ID: 77-4.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1977, to Ms. Joan Claybrook, requesting an interpretation of whether the release action of your "c-ring" seat belt latch mechanism qualifies as a push button action as specified in paragraph S7.2(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Your efforts to improve the comfort and convenience of belt systems thereby increasing the likelihood that they will be used is to be commended. I must point out, however, that the primary purpose of the requirement in paragraph S7.2(c) is to standardize the release method of all seat belts. This reduces the likelihood that occupants will become confused as to how to release a belt in a strange car or in an emergency situation.

We have reviewed the operation of your "c-ring" and conclude that the action necessary to release the mechanism does not constitute push botton action. However, incorporation of a push botton release, similar to the design being used in Saab automobiles, would bring your "c-ring" into conformance with S7.2(c) and permit its use.

ID: 77-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 26, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, to rims modified subsequent to their initial marking by the rim manufacturer.

Standard No. 120, as it applies to rim manufacturers, requires only that the manufacturer mark the rim with the information outlined in section S5.2 of the standard. The standard does not contain substantive performance requirements for tire rims that would necessitate extensive testing to comply with the requirements.

In cases where your client modifies previously marked rims, he might have some responsibilities for compliance with the standard. For those rims where the center disc is only added or altered by your client, there would be no requirement for him to provide his own markings on the tire rim. The rim manufacturer's markings would still contain the accurate size information.

For rims that your client modifies by the insertion of a steel plate increasing the dimensions of the rim, he becomes the rim manufacturer. As a rim manufacturer, it is his responsibility to mark the rim with the information listed and in the manner prescribed in S5.2 of the standard. This information includes the DOT symbol which indicates that he has complied with the requirements of Standard No. 120. Since the rim would have been marked initially with a different size, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would require that the first markings be removed from the rim to avoid the possibility of confusion to persons who might read the incorrect size listing. This could result in the mismatching of a tire to the modified rim.

In a conversation between Ms. Maryanne Kane of your office and Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff, it was asked whether the NHTSA Standard No. 120 requirements would be applicable to rims manufactured entirely for off-road use. The NHTSA regulates only motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. By definition a motor vehicle is a vehicle used on the roads. Accordingly, vehicles designed for off-road use do not fall within the ambit of our regulations. The same is true for equipment designed for use on those off-road vehicles. The determination of whether a vehicle is an off-road vehicle depends upon its use. I have enclosed an interpretive letter that describes the criteria for determining what vehicles are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) (the Act).

You should note further that my time your client undertakes an alteration of a rim, he is performing a manufacturing function that places him within the scope of the Act. Therefore, he would be responsible for any safety-related defects resulting from his manufacturing processes.

SINCERELY,

AKIN, GUMP, HAUER & FELD

September 26, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation

In accord with our recent conversation this letter will set forth our request for an interpretation of the application of 49 C.F.R. 571.120, Standard No. 120 (tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars) to certain processes used by our client, Southwest Wheel Manufacturing Company, whereby the rims and wheels of other manufacturers are altered or modified by Southwest Wheel to conform to certain customer requirements. I have enclosed a rough diagram of these changes to accompany the written explanation of each special application used by Southwest Wheel.

Special Application No. 1 (Diagram Nos. 1, 3 and 4) Diagram Nos. 1, 3 and 4 show a Goodyear rim in four different widths and three different diameters. Depending upon the application, Southwest Wheel adds the center disc to these Goodyear rims. The disc can be installed either as a formed disc manufactured by another company or a flat plate centered disc manufactured by Southwest Wheel. The disc can be located anywhere in the flat portion of the rim base. Placement of the center disc is determined by customer specifications for clearance or tracking or towing vehicles.

Special Application No. 2 (Diagram No. 2) Diagram No. 2 shows a process of splitting the rim and adding two inches to obtain additional width in the rim. This process is normally used for light vehicles, either pick-up trucks or trailers. As shown, the rims are split and Southwest Wheel adds additional rolled material to make the rim wider in order to accomodate special floatation tires used primarily in sand or in swamps. Although these are designed for off-road use, they are used on the highway in going to and from job sites. This process can also be combined with the Special Application No. 1 above, whereby the disc is added to the rims as shown in diagram numbers 1, 3 and 4.

Special Application No. 3 (Diagram No. 6) As seen from Diagram No. 6, Southwest Wheel may, on special order, cut the center disc from the rim base on lathes, move the center discs either in or out on the rim base to increase or decrease the wheel offset and then reweld to complete the process. Again, this is a special order process and done to customer specifications.

Special Application No. 4 (Diagram No. 5) Southwest Wheel purchases rims of the type shown in Diagram No. 5 from other manufacturers, and then installs the center disc to customer's hub application. Even though a wheel may be manufactured by one of the major wheel manufacturers, they do not make a wheel in either the diameter, the width, or both, that the trailer manufacturer wants to use on his equipment. Southwest Wheel then assembles the rim and the disc to its customer specifications.

Special Application No. 5 (Diagram No. 5, Pictures Nos. 10, 11, 12) Southwest Wheel manufacturers special wide-based wheels from rims shown on Diagram No. 5, such as taking two rims size 15 x 10 LBH, splitting them as shown in Picture No. 10, taking two wide sides, and welding them back together both inside and outside as shown in Picture No. 11. After this process, the center disc is then installed as illustrated in Picture No. 12. Thus, Southwest Wheel started out with two rims 10 inches wide and has coverted this product into one rim 13.75 inches wide with the center disc installed, changing the original 15 x 10 LBH rims to a wheel 15 x 13.75 LBH 8-holes 6 1/2 bolt circle.

I would be pleased to meet with you and discuss further any of the above processes and I would, of course, obtain any additional information you might require. Your earliest consideration is appreciated.

Jay D. Zeiler

ID: 77-4.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone conversation of November 9, 1977, with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the tire performance standard (Standard No. 109. New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars) to temporary-use spare tires.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has permitted the manufacture of temporary-use spare tires because they are smaller than regular spare tires and thus when carried in the automobile reduce its overall weight. A reduction in motor vehicle weight can result in increased fuel efficiency of the vehicle. These tires must comply with all of the safety requirements applicable to passenger car tires.

ID: 77-4.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Texas Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 5, 1977, letter requesting a further clarification of our interpretation given to you on September 1, 1977, concerning "kit cars."

You ask whether there is a requirement to certify the vehicle if it is manufactured using an old chassis. As we stated to you in our first letter, the assembly of such a vehicle is not the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The certification requirements of Part 567 of our regulations apply only to new motor vehicles or the alteration of previously certified vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale. Since your remanufacturing operation constitutes neither the manufacture of a new motor vehicle nor the alteration of a previously certified vehicle, your vehicle would not be required to be certified.

ID: 77-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Glen English; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms the conversation between Judy Dutterer of your staff and Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the new Federal school bus regulations to activity buses.

The Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) defined school bus to include buses used to transport children to and from school and related events. In the legislative history of those amendments, Congress clearly indicated that all buses used to transport school children to and from events related to school should be covered by the new school bus safety standards. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires that all activity buses designed to transport school children to and from such events comply with the new standards.

You should note that we have initiated rulemaking, in response to a petition, to examine the issue of whether activity buses should have different requirements applicable to them since they are frequently involved in long distance student transportation. Any action on that issue will be published in the Federal Register.

ID: 77-4.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Rocky Mountain Bandag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 19, 1977, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has regulations that prohibit the use of retreaded tires on steering axles.

The NHTSA has performance regulations applicable to retreaded passenger car tires. The agency does not regulate the use of retreaded tires that meet those performance requirements. You should note that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 393.75(d)) that prohibit the use of retreaded tires on the front wheels of buses under their jurisdiction. They do not prohibit the use of such retreaded tires on the steering axle of trucks, however.

SINCERELY,

ROCKY MOUNTAIN bandag

October 19, 1977

Director U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We are in the business of cold process retreading truck tires.

Quite frequently, truck owners tell us there's a D.O.T. regulation that says retreaded tires cannot be used on steering axles. To our knowledge, there is no such regulation. If we're correct, would you please send a letter that says there is no D.O.T. regulation that disallows use of retreads on the steering axle?

William H. Loughran President

ID: 77-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 3, 1977, letter questioning the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the public dissemination of defect and noncompliance information by press release prior to a manufacturer's notification as required by Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification. In your letter, you refer to a press release issued by the agency concerning defects in some of your vehicles. This release was made prior to your providing notification to the vehicle owners.

The NHTSA through Part 577 requires that manufacturers provide notification to the owners of vehicles involved in defect or noncompliance recalls. This notification must be provided, in the case of a manufacturer-initiated recall, within a "reasonable time" after a manufacturer discovers the existence of a defect or noncompliance. You conclude that the publication of an agency press release prior to the time that a manufacturer notifies owners of a defect or noncompliance in effect shortens the "reasonable time" allowed for such notification. This in turn, you suggest, results in unnecessary public concern before the manufacturer is capable of implementing the recall.

The publication of an agency press release does not shorten the time period allotted a manufacturer under Part 577 for providing notification. A manufacturer is still permitted a "reasonable time" to comply with the requirements. The NHTSA has adopted the "reasonable time" approach to manufacturer notification of owners, because it realizes that the amount of preparation to conduct a recall may vary depending upon the complexity of the defect or noncompliance.

The agency operates under different timing considerations than those applicable to a manufacturer. The NHTSA is under a mandate to ensure that vehicles containing potentially dangerous defects or noncompliances are corrected or removed from highway service as soon as possible. The agency understands that any recall and remedy process is somewhat time-consuming for a manufacturer, and accordingly, vehicles will not be repaired immediately. Therefore, in the interim time between a manufacturer's discovery of a defect or noncompliance and his notice and remedy, the agency must issue warnings to vehicle owners so that they can take the appropriate action. Such action might include checking their vehicle for possible signs of failure or discontinuance of use of the affected vehicle.

In summation, the agency must balance the manufacturer's need for a reasonable time to notify and remedy with the vehicle owner's need for immediate information pertaining to any potential safety problems. This balance has taken the form of the NHTSA's issuance of a warning pending a manufacturer's issuance of notification. The NHTSA concludes that through this mechanism safety is preserved and manufacturers are not unduly burdened.

SINCERELY,

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER

October 3, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Press Releases/Safety Recalls

As I am sure you have been informed, we met with Mr. Dugoff and other representatives of your staff on September 21 for the main purpose of discussing the recent press release issued by your office concerning IH safety recall #77 V-127 and specifically, whether releases of that nature represent a new policy of your Department. As a related issue, we also discussed the procedure used by your Department regarding defect investigations. As we advised Mr. Dugoff, we are writing this letter to confirm our understanding of certain aspects and to provide you with a short written memorandum expressing our position with respect to such press releases.

With respect to the corolary issue of defect investigation and determination, we were advised by Mr. Berndt that NHTSA did have a policy of following the procedure detailed in your proposed rulemaking on the subject and that the manufacturer would be advised if NHTSA intended to issue such a determination of defect. In other words, a manufacturer need not expect a public announcement of the defect determination to be made prior to advice to the manufacturer that such determination was being made.

With respect to the main subject of our meeting, the press release on recall #77 V-127, our Company is extremely concerned with the practical results of that release, both in its content and in its timing. The following is a sample of the problems which result therefrom:

1. No Company personnel or IH dealers were knowledgeable of the recall or its repair techniques;

2. Needless public anxiety was created -- hundreds of calls were made since the DOT did not identify the models involved;

3. U.S. Army-Germany pulled all IH vehicles off the road;

4. Two large U.S. based fleets notified IH that they would either park or deadline all IH vehicles, possibly exposing IH to damage claims for downtime due to the commercial nature of the vehicles;

5. Three other large fleets indicated that they were considering putting IH vehicles out-of-service, with the same result as 4 above;

6. IH press release issued after DOT's identifying the specific trucks involved and adding repair information is totally ignored by the U.S. Press.

All internal IH Company actions such as customer notification letters, engineering approved repair techniques, repair instructions, repair parts ordering and packaging, vehicle quantities involved and identification, and registered owner identification, as illustrated in the attached chart, necessarily start after the defect determination. It follows, therefore, that in most cases, IH could not inform its dealers and field sales and service personnel in time to handle inquiries and/or repairs if DOT persists in the practice of utilizing the initial 5 day defect report as the source information for NHTSA press releases which are made prior to our "preparing" our recall.

With respect to our position that the press release was premature, your office repeatedly queried as to whether or not it was the position of IH that safety defects should remain concealed from the public. Obviously, that is not our position, but it is our position that we should comply with the current regulations governing the subject. Specifically, Part 577, Defect the Noncompliance Notification, has recently been amended to add certain parameters to this Part which were not present in the existing Rule. Specifically, one of the purposes of the amendment was to specify "the content, timing, and form of the notification that complies with the requirements set forth in Section 153 of the Act." (Emphasis added) Section 577.7(a)(1) was specifically included and provided that the customer notification must "Be furnished within a reasonable time after the manufacturer first determines the existence of a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. . ." (Emphasis added) It is our understanding that this timing was included since a manufacturer necessarily needs some amount of time in order to prepare for a recall. Prior to creating customer reaction when the problem is yet insolvable, we strongly believe that the referenced sub-section was intended squarely for the purpose of allowing a manufacturer the time to prepare to remedy defects prior to customer notification. It would appear to us that the "reasonable time" which the law now allows us is being shortened by means of the early press release policy.

The press release was issued based on information contained in our statutorily required 5 day defect notice. It is our understanding that the purpose of the 5 day notice, as detailed in Part 573.2, is to enable your office to analyze the adequacy of our defect notification and corrective action, owner response thereto and to compare defect incidents rates among different groups of motor vehicles. Therefore, our compliance with this Part, and for the purposes above stated, in fact result in a different purpose being accomplished, namely, public notice of the defect earlier than the time of such notice required by Part 577. It certainly appears to us to be an anomaly that information provided for one purpose in fact ended up being used for another, seemingly in derogation of our rights under Part 577.

In summary, the view we wish to express is not that we oppose all press releases, but rather that we think a properly timed press release could be far more effective if it was coordinated with the time of the manufacturer's customer recall letters, assuming, of course, that such letters are sent within the reasonable time allowed. We are in no way suggesting that a press release should be held off in all cases, even those where a manufacturer is unreasonably delaying customer notification. We do believe that coordinated timing would enhance the initiation of a campaign. We respectfully request that you give this matter your attention and consideration.

J. KEVIN SMITH -- DIRECTOR, PRODUCT RELIABILITY AND QUALITY, NORTH AMER. OPERATIONS; TRUCK GROUP (Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/06/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Ellcon National, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 2, 1977, letter concerning the applicability of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to a thermopane driver's window in a bus.

In response to your first question, the window to which you refer is required to comply with the requirements of the standard. The fact that it is a driver's window does not exempt it from the coverage of the standard.

Your second question asks how to test thermopane glazing. According to our enforcement staff, testing of thermopane windows can be conducted using the same criteria used for other window glazing. By following the procedures established in S5.1 of the standard, you should be able to accurately test thermopane glazing.

SINCERELY,

September 2, 1977

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A question has arisen as to the qualification of an interpretation in a test to be performed on a driver window in a bus we are to supply to our customer.

Subject window is a dual slider containing thermopane glazing and we would appreciate clarification with regard to FMVSS 217. Is it necessary for a test performance in compliance to FMVSS 217?

If test is necessary, how should interpretation of force be measured with regard to thermopane which consists of two 3/16" thick pieces of glass with a 1/4" thick space sealed unit?

Your clarification in this matter would be appreciated. Thank you for assisting us in this matter.

ELLCON-NATIONAL, INC.

Stanley Brajer Project Engineer

ID: 77-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Robert D. Scifres

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 27, 1977, asking whether the use of two rearview mirrors in one mounting is permitted if one of the mirrors fails to meet Federal requirements.

Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), requires each passenger car to have an outside rearview mirror of unit magnification (plane mirror) on the driver's side of the vehicle. Paragraph S4.2.1 of the standard specifies the field of view that must be provided by this outside mirror. Provided the vehicle is equipped with one mirror that meets the requirements of paragraph S4.2.1, the use of additional, non-complying, mirrors is not precluded by the standard, even if the mirrors are in the same mounting with the complying mirror.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 27, 1977

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FROM: Robert D. Scifres

SUBJECT: Request for interpretation - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, S3.2.1.1

As can be seen in the attached drawing(Exhibit I), this outside rearview mirror for passenger cars incorporates the use of two mirrors located in one assembly. One mirror(A) would conform in all respects to the current standards. The second mirror(B) would conform to all standards except as it relates to the field of vision. In itself the height would not provide the required reflected field of vision, but in conjunction with mirror (A) would provide an expanded field of vision to the extent the "blind spot" would be eliminated. Each mirror is adjustable both horizontally and vertically, allowing the driver to adjust each to give him the maximum reflection.

While the standards do not specifically nor indirectly state a single faced mirror only will be allowed; and although paragraph (1) of 32 F.R. 2413, dated February 3, 1967 relates to a "supplemental" mirror in addition to the inside and outside mirrors; and subsequent revisions do not change the above, I strongly feel an interpretation is in order.

My request comes about because of a very near accident involving me when I started to change lanes on a high speed highway. After checking both inside and outside rearview mirrors, I started to pull into the next lane to my left. Only because the driver of the vehicle behind me was alert prevented a serious accident. I have discussed this situation with about one hundred fifty of my acquaintences and almost all have experienced the same thing in one degree or another with several actually having an accident and three involved in rear end collisions because they had turned their head to make sure about the blind spot only to ram the rear of the cars in front of them.

In view of the standards as written, I feel an interpretation should be given and I shall appreciate an early response to this request

(Graphics omitted)

EXHIBIT I

Fig 1

ID: 77-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: The Coachette Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 18, 1977, letter asking whether the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, apply to a portion of your bus located directly above the side windows.

You enclosed a sketch which details the bus sidewall and roof structure. On that sketch, you have shaded a small area asking whether that portion of the bus constitutes part of the bus sidewall or part of the roof structure. The head protection zone requirements of the standard (S5.3.1.1) do not apply to the sidewalls of school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets your sketch to show the sidewall ending and the roof structure beginning at the point where the radius of curvature of the interior structure decreases sharply (see the point marked "A" on the sketch). Since the shaded portion of your sketch falls below that point, it is considered part of the sidewall and need not comply with the head protection zone requirements.

SINCERELY, (Illegible Words)

August 18, 1977

Joseph Levin, Chief Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A.

RE: FMVSS 222 Pora. S5.3.1.1.

A clarification of the above referenced standard is urgently needed. Due to the "tumble home" type of the side of some van-type school buses, there is no clear distinction where the side wall would end and the roof structure would start.

S5.3.1.1. of FMVSS 222 states that the head protection zones are the spaces in front of each school bus passenger seat which are not occupied by bus side wall, window or door structure . . . etc.

Please refer to the enclosed sketch and note that the outboard plane (S5.3.1.1. (c)) of the head protection zones intersects the wall at approximately the window header point. The wall extends upward and inward from that point. This leaves an area, indicated by the shaded portion of the sketch that would extend into the head protection zone. Is this configuration in compliance with the standard? There is no greater hazard to the occupant from the window header to well above the upper limits of the head protection (Illegible Word) than any where in the wall area.

It is very urgent that we get an opinion on this just as soon as possible. After you have reviewed this, we would like to phone or if necessary come to your office for the clarification.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration.

E.H. Ryan

ward

SCHOOL BUS MFG., Inc. P.O. BOX 311 HIGHWAY 65 CONWAY, ARKANSAS 72032 DATE - 8-18-77 CHK- DRAFT: DM ENGR: SCALE IN OR OUT PART ORDER NO REV CHANGE BY DATE

MATERIAL -

TOLERANCE

(Graphics omitted)