ID: nht94-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1994

FROM: Platt, Debra, (Florida)

TO: Office Of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 10/26/94 From Philip R. Recht To Debra Platt (A42; STD, 222)

TEXT: Is a child partially sitting on a bus seat provided crash protection of Standard 222?

I am referring to the third child (older children) sitting on the remaining few inches of a bus seat, not able to face forward, but facing the seat across the aisle.

I implore you to respond as soon as possible. There is a possibility that the safety of many, many young lives are compromised daily.

ID: nht94-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1994

FROM: Gupta, Rishi, -- Autolite (India) Limited

TO: Van-Iderstine, Richard -- DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/26/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Rishi Gupta (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: We are developing a 7" round and a 200 x 142 mm rectangular replaceable halogen sealed beams. These replaceable halogen sealed beams use a replaceable halogen bulb (HB2) and are not same as Halogen Sealed Beam.

There is some confusion regarding exact position and type of aiming pads on the lenses on these lights. I am faxing you a copy of the aiming pad positions as per SAE as well as what we propose to develop. Please have a look at these drawings and let us know what we are proposing will conform to DOT specifications.

The aiming pads positions and sizes/types we are proposing are already being sold by Hella, Inc. as conforming to DOT specifications. I have also checked with ETL Testing Laboratories and they had agreed that the aiming pads positions and types we are p roposing conforms to DOT specifications.

Looking forward to hearing from you very soon.

(GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

ID: nht94-4.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Guy Dorleans -- Legal Compliance Department, Valeo Vision (France)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/15/94 from Guy Dorleans to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 15, 1994, asking whether certain front lamp designs would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In the basic front lamp design, the upper beam photometrics of Figure 17A would be provided by Lamps A and B. You have asked whether it is possible to add Lamp D, "an auxiliary driving beam." In this variation "all three A, B and D filaments would be p ermanently energized together in high beam mode and table 17a (sic) of FMVSS 108 is then fulfilled." Lamp D meets the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J581 JUN89 Auxiliary Driving Lamps.

The photometrics of Figure 17A apply to two-lamp integral beam or combination headlighting systems, and the design in your drawing is that of a four-lamp system, subject to the photometrics of Figure 15A. This configuration is not permissible under Stan dard NO. 108.

ID: nht94-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1994

FROM: Harold Sousa

TO: Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Harold Sousa (A43; Std. 121; Part 551)

TEXT: I represent a factory in Brazil that manufactures special product that prevents the air from escaping from the tires of trucks and buses. In addition, the product keeps the pressure in the tire in the case of a puncture.

This system uses air from the brake system of the vehicle if there is a hole in the tire, air will be supplied until the driver finds a place to repair or change the tire.

Several companies in Brazil have been using the air-system like an insurance requirement which avoids problems like:

* stopping on a highway or anywhere to change the tire therefore loosing time,

* if one of the double back tires is damaged, the system supplies air that won't overload the other tire, avoiding an explosion of the good tire.

I'm explaining this product because I would like to import this system from Brazil to the U.S.A. And I have to be sure that I am not breaking the laws of this country

I included a copy of this procedure installed in a wheel.

I hope to hear from you soon,

Enclosure

(Photo omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 1, 1994 EST

FROM: Williams, Harry L. Jr. -- President And Owner, Willy Lights Inc.

TO: NHTSA-Office Of The Chief Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/21/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Harry L. Williams, Jr. (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: I'm Harry L. Williams Jr. Inventor of WILLY LIGHTS following up on a letter I received from MR. GREG NOVAK Traffic and Safety Engr. FHWA Nevada Division. A copy of that letter is attached.

I'm writing in regards to my invention. I'm now in the process of marketing the product called WILLY LIGHTS. I feel that my product will help prevent accidents that is caused by a vehicle pulling out in front of another vehicle.

My product does not interfere with any standard safety equipment on a vehicle.

I would like to know if there still are no regulations prohibiting the use of lighted wheel rims. If not which color of lights may I use since it is on the side of the vehicle and you can not see the product from the front or rear of the vehicle.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at the above number.

Thank you for your time.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM THE DOT IN MINUTE - MEMO FORM:

SUBJECT REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

TO R J Bellard

I received a telephone call from Mr. Harry Williams (795-2334) requesting my assistance in the development of his invention to install lights on the wheel rims of vehicles. He was interested in learning about Federal regulations on such a device. I did not get further details but referred him to NHTSA in San Francisco. He called again after speaking to NHTSA there and on the Auto Safety Hot-line (1-800-424-9393) in Washington, D.C., saying that they said it was an FHWA matter. I agreed to follow up to minimize the [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] runaround he was getting, even though FHWA jurisdiction is very limited on vehicle equipment matters. I got some leads from Powell Harrison with NHTSA in San Francisco, and talked to the Crash Avoidance staff in D.C.

It appears that there are no regulations prohibiting the use of lighted wheel rims. Confirmation can be given if a written request is sent to:

NHTSA - Office of the Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

The lighted wheel rims could not, however, interfere with any standard safety equipment on a vehicle. That is handled by a self-certification statement from the manufacturer to NHTSA, so it would appear prudent for the inventor to have a copy of the vehicle standards for review beforehand. Although NHTSA will not test such a device initially because of policy, funding and manpower limitations, it may eventually purchase one once it is readily available in the marketplace. Such testing is done on a routine basis to be sure no regulations are violated and the product is free of defects. If defects are found, a recall notice could be issued. The manufacturer might have to pay damages to the purchasers in extreme cases. This quick summary in my in terpretation of NHTSA procedures after speaking with Mr. Larry Cook of the NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards - Crash Avoidance Division (NRM-II). I also spoke to Bill Leasure of the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Research - Heavy Vehicle Researc h Division (NRD-53) and he did not have any problems with the use of lighted wheel rims. He also did not have any funding to test the device.

I was referred, however, to the Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Mass. The Small Business Innovative Research Program is centered there, run by Mr. George Kouetch. I spoke to one of his assistants and found out that new devices are consid ered on an annual basis, with the next solicitation planned for February 1989. A committee reviews proposals that address identified problems, but it sounded like lighted wheel rims were outside the current list of problem areas. Funding for testing on ly those new devices recommended by the committee is available. A proposal could be sent in response to the next solicitation, or an unsolicited proposal could also be considered at the discretion of the committee. Any correspondence should be directed to:

Mr. George Kovatch

Transportation Systems Center (DTS-23)

Small Business Innovative Research Program

Cambridge, Mass 02412

Telephone (617) 494-2051

My general impression is that a considerable amount of preparatory work is required to get an invention to the general public. The cost of lighted wheel rims may make the idea hard to sell when there may not be that much of a problem with vehicle vis ibility (reflectors and sidelights are standard equipment on most vehicles). A cheaper alternative might be to provide retroreflective sheeting on the wheel rims or body side molding. A similar proposal is being considered for truck trailers but receiv ing resistance due to the added initial and maintenance cost involved. Lighted wheel rims may have application as an after-market device for enthusiasts to install as an option. As mentioned previously, it does not appear that there is a NHTSA regulati on prohibiting it.

I would recommend Mr. Harry Williams write to NHTSA to get written confirmation of that and obtain a copy of the associated vehicle safety regulations at the same time. He could review them and certify his device to be acceptable if it does not inter fere with any existing safety requirements. I will send him a copy of this minute memo to document my effort on his behalf.

cc: Powell Harrison, NHTSA Region 9

Larry Cook, NHTSA Washington D.C.

ID: nht94-4.19

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 2, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Collins -- Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, American Trucking Associations (Alexandria, VA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/18/94 from John Collins to John G. Womack (OCC 9876)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about a recent amendment to the supply line retention requirements in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You requested an interpretation of the test procedure set forth in S5.8.2 . That provision states, in relevant part that,

A trailer shall meet the above supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pressurized to 100 psi, and the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi.

Specifically, you believe that this provision means that (1) the test rig remains connected to the shop air, as shown in Figure 1, for the duration of the test, (2) the shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test, and (3) the pressure in the test rig's 1000 cubic inch reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test. I will address each of these suggested interpretations below.

The basic issue raised by your questions is whether the supply line retention test is conducted with air flowing from the test rig (simulating the flow of air from a tractor), or with the supply of air cut off. It is our opinion that this test is conduc ted with the air flowing from the test rig.

As you suggested in your letter, this result is implied by the language of S5.8.2. That section states that a trailer must meet the supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig, and with the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi. There would be no reason to set the regulator at 100 psi if air was not flowing from the test rig. We therefore agree with the first of your three suggested interpretations, that the test rig remains connected to the shop air f or the duration of the test.

We similarly agree with the second of your suggested interpretations, that the shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test. S5.8.2 does not specify that this valve be shut, and such shutting would be inconsistent with conduct ing the test with air flowing from the test rig.

Your third suggested interpretation is that the pressure in the test rig's 1000 cubic inch reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test. We note that no special efforts are made to maintain this pressure at 100 psi. As indicated above, S5.8.2 specifies that the reservoir of the test rig is INITIALLY set at 100 psi; the pressure could vary during the test. However, as indicated above, 100 psi air pressure would continue to flow through the regulator during the test in the direction of the reservoir.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gene Byrd -- Anderson Technology

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 7/20/94: Letter from Gene Byrd to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 10206)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to former Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice asking about the requirements of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses, for reusable air brake hose end fittings. You indicate that you intend to produce these end fittings for use with SAE J844 pl astic tubing. You also state that you have filed a manufacturer's designation with NHTSA, in accordance with S7.2.2(b) of Standard 106.

You asked for confirmation that seven requirements in FMVSS 106 apply to reusable end fittings. The requirements you listed were: S7.2.2 (labeling); 7.3.1 (constriction); 7.3.8 (air pressure); 7.3.9 (burst strength); 7.3.10 (tensile strength); 7.3.11 (w ater absorption and tensile strength); and 7.3.13 (end fitting corrosion). Your understanding is essentially correct, with the following clarification.

You are correct that each of these sections specifies a level of performance which is dependent on the performance of the end fitting. However, other than for S7.2.2 and 7.3.13, these requirements apply to air brake hose assemblies, and not to end fitti ngs. This is relevant for purposes of determining the requirements for which an end fitting manufacturer would have to certify compliance. If you were only manufacturing and selling the end fitting, you would be responsible for certifying only to S7.2. 2 and 7.3.13, since these requirements apply to end fittings (and not to "assemblies"). As a practical matter, however, the assembly manufacturer would probably seek assurances from you that your end fitting will perform in a manner that will enable the manufacturer's assembly to meet the air brake hose assembly requirements of the standard.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's regulation for "Manufacturer Identification" (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hose end fittings) to submit its name, add ress, and a brief description of the

items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it begins manufacture. I have also enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes other responsibilities for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equip ment. n1

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

I hope this answers your question. If you need other assistance, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht94-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 2, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul Frink -- Engineering Manager, Avionic Structures, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 07/11/94 from Paul Frink to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 10177)

TEXT: This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206).

Your letter stated that your company manufacturers a door and frame system designed for installation on a "recreational motor home," which you described as a self-propelled, self-contained recreational vehicle seating six and with a gross vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds. The door system is installed on the right front side of the vehicle and is the primary means of ingress/egress. You stated that the door's latch/striker assembly is purchased from Tri-Mark Corporation, and that Tri/Mark a ssures you that the latch/striker assembly conforms to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. You ask what the classification of the vehicle would be and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply to the door in question.

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. T he statute establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency ensures compliance by purchasing vehicles and/or equipment in the retail market and testing them as set f orth in the applicable standards. If the vehicle or equipment is found to meet the requirements of the standards, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or equipment fails to meet the standards, the manufacturer is responsible for correcting the no ncompliance(s) at no cost to the purchaser. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy t he defect free of charge.

For the purposes of the FMVSSs, NHTSA classifies motor vehicles as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers. From your description, the vehicle concerned would be classified as an MPV, which is def ined in the definitions section of our FMVSSs (49 CFR 571.3; see enclosed) as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

You first ask about the classification of the vehicle and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply. FMVSS No. 206 (copy enclosed) applies to passenger cars, MPVs and trucks. Since the vehicle on which your door and frame system will be installed is an MPV, th e standard would apply to the vehicle. The standard requires that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, components on any side door leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating accommodations must comply with the requiremen ts of the standard (see S4 of FMVSS No. 206). The door in question meets this description of S4. According to your letter, there is a step area extending from the door opening into the coach and the passenger seat closest to the door is behind this ste p area. The presence of the step area does not negate the fact that the door in question leads directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Thus, the components of the door must comply with the requirements of FMVSS 206.

To clarify your understanding of the applicability of FMVSS No. 206, the standard applies to new completed vehicles. Therefore, it would be the vehicle manufacturer who would "certify" compliance with the standard, not the various manufacturers of the c omponents of the door lock system. Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer will rely on the assurances of the suppliers, such as Avionic and Tri-Mark, that the components conform to the requirements of the applicable standards, in making the certification to FMVSS No. 206. However, the vehicle manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 206, and therefore must determine whether those assurances are bona fide.

Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets issued by this agency entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" n1 and "Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations," respectively.

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

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

ID: nht94-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 2, 1994

FROM: Tom Determan -- Eng. Mgr., Brownie Tank Mfg. Co.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO TOM DETERMAN (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: We are seeking a formal written interpretation regarding 49 CFR, Part 571.108, specifically in regards to the height requirements for side marker lamps and reflex reflectors.

We build tank trucks, over 80" wide, for the transport of petroleum products. Our customers are being cited for having reflex reflectors and marker lamps mounted too high on the vehicle.

We understand the rule to require that side marker lamps must be mounted at any height above 15" from ground level, and reflex reflectors must be mounted between 15" and 60" from ground level.

We believe the enforcement personnel may be applying the rule, as it pertains to trailers, to our vehicle, which is not a trailer.

Please review the rule, and issue a written interpretation. If the rule is interpreted as we believe, we will forward this interpretation to the enforcement personnel. If Brownie Tank is in error, we will change the installation position of the lights and reflectors on our tanks.

Your expeditious reply will be appreciated.

ID: nht94-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Ori, Manager -- Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Harrisburg, PA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 05/06/94 from David L. Ori to Jim Gilkey (OCC 9977)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. James Gilkey of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 to certain limousines. You were co ncerned about the permissibility of applying sun screening or window tinting to such vehicles during the original manufacturing process, and during the "second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Und er this authority, NHTSA issued Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," to specify performance requirements for various types of glazing and to specify the location in the vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. One provision in Standard No. 205 requires a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance in any glazing area requisite for driving visibility. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the vehicles's windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor v ehicle crash.

NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 205. As you correctly state, second stage manufacturers and alterers also have cer tification responsibilities. Specifically, a final stage manufacturer is responsible for certifying a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR @ 567.5. Accordingly, you are correct that a final stage manufacturer is required to certify that its finished product, incl uding the glazing materials, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards. 49 CFR @ 567.7. However, this provision does not apply to the "addition, substitution, or removal of readily attach able components ... or minor finishing operations, such as painting." NHTSA views the addition of window tint film as a "minor finishing operation." Accordingly, a person adding such tint film would not be considered an alterer and therefore would not be subject to certification responsibilities.

However, aside from certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30112a, "a person may not ... sell, offer for sale, [or] introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce ... any motor vehicle...unless the vehicle...complies with [ all applicable standards]." Thus, it would be a violation of the statute to sell a new vehicle whose windows which are requisite for driving visibility had been tinted to allow less than 70 percent light transmittance.

Moreover, with respect to vehicles that are no longer new, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor veh icle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." Thus, a person in any of these categories may not apply tint film that would cause the light transmittance of the glazing requisite for driving visibility to be under 70 perc ent.

You stated your belief that limousines that seat less than 10 persons may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product, since such products would violate Standard No. 205. We wish to clarify one aspect of your statement. Limousines that seat less than 10 persons are considered "passenger cars" n1 under NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA considers all windows in a passenger car to be requisite for driving visibility; accordingly, all windows in a passenger car/limousine must have a minimum 70 percent light transmittance. However, please note that tinting may be used in these vehicles, provided the tinted windows meet the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

n1 The agency defines "passenger car" as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less." In turn, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as a "motor v ehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A "bus" is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trail er, designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

You further asked whether a limousine that seats 10 or more persons is subject to the Federal window tinting requirements. A limousine with a capacity of more than 10 persons is considered a "bus" under our regulations. There are specific requirements in Standard No. 205 that apply to buses (or bus/limousines). Under these requirements, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered to be requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dua l outside mirrors satisfying section S6.1 (b) of Standard No. 111), and thus subject to the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in a bus/limousine, including the rear side and rear windows, are not r equired to meet the light transmittance requirement. Accordingly, Standard No. 205 does not prohibit the use of tinted glazing materials for bus/limousine windows to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is equipped with dual outside mirrors larger th an those usually used on passenger cars.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.