ID: nht75-6.26

DATE: 06/02/75

FROM: JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TO: DAVID E. MARTIN -- DIRECTOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

TITLE: N40-30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your December 17, 1974, and March 31, 1975, letters asking whether your proposed inertia seatback latch meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems.

After carefully examining the mechanism, considering General Motors' arguments in its favor, and meeting twice with GM representatives, we have decided that the proposed inertia latch would not comply with S4.3.1 of FMVSS 207 unless an emergency release were added to enable someone to override the automatic locking mechanism when necessary.

We agree with GM that the proposed seatback latch is an improvement in some respects over current designs. The latch provides added convenience for rear seat occupants since under normal circumstances they may fold the seat forward by simply pushing on the seatback. We also recognize that there may be a safety advantage in certain circumstances requiring fast exit from the vehicle in that the passenger will not have to fumble for a latch, which, though readily accessible, is neither in the same location nor operated in a similar manner in all cars. Your proposed design also avoids a serious problem of some current latches: namely, that they will not release if even light pressure is applied against the seatback in a forward direction. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is seriously considering action on this problem.

Despite these advantages, GM's proposed inertia latch would satisfy neither the intent nor the wording of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 207 because it would not release when the vehicle is upside down or upright at a pitch attitude exceeding a 32% downgrade. Such vehicle positions are not uncommon in accident situations and GM's own figures indicate that "100 rear seat occupants per year could be hindered in leaving the vehicle under circumstances which would make prompt egress important." S4.3.1 requires that "the control for releasing the (self-locking seatback) device shall be readily accessible to the occupant of the seat . . . and . . . to the occupant of the designated seating position immediately behind the seat." Under normal conditions the seatback itself would be the control for your latch and it is certainly readily accessible. When the vehicle is nose down or inverted, however, the seatback would not perform this function and there would consequently be no readily accessible control for releasing the self-locking device.

Because it is often important for passengers in post-accident situations immediately to leave or be removed from a vehicle, for any number of reasons including fire, serious bleeding or hazardous vehicle location, it seems especially important that a seatback release control operate under these circumstances. Adding an emergency latch lock override to the inertia latch design would avoid this problem while retaining the previously mentioned advantages of your design.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-6.27

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WALTER C. BURVILLE -- MANAGER, UNDERWRITING SURVEY DEPARTMENT CHUBB/PACIFIC INDEMNITY GROUP

TITLE: N40-30

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7/18/75 FROM WALTER C. BURVILLE OF CHUBB PACIFIC INDEMNITY GROUP TO THE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Burville:

This responds to your July 18, 1975, question whether actual road testing of completed vehicles that are required to meet Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, is necessary as a basis of certification to the standard.

I have enclosed copies of two letters that discuss in detail the kind of evidence a manufacturer of vehicles might use to certify compliance with Standard No. 121. It is emphasized in the letters that the statutory requirement is the exercise of "due care" and that this term may have a different meaning in the case of a small manufacturer than in the case of a large manufacturer. The manufacturer may decide to run only one test of his vehicles, or he may test representative vehicles periodically.

I have also enclosed a copy of a letter to a California manufacturer of trailers which may be the source of the NHTSA opinion that one means of exercising "due care" might be tests of representative trailers.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht75-6.28

DATE: 07/18/75

FROM: WALTER C. BURVILLE -- MANAGER UNDERWRITING SURVEY DEPARTMENT CHUBB/PACIFIC INDEMNITY GROUP

TO: ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 121.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8/18/75 FROM FRANK BERNDT OF NHTSA TO WALTER C. BURVILLE -- MANAGER, UNDERWRITING SURVEY DEPARTMENT CHUBB PACIFIC INDEMNITY GROUP; N40-30

TEXT: Gentlemen:

In the hustle of various interpretations following the inactment of 121, I am getting contradicting information. We are insurers of several trailer manufactures in this area. Most of them maintain that actual road tests of complete units is not necessary to conform with Section 55.3.2 "Stopping Capability-Trailers."

In discussing this with NHTSA in Seattle in March, they stated that in their opinion, a company would have to take a typical unit of each variety manufactured and test it under the most adverse conditions according to Section 56 "Conditions", and this means an actual road test.

Would you provide an interpretation on this, if available. Will a road test be necessary and will routine tests or only the initial test be sufficient?

Very truly yours,

ID: nht75-6.29

DATE: 08/19/75

FROM: JAMES C. SCHULTZ -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GERHARD P. RIECHEL -- ATTORNEY VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: N40-30 KK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Riechel:

This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1975, inquiring as to the permissibility under Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, of offering for sale new vehicles equipped with louvers affixed to the outside of the rear window without installing a rearview mirror on the passenger side.

Standard 111 requires that an outside rearview mirror of substantially unit magnification be installed on the passenger side of a vehicle where the field of view provided by the inside rearview mirror is obscured by objects other than seated occupants or head restraints. Based upon the information contained in your letter, it appears that the louver affixed to the rear window obstructs the view to the rear provided by the inside mirror. Since this louver does not fall within the two exceptions named in S3.1.1 of the standard (seated occupants and head restraints), a passenger side rearview mirror would be necessary to comply with the requirements of the standard.

The fact that the obstruction is only slight does not affect this determination, since the standard is clear on the point that the only obscurity allowable is that caused by occupants or head restraints.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-6.3

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Royal Industries

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 3, 1975, request for confirmation that a final-stage manufacturer (as defined in 49 CFR @ 568.3) is responsible for certification of its motor vehicle products under Part 568 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (vehicles manufactured in two or more stages) and that it would be illegal for a final-stage manufacturer to complete a truck with a volumetric capacity which would accommodate more weight than the rated cargo load, causing the loaded vehicle weight to exceed the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) specified by the manufacturer. You also request confirmation that the cargo container designed for a specific commodity must have a load center of gravity (CG) that does not cause the total vehicle CG to exceed the chassis manufacturer's specified CG.

You are correct that Part 568 makes the final-stage manufacturer responsible for certification of a completed vehicle which is manufactured in two or more stages.

If a final-stage manufacturer specifies a rated cargo load for the completed vehicle, the weight of the vehicle when carrying that load must not exceed the GVWR. If you supply no rated cargo load, but only the volumetric capacity, the capacity would not on its face lead to a violation of the certification regulations, since the weight of specific commodities can vary considerably.

You should be aware, however, that completing the vehicle so that its apparent carrying capacity exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common-law product liability doctrines. As you suggest, the final-stage manufacturer who completes a vehicle for a specific commodity is clearly on notice that providing "overload capacity" could constitute a safety-related defect if that vehicle is involved in an accident due to overloading. I enclose copies of two interpretations on this subject provided to a manufacturer and a trade association.

Part 568 contains no requirements for limitation of cargo load center of gravity. I assume your question about CG concerns completion of air-brake vehicles in a fashion which permits you to certify to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. I enclose a copy of a notice which explains that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will test a vehicle under Standard No. 121, whether or not designed for a specific capacity, using a CG height which does not exceed that specified by the chassis manufacturer. I would note that the preamble of the enclosed notice points out that, if the NHTSA should discover vehicles being produced that do not perform safely when loaded in a normal manner and can establish that this condition is attributable to deficiencies in vehicle manufacture or design, it can proceed against their manufacturers under its safety-related defect jurisdiction.

ID: nht75-6.30

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: NANCY KOLODNY -- STAFF ATTORNEY FORD MOTOR CO.

TO: RICHARD B. DYSON -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: 1975 MONARCH REAR TAILLAMP PART NO. (2)(A)(2) - IP2R(2)S(3)T75CT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHES TO A LETTER DATED 8/18/75 FROM JAMES C. SCHULTZ -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO NANCY KOLODNY -- FORD MOTOR'S GENERAL COUNSEL; N40 30(ZTV)

TEXT: We are writing to seek the express confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, 49 CFR 571.108 ("Standard 108") on passenger car lighting, as was provided by NHTSA in Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. v. Younger, No. Civ. S74-126 (D.C.E.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 1974).

This request is being made so that we may respond to the attached correspondence (Attachment I) from Mr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, California Highway Patrol, concerning compliance with Section 25950 * of the California Vehicle Code by the 1975 Monarch rear taillamps. Mr. Heath's letters of April 8 and May 25 contend that the amber lens applied over a red lens on one of the Monarch taillamp compartments violates that provision of the California Vehicle Code Section 25950 which does not permit a taillamp to be amber when unlighted. On this basis, Mr. Heath has stated that similarly equipped 1976 model year Monarchs will not be eligible for registration in California.

* Section 25950 provides in pertinent part: "(b) All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear.

This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot - candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps and turn signal lamps visible to the rear may be white when unlighted."

We believe the provisions of Section 25950 are preempted by Standard 108, and that pursuant to Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392(d)), California is precluded from the enforcement of any nonidentical standard.

As the NHTSA has confirmed on several occasions, the Standard's lighting requirements are intended to be comprehensive and exclusive, and leave no room for differing state standards. The statement of the Administrator cited by the Court in the Motorcycle Industry Council judgment is particularly pertinent here where California seeks to enforce a differing standard for the precise function (i.e., taillamp color) covered by Standard 108. (Letter from James B. Gregory, Administrator NHTSA, to W. Pudinski, Commissioner, Dept. of Highway Patrol, dated Nov. 8, 1973, N40-30 (RBD).)

Compliance of the Monarch rear lamps with the requirements of Standard 108 has been confirmed by tests conducted at Ford. (Attachment II) Therefore, we seek an opinion on the issue of preemption with respect to the differing California requirements of Section 25950.

For your assistance, we are enclosing color photos of the Monarch and Monarch Ghia rear lamps which demonstrate their appearance when lighted and unlighted. (Attachment III) Photo #1 is of the Monarch rear lamp unlighted. Photo #2 shows the taillamp (3 exterior red compartments) lighted. Photos #3 and #4 are of the Monarch Ghia.

If you have any questions on this matter, please so inform me. I may be reached by telephone at (313) 337-6462. We hope to receive a response at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-6.31

DATE: 07/16/75

FROM: WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

TO: B. J. CAMPBELL -- CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCIL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Dr. Campbell:

As you and the many members present at the Council's last meeting will recall, Dr. Gregory asked the Council to consider two important questions facing NHTSA's motor vehicle safety program. I would like to formally reiterate that request and emphasize the importance of obtaining the Council's collective advice on them.

The first concerns the way NHTSA does business. As a regulatory agency, NHTSA establishes motor vehicle safety standards under the Administrative Procedure Act. Similarly, there are administrative procedures for ensuring industry compliance with those standards. In addition, NHTSA is responsible for monitoring the safety defects of motor vehicles on the highways and has established procedures for carrying out that task.

We are constantly in the process of reviewing, revising, and expanding these procedures. I ask that the Council look at them and determine whether NHTSA is being fair to all involved and at the same time responsive to the requirements of public safety and the mandates of Congress. Are these procedures timely, logical and equitable? Can they be improved?

The second important question concerns the role of cost/benefit studies in our safety standards process. Dr. Gregory and I have taken the position that cost/benefit analysis is important and should always be considered when developing a new or reviewing an existing safety standard. But the cost/benefit factors can be only one input. For example, in the transportation of school children we have a public that demands the safest possible ride on school buses, cost/benefit ratios notwithstanding. On the other hand, we clearly want to avoid a situation of rapidly rising costs with no or little increase in benefits. The question is -- how do we handle this in relation to public values and industry demands? Dr. Gregory and I believe that in any regulatory program standards should be set at a level where the cost -- in terms of dollars, inconvenience, or whatever -- is modest in proportion to the increase in safety benefits. I realize that the Council's Fourth International Congress on Automotive Safety is in large part directed at this question. I hope the information presented there and the ensuing discussions will aid the Council in tackling this important issue.

I've asked Dr. Gregory to make available background material and briefings to aid the Council in deliberating these questions, and I look forward to receiving the Council's advice.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-6.32

DATE: 10/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Charter Arms Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 6, 1969, to the National Commission on Products Liability has been referred to the National Highway Safety Bureau for reply.

Vehicle skidding is a function of many parameters within the tire-pavement interface. The most adverse tire-pavement interactions occur when pavement is covered with water. Under certain wet pavement conditions, complete loss of traction or hydroplaning occurs. The two possible hydroplaning phenomena which may occur are viscous hydroplaning or dynamic hydroplaning. Both of these conditions of hydroplaning to a degree may be controlled by the proper selection of pavement texture and tread depth of tires.

The detection of hydroplaning as the causation of accidents is most difficult to establish and although we have many accident studies in progress, I would seriously doubt that hydroplaning can be successfully isolated from the common form of skidding.

The tire manufacturers recognize hydroplaning and they do provide adequate water escape passages as well as tread depth to cope with this problem. However, the tire is only a subsystem within the tire-pavement system of hydroplaning.

For further information on this subject, I suggest that you contact the National Aeronautics and Space Administration what research history on hydroplaning dates to 1958.

ID: nht75-6.33

DATE: 07/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cooney Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of June 17, 1969, to Mr. Donald Morrison of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, concerning switching arrangements for running lamps, has been transferred to this Office for consideration and reply.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on lighting requirements for motor vehicles. This standard is applicable to new vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of January 1, 1969. Special wiring requirements, such as lamp switching arrangements, are included in paragraphs S3.4 through S3.4.7 of the standard.

We do not completely understand your usage of the term "running lights." If you are referring only to tail lamps, your attention is invited specifically to paragraph S3.4.3 of the standard which is quoted as follows: "As a minimum the tail lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated except when the headlamps are being flashed." The switching arrangements for other "running lights," such as clearance lamps and identification lamps, are at the option of the vehicle manufacturer.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht75-6.34

DATE: 09/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bergman & Hicks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1970, to Mr. Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director for Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Safety Bureau concerning clearance lights on mobile homes.

A mobile home towed on its own wheels is a "motor vehicle" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and is categorized as a "trailer".

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 requires clearance lamps to be installed on trailers 80 or more inches in overall width. In transit a mobile home towed on its own wheels must therefore be equipped with clearance lamps; however, these lamps may be temporarily installed and removed when the mobile home has reached its destination.

We would appreciate your providing us, if possible, with the names of manufacturers of mobile homes whom you believe to be towing these vehicles without equipping them with lighting devices meeting Standard No. 108. This will assist us in our efforts to insure that all manufacturers meet their obligations under the Act.