ID: nht73-3.18

DATE: 01/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 4, 1973, in which you ask for our confirmation of your interpretation of Part 567 and Part 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations that would place the responsibility for certification on the user in those instances where he is the final-stage manufacturer.

Paragraph 567.5 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifies that(Illegible Words) final-stage manufacturer, . . . of a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages shall affix to each vehicle a label . . . ." Therefore, and users who are also manufacturers would be required to affix the label.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht73-3.19

DATE: 02/06/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert L. Scates

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1973, requesting information on requirements regarding the manufacture of truck-mounted campers. You specifically mention requirements dealing with wiring.

There are several Federal requirements applicable to campers. Campers are items of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and are required to conform to certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Briefly, each camper must meet requirements applicable to the glazing materials (glass and plastics used in windows, doors, and interior partitions) used in the camper (Federal) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", 49 CFR 571.205). Each slide-in camper must, in addition, have affixed to it a label that indicates among other things its loaded weight. (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, "Truck-Camper Loading", 49 CFR 571.126). All campers must also be certified in accordance with Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) as conforming to applicable standards. Each camper manufacturer must submit certain information concerning his company pursuant to NHTSA regulations, "Manufacturer identification" (49 CFR Part 566). You may obtain copies of NHTSA standards and regulations as explained on the enclosure.

We understand that certain states also have requirements, including requirements for wiring, that apply to campers. Information regarding these requirements should be obtained from State authorities. Trade associations that represent recreational vehicle manufacturers may be of help in obtaining this information.

ENC.

ID: nht73-3.2

DATE: 12/03/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1973, concerning the conformity of an emergency feature of Mercedes-Benz's interlock system to S7.4.3 of Standard No. 208.

The feature you describe would permit the engine starting system to be operated without belt use for a period of 3 minutes after an activation knob inside the engine compartment is depressed. If the vehicle stalls, the driver would have to leave his seat, open the hood, depress the knob, close the hood, and return to his seat, at which point the interlock would be deactivated for the 3-minute period. This bypass feature would apparently supplement other convenience aspects provided pursuant to S7.4.3.

After review of the Mercedes system we have determined that it would not result in bypassing the interlock in situations where that would not be permissible under S7.4.3 or S7.4.4. We therefore conclude that it is an allowable system and that it may be installed.

Yours truly,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

September 24, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator

Subject: Request for Interpretation of S7.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208

As previously reported to motor vehicle program engineers, Daimler-Benz AG., the parent company of Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., intends to install an engine-starting system operable without interference from the belt interlock system after the engine has stopped as provided in S7.4.3 of Standard 208. We are of the opinion that the by-pass device is in conformity with Standard 208, but we seek this interpretation of the referenced section for clarity. However, if the administration interprets S7.4.3 so as to not allow the below-described Mercedes by-pass system, then we request that this letter be considered as a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 208 to allow incorporation of such a system in order to deal with the problem of a simultaneous engine stallout at a busy intersection and failure in the interlock system logic sequence. Obviously, such an occurrence could create a hazardous situation for the operator and occupants of a vehicle.

The Mercedes-Benz by-pass device will be tied in with the three minutes free starting period and would operate as follows:

In case of simultaneous engine stall and failure in the logic of the interlock system, the driver will have to open the front hood from inside the vehicle, leave the vehicle, and activate the system by depressing an activation knob located in the

2 engine compartment. The hood is then closed and the driver returns to his position within the vehicle at which point the interlock logic system becomes inoperative for a maximum of three minutes thus permitting repeated starting of the engine even though the driver and front seat passenger are not belted.

We feel this system addresses an important problem which can be encountered in normal driving especially in urban centers and would be in conformity with the present requirements of the standard. Needless to say, there is some urgency to this request for interpretation considering the rapidly approaching introduction date for 1974 model Mercedes equipped with the interlock belt system. Your favorable attention to this request would be most deeply appreciated.

Very truly yours,

H. W. Gerth Assistant Vice President

ID: nht73-3.20

DATE: 02/07/73

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

TO: Michael J. Long

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1973, concerning acrylic headlamp covers.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Incorporates Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J580a, which prohibits the use of acrylic headlamp covers as original equipment. The requirements of SAE Standard J580a have also been incorporated in a number of State regulations, which are applicable to vehicles in use. Copies of Standard No. 108 and SAE Standard J580a are enclosed for your information.

A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Docket 69-19; Notice 3) on Standard No. 108 was issued on October 16, 1972. This Notice includes a provision for optional use of headlamp covers which conform to certain performance requirements. Such requirements are specified in paragraph S7.9 of the Notice (copy enclosed). Acrylic Industries Pty. Ltd. may be interested in commenting on this proposed revision of Standard No. 108. The closing date for comments is April 18, 1973.

If you have any questions on the enclosed documents, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht73-3.21

DATE: 02/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Satoshi Nishibori

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of December 15, 1972, and January 3, 1973, concerning paragraph S7.4.3 of Standard 208.

As I understand the question, you are positing a situation in which the occupants have correctly operated their belts, thereby permitting the engine starting system to operate, but in which the cranking of the engine by the starter motor does not start the engine and the key is returned to the "on" position. Your question is whether the ignition can thereafter be turned from "on" to "start" in repeated efforts to start the engine, without interference from the interlock.

Our reply is that S7.4.3 permits a system in which the initial correct operation of the belts, followed by operation of the starting system, places the system in a "free-start" mode so long as the ignition is not turned to "off". Repeated efforts to start the engine would therefore be permitted, regardless of the status of the belts.

If the ignition has been turned off and if the system is not in another of the "free-start" modes allowed by S7.4.3, then the engine starting system will not be operable with an unbelted driver on the seat unless an engine compartment switch is operated pursuant to S7.4.4.

ID: nht73-3.22

DATE: 02/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 26, 1973, which was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by National Transportation Safety Board Chairman John H. Reed, regarding the position of the shoulder harness on the Toyota Corona purchased by Mr. John McCauley of Mattapan, Massachusetts. A copy of the constituent's letter is enclosed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant(Illegible Word) Protection, requires that all cars made after January 1, 1972, have lap and shoulder belts which fit specified occupant sizes. Our Office of Standards Enforcement has made telephone contact in order to obtain more detailed information on Mr. McCauley's vehicle and the exact nature of the safety belt problems which he experienced.

I appreciate Mr. McCauley's interest in motor vehicle safety and his bringing this situation to our attention. As we had recently received a similar complaint on another model Toyota automobile, our Office of Standards Enforcement is conducting an investigation of the entire matter.

ID: nht73-3.23

DATE: 02/12/73

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

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 5, 1973, to Dr. Edward H. Wallace, concerning your objections to the informal rulemaking procedures employed by NHTSA in adding new tire sizes and rims to the Appendices to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 110 (49 CFR 571.109, 110). You enclose two form letters sent to you by NHTSA which indicate that certain tire sizes and rims will be included in the Appendices, and object to the delay that appears to occur between your receipt of these letters and the time the amendment to the Appendices is published in the Federal Register.

Your letter indicates a possible misunderstanding of the requirements applicable to rulemaking procedures, and how these requirements affect the publication of new tire sizes and rims in the Appendices of the two safety standards.

The NHTSA is required, under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), to amend all motor vehicle safety standards (amendments to the appendices of Standards Nos. 103 and 110 are amendments to the standards) by publication in the Federal Register. The submittal of documents to the Federal Register is governed by regulation (Title 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 - 40) which the NHTSA must follow in submitting documents for publication. Simply stated, these regulations would not permit the NHTSA to merely send to the Federal Register copies of these acknowledgment letters, for publication, as you suggest. Documents must be prepared utilizing a specific format. We have recently modified the method by which NHTSA amends the Appendices in a way that permits these documents to be prepared in a shorter time. Moreover, normally notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity to comment is required to be published before such amendments can become effective. The procedures about which you complain actually shorten the time that would otherwise be necessary for these changes to take effect. The form letter which you refer to as providing approval is

no more than an acknowledgment and indicates only that the tire size designations and rim sizes in question will be included in the next amendment to the Appendices, under the special procedures which allow their use in 30 days if objections are not received.

For these reasons, we have not found it administratively practicable to publish notices of additional tire sizes whenever they may be received. We have indicated our intention to publish amendments quarterly. While we have not met this schedule as consistently as we hoped, we expect to improve our efforts in this regard in the future.

ID: nht73-3.24

DATE: 02/14/73

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

TO: Orin D. Miner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Contact 6 of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has sent us a copy of your letter asking that we respond to your questions.

In your letter you inquire as to the distribution of fines collected from tire manufacturers as a result of their manufacturing tires that do not comply with the requirements of the Federal standard for passenger car tires (Standard No. 109).

Monies collected as settlement offers are transmitted to the general funds of the United States Treasury.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including the passenger car tire standard, are minimum standards vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers are required to meet. They are issued to give assurance that if the product in question meets the standards the public will have some protection against unreasonable risk of death or injury.

In addition to the question of civil penalties, manufacturers of non-conforming vehicles or tires are usually required to issue a defect notification and are urged to replace the defective equipment. Your complaint does not appear to be concerned with a safety related problem but rather with tires that you believe have not given you adequate treadwear. This is not an area covered by existing standards, however, this agency has under consideration a quality grading regulation which would include grading requirements for the treadwear life of each tire manufactured after a given date.

Concerning your recommendation that Federal inspectors be placed in tire manufacturers' plants, this has been considered at various times and the agency's present thinking is that the cost and manpower involved would not warrant this course of action.

Thank you for your interest in auto safety and your views in this area.

ID: 77-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

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

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Crane Carrier Corporation's June 8, 1977, question whether the maximum time limits specified by S5.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, for build-up of brake system air pressure from 85 to 100 psi includes the time taken to build up air pressure in an accessory reservoir (for an air starter) that is replenished only when the truck is started.

The answer to your question is no. Section S5.1.1 is a performance requirement that assures that repeated use of the brakes during vehicle operation will not deplete the available air supply because of insufficient air compressor capacity. The purpose of this requirement only indirectly relates to the initial air pressure build-up that occurs when the vehicle is first started.

The agency's existing laboratory procedure for compliance testing provides for fully charging the air brake system (and any accessory reservoirs which charge automatically in the process) before the test is begun. The engine is shut off while brake system air pressure is reduced to a level that permits a subsequent build-up for measurement purposes. In order to properly test vehicles with air starters, the agency is modifying its procedure to keep the engine running throughout the test, so that the air starter reservoir remains fully charged throughout the measurement period.

SINCERELY,

HEAVY DUTY TRUCK MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

June 20, 1977 Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to our telephone conversation last Friday, I am pleased to enclose the inquiry we discussed. You suggested that interpretive rulings should be in writing, and I am pleased to respond.

F. MURRAY CALLAHAN General Counsel

CRANE CARRIER COMPANY

June 8, 1977

Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturers Assoc.

Attention: F. Murray Callahan, General Counsel Subject: Compliance with Section S5.1.1 of MVSS 121, when vehicles are equipped with air starters.

We are seeking an interpretation of Section S5.1.1 due to the following condition occurring on vehicles equipped with air starters. These vehicles require a separate large volume (17,787 C.I.) starter reservoir isolated from the trucks air brake system by means of a pressure protection and check valve which maintains a minimum of 75 psi air pressure in the service brake system. However, after initial start up of truck, which could use up to approximately 50% of starter reservoir capacity, and the truck brake system is built up to 75 psi, the protection valve between the two systems opens, and at this point the total system capacity is equal to the brake reservoir volume plus that of the air start reservoir. When this occurs, it is impossible for us to comply with the time limit specified in Section S5.1.1 due to the extremely large combined volume of the two systems.

What we seek interpretation of is if the standard will allow: (1) air start reservoir to be completely refilled as soon as engine is started, (2) draining of air in the service brake reservoirs and then, (3) replenishing the air in the brake reservoir in the time limit specified. This seems to us to satisfy the standard since the standard is only trying to insure of a large enough air compressor to replenish the service brake reservoirs and once the air start system is filled it will have no effect on the brake system operation.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Ray Sizemore Engineer

cc: KEN LAWRENCE

ID: 77-4.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

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

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to AM General Corporation's July 18, 1977, request for confirmation that certain aspects of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. In an October 3, 1977, telephone call with Mr. Herlihy of this office, it was determined that the request for interpretation is now limited to confirmation that the four-way pressure protection valve described in M.A.N.'s June 22, 1977, letter would meet the location and functional requirements of S5.1.2.3 of Standard No. 121. Section S5.1.2.3 specifies --

S5.1.2.3 Each service reservoir shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.

I am enclosing prior interpretations of the location requirement of S5.1.2.3. While the agency cannot "approve" systems based on schematic drawings, it appears that the location of the four-way protection valve in the M.A.N. drawings does not violate the provisions contained in S5.1.2.3.

As we understand the description and capabilities of the four-way valve, it appears to be a pressure protection device that is "equivalent" to the check valve otherwise required by S5.1.2.3.

SINCERELY,

AM General Corporation

July 18, 1977

Duane E. Perrin NHTSA Handling & Stability Division

As you may be aware, AM General has entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nuernberg (M.A.N.) of West Germany for the purpose of importing roughly 400 articulated buses into the United States which, after completion in our Marshall, Texas facility, will be delivered to eleven domestic transit properties. Contractually, the responsibility for compliance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is divided between AM General and M.A.N. relative to areas of design and manufacturing responsibility. As M.A.N. is primarily responsible for the major mechanical components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension, braking systems, etc., compliance with Federal and State Safety Standards in these specific areas rests with them.

During design of the braking system, it has been determined that clarification relative to Paragraph S5.1.2.3 of FMVSS 121 is required. More specifically, approval is requested for utilization of a 4-way air pressure protection valve in lieu of the simple service reservoir check valves described in the standard.

The functioning configuration of this 4-way protection valve is completely outlined in the attached material from M.A.N.

Additionally, consideration and approval is requested relative to the outlined testing procedure which will be utilized to demonstrate proof of compliance to FMVSS 124.

I believe the attached material is fairly self-explanatory; however, should you have any questions or require additional information, do not hesitate to call me at area code (313) 722-4900.

Your prompt consideration and approval will be greatly appreciated.

M. J. Shillinger Project Engineer

ATTACH.

To the Department of Transportation

June 22, 1977

Re: Clarification for compliance with FMVSS 121 and 124:

Dear Sirs:

M.A.N. is supplier of articulated buses to AM General, Wayne, Mich., importing these vehicles for the first time to the US, and therefore is confronted to proof compliance with all FMVSS standards applicable.

Due to the fact, that this is the first time we have some specific problems with the interpretation of certain paragraphs, which could not even be clarified absolutely by the friendly assistance of our partner AMG, we are relaying our requests now to you.

Enclosed please find two write-ups of our interpretation of certain details of FMVSS 124 and 121.

The problem area regarding FMVSS 124 concerns the test conditions where we would like to ask you either to approve our interpretation or to inform us of an acceptable solution.

Regarding FMVSS 121 we are quite aware of the tests we have to perform to verify compliance, but we would like you to check the basic schematics of our brake system. Please give special attention to the fact, that this schematic does not allow the incorporation of additional check valves on the inlets of the individual air tanks as air flow in both directions occurs. We assume, however, that these tanks are to be regarded as one system and are sufficiently protected by the four circuit protection valve.

To our knowledge the system as described incorporates safety features superior to the systems presently operating in the US. We would like to thank you for your efforts and to point out the urgency the matter has for us.

MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NURNBERG Aktiengesellschaft Werk Munchen

ppa.

(Dr. Hagen)

(i.A.)

(Dr. Domandl)

[ENCLOSURES OMITTED.]