ID: nht87-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/04/87

FROM: WARD W REESER -- PROJECT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, CATERPILLAR INCORPORATION

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/08/88 TO WARD W. REESER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32(2) VSA 102

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

Caterpillar Inc. has initiated a program to review all of the lighting used on the entire Caterpillar product line throughout the world. We are attempting to standardize wherever possible those devices used in the U.S. and Canada, Europe, Japan, and Aus tralia.

As you are aware, this line of construction and industrial equipment is basically for off-highway use. There are occasional uses on the highway for such equipment as motor graders, but obviously none of this equipment is designed for normal highway use or for the transportation of people.

Specifically, we need to know if there are any lighting devices required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for the line of products shown in the attached brochure. An early reply would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

[CATERPILLAR INCORPORATION BROCHURE OMITTED]

ID: nht87-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/04/87

FROM: PAUL L. PETERSCHMIDT -- DIRECTOR, BIOMASS RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

TO: GEORGE PARKER -- ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KEITH E. MADDEN, REDBOOK A33(2), CUSTOM REGULATIONS; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM KENNETH E. MADDEN TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 3106

TEXT: Dear Mr. Parker:

This letter is in regard to importation of "Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" (P.L. 89-563 Sects. 108 and 114, 19 C.F.R. 12.80) and related to DOT Form HS 7, Item 7.

The vehicles involved in this request for importation would be classified (under Item 7) as being imported solely for the purpose of test and experiment. The purpose of this letter is to explain the objectives of our research program and the need for th is undertaking.

BACKGROUND

Brazil has in the order of 1.3 million vehicles on the road which are fueled by "neat" ethanol, which is also referred to as hydrous ethanol. The hydrous azeotropic product of ethanol distillation has to be dehydrated to the anhydrous form to be involve d in blending operations with gasoline in this country. The hydrous ethanol fuel for the Brazilian vehicles has a typical analysis of 95% ethanol and 5% water. Today the vast majority of the new over the road passenger vehicles and light trucks in Braz il are ethanol dedicated designs. The use of ethanol as the only fuel was inaugerated about ten years ago, and prompted by the lack of natural petroleum reserves in Brazil. The production of significant numbers of over the road passenger vehicles was in augerated in the early part of this decade, and the production rate has been increasing ever since. About 90% of Ford Brazil's over the road passenger car production models are ethanol fueled vehicles.

During this period (the decade of the 1980's) little, if anything has been done to evaluate these vehicles in the U.S. in terms of performance, economics, exhaust gas composition, emission controls, fuel economy-ambient problems, durability, the material s of construction to accomodate the ethanol fuel, maintenance, power trained design, fuel composition (there are no denaturants used in Brazil), cold weather starting, hot weather Reed vapor pressure problems, etc.

To our knowledge there has been practically no importation of these over the road ethanol vehicles primarily because of a lack of any comprehensive testing programs, and the lack of import approval by the EPA and the DOT. Also the provisions for either re-exporting the vehicles or destroying the vehicles after one year was an obvious deterrent. It is also significant that in the recent "Fuel Ethanol Cost-Effective Study" which was prepared by the National Advisory Panel on Cost Effectiveness of Fuel E thanol Production, published in November of 1987, the accompanying bibliography cited ten pages of references (125) and only one reference was a reference to Brazilian technology in ethanol vehicles. This one reference had to do with "Automotive Use of Alcohol in Brazil and Air Pollution Related Aspects. SAE Technical Paper 850390, February 1985." This University has been involved in research on the production economics of ethanol and utilization throughout this decade. In 1983 we were provided with a Ford-Brazilian designed prototype tractor (which was a modified 4600 design), one of seven in the world, which was ethanol fueled. We tested the unit under field operating conditions for approximately 20 months. The unit was considered a "dedicated" ethanol design and brought into this country by Ford Tractor operations at Troy, Michigan. The unit was equipped with a number of design features which enabled it to perform effectively in cold weather conditions. The tractor was placed on a research f arm operated by Pioneer Hi-Bred International near Iowa City and was used for farm tasks ranging from a feedlot operation through forage operation and silo filling.

The unit was heavily instrumented and a large body of information collected involving cold and hot weather operating characteristics, and its general economy of operation was compared to conventional diesel fueled units that were performing similar tasks . Because of the prototype nature of the test unit, data was not published as Ford Tractor Operations was considering the potential sale of the design in this country.

The unit did go into production in Brazil and eight production prototypes are in an evaluation program by the Illinois DOT.

CURRENT SITUATION

The units we wish to import will be either the F-100 Ford pickup (upon which you already have specifications) or the F-1000, which is about 3.6 liters and somewhat comparable to the Ford "Ranger" produced in this country. It should be pointed out tha t Ford Brazil has, as of the first of July merged with Volkswagen in Brazil. They have formed a company named "Auto-Latino". The company does produce some gasoline fueled vehicles that are imported into this country under the name of the Volkswagon Fox . The manager of Volkswagen altered the executive responsibilities of several of the people with whom we had maintained liaison at Ford Brazil. It should also be pointed out that we made our original inquiries to Ford Brazil over two years ago regardin g the importation of their over the road vehicles and obtained the necessary clearances that we needed from that end but we did not follow through on our programming of a test project because of lack of funds. The following is the program that we will m anage in the testing of the three vehicles we request approval to import.

OBJECTIVES

The overall efficiency of the dedicated ethanol fueled vehicles has been continually improving -- to a point where a 3 to 4% increase in efficiency would balance out the difference in BTU values of gasoline versus ethanol. (Gasoline being approximately 110,000 BTU and ethanol being approximately 85,000 BTU). * The dedicated ethanol spark injection engine had traditionally been more fuel efficient than its gasoline counterpart.

* per U.S. Gallon

The objective of this test is three-fold:

1. To determine the efficiency of the Brazilian units and what improvements might be made by the use of fuel injection, and alternate fuel composition.

2. To determine the operational economics of the Brazilian vehicles as compared to similar gasoline fueled vehicles, using current gasoline prices and current ethanol production costs.

3. Evaluate the ambient effects (particularly cold weather) on vehicle operation (particularly engine starting) and classify them as to degrees of difficulty and outline corrective measures.

4. Evaluate alternate fuel compositions (i.e. use of detergents as a denaturant).

5. Evaluate emissions and determine the need (if any) for control procedures.

6. Evaluate the procedures for fuel handling and establishing compliance with BATF.

7. Evaluate potential customer acceptance.

8. Set a time frame (if possible) for on going research or commercial development.

TEST PROCEDURES

The units would be tested in an agricultural environment for a number of reasons, among which is to minimize the problems of fuel handling. Typical farmers today will have at least two or possibly three fuels in storage (gasoline, diesel and LPG). The arrangement would eliminate the need for service station type distribution in the area.

1. Data Loging. Each research vehicle would be equipped with a Omnidata data loger which would have a 16 channel input with a 64,000 character storage and would be capable of monotoring the performance of the vehicle for a 20 hour period which would no rmally encompass two weeks of anticipated activity. Although not all of the specific inputs have been defined those that would be monitoroed include: RPM of the crank shaft (tachometer), RPM of the output shaft from the transmission, ground speed of the vehicle, fuel consumption rate, coolant temperature, outdoor ambient, exhaust manifold temperature, intake manifold temperature, fuel temperature, real time and combustion air intake temperature (for carbonated units). These readings would be sampled an d loged every 10 - 20 seconds.

The data loger and the associated sensory equipment would be installed by the Automotive Technology Section of the Carroll branch of the Des Moines Area Community College (DEMAC). Every one or two weeks (depending on usage patterns) the data logers woul d be off loaded into a 1500 Zenith portable computer which is compatible to the data loger. This would be done at the Automotive and Agricultural Engineering Vocational Center at the Audubon Community High School in Audubon. The data from the Zenith un it would then be transfered to an IBM PC/AT at the Audubon Industrial Development Corporation for evaluation.

2. Fuel Analysis and Formulations. Preliminary arrangements have been made with a fuel alcohol plant, ADCII * at Hamburg, Iowa. This arrangement has been tentatively sanctioned by the BATF's regional office in Chicago. The hydrous ethanol fuel from t he ADCII would be sold to an ethonal fuels research company in the Audubon area which would have a permit from the BATF to do experimental research and evaluations of ethanol fuels. This would include analysis of denaturants that are inherent in the fue l prior to the cyclohexane or molecular sieve dehydration of the ethanol to the anhydrous form (which is the normal product sold by the Hamburg facility), detergents and other additives that would be incorporated in the fuel, which would then be evaluate d by the BATF to determine if these components would constitute a legal denaturant.

* or ADC-II

An analysis of performance of the U.S. fuel would be compared against the performances of the Brazilian fuel composition. To the extent possible an attempt would be made to emulate the conditions and analysis of the Brazilian produced hydrous ethanol fu el.

3. Maintenance Analysis. Periodically the units would be returned to the Automotive Technology Section of the Carroll Branch of DEMAC. Specialized personnel teaching courses in automotive technology will compare maintenance requirements with those tha t have been experienced by the Brazilian producers of the units.

Particular attention would be given to the cold weather operating conditions to determine if the lower temperatures being experienced in Iowa would have any unusual effect upon normal engine performance.

At the time the vehicles are acquired the Brazilian Manufacturer will recommend a package of spare parts that will be imported with the vehicles.

4. Emissions Testing. Equipment is being secured to enable emissions testing. This equipment was designed for conventional gasoline fueled vehicles. It is not known if this will be adequate to provide the necessary data for the EPA. It may be necessar y to ship emission samples to the University for a more detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis, particularly in regard to aldehydes. To our knowledge there is no testing equipment currently available that is designed specifically for ethanol fue led vehicles.

DESIGN MODIFICATIONS

It is anticipated that some modification for cold weather starting of these vehicles may be necessary. This is in an area in which the University of Iowa has gained considerable experience in its research work with Ford Tractor Operations, which include d a combination of block heaters, preheated intake air (which is passed over the exhaust manifold), fueled heaters, propane starting fuel plus a number of other design alternatives with which we are aware. In addition one of the units should possibly be factory equipped with a fuel injection system. It is anticipated, however, that the fuel injection may have to be a retrofit, and this eventuality has already inaugerated a search for appropriate hardware. We also have the advantage of using the Centr al Scientific Research Laboratory on alternative fuels in Ford-Dearborn for design-engineer counsel.

SELECTION OF SPECIFIC SITES FOR VEHICLE TESTING

It has been understood by all concerned that this test program is not being inaugerated for publicity purposes or to sell some sort of public relations image. The units will be tested in an environment that is strictly rural. Although it will be known i n the small community of Audubon that these tests are taking place, there is no intention to encourage public demonstration of these vehicles during the test period, other than what is unavoidable. The location of the units will be selected by a three m an committee that are all Audubon area locals who are either farmers, or have local business interests.

The units are to be used in the same pattern and to perform the same tasks as would be typical for a light weight pickup employed on the farm -- which would include hauling small loads, and farm to city to school travel. It is anticipated that the vehic les would be housed each night on the farmstead. The vehicle operators would carry their own insurance on the vehicle, although the licensing and ownership would be considered as part of the state vehicle fleet titled to the University of Iowa and would carry a state licensing, the latter to be sanctioned through the Vehicle Registration of the Motor Vehicles Division of the Iowa DOT.

TAXES.

There would be no state tax on the ethanol fuel used in the vehicles as this activity would be considered as "in the public service". As mentioned, the vehicles would be owned by the University of Iowa as test and research vehicles.

SUMMARY.

There is a large body of knowledge on the operation and economics of dedicated, ethanol fuel over the road vehicles that has never been scientifically evaluated. There are over a million of these vehicles on the road in Brazil.

This University has, for most of the decade, been involved in evaluating the technical and economic aspects of ethanol produced from corn and ethanol utilization. This University has also done much work in corn utilization in general.

The principle objectives of this project is to establish, using state-of-the-art production -- engineering design, where ethanol fueled vehicles are -- in terms of economic and technical viability. And do these vehicles represent an alternate transporta tion concept, that this country should consider as a partial solution to our over production of corn, as a means of providing some improvement in our balance of payments, and improve our national security by reducing our dependence on imported oil.

We respectfully request your approval of our undertaking.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/07/87

FROM: RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC

TO: ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ROBERT KNAUFF; REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 108; LETTER DATED 06/08/89 FROM ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN INC TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 08/16/88 FROM RICH ARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC TO ROBERT KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knauff:

It was good to hear from you today and I'm glad that you are proceeding in a proper manner regarding the single-pulse signal enhancement feature that you propose to market for use in certain stop signal lamps.

As we discussed, there should be no intensity problem with the use in W, W2 and W3 types because there is no maximum intensity written into the standards for those lamp types. The lamp design intensities also generally far exceed what the three "W" stan dards call for, so any masking of the reflector in the lamp by the photo tube should not prevent adequate performance.

The flash energy formula described in SAE J1318 APR86 (S2.11) may be used to determine compliance with the maximum intensity requirement of SAE "U" type supplementary stop lamps. In J1318, class 1 directional lamps (table8) require 50 candela-seconds of flash energy at H-V. The same functions type lamp and test location in SAE J595 AUG83 (table 1) requires 300 cd intensity. This is a ratio of 1:6. It therefore follows that the maximum from flash energy in an SAE "U" type with a 60 cd limit should be 10 candela-seconds.

When you can obtain a test report that indicates the candela-seconds in an SAE "U" lamp, I would like to see a demonstration of the tested arrangement for assurance that there is no "discomfort" glare at that level. This is primarily because we have a t otally new concept here and we want to be on the safe side. Same goes for use in school bus type "W2" lamps. The momentary light will be paler than the limit for red specified in SAE J578d color standard, but if it is not within the limit for white, it will be an acceptable color.

You said that there is no problem with setting higher or lower intensities if necessary, so you should be able to proceed with your formal request for authorization after the test and demonstration go as anticipated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/87

FROM: STEVE ZLOTKIN -- CEO OVERLAND PARTS INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO STEVE ZLOTKIN; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

We are importers of automotive products including automotive glass.

We have need to import a windshield which fits the 1953 to 1967 Volkswagen transporter or "bus" which is a multipurpose vehicle.

Our supplier does not have laminated windshields for that model but does have non-laminated windshields.

Thus, the question is, (can we legally import and sell non-laminated windshields for that model since the United States windshield standards were not adopted until 1968)? Because it might concern you I will add that it would be impossible to install one of these windshields into a 1968 or later vehicle. There is a great physical difference in size on the later model.

If need be we would be willing to placard or sticker each windshield notifying the customer that it is not laminated, or that it is restricted to use on certain year buses if the entire span of 1953 to 1967 is not permissible.

I would appreciate your opinion.

ID: nht87-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Wally Lang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Wally Lang Langco, In 1340 Walden Drive Elgin, IL 60120

Dear Mr. Lang:

I am pleased to respond to your request for a written statement of the legal requirements that would apply to a new product you plan to introduce. In telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke, of my staff, you described a new product that you would like to introduce. This product, which would be sold only as an item of aftermarket equipment, is a child safety seat belt buckle shield. This "buckle shield" is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle on a child r estraint system. The buckle shield would consist of a plastic strip that would completely cover the buckle on the child restraint. It would be clipped onto the child restraint belt on one side, and attached to the side of the buckle on the other side, so as to completely cover the buckle. To open the buckle, a person would have to firmly grasp the strip and pull it away from the child restraint system. The end of the strip clipped to the belt would pull off of the belt, thereby allowing the person to re lease the buckle.

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @571.213), which app lies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard No. 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with th at Standard before selling the product.

Additionally, as Mr. Kratzke explained, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. In stead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically t ests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-1 59 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said two years ago on the re lated topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in i nstances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger t he child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 PR 33722, August 21, 1985)

Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (21 (A)). That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an i tem of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the federal motor vehicle safety standards. Standard No. 213 specifies the elements of design with which a child restraint system might not comply if your buckle shield Here installed. Section 55.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shiel d would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section @5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each materi al used in a child restraints system shall comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CER 5571.302). If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, co mmercial establishments cannot legally install your device. The prohibition of section 108(a) (2(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 213. However, our policy is to encourage child res traint owners not to tamper with their child restraints. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: DECEMBER 9, 1987

FROM: ROBERT CUZZI -- BREDA TRANSPORTATION, INC.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: 020-1287

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-17-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO ROBERT CUZZI, STD 301

TEXT: My company, Breda Transportation, Inc., is currently working on a contract for the design, manufacture, and delivery of 236 articulated buses to the city of Seattle. the buses will be designed and manufactured in Italy, with final assembly in the United States.

The buses' fuel tank will be built in Italy, and my question regards this. I need to know what federal standards and regulations, if any, refer to the fuel tank. Yesterday, 12/8/87, I spoke to Ms. Deidre Hom of your office, and she informed me that FMV SS 301 applies to fuel tanks, but for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. There are, it seems, no applicable FMVSS standards.

Could you please confirm this, in writing, or advise me if there are any applicable federal standards which pertain to bus fuel tanks?

Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht87-3.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz Truck Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mercedes-Benz Truck Company, Inc. 4747 N. Channel P.O. BOX 3849 Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear Mr. Rossow:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Section 56.2.1 of that standard specifies for certain tests conducted on a dynamometer that "(the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load an the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating." According to your letter, you have interpreted the term "equivalent" in this section to "authorize compliance testing by reference to axle loads under actual st opping conditions." You requested confirmation of this interpretation. As discussed below, we disagree with your suggested interpretation.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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 standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

As indicated in your letter, your request for an interpretation was submitted in light of recent correspondence between your company and NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). OVSC requested you to submit information on the compliance with S tandard No. 121 of the Mercedes-Benz model L-1317, a two axle straight truck. You responded to that request by submitting a compliance certificate and interpretation concerning section 56.2.1. In letter dated April 9, 1987, OVSC informed you that it did not agree with your interpretation.

Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of 55.4.1 (brake retardation force-relevant only to towed vehicles), 55.4.2 (brake power), and 55.4.3 (brake recov ery), under the conditions of 56.2. One of those conditions, set forth in 56.2.1, is as follows:

S6.2.1 The dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating. For a vehicle having additional gross axle weight ratings specified for operation at reduced speeds, the GAWR used is that specified for a speed of 50 mph, or, at the option of the manufacturer, any speed greater than 50 mph.

In support of your suggested interpretation, you noted that axle loads of a decelerating vehicle vary under different deceleration conditions, i.e., as a vehicle traveling forward decelerates, the load of the axles shifts so that the front axle load rise s and the rear axle load falls. You stated that it is your reading of Standard No. 121 that the manufacturer "can assess compliance by either using a static load value or determining which of the varying values of the axle load should be considered in vi ew of actual vehicle behavior." With respect to gross axle weight rating (GAWR), you suggested that when used in the context of Parts 567 and 568, the GAWR is properly measured in a static manner, to permit a static determination of whether the load carr ying capacity of a vehicle axle in actual use has been reached. For dynamometer tests of service brakes under dynamic conditions, however, you argued that such tests should properly take into account the dynamic effects of deceleration.

You then stated the following:

The language of 56.2.1, setting dynamic test conditions, indicates that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is to be set at the "equivalent" to the load on the wheel, when the axle is loaded to its GAWR (i.e., its load-carrying capacity). This languag e is not restrictive and grants a manufacturer the flexibility of determining an "equivalent" loading in consideration of the dynamic phenomena in conducting the texts required by 55.4. Thus, the static GAWR is permitted to be linked to dynamic condition s by the word "equivalent."

We disagree with your suggested interpretation, which we believe is inconsistent with the language of S6.2.1, past interpretations of that provision, and the compliance test procedures the agency has long followed with respect to this provision. As indic ated above, 56.2.1 specifies that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is "equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating." The phrase "equivalent to the load" uses the singular "load," instead of the plural "l oads," to show that the dynamometer inertia has only a single value. By itself, this suggests that 56.2.1 was not intended to provide multiple options for the dynamometer inertia setting, depending on the dynamic conditions simulated.

Further, the overall language of 56.2.1 shows how the single dynamometer inertia setting is to be determined. The term "GAWR" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single ax le system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces." When an axle is loaded to its load-carrying" capacity, there is one "load on the wheel," at whose "equivalent" the dynamometer inertia must be set.

While we believe that the language of section S6.2.1 is clear on the issue raised by your letter, we also note that agency guidance in the form of a past interpretation letter and OVSC's laboratory procedures for Standard No. 121 are also clear. In an in terpretation letter to Wagner Electric, dated May 26, 1972, the agency stated:

In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamometer inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pound s as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.

That interpretation explicitly states that the dynamometer inertia is set with regard to the assigned GAWR, and makes no reference to the varying values of axle load during braking. This agency interpretation has been a matter of public record for the la st 15 years. Moreover, as OVSC noted in its letter of April 9, 1987, its test procedure TP-121-02 provides a specific formula for calculating "dynamometer inertia equivalent to the GAWR for the applicable vehicle axle." This test procedure has been used by the agency since March 163 1978, and has been available to the public since that date.

You asserted in your letter that the static GAWR is "permitted to be linked to dynamic conditions by the word 'equivalent'." We find no basis in the word "equivalent" for your suggestion that the load on the wheel- should somehow be calculated during bra king. Section S6.2.1 uses the term "equivalent" to account for the fact that the terms "load" and "inertia" are different without the same dimensions and are not numerically equal; an axle's tire rolling radius must be considered in determining the prope r inertia as well as the load. We note that section S5.4.2.1 of Standard No. 121 uses the term "equivalent" in the same manner. That section specifies for dynamometer testing that the drum or disc be "rotating at a speed equivalent to 50 m.p.h." Since t he drum or disc is obviously not moving along longitudinally, the word "equivalent" in that section is used to bridge the gap between longitudinal and rotational movement.

Your letter also argued that a February 18, 1976, interpretation letter to Oshkosh supports your suggested interpretation of 56.2.1. Oshkosh had asked whether a vehicle that meets section S5.1.1's requirements for air Compressor capacity when it is movin g must also comply when the vehicle is stationary. The agency stated:

Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is moving as a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they aff ect the outcome of testing.

We do not agree that this letter supports your suggested interpretation. The letter addressed only the issue of how a requirement should be read in view of the absence of a particular test condition. As explained at length above, we conclude that section S6.2.1 clearly specifies the particular test conditions to be followed for this section. Therefore, the Oshkosh letter is not relevant to requests for interpretation of S6.2.1.

You also argued that in order to provide an appropriate braking system, with proper distribution of brake forces between the axles, its design must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle during normal and emergency braking conditions. You stated that such a design and compliance test leads to a significant reduction in premature lockup of the rear axle. You also argued that NHTSA has recognized your braking system as "a safe and effective system" in its research te sting.

We agree that a manufacturer must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle when designing an appropriate braking system. This is necessary to provide safe brake performance during varying loading conditions, for norma l and emergency brake applications on varying road conditions: and it is so for all kinds of vehicles. However, the requirements of Standard No. 121 do not require vehicles to have too much rear braking, as you appear to imply. The requirements of S5.4.2 (Brake Power), and S5.4.3 (Brake Recovery), are minimum performance requirements intended to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driv ing. In practice, in order to perform well in such conditions, both front and rear brakes must have a minimum capacity, and this capacity is related to GAWR despite the fact that the actual loads borne by the front and rear axles vary during different br ake applications. The agency therefore referred to GAWR in section 56.2.1, because this is an objective value that is readily ascertainable for every vehicle, and performance based on this value meets the particular safety need provided for by the requir ements of section S5.4. These minimum requirements are not intended, nor do they operate, as a restriction on the design decisions that manufacturers must make independently to distribute braking capacity to meet anticipated load distributions.

Contrary to your assertion, NHTSA has not concluded that your brake system is "safe and effective." We also note that the quotations of the agency's research report cited in your letter address only limited aspects of braking performance and are taken ou t of context. We note that you stated that "(t)he Agency reported finding that the subject vehicle's front and rear axles were '. . . well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same pedal effort level.' (p. 19)." A more complete quotation is as fol lows:

. . . In the empty driver best effort stops the driver was also able to utilize this peak friction, although not as effectively as the antilock, because the brakes on front and rear axles of the vehicle were well balanced and tended to lock at close to t he same pedal effort level. In the loaded case, however, the front axle tended to lock prematurely and it Has not possible for the driver to maintain all four wheels near the peak friction level. He could keep the front tires near the peak but when this occurred rear braking was relatively low. If he applied more braking, the front axle locked and he lost steering control due to lack of lateral traction at the front tires."

Based on the information before the agency, OVSC is continuing its investigation concerning the compliance of your vehicles with Standard No. 121.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 22,1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for an Interpretation Concerning FMVSS 121, Air Brake Systems

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of our parent company, Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft (DBAG), Mercedes-Benz Truck Company, Inc. (MBTC) requests an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, Air Brake Systems. This standard specifies that for tests c onducted on a dynamometer, "The dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating.

49 C.F.R. S 571.121.56.2.1. DBAG has interpreted the term "equivalent in this regulation to authorize compliance testing by reference to axle loads under actual stopping conditions. It is this interpretation which we are asking be confirmed by your offic e.

The need for such an interpretation is the result of recent correspondence between MBTC and NHTSA. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has asked MBTC, as the manufacturer of trucks bearing the trade name of Mercedes-Benz, to submit information on the compliance with FMVSS 121 of Mercedes-Benz truck model L-1317. MBTC filed a response to this request containing the DBAG compliance certificate and the foregoing interpretation. In a letter dated April 9, 1987, NEF-31 HTS CIR 2879.1, the Office info rmed MBTC that it does not agree with the DBAG interpretation of FMVSS 121 used to assess compliance.

In determining compliance with FMVSS 121, DBAG recognizes, as do all automotive engineers, that axle loads of a decelerating vehicle vary under different deceleration conditions. That is, as a vehicle traveling forward decelerates, the load on the axles shifts so that the front axle load rises and the rear axle load falls. (See DBAG Compliance Certificate, section 2.16) Under Standard 121, the manufacturer must specify an axle load in connection with the tests conducted to assess compliance. It is DBAG' s reading of Standard 121 that the manufacturer can assess compliance by either using a static load value or determining which of the varying values of the axle load should be considered in view of actual vehicle behavior.

As noted above, Standard 121 refers to the "gross axle weight rating" (GAWR) of the vehicle. GAWR is defined generally as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-grou nd interfaces."

49 C.F.R. S 571.3(b). When used in the context of Parts 567 (Certification) and 568 (Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages), the GAWR is properly measured in a static manner, to permit a static determination of whether the load carrying capacity of a vehicle axle in actual use has been reached. The nominal GAWR value on the certification label therefore must be used for such a determination.

A test to represent a dynamic procedure such as braking presents quite different requirements. Instead of a static measurement, such a test should properly take into account the dynamic effects of deceleration. Standard 121 mandates dynamometer tests of service brakes under dynamic conditions. Thus, the question is whether the standard is specific in requiring a GAWR determined on a static test or whether language would permit the type of interpretation utilized by DBAG.

The language of 56.2.1, setting dynamic test conditions, indicates that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is to be set at the "equivalent" to the load on the wheel, when the axle is loaded to its GAwR (i.e., its load-carrying capacity). This languag e is not restrictive and grants a manufacturer the flexibility of determining an "equivalent. loading in consideration of the dynamic phenomena in conducting the tests required by 55.4. Thus, the static GAWR is permitted to be linked to dynamic conditions by the word "equivalent."

The foregoing interpretation is supported by prior interpretative guidelines of the Agency. The standard itself does not specify that the "load on the wheel" must be evaluated in a static manner. In fact, it specifically uses the word "equivalent," a wor d not used in other sections of the standard. (See for comparison 5.5.6.1) In the context of braking, a manufacturer could, therefore, reasonably conclude that the dynamics of wheel loads under deceleration can be considered. In a letter to the Oshkosh T ruck Corporation, the Chief Counsel's Office has supported such an interpretation. In the Oshkosh case, the Agency indicated that, where the standard is silent as to an issue, the manufacturer may exercise its discretion. Oshkosh had asked whether a vehi cle that complies with S5.1.1 of the standard (air compressor capacity) when it is moving must also comply when the vehicle is stationary. The Chief Counsel replied:

"Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is moving as a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they af fect the outcome of testing." Letter from Richard B. Dyson to Oshkosh Truck Corporation (February 18, 1976).

For these reasons also, DBAG relies on the conclusion that Standard 121 does not specifically restrict the test procedure and permits a manufacturer to assess compliance by reference to the dynamics of braking for an actual vehicle. DBAG has concluded th at in order to provide an appropriate braking system, with proper distribution of brake forces between the axles, its design must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle during normal and emergency braking conditions . Such a design and compliance test leads to a significant reduction in premature lockup of the rear axle.

The Agency's own testing of the L-1317 supports this Conclusion. In August 1986, the Agency issued a report entitled, "Performance Evaluation of a Production Antilock System Installed on a Two Axle Straight Truck (NHTSA's Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Researc h Program Report #6)" which included dynamic testing of this vehicle with and without the use of its ABS system. The Agency reported finding that the subject vehicle's front and rear axles were "... well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same p edal effort level." (p. 19). Further, the Agency reported that "... in the empty condition the vehicle has a relatively high braking efficiency over a broad range of road friction levels." The report explains that efficiency is a measure of the vehicle's ability to use available friction before lockup and loss of control occurs (p. 19). Finally, the report generally notes "if loss of control of the overbraked axle prevents the driver, no matter how skilled he is, from utiliz ing the full capability of the underbraked axle .." (p. 22). Accordingly, not only does FMVSS 121 provide sufficient breadth to allow the interpretation utilized by Daimler-Benz, its use results in a braking system which the Agency has recognized as a sa fe and effective system.

Based on the foregoing request, we would appreciate your office responding with respect to the appropriateness of this interpretation. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Gary W. Rossow Director, Government Technical Affairs

cc: Mr. George L. Parker

ID: nht87-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Interworld Commodities, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Isaiah Herman President Interworld Commodities, Inc. 15 West 44th Street New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Herman: This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1987. One of your clients "plans to purchase a Corporation Stretched Limousine" to be shipped to Japan, and would like "to obtain the standards and regulations for the modifications that are done to the vehi cle". The car in question is a Lincoln Town Car.

We understand that the Lincoln Town Car is available from several converters in a lengthened, or "stretched" version. We further understand from a conversation that you had with Taylor Vinson of this Office that your clients intend to purchase the vehicl e and have it converted after title passes to them. The converter is subject to the restriction that it must not render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This restriction applies regardless of the future use or location of the vehicle. However, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to new and untitled vehicles that a manufacturer intends for export, and if the alterations to a car owned by your clients resulted in noncompliances we would regard this as only a technical violation of the restriction provided that the vehicle were shipped to japan immediately following the modifications.

I hope that this answers your questions. Forgive our delay in replying to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

10/13/87

Ms. Erika Jones Office of the Chief Council NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones,

I was told today via one of your staff that you can be of assistance. I have a client who, has plans to purchase a Corporation Stretched Limousine to be shipped to Japan.

They would like to obtain the standards and regulations for the modifications that are done to the vehicle. If there are none please be kind enough to send a letter stating that fact.

I further understand Code of federal Regulations Volume 49 CRF 500 Series would be helpful. Please indicate where to obtain the regulations and any other standards. They are considering purchasing a Lincoln Town Car.

Thank you

Sincerely,

Isaiah Herman

President

ID: nht87-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/87

FROM: THOMAS H. JAHNKE -- OASIS INDUSTRIES, INC.

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL -- NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO THOMAS H. JAHNKE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32C4, STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Sirs,

Oasis Industries, Inc. is a Fiberglass manufacture, located in the Midwest.

We are in the process of coming out with a new product line of hardtops for convertable cars.

I would like to find out, through the Dept. of Transportation, if their are any spec. we need to comply with for safety and or standards.

In a conversation I had today with a Mr. Hunter, of the Dept. of Transportation, he explained that their were not any regulations of specs. on this type of product.

Even though Mr. Hunter has verbally made this statement, we feel that it is necessary to get this commitment in writing.

I would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation on the above matter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Scott Muirhead

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION