ID: aiam3604

Dear Mr. Zelinski: Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1982, to the Administrato asking whether there is 'any blanket waiver of standards solely based on a small production of vehicles.'; You are correct that no such waiver exists. Even a single automobil manufactured for use on the public roads must meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless exempted by the Administrator under the provisions of Part 555. A manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding filing of his petition does not exceed 10,000 units is eligible to apply for an exemption of up to three years on a hardship basis. Any manufacturer of motor vehicles may apply for an exemption of up to two years on the three remaining bases that you mention but the exemption extends only to a maximum of 2500 vehicles in any 12-month period that the exemption is in effect.; Under the original exemption authority, in effect from 1968 to 1971 exemptions were available on a hardship basis and the threshold of eligibility was 500 units.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2916

Dear Mr. Brown: I regret the delay in responding to your August 31, 1978, lette requesting an interpretation of S5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. In that letter, you stated that you had been contacted by an employee of this agency's enforcement office and advised that the certification labels for Mack trucks did not comply with the requirements of that section. The reason given for this conclusion was that the labels used the word 'on' between the tire and rim information instead of the comma shown in the example following S5.3.3.; S5.3 requires that the labeling information specified in S5.3.1 S5.3.3 must appear in the format shown in the truck example following S5.3.3. This requirements does not mean that certification labels must be identical to the example in every respect. Minor variations are permitted. By 'minor variations', I mean such things as a slight difference in punctuation mark that do not change or obscure the meaning of the label. Mack's substitution of 'on' for a comma is such a minor variation and, accordingly, is permissible under the standard.; The label enclosed with your letter shows spaces to provide informatio for the front, rear and tree intermediate axles. When this label is used on vehicles with fewer than five axles, you should stamp 'not applicable', or words of similar import, in the spaces provided for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle which is being labelled.; Without this indication, the label could be confusing and so would fai to clearly provide the required information for that vehicle. And indication of nonapplicability would alert the reader to that fact.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0182

Dear Mr. Debesson: This will acknowledge your recent submittal of data to the Nationa Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the addition of the belted-bias tire construction as a new category within Table I of Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. Your submittal was not accompanied by a cover letter.; The National Highway Safety Bureau realizes that this construction o motor vehicle passenger car tires warrants consideration within Standard No. 109. We do not believe, however, that the introduction of additional tables to the standard is needed to cover belted-bias tires. The tables within the standard are becoming voluminous and the variety of size designations are confusing to the consumer.; During the recent ISO/TC 31 meeting in Rome, Mr. W.W. Jordan, Chief o the Tire Branch discussed briefly with members of your organisation our philosophy on the standardization of the tire size designations and load inflation schedules. We have been working closely with the American Tire and Rim Association in further developing the alphanumerical system for tire size designations. We believe we are approaching a workable, standardized solution to the problem. In this light, we understand that members of E.T.R.T.O. visit the United States at regular intervals and we would like to extend an invitation to your organization to have a representative meet with us to review this matter and your petition in detail.; The National Highway Safety Bureau, at the present time, does not pla to differentiate belted-bias type tire construction from other constructions, consequently, we will delay action on your petition until we have the opportunity to discuss it with your representative.; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;

ID: aiam4968

"Dear Mr. Kubehl: This responds to your letter of February 4, 1992 concerning the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. You asked for verification of your understanding of the requirements of two sections of Standard No. 209. Your discussion of these two sections and our response follows. In 209-S.4.4a(1), it is clearly stated that a loop force of 5000 pounds is required to produce a force of 2500 pounds on each structural component. However, part 209-S4.4b(4) seems to be a bit ambiguous. It states: 'The length of the pelvic restraint between anchorages shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when subjected to a force of 2500 pounds'. My interpretation of this statement is that one must employ a loop force of 5000 pounds to achieve 2500 pounds of force on each component, as specified in S4.4a(1). I am concerned that one could misinterpret the above statement as requiring a 2500 pound loop force, rather than the intended value of 5000 pounds. Your statements indicate a common misunderstanding of the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209. A seat belt assembly would not be subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) and to the requirements of S4.4(b). If the seat belt assembly is a Type 1 seat belt assembly, defined in S3 as 'a lap belt for pelvic restraint,' the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(a). Section S4.4(a)(1) requires a Type 1 seat belt assembly loop to withstand a force of 5,000 pounds. Section S4.4(a)(2) states that the length of the assembly between the anchorages shall not increase more than 14 inches or 36 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(a)(1) is applied. If the seat belt assembly is a Type 2 seat belt assembly, defined in S3 as 'a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints,' the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(b). Section S4.4(b)(1) requires the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly to withstand a force of 2,500 pounds. Section 4.4(b)(4) states that the length of the pelvic portion of the assembly shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(b)(1) is applied. Part 209-S5.3a, which addresses the performance of the belt assembly, refers to Figure 5 and requires a tensile force of 2500 pounds. It goes on to say that this force is equivalent to a 5000 pound force being applied to an assembly loop. Figure five is referred to several times throughout the passage, each reference requiring a specific force. Again, because the relationship of the tensile force to assembly loop force is not explicitly stated, we are concerned that one may mistake the tensile force to be the total loop force applied. The test procedure to determine compliance with the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209 is found in S5.3 of that standard. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) (a pelvic restraint) is found in S5.3(a). As you have correctly stated, a force of 2,500 pounds is applied to each component of the pelvic restraint, or a force of 5,000 pounds to the entire loop. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(b) (a combined pelvic and upper torso restraint) is found in S5.3(b). The pelvic portion of such a seat belt assembly is tested by applying a total force of 2,500 pounds to the entire loop. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ";

ID: aiam2445

Dear Mr. Edmonson: This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1976, to Secretar Coleman asking for copies of our regulations that would apply to a small vehicle, apparently three-wheeled, which you intend to manufacture in limited numbers.; I enclose a copy of an information sheet that tells where you ma obtain copies of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles, and of the regulations that apply to manufacturers. I also enclose a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the authority for the safety standards and regulations. If you have any questions after reviewing these materials, I will be happy to answer them for you.; Three-wheeled vehicles are classified, and will be for the foreseeabl future, as 'motorcycles.' A proposed redefinition which would have removed enclosed three-wheeled vehicles from the definition is in abeyance and consideration is being given, as you suggested, to establishing standards appropriate for all lightweight motor vehicles.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0478

Dear Mr. Whitney: This is in reply to your letters of August 10 and October 6, 1971 concerning the size requirements for retreaded tires as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117. You letter of August 10 enclosed a draft article that you requested we examine.; I have enclosed a copy of the Administration's action on the petition for reconsideration that were received in response to the standard as published April 17, 1971 (36 F.R. 7315). This action amends the size requirements of S5.1.2 of the standard by allowing a minus 3 per cent deviation from the section width specified in Table 1 of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 in addition to the plus 10 per cent deviation previously allowed. With reference to your draft article, its discussion of the size requirements, apart from the changes made by the amendment, is accurate.; The copies of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 that you were furnished o August 20 have been supplemented, and a copy of the additional material is also enclosed.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5380

Dear Mr. Vierimaa: We are replying to your letter of August 9, 1993 with respect to your views on the enforceability of a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code. This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a 'semitrailer' whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with 'two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.' In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police, you stated your assumption that the 'two clearance lamps' are the 'intermediate side marker lamps' specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps, 'then it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ.' In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations. Michigan replied on May 16, 1989, that NHTSA had not notified it that 'the requirement of an additional 'clearance lamp' as near as to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by section 103(d)', and that 'the lamp is not a marker lamp as mentioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations.' You indicate that this is a reference to our letter of December 10, 1974, to the California Highway Patrol. You ask for our concurrence in your conclusion that Michigan is preempted from enforcing its requirements. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective devices, and Associated Equipment. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to the front and to the rear as practicable, and with 'intermediate side marker lamps', amber in color, 'located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps.' All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State 'shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard' (emphasis added). In our opinion, the 'aspect of performance' covered by Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same 'aspect of performance' that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph. Because Standard No. 108 requires trailers more than 50 feet in length to be equipped with intermediate side lamps located not less than l5 inches above the pavement, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps in the same approximate vertical plane but as near the top of the trailer as practicable is preempted by Table II of Standard No. 108. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a 'clearance' lamp rather than a 'marker' lamp does not affect this conclusion (in fact, we regard all non-signal lamps other than headlamps as 'marker' lamps, including the 'clearance' lamps Table II requires on the front and rear of wide trailers). The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones. The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Standard No. 108, those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

Sincerely, John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2015

Dear Mr. DiMaggio: I am writing to confirm the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, which was given to you by Mark Schwimmer on April 16, 1975.; Your letter of February 26, 1975, explained that: >>>(i) Firestone would produce 100 tires in size D50C-16.5 for use o one of the prototype vehicles in the Urban Mass Transit Administration's Trans-Bus program,; (ii) these tires would be certified as being in compliance wit Standard No. 119, and (iii) D50C-16.5 is a new size, not appearing in any existing tire and rim organization publication.<<<; In such cases, S5.1(a) of the standard requires tire and rim matchin information to be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires. Your letter suggested that, because Firestone does not expect the tire to be sold through any dealers, this requirement would be inapplicable. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, that interpretation is incorrect. S5.1 of Standard No. 119 applies to all new bus tires, including prototypes manufactured for prototype vehicles. Therefore, you must furnish the matching information to all dealers of Firestone non-passenger-car tires.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0028

Dear Mr. Willis: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1967, regarding the applicabilit of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to accessories which are purchased for installation after procurement of the car, and in particular, Safety Standard No. 201.; Standard No. 201, 'Occupant Protection in Interior Impact -- Passenge Cars,' applies only to vehicles as originally equipped and does not apply to accessories such as 'after market' auto air conditioners. However, the public would certainly benefit from the maximum degree of conformance that may be feasible on after market installations.; It is sincerely regretted that a written response to your first reques was not received by you and trust that you were not inconvenienced.; Sincerely yours, George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;

ID: aiam2500

Dear Mr. Berry: This responds to Birmingham Manufacturing Company's June 15, 1976 request to know the certification responsibilities of a manufacturer of low-bed trailers (of the removable goose-neck design) that provides the purchaser with the bed, suspension, and axle portions of the trailer without the gooseneck or the tires and rims. I apologize for our delay in answering.; The portion of the trailer you describe constitutes an 'incomplet vehicle' as that term is described in Part 568 of our regulations (Part 568 -- Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages):; >>>S 568.3 *Definitions*. 'Incomplete vehicle' means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, o frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and brake system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.; <<