ID: nht75-4.50

DATE: 12/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; MaRK Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: For Interpretation file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On December 1, 1975, I received a telephone call from Mr. Nakajima of Bridgestone Tire Co. (213-320-6030) concerning the meaning of the March 1, 1975, effective date of Standard No. 119. He wanted confirmation that tires, for vehicles other than passenger cars, that were manufactured before that date are not subject to the standard's labeling requirements. I explained that his understanding was correct, citing 49 CFR @ 571.7.

ID: nht75-4.6

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Strick Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 17, 1975, question whether a used running gear assembly can be combined with a new platform to qualify as a "repaired" trailer that would not have to conform to the requirements for air brake systems on newly-manufactured trailers (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). I have enclosed an interpretive letter which should clarify this matter for you. Briefly, the answer is no, if the "platform" includes the main frame members.

You also asked whether the vehicle must conform to the safety standards if it is assembled for the manufacturer's own use or if it is leased to a third party. Section 108 (a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397 (a) (1) (A)) prohibits not only the sale, but also the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of vehicles which do not comply with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Therefore the answer to your question is yes if the vehicle is ever operated on the public streets or highways.

SINCERELY,

STRICK CORP.

July 17, 1975

James C. Schultz, Esquire Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: N40-30 (TWH)

Thank you very much for your letter of June 6, 1975 with regard to Standard #121, Air-Brake Systems. I would appreciate very much if you could let me know whether the NHTSA interpretations of the Standard would prohibit the utilization of a used running gear assembly with a new platform, on a platform trailer for our own use in our operations. In addition, we would appreciate advice as to whether or not the lease of such a vehicle to third parties would be prohibited.

Leonard Barkan Vice President and General Counsel

ID: nht75-4.7

DATE: 12/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht75-4.8

DATE: 05/02/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, inquiring as to the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 on Massachusetts and New Jersey State laws relating to air brake performance.

As you are aware, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

Standard No. 121 includes provisions relating to truck and bus brake performance, including requirements for stopping distances. A more restrictive State brake requirement than that specified in Standard 121 is voided by @ 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of air brake performance.

The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to service, emergency, and parking braking capabilities in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. This was affirmed in a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.

Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would be preempted by Standard 121 since the aspects of performance that would be affected are covered by the Federal standard. You should note that this discussion of State "requirements" only refers to rules of general applicability within a State or municipality. It does not refer to purchase specifications that may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by @ 103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.

ID: nht75-4.9

DATE: 05/20/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1975, request for confirmation that the emergency braking stopping distance requirements in S5.7.2.3 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, specify that, when stopped six times for each configuration of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1 on a road surface with a skid number of 75 (with a single failure introduced in the service brake system), the vehicle must stop at least once within the distances specified in Column 3 of Table II and no part of the vehicle must leave the 12-foot roadway. You also request confirmation that modulation of the service brake control during the stop is not prohibited.

With certain exceptions, the statements in your letter are correct. Your interpretation only sets out the basic stopping distance requirements for those vehicles which the manufacturer has chosen to make conform to S5.7.2 of the standard. Thus, your interpretation does not include any of the requirements of the emergency braking capability option found in S5.7.1. Additionally, your interpretation does not include the requirements for a truck-tractor at unloaded vehicle weight plus 500 pounds, or for the trucks and buses which qualify for the interim requirements of S5.7.2.3.1 and S5.7.2.3.2.

Section S5.7.2 does not prohibit modulation of the emergency braking capability, and modulation by means of the service brake control is therefore permissible.

YOURS TRULY,

April 1, 1975

Richard Dyson Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Please review our interpretation of Sections 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 of FMVSS 121 which pertain to emergency brake system operation and performance.

Our interpretation is such that:

1) During an acceptable emergency braking stop, the stopping distance must not exceed the values specified in Column 3 of Table II and no part of the vehicle must leave the 12 foot roadway.

2) When stopped six times, for each combination of weight and speed specified in 5.3.1.1, with a skid number of 75, at least one acceptable emergency braking stop must occur.

3) During an emergency braking stop, the emergency braking system may be modulated. Modulation occurs by actuation of the service brake control.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Danny J. Lanzdorf Supervising Engineer

ID: nht75-5.1

DATE: 04/28/75

FROM: NOEL C. BUFE FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Hendrickson Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of March 25, 1975, in which you request advice as to whether you should establish gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle weight ratings based on the 55 mph national speed limit or on the maximum attainable speed of the vehicle.

The Cross Axle Weight Rating (CAWR) and the Cross Vehicle Weight Rating (CVWR) are defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as determinations made by the manufacturer. (49 CFR 3571.3). As a general matter NHTSA finds that the manufacturer is most familiar with the complexities of this product and is most qualified to assign these values.

Recently NHTSA has found it necessary to specify that CAWR's and CVWR's be calculated on the basis of highway speeds and not qualified by reduced speed ratings; our reasons for this action are contained in the enclosed letter. For purposes of CAWR-CVWR calculations, NHTSA will hencefort consider "highway speed" to be the 60 mph value used by the United States Tire and Rim Association in assigning unqualified ratings to their tires.

Therefore, your trucks and buses which are capable of speeds of 60 mph or more should be assigned ratings which reflect vehicle capabilities at 60 mph.

ID: nht75-5.10

DATE: 05/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bock & Jones

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1975, inquiring about the existence of regulations governing the manufacture, design, and on-the-road operation of trailers used to transport fertilizer while hitched to a pickup truck.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the responsibility of promulgating safety standards that set minimum performance requirements for vehicles manufactured and/or sold in the United States. There are five motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trailers. These standards relate to trailer lighting, tires, and braking systems (Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (49 CFR Part 571.106), Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (49 CFR Part 571.108), Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR Part 571.116), Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR Part 571.119), Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR Part 571.121)).

There is no safety standard that applies to the towing of a trailer. The use of a safety chain to guard against release of the trailer may, however, be mandated by State law.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BOCK & JONES -- ATTORNEYS AT LAW

May 2, 1975

CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED #466442

Legal Department -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

I am involved in a lawsuit in which a large fertilizer manufacturer-distributor furnished a four wheel pull-type fertilizer applicator, constructed very similar to a normal trailer, and was used for transporting bulk fertilizer from the distribution point, on the public highways, pulled by a pickup truck, to farms, for fertilizer application.

The trailer hitch was of a standard type which coupled to a hole in the rear bumper of the pickup truck.

For some unknown reason, the clevis pin probably broke, the trailer became uncoupled from the pickup truck, and crossed the centerline of the public highway, killing the driver of the approaching vehicle.

The trailer did not have the standard type of commonly used safety chains, which are also usually attached to the pulling vehicle to avoid accidents if the trailer hitch becomes uncoupled.

Since becoming involved in this litigation, we have determined that this is not uncommon in the area, as apparently these clevis pins through use, jolts, etc., do fracture or break, but fortunately the other accidents in the area were not fatal to other people.

My purpose in writing to your department is to determine:

(1) Whether or not you issue any type of regulations covering the manufacture or design of such trailers?

(2) Whether or not you have any type of regulations that set minimum standards for such trailers or applicators to be pulled or used on public highways?

If your agency should not be involved in such, perhaps you could advise us of another regulatory agency that might have such regulations.

Thanking you for this information, we are

Sincerely yours,

By: Harold D. Jones

ID: nht75-3.29

DATE: 10/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Koher Company

COPYEE: SENATOR PROXMIRE

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 29, 1975, to Senator Proxmire, concerning the regulations governing the production of motor vehicles, a copy of which was referred to this office.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which motor vehicles must conform. In addition, the agency requires that the manufacturer certify that the vehicle as completed complies with applicable safety standards. A pamphlet summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification. The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects and noncompliances with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If the agency or the manufacturer determine that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, the manufacturer is obligated to notify the vehicle owners and remedy the problem without charge. A copy of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, which deal with the responsibilities of manufacturers for safety-related defects and noncompliances in their motor vehicles or item of vehicle equipment (15 U.S.C. @ 1411-1420) is also enclosed.

If you have any questions concerning a specific regulation or standard, please write.

United States Senate 10/7/75

To ensure proper handling please return all correspondence TO THE ATTENTION OF:

Geri Rosen

Respectfully referred to: Cong. Liaison DOT

Please respond to the attached inquiry in duplicate and return the enclosure. Thank you for your cooperation. (Illegible Word) U.S.S.

September 24, 1975

DEAR SENATOR:

Kohler Co. is investigating what would be involved in going into production on a very small, very fuel efficient, low-cost urban car suitable for shopping and commuting. We know there are several government agencies that have regulations controlling how you build a vehicle but we do not know what those regulations are or even what agencies we would have to contact. It is vitally important that we know all the regulations and wondered if you know some way we can obtain a copy of all the regulations from all the controlling bureaus. We would certainly appreciate your help in this quest.

YOURS TRULY,

Daniel J. Wahlen Director - Engines Engineering -- KOHLER CO.

Senator William Proxmire

ID: nht75-3.3

DATE: 10/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1975, to Mr. Berndt requesting an interpretation of the visibility requirements specified in paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you ask whether a front turn signal lamp which is partially obscured by the radiator grille as shown on a drawing that you enclosed would meet the specified visibility requirements, if . . .

"1. The lamp met the photometric requirements under the state of being equipped on the vehicle.

2. We could easily observe through all the photometric test angles that the lamp was activated."

If condition 1 above is met, the lamp would appear to comply with the visibility requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1.

For condition 2 above, SAE Standard J588d, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, specifies in part that signals from lamps mounted on the left and right sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 degrees to the left and right respectively. To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding that portion of the lens that may serve as a reflex reflector, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. If your design meets the specified requirement, the lamp would also be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1.

As you were informed in a meeting with Messrs. Leysath and Vinson of this agency on September 8, 1975, it is not necessary that the entire lamp as partially obscured comply with Standard No. 108. If either the upper or lower portion of the lamp meets the photometric and visibility requirements, that is sufficient for conformance. If certification is based upon the lower portion alone, however, the center of the lower portion must be mounted not less than 15 inches above the pavement.

Yours truly,

September 8, 1975

Frank Berndt -- Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt: This is to ask your interpretation regarding the visibility requirement stated in S 4.3.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

In the case of the turn signal lamp, installation requirements of SAE J5882 referred to FMVSS 108, states:

When one turn signal is used on each side of the front and rear, visibility of the front signal to front and the rear signal to the rear shall not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle throughout the photometric test angles for the lamp.

Even if a part of the turn signal lamp is covered with the radiator grill as shown in the attached drawing, may we understand under the following conditions that the turn signal lamp meets the visibility requirement?

1. The lamp met the photometric requirement under the state of being equipped on the vehicle.

2. We could easily observe through all the photometric test angles that the lamp was activated.

Your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. -- Tokio Iinuma, Staff, Safety

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-3.30

DATE: 06/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John M. Burlake

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 8, 1975, requesting information concerning the compliance of the seat belt assembly of a 1972 BMW sedan.

Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required by section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) to affix permanently to their vehicles a certification label that confirms each vehicle's compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 detail the procedure for satisfying the certification requirement. Manufacturers are not required to furnish the Department with a certification statement.

There are three motor vehicle safety standards that relate to the seat belt assembly. Depending upon the date of manufacture of the BMW in question, it should have been certified as complying with the standards that were in effect at that time.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation maintains a log of reported defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, if you wish to ascertain whether or not there have been similar reports of seat belt assembly defects in certain 1972 BMW models, I suggest you write to that office enclosing full information on the nature of the alleged defect and the vehicle model. You may also be interested in obtaining information pursuant to the procedure described in the enclosed Federal Register notice.