.6.3 as long as either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 can be achieved. The references are as follows.

1. Berg Mfg. Co. letter dated February 9, 1977 that describes a system that is air applied on initial emergency or parking application and is held by spring application only in the event of service application pressure loss. The NHTSA response N40-30 (TWH) dated March 14, 1977 does not allow all design features of the Berg system but does clearly allow delayed mechanical parking as stated in the last sentence of the reference letter.

"In other respects the system you described does not appear to violate the requirements of Standard No. 121. The use of service air pressure to actuate the parking brakes has been used in certain bus applications and is permissible as long as a source of energy to apply the parking brakes is usable at all times and is unaffected by any single failure in the service brake system."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit A".

2. Berg. Mfg. Co. letter dated June 28, 1979 that describes a parking brake system that employs delayed mechanical parking. This system, I believe, was later denied because of non compliance to section S5.2.1.1 because emergency springs were released by supply air rather than from a protected reservoir. However, the NHTSA interpretation is clear with respect to application by service air and subsequent spring application as the air supply is depleted. The NHTSA response NOA-30 dated August 27, 1979 covers this point in the second paragraph.

"You first ask whether section S5.6.3 allows the use of service air to apply the parking brakes as long as a source of energy to supply the parking brakes is available at all times and is unaffected by a single failure in the service brake system. The answer to this question is yes. On August 9, 1979, the agency published in the federal register a notice amending section S5.6.3 of the standard to permit the type of parking brake system that you outlined in your letter."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit B".

3. Bendix letter dated September 14, 1977 that explains the many benefits of delayed mechanical parking by use of service air for initial application and spring application only after service pressure has depleted. This system also was later determined to not be in compliance to S5.2.1.1 because no reservoir was provided for release of brakes. However it clearly describes the delayed mechanical parking mode. The NHTSA response dated September 30, 1977 states in the last paragraph:

"You also requested written confirmation that the interpretation of S5.6.3 of FMVSS No. 121 given by NHTSA to Motor Coach Industries Inc., on April 14, 1976, would pertain to the air/spring parking brake system described in your letter. Your assumption is correct, and this letter constitutes such written confirmation."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit C".

Upon review of the information presented we respectfully request written confirmation that our assumption is correct that our delayed mechanical system as outlined in the information provided with our August 6, 1985 letter does comply with S5.6.3 of the 121 Standard.

We also request an interpretation with respect to the use of an external pressure separation assembly detailed in the information provided with our August 6, 1985 letter. Is our assumption correct that both the external and internal assemblies are a component of the brake chamber housing in this unique brake chamber design.

We further request an interpretation with respect to S5.2.1.1. Is our assumption correct that as discussed in our August 6, 1985 letter and detailed in the enclosures with the same letter that our "system" complies to section S5.2.1.1 of the 121 Standard. Without considering the above, in our letter of August 6, 1985 page 6, we also disclosed the fact that our trailer system allows modulation of emergency brakes. Are we correct in assuming that if we are able to modulate emergency brakes on trailers, this improvement in safety would also dictate that no release is necessary because a modulated emergency system provides a driver with several applications and releases of the emergency brake system to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system. We understand that this would not exempt us from the requirement that "a reservoir shall be provided..." however it should remove the release requirement in emergency situations and would result in improved vehicle safety.

Please respond as quickly as possible to these requests for interpretations. We again point out that the absence of compliance checks at the OE level have placed us at an extreme disadvantage when compared to systems that were being marketed prior to discontinuation of compliance inspections. Thanks again for your assistance and early reply.

Regards, Ron Luce enc.:

See 3/14/77 letter from F. Berndt to Sergio Campanini, The Berg Manufacturing Company. See also 8/27/79 letter from F. Berndt to The Berg Manufacturing Company. See also 9/30/77 letter from R.L. Carter to R.W. Hildebrandt, The Bendix Corporation.

ID: 86-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carl R. Walker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Carl R. Walker Manager, Technical Sales and Service P.T. Brake Lining Company, Inc. P.O. Box 329 Lawrence, Ma 01842

Dear Mr. Walker:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Richard Radlinski, concerning a statement by International Transquip alleging that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) "agree" that the Mini-Max brake system produced by that company complies with Federal standards. You noted that International Transquip has referenced a June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS.

NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment complies with applicable safety standards. I would emphasize that NHTSA has not issued any statement that could be read as "agreement" that the Mini-Max brake complies with FMVSS No. 121.

We are enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to Navistar which discusses NHTSA's position concerning the June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS. The letter also notes that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised a number of issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and two related interpretation letters, to International Transquip and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2768).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 24, 1985

Mr. Richard Radlinski Manager, Brake Research NHSTA P. O. BOX 37 East Liberty, OH 43319

Subject: Mini-Max Brake

Dear Dick:

As per our discussion, please find a complete folder and cover letter from International Transquip Industries, Inc., manufacturers of the subject brake. Of particular concern to me is their reference to "compliance to the brake standards", by NHSTA and BMCS. "All agree that it complies to the standards."

In their literature, they make reference to a letter from BMCS (on US DOT stationary), dated June 6, 1984, which seemingly meets the parking requirements of NHSTA. All is attached for your information and reference. Even though this response from BMCS is related to a change notice, it is being interpreted as "full compliance" to FMVSS 121.

Your written clarification of this matter would be most helpful.

Very truly yours,

P.T. BRAKE LINING COMPANY, INC.

Carl R. Walker Manager, Technical Sales & Service

CRW/mdp

Enclosure

cc: Steven Doyle Jim Rabith

ID: 86-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald H. Giberson -- Assistant Director, State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety State of New Jersey 26 South Montgomery Street Trenton, NJ 08666

This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You asked whether vehicles equipped with "Mini-Max" brakes, produced by International Transquip Industries, Inc., comply with the standard. You stated that since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. Your question is responded to below. We note that Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40 is administered by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) rather than by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We have sent a copy of this correspondence to BMCS in order that they may respond to that part of your request.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part:

The parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified in either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing). . . .

The single diaphragm used in the Mini-Max brake is common to both the service and parking brake systems. As part of the service brake system, it is part of a brake system "other" than the parking brake system. Therefore, since the diaphragm is not a component of a brake chamber housing, section S5.6.3 requires that a vehicle must be able to achieve the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure.

We do not have sufficient data to determine whether particular vehicles equipped with Mini-Max brakes would meet the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure. The answer to that question could depend on the nature of the particular vehicle. It is possible, of course, that a vehicle could be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 as a result of the braking force provided by the other parking brakes whose diaphragms have not failed.

We note that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised this issue and other issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and an interpretation letter to International Transquip. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2768).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel Office of Rule Making U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Recently I have received several inquiries regarding the legality of the Mini-Max air actuated mechanically held air brake system judging from the technical data supplied by the manufacturer, International Transquip Industries Inc., the Mini-Max brake chambers do not contain the heavy. Since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used in the Mini-Max, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. In view of the foregoing , it is questionable as to whether the Min-Max complies with FMVSS-121 and Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40. I would be appreciative if you could clarify this matter.

Sincerely,

Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director

DHG/WH/rc

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: 86-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: NIROSHI NORIYOSHI -- EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER MAZDA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 101; CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS AND FMVSS 102; TRANSMISSION SHIFT LEVER SEQUENCE, STARTER INTERLOCK, AND TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/24/86 TO HIROSHI MORI YOSHI FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A29 (4), STD 101 AND 102

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Mazda (North America), Inc., on behalf of Mazda Motor Corporation, requests interpretation of certain provisions of FMVSS 10:, Controls and Displays and FMVSS 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. The specific provisions relate to the conditions of visibility for the gear position indicator of an automatic transmission.

Mazda is considering the application of LED's located within the instrument panel for use in automatic transmission gear position identification. The envisioned system would conform with all applicable requirements when the ignition switch is in the on and start position, but would not otherwise be visible when deactivation of the vehicle's main electrical system occurred by placing the ignition switch in the accessory or off position. The gear shift selector, mounted on the steering column, would be provided with embossed position indicators conforming to FMVSS 102, except that the identifiers would only be visible from the side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position.

FMVSS 101.5(a) requires, by way conference to Table 2, the automatic gear position indicator of a vehicle meet the requirements of the standard for location, identification, and

illumination. Specifically, the automatic gear position indicator must be visible to a driver restrained by the crash protection equipment provided and adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. FMVSS 102.3.2 additionally requires the shift lever position indicator of automatic transmissions be displayed in view of the driver.

In past interpretations requested by Ford and Porache, the Agency has concluded that FMVSS 102.3.2 requires the gear position indicator to be visible regardless of the operating mode of the engine. However, the Agency has not had an opportunity to consider the case of multiple and complementary indicators that individually may not be in conference with the Standards, but collectively would in fact provide indication of gear selection "permanently in view of the driver". The systems would complement each other by providing a clear and unmistakable indication directly before the driver when the engine is activated and by providing a permanent visual cue that can be accessed with little inconvenience by the driver in all other circumstances. Therefore, Mazda believes this system would conform with the applicable provisions of FMVSS 101 and 102.

Accordingly, Mazda requests that the Agency consider our conclusion and comment on the determination that this combination of indicators can be considered "permanently displayed in view of the driver". Also, please clarify the meaning of "view of the driver". It is now possible, with the use of emergency locking retractors, that the driver may lean forward and later return to the normal driving posture with no "misadjustment" of the vehicle's restraint system. Under such conditions, would the embossed automatic gear selection identifiers be considered within the driver's field of view while the vehicle is not activated? Please discuss your conclusion.

Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Mazda is aware that the Agency is not able to approve actions taken by manufacturers. However, we do desire to obtain the opinion of the Agency in this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Ken Tashima at the address or telephone number above.

Sincerly,

ID: 86-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/86 EST

FROM: Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek -- Chief of Machinery Plant, Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 2/17/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Ralph Trimarchi (Std. 110; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 109)

TEXT:

AIR MAIL Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek Chief of Machinery Plant Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda n.p., 707 02 Ostrava 7 CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Dear Mr. Vapenicek:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. You stated that the dimensions of your rims comply with dimensional specifications of the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization. You asked whether disc wheels provided with certain information can be regarded as complying with the requirements of U.S. standards. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You provided the following example of your disc wheel marking on the attachment face of the disc:

(b) 8,0-20 (c) DOT-E (d) symbol of the manufacturer (e) 6 87

You stated that the information listed in (b) and (d) also appears on every part of your multipiece rim and that height and depth of the marking meets the requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 120.

Section S5.2 states: . . . each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the case of a singlepiece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph . . . . The information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the weather side. In the case of rims of multipiece construction, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the rim base and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this paragraph shall also appear on each other part of the rim.

Your letter indicates that you plan to place your disc wheel marking "on the attachment face of disc." While it is not clear what you mean by the term attachment face of disc, I would like to note several requirements specified by section S5.2 for marking location. First, the marking must be placed on the rim, except that for singlepiece wheels manufacturers have the option of placing the marking on the wheel disc. Thus, assuming that your rim is a multipiece rim, the marking must be placed on the rim rather than the disc. Second, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) must be placed on the weather side. Section S4 provides a definition for the "weather side" of a rim. Third, for multipiece rims, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) must appear on the rim base, and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) must also appear on each other part of the rim. Section 54 provides a definition for "rim base."

Your sample disc wheel marking links by a hyphen the symbol "DOT" required by S5.2 (c) and the designation "E" required by S5.2(a). The symbol DOT constitutes a certification by the manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, while the designation E indicates the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions, i.e., in your case, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization. While NHTSA expects the information provided in paragraphs (a), (b) , and (c) to be grouped together, we do not recommend linking "DOT" and "E" by a hyphen. These symbols provide two different types of information, and the inclusion of a hyphen could cause confusion.

The information required by S5.2(b) is "(t)he rim size designation, and in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5. " Your sample disc wheel marking is 8,O-20. I note first that the rim size designation (defined in S4 as "rim diameter and width") should use the symbol "x" between the width and diameter, as indicated by S5.2(b)'s example. Moreover, for multipiece rims, S5.2(b) requires both the rim size designation and the rim type designation. S4 defines the term "rim type designation" as "the industry or manufacturer's designation for a rim by style or code." If your disc wheel is a multipiece rim, the disc wheel marking should include the rim type designation.

S5.2(c) requires a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol. Your letter indicates that you plan to use a symbol. I note that, as discussed in an interpretation letter dated February 17, 1986 (copy enclosed), 49 CFR Part 551 requires rim manufacturers to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Among other things, the designation of agent must contain information concerning marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name.

The information in your sample disc wheel marking under (e) is consistent with one of the examples provided in S5.2 (e) to indicate the month and year of manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure (see 2/17/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Ralph Trimarchi)

Dear Sirs,

We take the liberty of asking you for your advice concerning the disc wheels. As the requirements of S571,120 differ from those on windshields or tires when symbol DOT is concerned we are not quite sure whether our disc wheels marking meets the requirements. We would like to mention that dimensions of our rims comply with dimensional specifications required by the EUROPEAN TYRE AND RIM TECHNICAL ORGANIZATION.

An example of our disc wheel marking on the attachment face of disc (according to S 571.120):

(b) 8,0-20 (c) DOT-E (d) symbol of the manufacturer (e) 6 87

The information listed in (b) and (d) also appears on every part of our multipiece rim as specified in S 571.120 S5.2. Height and depth of the marking meet the requirements of S 571.120 S5.2.

Be so kind, please, and let us know whether a disc wheel provided with the information (b), (c), (d) and (e) above can be regarded as complying with the requirements of U.S. standards.

We are looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek Chief of Machinery Plant

ID: 86-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Grace Cheng -- Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center (Taiwan)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Grace Cheng Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan 330 REPUBLIC OF CHINA Dear Ms. Cheng: Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether S4.1.2.3.1(a) of the standard requires a vehicle with a manual, nondetachable Type 2 safety belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard. However, we have recently set 30 mph frontal crash protection requirements for manual Type 2 safety belts used in the frontal outboard seating positions in future passenger cars. The dynamic test requirement for manual safety belts would go into effect on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirement of Standard No. 208 is rescinded. A copy of the notice on dynamic testing of manual safety belts is enclosed. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Dear Sirs;

It is so kind of you to solve our continuous inquiries. Here we would like to ask you one question as follows:

In regard to FMVSS 208, if we choose the third option S4.1.2.3.1(a) to equipped our cars with type 2 seat belt assemblies (nondetachable) that conform to FMVSS 209, then should our cars still be required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S 5.1 in a perpendicular impact?

Please answer us sooner and it will be highly appreciated.

Librarian Grace Cheng

ID: 86-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/15/86

FROM: FRANCISCO DEETAN -- FRG INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: HS 7 FORM APPLICATION APPROVAL FOR REAR WINDOW 3RD STOP LIGHT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/23/86 EST, TO FRANCISCO DEETAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29(3); STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sirs,

Concerning our importation of rear window 3rd stop light which meets requirement for a high mounted brake light: Our company have prepared a trial order for more or less Three Thousand Dollars worth of rear window 3rd stop light importation, but before the letter of credit is opened we would like to get your approval for the products we will import, So, please inform and assist us in getting your HS-7 permit in compliance with FMVSS 108 requirement; Enclosed is our brochure and proform invoice copy from our supplier aboard, in case your good office need the sample test of the rear window 3rd stop light which we wish to import, please urgent inform us and indicate whom we should send it to, we will send you a sample immediately upon we receive you advise.

Thank you in advance for you kind co-operation, we remain,

Very Truly Yours,

ID: 86-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Clarence M. Ditlow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 3, 1986, concerning the implementation of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You expressed concern about the possible disconnection of detachable automatic belts by vehicle dealers and asked how the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would apply to such a situation.

As you pointed out, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative items of safety equipment. The section provides that:

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 . . . .

In interpreting section 108(a)(2)(A), the agency has said that commercial businesses are prohibited from knowingly removing, altering or degrading an item of safety equipment required by our standards. Thus, if a commercial business were to remove an automatic belt, it would be a clear violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). However, that situation is quite different from a commercial business demonstrating an aspect of performance required by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

For some time, the agency has recognized that it is important to require automatic belts to have a mechanism to permit the release of the belt after a crash. Therefore, on April 25, 1974 (39 FR 14593), the agency adopted a provision in Standard No. 208 which requires all automatic belt systems to incorporate an emergency release mechanism. The agency has also recognized that it is important for consumers to know how such systems operate. The agency has fully expected vehicle dealers and others to play a helpful role in providing that information to the consumer. For example, in November (Illegible Word) NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to permit the use of alternative types of emergency releases in automatic belts. In adopting that amendment, the agency emphasized that it did not believe that "the use of alternative release mechanisms will cause serious occupant egress problems if manufacturers take precautions to instruct vehicle owners how the systems work through the owner's manual and through their dealers." (43 FR 52494)

In addition to demonstrating how to get out of the automatic safety belt in an emergency, dealers will also have to show their customers how to gain access to the center seating position in a bench seat car equipped with automatic safety belts. Thus, given the need to educate the public about how the automatic restraint system functions, we do not consider it to be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) for a dealer to unbuckle or help consumers unbuckle their automatic safety belts. Hence, we cannot issue the legal interpretation you requested. We would expect that when dealers explain how an automatic belt system operates, they will also emphasize the important safety benefits of the automatic belts.

SINCERELY,

February 6, 1986

Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

In just six months, the auto industry must implement the single most important safety standard ever issued by the federal government -- the passive restraint requirement of FMVSS 208. How the industry carries out implementation will in large part determine the ultimate effectiveness of the standard. If the manufacturers make a good faith effort to comply with well-designed passive restraint systems, then at least 9,000 lives will be saved and 100,000 serious injuries prevented each year after full implementation.

Unfortunately, it appears that the world's largest auto maker, General Motors, will attempt to undermine this lifesaving standard by installing cumbersome automatic seat belts with window shade retractors that can be detached so easily they will encourage disconnection by dealers and consumers. [The GM automatic belt has a buckle to disconnect it with the window shade retractor conveniently rolling the loose belt up into the retractor.] GM is introducing this system over the express objections of safety groups and the criticism of the Supreme Court which asked in its unanimous decision overturning DOT's revocation of the passive restraint standard whether such automatic belt disconnects should be outlawed. Moreover, GM's easy-to-release but hard-to-wear automatic belts are particularly reprehensible given the fact that a smaller auto manufacturer, Volkswagen, has sold for the past ten years an automatic belt that is so easy to use that consumers don't want to disconnect it. DOT's own studies of the VW "easy rider" automatic belt show usage of over 80%. In contrast, GM's "hard rider" automatic belt is unlikely to obtain more than 15% usage.

Section 108 (a) (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any dealer from "knowingly [rendering] inoperative, in whole or in part, any device . . . installed . . . in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." The Center believes this clearly prohibits dealers from unbuckling or helping consumers to unbuckle their automatic seat belts. If they do so, they are liable for a $ 1,000 fine per car under Section 109 of the Act. Since the GM hard rider automatic belts are so cumbersome yet easy to disconnect, many GM dealers are likely to disconnect the automatic belts to better sell the cars in view of the competition from other manufacturers who have opted for easy rider automatic belts.

Accordingly, the Center petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue an interpretive legal opinion prior to the beginning of the 1987 model year that it is illegal for dealers to disconnect or help consumers to disconnect automatic belts under Section 108 of the Act and that violating dealers are subject to a $ 1,000 per vehicle fine.

Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director

cc: Sen. John Danforth Rep. Tim Wirth