ID: nht78-3.9

DATE: 03/08/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: O'Sullivan Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1978, to Mr. Guy Hunter of my staff, requesting assignment of a "DOT" code number for purposes of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You state that you supply vinyl plastic sheeting to your customer who, in turn, laminates and polishes this sheeting for use as glazing in the rear window opening of convertibles.

Under paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205 (a copy was previously mailed to you), the assignment of a code number is restricted to prime glazing material manufacturers. Prime glazing material manufacturers are those who either fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. Since you merely supply the material to your customer who then laminates and polishes it for use as glazing, you are not considered the prime manufacturer and assignment of a code number to you is not appropriate. Your customer is the prime manufacturer in this case and it is his responsibility to certify that his glazing meets the requirements by the means specified in FMVSS No. 205.

If I can be of further help, do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

O'Sullivan Corporation

February 3, 1978

Guy Hunter -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY & TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Hunter:

We used to calender clear vinyl plastic sheeting which was subsequently laminated and polished and used in the automobile rear windows.

Our former customer recently ordered another quantity of this plastic. We understand that suppliers of this type of materials must obtain a D.O.T. number and we would appreciate having one assigned to us.

Yours very truly,

R. C. Evans, Vice President Director of Research & Development

cc: J. S. Campbell; C. R. Creamer; N. R. Hamblin

ID: nht78-4.1

DATE: 03/09/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: The Reynolds and Reynolds Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 3, 1978, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review your small Odometer Mileage Statement Form ODOM-1030N, your large Odometer Mileage Statement Form ODOM-105-N, and your Retail Buyers Order. It is our opinion that the forms which you submitted meet the Federal odometer requirements which became effective January 1, 1978. Thank you for your cooperation in preparing the forms.

ID: nht78-4.10

DATE: 09/05/78

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

TO: Vespa of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, whether turn signal systems installed on mopeds must meet the standard's requirements. One of NHTSA's engineers has informally advised you, in your words, "that because turn signal units on mopeds are not required devices. . . they are not required to meet the specific requirements in FMVSS 108 relative to motorcycles as long as they do not affect the operation of the other required equipment."

We are pleased that Vespa is considering installing turn signal lamps on motor vehicles that S4.1.1.26 excuses from having them. If you wish to install systems that you intend to comply with Standard No. 108 and which for one reason or another fail to do so, it is doubtful that NHTSA would take any action against Vespa since the equipment is clearly optional and added only at a manufacturer's discretion. We would also view as preempted under Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act any State action either to require turn signal lamps on mopeds or to establish requirements for such were they added at the option of the manufacturer.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

SINCERELY,

vespa of america corporation

July 3, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

It is suggested, by Mr. George Shifflet, that an official comment should be solicited from your office to verify our interpretation regarding voluntary equipment of turn signal systems on mopeds (motorized bicycles).

It has been the understanding of Vespa of America Corporation that if a piece of equipment is offered on a moped which is exempted from its requirement (as turn signal systems are exempted as specified - FMVSS 108 Sec. S4.1.1.26) than that piece of equipment must meet all requirements set forth in the respective FMVS Standard.

During my phone conversation with Mr. Shifflet, he offered information to the contrary. He stated, that because turn signal units on mopeds are not required devices under FMVS Standards, they are not required to meet the specific requirements in FMVSS 108 relative to motorcycles as long as they do not affect the operation of the other required equipment.

If Mr. Shifflet's statement is true, then existing State requirements would apply to moped turn signal units.

I am anxiously awaiting your comments as they are the basis for our action. I remain,

Donald Beyer National Service Manager

ID: nht78-4.11

DATE: 10/31/78

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

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. You referred to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J571d, referenced in Standard No. 108, which specifies dimensions for rectangular headlamp retaining rings in its Figure 8(B). The table of dimensions in Figure 8 specifies a maximum of 1.52 mm for the "N" dimension on the drawing, the distance of the forward portion of the retaining ring from the lens surface. You stated that Toyota plans to increase that dimension by an unspecified amount for ornamental purposes.

You further advised that the proposed design would not interfere with the ability of the headlamps to meet the performance requirements of SAE J580a and b and of the mechanical aiming requirements of SAE J602c.

Since Figure 8(B) of SAE J571d shows that the "K" dimension shall not exceed 1.52 mm, any greater dimension would not meet the specifications of the standard. However, you may petition for rulemaking to appropriately amend Standard No. 108. We cannot, however, offer any assurance that the standard would be changed in response to your petition.

SINCERELY,

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

September 6, 1978

Joseph Levin Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

RE: Interpretation Request of FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Levin:

This is to request your interpretation of SAE J 571d with regard to the retaining ring for 4 x 6 1/2 inch rectangular headlamps, as quoted in FMVSS 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment."

According to Fig. 8 (B) of SAE J 571d, the forward portion of the retaining ring from the lens surface is limited to 1.52mm ("K" MAX). However, we feel that as long as the performance requirements specified in SAE J 580 a and b, and the aiming requirements specified in SAE J 602c are conformed (Illegible Word), it is not necessary to restrict "K" MAX to 1.52mm.

We are planning to introduce some models with 4 x 6 1/2 inch rectangular headlamps in the near future. The retaining ring is extended ahead, and is formed into a part of the ornamental door or bezel. (See attached drawing.) This retaining ring, as illustrated, is designed so that the opening dimension "L" must comply with the dimension required by the applicable SAE J 571d, "Dimensional Specifications for Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit." The ring's frame portion "M," which is relatively wider in flatness, as indicated, is made to be securely fitted with an aimer specified in SAE J 602c, "Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit," when the headlamps are mechanically aimed.

This headlamp housing can fully comply with the requirements of functional performance (such as headlamp aiming adjustment, vibration resistance, and so on) specified in the applicable SAE J 580 a and b, "Sealed Beam Headlamp assembly," as referred to in the current FMVSS No. 108.

We would appreciate your interpretation of this information at your earliest possible convenience.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

M. YANADA for J. Kawano Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office

cc: M. V. ELLIOTT, OFC. OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, NHTSA

Attached Drawing

4 x 6 1/2 in. Rectangular Headlamp Retaining Ring

(Dimension: mm)

Retaining ring extended to a part of ornamental bezel

Note: "L": 92.98 +/- 1.30X133.42 +/- 1.30 (SAE required dimension)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-4.12

DATE: 11/20/78

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

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1978, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number. Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard are enclosed.

In confirmation of your meeting with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, and Schwartz, you are correct in stating that vehicle description section (VDS) informational content can change from model year, to model year even though the actual characters in the VDS remain the same. All changes in the informational content of the VDS must, of course, be submitted to the NHTSA as required in S6 of the standard.

As you point out in your letter, "dividers" which would appear at the beginning and the end of the VIN would not be considered part of the VIN and, therefore, would not be regulated by the standard. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the dividers are neither alphabetic nor numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.

In your meeting with NHTSA staff, you requested clarification concerning which manufacturer identifier should be used when the vehicle assembly is carried out by one company on behalf of another. In this instance, the manufacturer identifier of the company under whose authority the assembly is carried out and which maintains responsibility for the vehicle's compliance with safety standards should be used. You have also asked for a definition of the term "transfer document." A "transfer document" will vary in content from manufacturer to manufacturer, but means the document(s) given to the owner of the vehicle for use when the vehicle is being titled.

We would also call to your attention proposed changes to the standard contained in the enclosed notice of proposed rulemaking. If the proposed changes are adopted, the check digit would be placed in the fourth position of the VIN, and the first and second characters of the VDS, which immediately follow the check digit, would be alphabetic.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Volkswagen of America, Inc.

September 8, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Esquire -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RE: VW/NHTSA Meeting on Vehicle Identification Numbers

Dear Mr. Levin:

On September 8, 1978, representatives of Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagenwerk AG met with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, Parker and Schwartz of the NHTSA to discuss FMVSS 115, the Final Rule on Vehicle Identification Numbers as published in the Federal Register of August 17, 1978.

VW explained that the vehicle identification numbering system it adopts must be compatible with the new NHTSA VIN rule, various international regulations and its own internal purposes. VW indicated that the NHTSA Final Rule had furthered compatibility by changing the position of the VIN check digit from the third to the second section.

VW presented to the NHTSA representatives its proposed concept for fulfilling the requirements of FMVSS 115 including the reporting system (see attachment). NHTSA agreed that the same five digit code within the second section could be used, even if the characteristics of the specific attributes change, for example horsepower or displacement increases from one model year to a new model year. NHTSA also observed that the key used for reporting and deciphering the attributes will consist of the WMI, the five characters of the second section and the model year.

VW described the Common Market directive requiring the use of so-called "dividers" at the beginning and end of the vehicle identification number. These "dividers" are characters which are not part of the VIN and would be in the nature of a star, asterisk or company logo. NHTSA indicated that dividers can be used for vehicles sold in the U.S. provided the VIN is distinct and the divider could not be confused as part of the VIN.

VW requested a clarification as to the meaning of "transfer documents." NHTSA informed VW that "transfer documents" were the official documents needed for titling a vehicle in accordance with state requirements.

VW described the manufacturing process involved in production of its Type 2 Camper vehicle and Scirocco. The Camper's final stage and the Scirocco are assembled by other companies. VW assumes full responsibility for both of these finished vehicles. Therefore, NHTSA agreed that VW's WMI should be used for these vehicles.

We appreciate the willingness of NHTSA to meet with us in order to clarify several aspects of the final VIN rule. It is our intent to institute VIN and reporting systems in accordance with these interpretations by NHTSA.

Sincerely,

Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr. Washington Representative

[Attachment Omitted]

ID: nht78-4.13

DATE: 11/28/78

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

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 19, 1978, questions about the effect of the PACCAR V. NHTSA decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.

Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision. Only the "road testing" requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.

One question raised is whether the court invalidated these "road testing" requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation "at the time [the standard] was put into effect" (573 F2d. at 640).

Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks "no lockup" performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.

A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have already been antilock equipped, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that --

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the first retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.

The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different in the case of a manufacturer or agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under @ 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken. "Adequate repair" is defined in @ 159(4) not to include "any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment." The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safet related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.

A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export) trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain "road testing" portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, "no lockup", timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.

Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes an importation in violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.

ID: nht78-4.14

DATE: 11/28/78

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

TO: Alloy Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 24, 1978, questions about the effect of the PACCAR v. NHTSA decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.

Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision. Only the "road testing" requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.

One question raised is whether the court invalidated these "road testing" requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation "at the time [the standard] was put into effect" (573 F2d. at 640).

Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks "no lockup" performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.

A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have already been antilock equipped, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that --

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the first retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.

The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different in the case of a manufacturer of agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under @ 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken. "Adequate repair" is defined in @ 159(4) not to include "any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment." The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safety-related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.

A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export) trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain "road testing" portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, "no lockup", timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.

Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes an importation in violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.

You also asked whether the 12-foot-lane requirement of S5.3.2 for trailers remains in effect. The answer to your question is yes. Because trailers are not required to stop within a specified distance, we concluded that there would be no difficulty in coming to a controlled stop within the 12-foot-lane without "no lockup" performance, as long as the 90-psi application requirement was also considered invalidated by the Ninth Circuit. If you have information that indicates this not to be the case, we would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible as the basis for reconsideration of our interpretation.

You undoubtedly noted that our October 19th Federal Register notice of interpretation of the PACCAR decision stated that requirements such as reservoir capacity were not invalidated by the Ninth Circuit, despite their indirect relationship to the "no lockup" requirement. As for rulemaking to make such a change, I have enclosed a copy of our recent proposal on trailer parking and emergency brake requirements. You will find a discussion of the reservoir issue on page 41058 and a request for information from manufacturers. I encourage you to submit available information to the NHTSA, at the address noted in the proposal.

ID: nht78-4.15

DATE: 01/06/78

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

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 17, 1977, request for confirmation that the brake system of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus to be imported by AM General conforms to S5.1.4, S5.3.3, S5.3.4, S5.4, and S5.6.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. An October 17, 1977, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to Mr. Shillinger of AM General has already answered your question concerning S5.1.2.3 of the standard.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 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 the manufacturer of AM General Transit buses, I am sure you are aware that this provision makes it impossible for the NHTSA to "approve" the compliance of a brake system in advance of manufacturer of the vehicle because there can be no certainty that the vehicle as manufactured will actually comply.

In response to your statement that the bus must be tested to S5.4, @ 108(b)(2) of the Act provides that @ 108(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to any person who establishes that he did not have reason to know, in the exercise of due care, that a vehicle is not in conformity with an applicable standard. The NHTSA has always interpreted "due care" to mean that a manufacturer is free to use whatever method is reasonably calculated to assure itself that its products, if tested, would conform to the standard's requirements. Thus, dynamo-meter testing of the brakes on each bus would not be necessary if the manufacturer can, in the exercise of due care, assure itself on a reasonable basis, such as engineering calculations, that its products are capable of complying with the standard.

The NHTSA can confirm that S5.3.1 specifies that the tested vehicle be capable of stopping at least once in six stops in the specified stopping distance, within the 12-foot wide roadway, and without lockup of any wheel above 10 mph other than "controlled lockup." Section S5.3.1 specifies "no lockup" performance and can be met by any design, including one which incorporates "load sensing devices" that provide the specified performance.

Section S5.1.4 specifies "[a] pressure gauge in each service brake system . . . that indicates the service reservoir system air pressure." In the case of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus, each of the three service brake circuits must be monitored by a gauge readily visible to the driver. The agency takes no position on the wisdom of deleting pressure gauges that monitor brake chamber air pressure.

Section S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 specify minimum actuation and release times for the service brakes, measuring the time to achieve 60 p.s.i. during actuation and the time to drop from 95 p.s.i. to 5 p.s.i. during release. While these 60- and 95-p.s.i. benchmarks appear in the standard, an interpretation of them has been issued because at least one manufacturer is using a maximum air pressure that is less than the benchmarks. I enclose a copy of the clarification to answer your question.

Your question about S5.6.4 is unclear, but the NHTSA can confirm that the control lever that you showed to the NHTSA appeares to be identified in manner that specifies the method of control operation. As we understand it, the arrow suggesting clockwise rotation of the handle, in conjuction with the word "park", are intended to identify how to apply the parking brake. This interpretation only addresses an arrangement in which parking brake release is the opposite of parking brake application.

SINCERELY,

October 17, 1977 NHTSA Handling & Stability Division

Dear Mr. Perrin:

I am expressing my gratitude for your cooperation and assistance during our meeting on September 8, 1977 with Mr. Scott Shadle, M.A.N. Representatives and Westinghouse Representatives.

The following is a list by paragraph of items of FMVSS #121 discussed: S5.1.2.3 Check Valves - The use of a four-circuit protection valve in lieu of check valves as interpreted, meets the intent of the law. However, the location must be approved by NHTSA. S5.14 Gages - As interpreted, the three individual systems must have an air gage in driver's compartment.

Gages which show actual chamber pressure not required. As agreed, each of the three systems will incorporate a gage in driver's compartment and gages showing actual chamber pressure will be deleted. S5.3.3 Brake Actuation Time - As discussed, the require- ment of 0 to 60 psi in 0.45 seconds has been changed to 0 to 70% of maximum attained pressure (psi) in 0.45 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to actuation time. S5.3.4 Brake Release Time - As discussed, the release time 95-5 psig in 0.55 seconds has been changed

to maximum attainable pressure to 5 psi in 0.55 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to release time. S5.4 Service Brake System - Dynamometer Test Required to be conducted. S5.6.4 Parking Brake Control - This is related to con- figuration which will be used by Seattle-approved.

Discussion on anti-skid versus non-anti-skid:

It was pointed out that the interpretation by NHTSA that driver modulation is permissible, only one of six attempts must meet distance, 12 ft. lane and no-wheel lock up. Further, it was interpreted that load sensing brake system will meet intent of law.

I am anxiously awaiting your Department's letter indicating that the brake and air system on the Articulated Bus as discussed, to the best of your knowledge, meets the intent of FMVSS #121. However, we will ensure that certification testing is in conformance.

AM GENERAL CORPORATION

R. E. Billman Project Engineer

Attachments - 81.52100.8211 Sheet 1 81.52100.8193 Sheet 1 81.51400.8144 Sheet 3 81.99231.8779

ID: nht78-4.16

DATE: 02/24/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Emil M. Mrak

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1978, to Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the seat belts in your Cougar automobile.

Your original letter of December 12, 1977, to Secretary Brock Adams, complaining about the seat belts in your automobile has been answered. A copy of our reply is enclosed to this letter and is still relevant to your problem.

As long as the lap-shoulder belt intersection is not less than 6 inches from the vertical centerline of the driver, any other location that is confortable and easy to use is allowable. We suggest that you again contact your dealer to determine if the belt arrangement can be modified to be better suited to your condition and yet have the belt configuration remain within the NHTSA requirements.

SINCERELY,

January 30, 1978

Honorable Joan Claybrook Department of Transportation

Dear Miss Claybrook:

I have been in correspondence with the Ford Motor Company concerning the inadequacies of the seat belts in their new cars, and especially the Cougar.

I am enclosing copies of correspondence that I have had with the Ford Motor Company and the Department of Transportation, and this latter has not been answered.

The present seat belt arrangement is almost impossible for a person of my age to use. If the attachment on the right side of the driver were six inches longer it would be easy to use. As it is, when I drive around town I am not using a seat belt, although I would prefer to use one. When I take longer trips, I use it and, if my wife is along, I have her assistance in attaching it. If she is not along, I struggle and struggle until finally I get it attached.

It is of interest to me that the Ford Motor Company blames the Department of Transportation for this inadequacy. I just can't believe it. If it is the fault of the Department of Transportation I hope the Department will correct it.

If the Department of Transportation can't help in this matter, then I plan to take it up with some member of Congress.

As you well know, we got rid of the interlock system. I think this can be corrected too.

VERY TRULY YOURS, Emil M. Mrak

602 CORDOVA PLACE DAVIS, CA 95616

December 12, 1977

The Honorable Brockman Adam The Secretary of Transportation

Dear Mr. Adams:

Sometime ago I wrote the Ford Company complaining about the inaccessibility of the short portion of the seat belt to a person who is up in years. I pointed out that because of the extreme difficulty of hitching these up, more and more people are failing to use seat belts. Furthermore, the twisting and squirning required could very well result in backbone injuries to elderly people.

I was astounded to receive a letter from the Ford Company indicating that the Federal Standards required such a belt. This is hard for me to believe. In any event, I would appreciate knowing if what they told me is the truth, and if it is, then, the truth, I would strongly recommend that this requirement be revised. If it is not a requirement, then I think the Ford Company should be told to take the blame off the Department of Transportation.

If Congressional help is needed to make such a change, I would be glad to pursue it.

I am enclosing copies of my letter to Mr. Wilson of the Ford Company and also his reply, which as (Illegible Words) astonished me.

VERY TRULY YOURS, Emil M. Mrak

ID: nht78-4.17

DATE: 01/09/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - Wisconsin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 20, 1977, letter asserting that the Wisconsin requirement for minimum seat spacing does not conflict with the Federal requirement for maximum seat spacing found in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) specifies that no State shall have in effect a safety standard concerning an aspect of performance regulated by a Federal safety standard, unless the State standard is identical. The Act provides a limited exception to the above where a State or local municipality has a requirement which applies only to vehicles purchased for their own use and which imposes a higher standard of performance. Both Standard No. 222, which regulates maximum seat spacing, and the Wisconsin standard, which regulates minimum seat spacing, regulate the same aspect of performance. This position is supported by our statements in Notice 5 of Standard No. 222 (41 FR 4016) which expressed the opinion that seat spacing is the regulated aspect of performance (copy enclosed). Since your State standard is not identical to the Federal standard, it is the opinion of the NHTSA that it is preempted.

You should note that although you are not permitted to impose this State standard on all vehicles used in your State, the Federal government does not preclude you from purchasing any buses for your own use from among the several designs now in production. You could, therefore, purchase only those vehicles that afford you the minimum knee space you desire. You should note further that purchase for your own use has been interpreted to mean purchased by a contractor under contract to provide transportation for school children.

SINCERELY,

State of Wisconsin / DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

September 20, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator NHTSA Office of the Administrator

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Re: Letter to you from Mr. Robert Kurre, Wayne Corporation Date September 2, 1977

The State of Wisconsin stoutly defends it's position that there is no point of conflict between the FMVSS 222 relating to seat spacing and the Wisconsin Administrative Code, MVD 17.

FMVSS dictates a maximum space permitted (for compartmentalization) for persons riding in school buses. The Wisconsin rule states a minimum distance that is permissible.

The engineering staff at Wayne Corporation was aware of these two non-conflicting standards as of February 23, 1977. It appears to us that this should have been adequate lead time to design and test seats that can meet both the federal and state standard.

To emphasize this point, we have been advised by one manufacturer of school bus bodies that they are meeting both federal and Wisconsin standards on buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. It is the State of Wisconsin contention that it is merely a matter of proper design by the manufacturer to meet both requirements.

The Wisconsin standard was developed because of the concern for adequate knee room in the seats. The federal standard has no minimum knee room, therefore, if a manufacturer wished to have, for instance only 20 inches of knee room, he could so produce a bus and not be in conflict with the federal standard. This is what we have prevented by the implementation of our minimum spacing measurement. We have observed buses built to less than the 24 inch minimum spacing and they are unacceptable for the cross section of pupil transportation in Wisconsin.

To carry this a bit further, the State of Wisconsin subscribes to the proposal that the federal government interpret the 20 inch measurement from the seating reference point be made at the closest point between the seat back rather than have this at the widest point.

We believe Mr. Kurre is in error by stating that the State of Wisconsin has a standard in conflict with a federal standard. We further believe that our 24 inch measurement is the extreme minimum that is necessary for transportation of any school children in Wisconsin

If I can supply you with additional information in this matter, please advise.

JAMES O. PETERSON Administrator

cc: Col. LEW V. VERSNIK; CARL H. ZUTZ