ID: nht78-2.39

ID: nht78-2.4

DATE: 11/28/78

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

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. D. P. Weiher Office of Corporate Safety Emissions and Noise Control AM General Corporation 32500 Van Born Road Wayne, Michigan 48184

Dear Mr. Weiher:

This responds to your August 2, 1978, letter asking whether it is permissible to perform the tests of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, with only part of the vehicle mechanism at the designated temperatures. You state further that there is not sufficient time to find an environmental chamber large enough to accommodate the size vehicle that you are testing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue approvals of manufacturer's plans for compliance with agency standards. Standard No. 124 mandates that a vehicle shall meet the requirements of the standard at any temperature between -40o F. and 125o F. When the agency tests for compliance with the standard, it finds a chamber sufficiently large to accommodate the entire vehicle and tests according to the standard. Any manufacturer deviation from this accepted test procedure carries with it certain risks that a vehicle may not conform to the requirements.

With respect to the vehicles that you are constructing, you state in your letter that they are being manufactured for use by the army. As such, these vehicles are not required to comply with the agency's safety standards, and the NHTSA would not test these vehicles for compliance.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 2, 1978

Mr. Joseph Levin Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NASSIF Building 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Levin:

We urgently request legal interpretation as to whether our plan for compliance testing meets the intent of FMVSS 124, Accelerator Control Systems, Paragraph S5, requirements which state, "The vehicle shall meet the following requirements when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40o F and +125o F after twelve hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range."

AM General Corporation is in the process of mass producing heavy truck tractors in the 55,000 pound to 75,000 pound GVWR range for the U.S. Army. These diesel engined tractors are of sucn physical size that the number of environmental chambers capable of accommodating them, as well as their availability, is extremely limited. Those capable of accepting this size vehicle are not available within the time frame remaining until the start of our production in November of this year. In consideration of these circumstances, and with the purpose in mind of complying with the intent of the cited Federal standard, we are planning to conduct compliance testing using an actual accelerator control system mounted to a production floor pan and dash panel assembly to which will be oriented the diesel fuel pump with all linkages connected. This assembly will be environmentally soaked to -40oF and then, again, to +125oF, and the linkage connections individually disconnected to measure the return capabilities of the energy sources (springs). Our logic for not testing an entire vehicle (with engine) is based on the contention that engine rock or motion would have an insignificant effect on our accelerator system and, in fact, the heat produced by the running engine would cause the accelerator linkage at the engine-mounted fuel pump to be less than the worse condition under extreme cold, and the temperature increase at this linkage during extreme high ambient would be inconsequential.

Your immediate telephone response with follow-up official written reply would be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

D. P. Weiher

Office of Corporate Safety, Emissions and Noise Control Phone No. 1-313-722-4900

DPW/emr

entir

ID: nht78-2.40

DATE: 10/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood For J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Research Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Oct 17, 1978

Mr. Ken Yoneyama Chief Engineer Bridgestone Research Inc. 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4202 New York, New York 10001

Dear Mr. Yoneyama:

This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1978, asking whether tires listed in Table 1-A of Appendix A, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, must comply with Part 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standars, (UTQGS), if the tires are installed as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. You also inquire as to the effective dates for the provision of UTQGS information to first purchasers of new motor vehicles under Part 575.104 (d) (1) (iii).

UTQGS applies to a tire type whose predominant contemplated use is on passenger cars, even if the manufacturer knows the tire type is also used as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A manufacturer's determination to certify a tire as conforming to Standard No. 109, will also determine the tire's classification for purposes of UTQGS. Thus, UTQGS would apply to any tire labeled with a size designation listed in Aappendix A of Standard No. 109, other than a deep tread, winter-type snow tire or space-saver or temporary use spare tire, regardless of the tire's actual use.

On October 23, 1978 NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) granting the petition of American Motors Corporation to revise the effective dates for Part 575.104 (d) (1) (iii) to September 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 1, 1980 for bias-belted tires. On the basis of this change, your statement regarding effective dates is correct.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 22, 1978 Ref. No. KY/107

Mr. Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

This letter is with reference to rule S575.104, Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (Docket No. 25; Notice 24), as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 43, 90. 137, July 17, 1978.

We would like to know whether the rule on the "Application" and the "Effective date of the requirements for original equipment tires" can be read as follows:

1. Application

Paragraph (c) on the "Application" states that, "This section applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars... ."

On the basis of this statement, we understand that the rule is not applied to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, even if the tires are listed on the Table of Standards No. 109.

For instance, a 6.00-16 tire is listed on the Table 1-A of Appendix A in the Standard No. 109, as a tire that is used for passenger cars. However, when the 6.00-16 tires are originally equipped on multipurpose passenger cars, we understand that it is not necessary for the tires to comply with the rule.

Is this correct, or not?

2. Effective Date

For the information requirements to be furnished to the first purchaser of a new motor vehicle, the paragraph (d) (1) (iii) states that, "The information ..... it must contain a statement referring the reader to the tire sidewall for the specific tire grades for the tires... ."

We understand that the information requirements to the first purchaser of a new moter vehicle will become effective on September 1, 1979 for bias ply tires and on March 1, 1980 for bias belted tires on the basis of the molding requirements.

Is this correct, or not?

We would appreciate it if you would inform us as to your opinion and judgement on the above interpretations, as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours truly,

KEN YONEYAMA Chief Engineer

KY/sff

ID: nht78-2.41

DATE: 03/22/78

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

TO: Industrial Airport

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 16, 1978, request for confirmation that Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, does not apply to an air-braked trailer that carries no cargo and consists entirely of a mobile auto-crushing device.

Section S3 of Standard No. 121 contains an exclusion for any trailer whose unloaded vehicle weight is not less than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). "Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants. Thus, if your mobile auto-crushing trailer carries no cargo or cargo that is less than 5 percent of the vehicles GVWR, it would be excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121.

I would note that Standard No. 108, Lamps, Relective Devices and Associated Equipment, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, may apply to the trailer you describe. I enclose an information sheet that describes where copies of these standards can be obtained.

ID: nht78-2.42

DATE: 01/06/78

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

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 27, 1977, letter asking whether a tire retreader is permitted to change the designation of a tire from "tubeless" to "tubetype".

Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, requires that the information appearing on the tire sidewall be the same as that which appeared on the tire as originally manufactured. This is indicated by the language in paragraph S6.3. If a retreader changed the tire designation from "tubeless" to "tubetype", he would be altering the information that was associated with the original tire. Thus, a retreader is not permitted to change the tire designation in the manner you describe.

SINCERELY,

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

October 27, 1977

John Diehl Department of Transportation Tire Identification and Record Keeping

Dear John:

By this letter we seek a clarification on the subject of using tubes in tubeless tires.

It is our understanding that some new tires manufactured as tubeless are labeled as being tubetype. We understand that the word "tubeless" on the tire sidewall is removed and the word "tubetype" is substituted. Further, we understand that no safety related aspect is involved in making the substitution.

(Accordingly, we seek your concurrence that a tire labeled "tubeless" being processed as a retread, may be labeled "tubetype" at the option of the retreader). We recognize that such an option cannot be exercised if safety considerations dictate otherwise. For example, a tube cannot be used in a retread in lieu of making a needed repair. Yes.

Your early confirmation that retreaders be afforded the same option of re-labeling as is available to new tire manufacturers is sought.

Philip H. Taft Director

November 2, 1977

Philip H. Tafts Director Tire Retreading Institute

Dear Mr. Taft:

Your October 27, 1977 to Mr. John Dill has been referred to this office for reply.

The tire manufacturer is the one who determines whether a tire is a tubeless or tube type tire.

The retreader does not have the option to re-label the tire cord body inorder to retread the tire, and sell it as a tube type tire, because the original tire manufacturer has followed the labeling requirements of (Illegible words) of FMVSS std. 109.

There are no safety related aspects associated with the reclassification of a tubeless tire to tube type, because inner tubes were used in tires that had a special gum insert on the first or band ply before tubeless tire were in successful production.

The above (Illegible Word) a recent article stating that the placement of a tube in a tubeless tire will cause the assembly to run hot and possibly lead to failure.

Also to aid in the understanding of reclassified tires from tubeless to tube type is the fact that the tube type tire is (Illegible Word) completely through the side wall to allow any entrappes air to escape when the tire contains an inner tube in a tubeless tire.

We hope we have clarified your position on tubeless and tube type tires he re-classified by the retrader.

Drill no control

Legal Concurrence!

(Illegible Word)

ID: nht78-2.43

DATE: 04/13/78

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

TO: E. A. Santiago

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Raycor Industries' March 13, 1978, question whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, applies to an air dryer that is installed in the air brake system of trucks that must comply with the standard.

The answer to your question is no. Paragraph S3 (Applicability) of Standard No. 121 states that the standard applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems (with some specified exceptions). The standard therefore applies only to vehicles, and does not apply to motor vehicle equipment such as the Raycor air dryer unit. The vehicles in question must, of course, conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of the device, if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

A copy of Standard No. 121 is enclosed for your information.

ID: nht78-2.44

DATE: 03/29/78

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

TO: Stanley Kuny

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Joan Claybrook has asked that I respond to your February 24, 1978, letter asking whether the seller of a school bus that contains a safety-related defect is responsible for correcting the defect, whether the buyer would otherwise be entitled to a refund for the price of the defective equipment, and whether a brake pressure limiting valve may be installed on the front axles of school buses whose antilock systems are disconnected pursuant to a recall campaign. You also ask about the status of the reimplementation of requirements for school bus service brake stopping distance performance contained in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Section 154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1414) requires the vehicle manufacturer to provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects found in its products, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of its purchase price is undertaken. International Harvester (IH) is in the process of field-testing its remedy for these school buses and it should be available fairly soon.

As for the installation of front-axle brake pressure limiting valves, Federal regulations for vehicles in interstate commerce prohibit the installation of manual limiting valves in 121-equipped vehicles and regulate the installation of automatic limiting valves. Also, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits, with one exception, the knowing rendering inoperative by commercial facilities of a device or element of design installed in satisfaction of a Federal safety standard such as Standard No. 121. A private party is not prohibited under this provision, but the vehicle manufacturer should be consulted about safest configuration of the vehicle brake system. In this case, IH's notice on antilock disconnection explained that the deactivation would render the brake system identical to those produced by IH since the "no lockup" requirement was suspended in January 1976. Thus IH does not recommend any further modification of the brake system.

With regard to your belief that the antilock systems may have cost $ 1200.00, I would like to clarify that Standard No. 121 contains many requirements for improved braking, and the incremental price increase for the improved brakes is attributable only in part to the antilock systems. At present, the Kelsey-Hayes antilock system used on IH school bus chassis costs $ 412.11, and this price would presumably be lower if the system was installed on all bus production as standard equipment.

As for the status of the reimplementation of service brake stopping distance requirements for school buses on April 1, 1978, the NHTSA expects to reach a decision soon and publish it in the Federal Register. I have asked a member of my staff to call you when a decision is made public.

ID: nht78-2.45

DATE: 01/06/78

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

TO: Arent, Fox, Kenter, Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 1, 1977, request for agreement by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the installation as original or aftermarket equipment of an electric retarder on the driveline of an air-braked vehicle would not affect its compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) requires, among other things, that no person manufacture or sell any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard. As your letter indicates, you are aware that this provision makes it impossible for the NHTSA to "approve" the compliance of a vehicle configuration in advance of manufacture of the vehicle, because there can be no certainty that the vehicle as manufactured will actually comply. In this case, for example, the retarder's weight or the manner in which it is mounted would affect the actual compliance of the vehicle in which it is installed.

Jacobs' September 20, 1977, analysis evaluated the likelihood that certain retarders to be imported or manufactured by Jacobs would affect compliance. With regard to these retarders, it appears that their installation as original equipment or in the aftermarket in the fashion described would not affect compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 121. This finding is of necessity limited to the retarders evaluated in the September 20, 1977, analysis.

ID: nht78-2.46

DATE: 01/26/78

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

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 12, 1977, request for confirmation that an air-braked electric trackless trolley may be tested for compliance with S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with its transmission selector control in the "DRIVE" position if the drive wheels and motor are permanantly mechanically connected and the motor automatically provides retardation when the service brake control is depressed. Your other requests for interpretation have been answered by separate letters.

Section S6.1.3 of Standard No. 121 specifies:

S6.1.3 Unless otherwise specified, the transmission selector control is in neutral or the clutch is disengaged during all decelerations and during static parking brake tests.

This test condition does not permit testing for compliance with the transmission selector control in the "DRIVE" position. The performance levels of the standard were established at levels intended for the foundation brakes alone, exclusive of engine braking, and it is for this reason that the selector must be in neutral or the clutch disengaged. This is true both for vehicles with manual and automatic transmissions.

It does appear that a case may be made for testing the bus you describe with the selector in "DRIVE". One important factor would be whether the field in the motor generator is permanent or electrically induced. In the event you wish to petition for an amendment of S6.3.1, information of this nature should accompany your petition.

In response to your other question, the agency's July 10, 1974, letter to Flyer Industries remains valid.

ID: nht78-2.47

DATE: 01/10/78

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

TO: Briskin Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I would like to advise Briskin Manufacturing Company as a producer of air reservoirs for use on vehicles that comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has decided to withdraw its December 14, 1977, interpretation of the requirement that reservoirs "withstand" internal hydrostatic pressure (copy of interpretation enclosed).

While the NHTSA simply intended to clarify its existing interpretation of the requirements, information brought to the agency's attention indicates that the revised interpretation would have the unintended effect of increasing the stringency of the requirements. Any such upgrading of the integrity requirements for air reservoirs would be preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment.

The agency expects to publish notice that its interpretation is withdrawn in the Federal Register in the near future.