ID: 86-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carol Lembke -- CL's Crafts and Florals

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Carol Lembke CL's Crafts & Florals 905 Cedar Street Charles City, Iowa 50616

This is in response to your letter of October 30, 1985, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have asked about the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of "animals with lights in their eyes that work with the turn signals and brake lights to go in the backs of cars. The eyes are in red or amber".

We assume that you wish to sell these as accessories available in the aftermarket and not as original vehicle equipment. As these are not items of replacement lighting equipment but intended to supplement a vehicle's existing turn signal or stop lamp system, they are not covered by Standard No. 108 and their legality would be determined under the laws of a State where they would be in use. For example, you have told us that Iowa would allow these supplemental lamps. We recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators once more, inform them that there is no Federal prohibition on this use, and ask their advice.

You have mentioned the center high-mounted stop lamp and whether your lights might be acceptable on cars of a certain age, and not on others. Standard No. 108 requires that each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, be equipped with a third stop lamp mounted on the rear centerline not lower than three inches below the rear window (six inches on convertibles). In the initial year of use, the most frequently used area for mounting the lamp is the interior parcel shelf, where we presume that your supplemental lamp would be installed. Because your light would not meet the requirements for the center mounted lamp, it would be a violation of Federal law for a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business to remove the center mounted stop lamp and install your device. However, if the center mounted lamp is located in a place other than the parcel shelf, there would be no legal prohibition under Standard No. 108 forbidding the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CL's Crafts & Florals 905 Cedar St. Charles City, Iowa 50616 October 30, 1985 Taylor Vinson NHTSA - Legal Counsel 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St., SW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sir: I am writing to ask assistance on the legality of a craft item I am making. I have a craft shop and attend craft shows. Recently I started making animals with lights in their eyes that work with the turn signals and brake lights to go in the back of the cars. The eyes are in red or amber. I checked with the Iowa State DOT and was told they would be ok since they were an ornament as long as they did not block view and had red or amber eyes. I've spoken to a Small Business Representative whom suggested I go mail order or sell to stores. I've also had interest from Florida and a Rod and Custom Club since they represent the fads of the 50's and 60's. I then became concerned about going into other states, their state laws and Federal laws that might not permit this item to be sold. I don't want to invest money and lots of time into this craft item only to find out that it is illegal and could come back on me. I've been told that a possible conflict could be a code number FMVSS 108. Something having to do with the new laws on the standard center mount lighting. I'm also wondering if this lighted animal might be ok for certain age cars and not others? I've made calls to DC to: American Assoc. of Motor Vehicles, NHTSA, and Federal Motor Vehicle Dept. of Trans. - only to get passed from one department to another till finally I was told to contact your office for assistance. I'm beginning to feel that this is one of those times that I should have taken my chances instead of trying to check things out to be legal. The interest is mounting in our Auto Animals for Christmas gifts and I have another show Nov. 9th. I would appreciate your response as soon as possible so that I will know if I can go ahead or not. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol Lembke 905 Cedar St. Charles City, IA 50616 Phone: 515-228-6913

ID: 86-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: D. Moens -- Sales Engineer, Van Hool N.V. (Belgium)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. D. Moens Sales Engineer Van Hool N.V. Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58 B-2578 Lier Koningshooikt, Belgium

This responds to your October 10, 1985 letter to this agency requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. You asked whether FMVSS No. 217 allows the use of sliding roof emergency exits. The answer to your question depends on the location of the release mechanism and the direction in which the mechanism operates relative to the surface of the closed exit. As explained below, if the release mechanism falls in the area of high force application, i.e., the area of the bus in which high operating forces may be used, then the answer to your question is no.

According to your letter, you provide two roof hatches on your buses, in the front and rear of the vehicles, although the front roof hatch is not needed to meet the unobstructed openings requirement of Standard No. 217. The roof hatches would slide open rather than push out, and would be opened by a handle which is located in the region of high force application as shown in Figure 3B of the standard.

Standard No. 217 requires buses to be equipped with emergency exits and specifies requirements that all emergency exits must meet. Paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that a roof exit may be installed on buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit. The roof exit must meet the requirements of paragraphs S5.3 through S5.5. Under S5.3.2, the direction of required force application in the high force access region is straight and perpendicular to the exit surface. Since your exit is designed so that the force is applied parallel to the exit surface, it does not comply with S5.3.2.

Of course, your roof emergency exit must meet all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 217. You should note that under S5.3.1, a roof exit must provide for a release mechanism, located within the regions depicted in Figure 3B of the standard. The release mechanism must be operated by one or two force applications which comply with S5.3.2. Further, S5.5 sets certain identification requirements for roof emergency exits.

You stated that the roof exit installed in the forward half of the bus does not need to be counted to satisfy the unobstructed openings requirement of Standard No. 217. Exits that are not labeled or intended as emergency exits need not meet the emergency exit requirements of FMVSS No. 217.

You asked what consequences would follow if we determine that your sliding roof exit does not comply with FMVSS No. 217. That standard was issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act requires manufacturers to comply with all applicable safety standards. It also requires them to notify purchasers of their motor vehicles of safety-related defects and failures to comply with the safety standards, and to remedy such defects and noncompliances without charge. Violations of the Act's requirements are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum $800,000 for a related series of violations. Under the regulations set forth in Part 556 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed), manufacturers may petition NHTSA for an exemption from the Act's notice and remedy requirements if they believe that the defect or noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. However, if the agency denies such a petition, all duties relating to notice and remedy of the defect or noncompliance contained in the Vehicle Safety Act are continued in force against the manufacturer.

Mr. Sebastian Messina of the New Jersey Department of Transportation has contacted us concerning the sliding emergency exits on your buses. We are sending him a copy of this letter for his information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

NHTSA Chief Council Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller 400 7th Street SW Washington DC 20590 USA

VIA AIR MAIL

AFDELING: Eng. Dept. BIN TELEF: 419 ONZE REF: DM/cb/13.979 B-2578 LIER - KONINGSHOOIKT: 10.10.85

Dear Sirs,

Re.: Emergency roof hatch Ref: Standard no. 217, Bus window retention and release

Van Hool are Belgian bus and trailer manufacturers, with a production capacity of 1500 buses and 4000 trailers and semi-trailers a year. For your information you will find enclosed a general presentation leaflet.

After the information we got by phone from the New Jersey D.O.T. with the statement that they will not accept our sliding type emergency roof hatches anymore, we would like to make clear to you the functioning of our type of roof hatches, Please find enclosed some copies explaining the system. We do not intend to tell what is right or wrong or express our displeasure, nor do we have doubts about the objectivity of the New Jersey D.O.T. However an investigation from your side of our system and a judgement would be appreciated as we have to deal with other States which rely on the Federal decisions and Standards.

Two completely finished buses and one almost finished bus are ready to be shipped to the USA; they are still equipped with the sliding type emergency roof hatches. So if your judgement should be negative we would like to get a derogation for those 3 buses because in the meantime they will already be shipped to the U.S.A.

Please also note that, in case of a negative judgement, we have yet studied other types of American made roof hatches, for future deliveries.

We thank you for an early reply and remain,

Yours sincerely,

N.V. VAN HOOL

D. MOENS Sales Engineer Enclosures - explanation of functioning

Explanation of functioning

1. The 2 roof hatches are situated in the centre of the roof, one in the first half of the bus and one in the rear half, in the access region for high forces (magnitude of not more than 60 pounds).

In fact we only need the rear one to replace the rear exit.

But as we use them also for ventilation we are mounting 2.

2. The roof hatch can be opened manual by s single occupant and one motion, sliding backwards, parallel to the exit surface.

3. Magnitude: 56 pounds.

4. The free unobstructed opening is: 31 inches x 21 inches.

ID: 86-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/86

FROM: J.L HENDRICKS -- PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER, CUMMINGS ENGINE COMPANY INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/04/86, TO J.L. HENDRICKS FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29; PART 573.7

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Cummins Engine Company, Inc. manufactures both on and off-highway heavy-duty diesel engines and related engine products. Cummins is a non-integrated engine manufacturer and, therefore, has no control over which chassis or engine combination the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) will select as the final vehicle configuration.

The problem I wish to address, and solicit assistance from your office, deals with the difficulty of non-integrated engine manufacturers identifying ultimater purchasers as required by 49 CFR, Part 573, 573.7 "Purchaser and Owner List," during safety defect campaign.

Cummins Engine Company recently experienced a voluntary safety recall campaign (NTSA 85E-016) regarding a potential defective assembly of a fuel pump throttle lever. During Cummins' attempts to survey state registration records we have discovered that the State of Connecticut requires a formal declaration of vehicle identification numbers (VIN'S) and justification regarding the reason for conducting a search of justification regarding the reason for conducting a search of their vehicle registration files. Additionally, this process requires the services of a third party agent who, by some contractual agreement, obtains the registration information, and after approval of the specific authority, develops appropriate information and analysis computer tapes for re-sale.

Cummins primary concern does not deal with the reasons each state may have in designing security measures for vehicle registration; on the contrary, we respect the right of individual privacy and the measures each state may use to safeguard their private citizens. However, we are concerned about the additional length of time required to notify each owner under Connecticut's present system.

Unlike light-duty passenger car owners, which tend to be stationary, heavy-duty truck owner/operators can be very mobile in their operations and registration practices. Often times the owner/operator has either moved their operations to take advantage of various freight markets, or has transferred ownership for many diverse reasons. In many instances we cannot provide the respective state bureau of motor vehicles with a current owner name at the time we are soliciting information due to lead time constraints and the mobility of owner/operators.

In an attempt to improve our ability to notify consumers during safety recall campaigns, Cummins is requesting that your office forward a letter to the state of Connecticut Bureau of Motor Vehicles and solicit their assistance in negotiating with Cummins, a program that could mutually protect their citizenry and enable us to maintain an on-going system to obtain vehicle registration on a timely basis.

Cummins would also appreciate a review of all states' policies regarding the accessibility of vehicle registrations. Preferably Cummins would encourage each state Department of Motor Vehicles to allow direct negotiations between them and manufacturers, without the delay of third party agents. However, that is a level of detail for negotiation with each of the respective states.

The following Connecticut contact person and address is being provided for your disposition:

Letter to: Honorable Benjamin A. Muzio

Commissioner Department of Motor Vehicles 60 State Street Wethersfield, CT 06109

Copy to: Honorable Peter Russo Assistant Commissioner

Because of the potential safety exposure to our trucking patrons during safety recall campaigns, we request your response to this issue as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/13/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert R. Gregg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 13, 1986 Mr. Robert R. Gregg Metzeler Motorcycle Tire Agent Gregg, Inc. 144 Railroad Avenue Suite 215 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Gregg: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR Part 571.119). Specifically, you asked if a motorcycle could have its maximum load capacity labeled on the sidewall as follows: At 60 MPH Max load lbs. at psi cold. Such labeling would violate Standard No. 119, as explained below. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewall of all tires to which the standard applies. Section S6.5(d) requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on all motorcycle tires as follows: Max load lbs at psi cold. No speed rating or restriction may be given in conjunction with the maximum load rating on the sidewall of the tire. That rating, as its name implies, is intended to alert consumers to the tire's maximum capabilities. A manufacturer may label a speed restriction on its tires to alert consumers to the tire's maximum speed if that maximum is 55 miles per hour (mph) or less. Section S6.5(e) permits speed restrictions of 55 mph or less to be labeled on the sidewall of the tire as follows: Max speed mph. However, this provision of Standard No. 119 would not allow you to assign a speed restriction of 60 mph to these motorcycle tires. First, no speed restriction in excess of 55mph may be assigned to any tires; see Table III in Standard No. 119. Second, all motorcycle tires are subject to the high speed test, regardless of any speed restrictions; see S6.3 of Standard No. 119. During the high speed test, the tire is subjected to speeds up to and including 85 mph. Parenthetically, I should add that even if speed restrictions of more than 55 mph were allowed, this particular tire would not be a candidate for a speed restriction of 60 mph. You stated in your letter that these tires actually are assigned an H speed rating. Under the speed rating system used in Europe, an H speed rating on a motorcycle tire means the tire is capable of being used at speeds up to 130 mph. Assuming you have used the speed rating accurately, there is no basis for implying that these tires are not capable of speeds greater than 60 mph.

As stated above, the purpose of the maximum load ratings is to alert consumers to the tire's maximum capabilities. The agency knows that the maximum load that can safely be carried by a tire varies with the speed at which the tire is driven. Allowing tire manufacturers to specify a maximum load based on an artificial speed restriction of 60 mph would result in the tires being overloaded if the consumer were to exceed 60 mph. Overloaded tires are substantially more likely to experience a tire failure than properly loaded tires. Since the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 119 is to provide consumers with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the tires, the standard does not permit tire manufacturers to provide information that will result in the tires being overloaded whenever an artificial speed restriction is exceeded. If you have any further questions or need more information in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Finbarr J. O'Neill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 21, 1986 Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq. General Counsel Hydundia Motor America 7373 Hunt Avenue P.O. Box 2669 Garden Grove, CA 92642-2669 Dear Mr. O'Neill: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, concerning the color of the highbeam telltale. You stated that while Table 2 of the standard indicates that a manufacturer has the option of choosing a green or blue telltale, your review of competitive vehicles shows that virtually all have chosen blue telltales. You asked whether NHTSA has taken any position as to whether one color is preferable to the other. You also asked for comment on whether NHTSA has taken any position as to whether one color is preferable to the other. You also asked for comment on whether NHTSA has any reasonable anticipation of changing this requirement. I would note that in the past NHTSA required the highbeam telltale to be blue. That color was selected primarily to promote international harmonization of standards regulating vehicle controls and displays. Blue is the color requirement of the International Standards Organization, the Economic Commission for Europe, and the European Economic Community. On January 21, 1982, NHTSA amended Standard No. 101 to permit green as an alternative to blue (47 FR 2996). The purpose of the change was to allow the use of light emitting diode technology, which at that time could not produce the color blue. While we do not have a preference as such as to how manufacturers choose to meet our standards, we would note that use of the color blue tends to promote international harmonization. On September 12, 1985, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (50 FR 37240) a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 101. Among other things, the proposal concerns color requirements for electronic displays. See 50 FR 37244. We have enclosed a copy of the notice for your convenience. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steward Stanley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Steward Stanley Junge Baking Company 3102 Ohio Place Joplin, MO 64801

Dear Mr. Stanley:

This responds to your letter dated November 8, 1985, inquiring whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulation apply to electric vehicles. They do so apply.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Under the Act. NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations for motor vehicles and their equipment. Under section 102(3) of the Act, a motor vehicle means "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. Therefore, since electric vehicles are "drawn by mechanical power," they must comply with Federal requirements.

Enclosed are an information sheet for new manufacturers, a form for ordering copies of safety standards and regulations, and a copy of 49 Part 555. Under Part 555, manufacturers of motor vehicles may apply for a temporary exemption from these safety standards, for a period up to three years, if the exemption would facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle and would not unreasonably degrade the safety of such vehicle. A copy of a report prepared by this agency. "Applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards to Electric and Hybrid Vehicles," is also enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

Administrator Nat'l. Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C.

I am told that your office has no rules or regulations (other than bodies be equipped with seat belts) as pertains to Electric Vehicles.

If it is true I would appreciate you confirming that otherwise I would like to have a copy of that provision that deals with such vehicles.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Stewart Stanley 3102 Ohio Place Joplin, Mo. 64801

SMS:vb

ID: 86-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION -NHTSA

DATE: 04/01/86

FROM: WILLA BLACK KENNEDY, -- STAFF JOINT INTERIM COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARKANSAS BUREAU OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/25/86, TO WILLA BLACK KENNEDY, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29, HSPS 17

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The Joint Interim Committee on Public Transportation of the Arkansas General Assembly has established a special subcommittee to conduct a study of the need for laws regulating maintenance and licensing drivers of used buses being purchased by nonprofit organizations and churches for transportation of their members. For the purpose of this study, the term "old buses" or "used buses" shall mean buses of the type used by public and private schools for the transportation of children, and buses owned and used by bus companies and municipal and interurban transit authorities for the transportation of persons for hire, which have been acquired by private individuals, firms or group and which are operated for the transportation of persons, other than the members of their own families, upon the public highways and streets of this State.

Section one of this study is stated as follows:

"Whereas, it is unclear whether current regulations of the Department of Transportation apply to buses being utilized for non-commercial purposes to transport the members of nonprofit organizations and churches; and ..."

Would you please provide a written interpretation regarding this section so that it may be presented to the committee. Specifically, do current Department of Transportation regulations dealing with school buses or transit buses apply to the used buses in these modes (school/transit) that are sold and are being utilized for non-commercial purposes to transport the members of nonprofit organizations and churches?

I would appreciate your expeditious response to this request so that I may proceed with the committee study. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

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.