ID: nht72-5.12

DATE: 02/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: City of Lynchburg

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of December 20, 1971, and January 4, 1972, concerning dump trucks recently purchased by the city of Lynchburg. You state that the trucks have a 24,000 GVW rating (rear axle 17,500 pounds, front axle 7,000 pounds), and were delivered with 8.25-20 tires, and ask whether there is a Federal requirement that restricts GVW rating according to tire size.

Beginning January 1, 1972, Federal regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) have required all motor vehicle manufacturers to affix a label to their vehicles that contains both a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and a gross axle weight rating for each axle (GAWR). These ratings are to be established by the manufacturer based upon all vehicle systems including tires. The requirements apply to the manufacturer, however, and not to the purchaser, if the vehicle is completed when he receives it. Nor is the regulation designed to regulate vehicles-in-use, which are subject to State regulation, but it is possible that some States may use these figures as a basis of determining whether vehicles are overloaded.

With reference to your particular trucks, it appears that they were manufactured before January 1, 1972, and the regulations are therefore not applicable to them. However, according to the 1971 Tire and Rim Association Yearbook, which sets recommended load and inflation pressures for all vehicle tires, the 8.25-20 10-ply tire has a recommended maximum load, for dual usage, of 3,550 pounds at 75 psi. Assuming 4 tires on the rear axle, this would be equal to a load rating of 14,200 pounds, lower than the 17,500 pounds at which the axle is rated. For single usage, the tire is rated at 4,050 pounds at 85 psi. Assuming 2 tires on the front axle, the maximum load for the axle would be 8,100 pounds, which, unlike the rear axle, is greater than the load rated for the axles.

A copy of our Certification regulations, which contain the requirements for GVWR and GAWR is enclosed for your information.

ID: nht89-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/89

FROM: WILLIAM D. FALCON, PROGRAM MANAGER

TO: RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM D. FALCON; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 201; 202; 205; VSA 108[A][2][A]; LETTER FROM STEVE CROWELL; DATED 11/02/88 EST; LETTER FROM STEVEN CROWELL DATED 06/02/88 TO ELIZABETH D ENNISTON -- EGOH BITTNER COMMISSIONER WALTHAM MASSACHUSETTS

TEXT: I am enclosing two letters received in June and November 1988 by the Commission from Mr. Steven Crowell. Citing federal legislation and correspondence from NHTSA, he is suggesting, on page 2 of his November letter, that the Commission amend the commenta ry to one of its law enforcement standards--specifically, the commentary to Standard 71.4.1 (enclosed), which states that vehicles used for transporting prisoners should have the driver separated from the prisoner by a safety barrier.

Mr. Crowell recommends that, rather than stating that the barrier may be made of wire mesh or heavy gauge plastic, the commentary should specify that the barrier be one bearing a label or tag certifying the barrier's compliance with all applicable safety standards and requirements established by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

To support his recommendation, Mr. Crowell cites several sections of the Act (pages 1-2 of the June letter and page 2 of November's) and quotes from the 1985 letter he received from the chief counsel "for the United States Department of Transportation Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Jeffrey R. Miller" (page 1 of the November letter).

I would very much appreciate an answer to this question: Does the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or any other legislation or regulation require or recommend that interior vehicle safety barriers--whether installed by the vehicle's manufacturer or by someone subsequent to the vehicle's first sale--be certified that they comply with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards and, if so, where, if any place, must the certification appear (on the barriers or somewhere else on the vehicl es)?

Any other comments that you may have would be most welcome, too.

We are most appreciative of your help. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. (Abrochure describing the Commission is also enclosed.)

ID: nht89-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/89

FROM: SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- PRODUCT ENGINEERING MANAGER PARKER HANNIFIN CORP

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNCIL FMVSS-108 NHTSA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SAMUAL KIMMELMAN -- PARKER HANNAFIN; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

It is our understanding that FMVSS-108 allows vehicles with combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps to operate in either of two modes when both the hazard switch and brake switch have been actuated.

1. The hazard switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will cause the rear lamps to change from steady on, stop signal, to flashing, hazard signal.

b. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will not change the flashing lamps, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

2. The brake switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will cause the rear lamps to change from flashing, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

The front flashing hazard lamps will also become steady on.

b. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will not change the rear steady on lamps, stop signal, to flashing, hazard, while the front hazard lamps go from off to steady on.

Is our interpretation of what is allowed by FMVSS-108 regarding the operation of vehicles with combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps upon actuation of both the hazard and brake switces correct?

If our interpretation of FMVSS-108 is correct, is NHTSA presently considering a NPRM to specify a specific signal from the combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps when both the hazard and brake switches are actuated?

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-5.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Durin B. Rogers -- Legal Assistant, Saperston & Day

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/93 from John Womack to Durin B. Rogers (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d); Redbook 4); Also attached to letter dated 7/1/91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard E. Wright (Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 11/29/84 from Frank Berndt to Wayne Ivie (Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance with regard to a legal matter within our office at this time.

According to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations S571.205 (otherwise known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205, Glazing Materials), certain motor vehicles operating on land highways are required to use windows made of treated "safety glass" or tempered glass to reduce the likelihood of shattering, as well as to minimize the possibility of vehicle occupants being thrown through a window during a collision. More specifically, I am interested in the glazing material requirements for side windows in what are known as "fifth wheel campers/trailers." Although Section 5.1.1 of Standard #205 designates that such requirements should conform to the American National Standard Safety Code for safety glazing materials for motor vehicles operating on land highways (Z-26.1, 1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1(a), July 3, 1980), it fails to specify what grade or specification of glass is required for each window's location. For your information, the replacement side window was allegedly purchased from a manufacturer in Indiana in June 1987, and installed within a fifth wheel camper registered in the State of New York. Enclosed, for your reference, are copies of photographs of the subject camper.

Would you please research this issue and confirm what specific glazing requirements, if any, are applicable to side windows within fifth wheel vehicles, and whether any federal or industrial regulations exist which would require future window replacements and/or repairs to be made of such glass?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Attachment

(Photos omitted)

ID: nht78-2.48

DATE: 05/23/78

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

TO: The Johnson Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Johnson Manufacturing's May 4, 1978 request for confirmation that the requirement in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that reservoirs "withstand" specific pressure does not require testing of a multi-compartment reservoir compartment-by-compartment.

Your understanding of the "withstanding" requirement in S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 is correct. Although the agency sought to clarify that compartment-by-compartment testing was the proper interpretation of this requirement (42 FR 64630; December 27, 1977), problems with the interpretation resulted in its withdrawal (43 FR 9149; March 6, 1978) and adherence to the existing interpretation that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir. Under this interpretation only the circumference of the outer reservoir shell is measured, and internal baffles are not stressed by separate compartment-by-compartment testing.

ID: 12311.ztv

Mr. Craig Homberg
Engineer
Aquatech, Inc.
1777 Miller Parkway
Streetsboro, OH 44241

Dear Mr. Homberg:

This responds to your letter of August 2, 1996, to the former Chief Counsel, Samuel Dubbin, asking for suggestions as to where Aquatech might locate the rear identification lamps on a vehicle that it manufactures. These lamps "are obstructed by a vacuum boom." The lamps cannot be mounted on the boom because it "articulates side to side and extends and retracts." You have enclosed a two-dimensional drawing showing the vehicle from the rear.

Table II of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires rear identification lamps to be "3 lamps as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline, with lamp centers spaced not less than 6 inches or more than 12 inches apart." Table II does not establish either a minimum or maximum mounting height for these lamps.

The agency realizes that, with some vehicle configurations, the highest practicable location may be approximately the same level as stop and taillamps, such as the frame rail, and the agency has accepted this. Some manufacturers have also added equipment to the vehicle at this level to accommodate identification lamps. The two-dimensional drawing you enclosed shows a horizontal structure below the boom and above the rear axle, where it might be possible to add identification lamps. However, the drawing is two-dimensional and it is not possible for us to assess the dimensional relationship between the horizontal structure and the vertical piece that, in the picture, bisects the lower half of the horizontal structure.

If it is not practicable to add identification lamps on the horizontal structure below the boom and above the rear axle, we would be pleased to advise you further if you would send us a photograph or drawing of the rear that shows the dimensional relationships of the equipment already located there. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:9/6/96

ID: ntea.ztv

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in reply to your letter of October 2, 2002, requesting an interpretation of several provisions of the "early warning reporting" final rule (49 CFR Part 579, Subpart C).

You asked three sets of questions. The first of these was:

All reports . . . require the vehicle make, model, and model year. As many of the bodies and equipment manufactured by NTEA members are installed on a variety of different makes and models of trucks most body and equipment manufacturers have never needed this information nor required it to be provided in normal processing of warranties or consumer complaints. Also, the vehicle make and model year are seldom recorded in field reports because the primary focus is on the truck body or equipment. Give the "Minimal Specificity" provision outlined in 579.28(d), if the historical records do not include the vehicle make, model and model year, it is our interpretation that they are not reportable by the body or equipment manufacturer since there is no way to identify the vehicle make or model. Is this interpretation correct and would it also apply to the one-time three year historical report and the nine years of historical data to be included in the quarterly reports?

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer of "bodies and equipment" is a manufacturer of "motor vehicle equipment." The bodies and equipment manufactured by NTEA members are "original equipment" because they are equipment installed on a motor vehicle at the time it is delivered to its first purchaser. (This answer assumes that the "bodies and equipment" are installed on a chassis by a third person.) The only early warning reporting requirements of Part 579 that apply to manufacturers of original equipment (other than tires) are the limited reporting requirements of 49 CFR 579.27.The one-time historical report established by Section 579.28(c) is required only of manufacturers "covered by Sections 579.21 through 579.26 of this part."This does not include manufacturers covered by Section 579.27, such as manufacturers of original equipment.

If an NTEA member that is a manufacturer of original equipment receives a claim or notice of an incident involving death, the claim or notice need not be reported if it does not identify the equipment with "minimal specificity" (Section 579.28(d)). For bodies and other equipment, "minimal specificity" (as defined in Section 579.4(c)) amounts to the name of the manufacturer (and if there is a model or family of models identified on the item of equipment, the model name or model number). Even if the equipment is identified with minimal specificity, the claim or notice need not be reported if the identified equipment was manufactured prior to four calendar years before the reporting period (Section 579.27(b)).

In sum, it appears to us that NTEA members who are solely manufacturers of original equipment will have very limited reporting responsibilities under the early warning reporting rule.

NTEAs second question was as follows:

In the truck body and equipment industry, typically, a body manufacturer supplies the body to a distributor who installs it on the truck chassis. In this case, the body manufacturer would be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and the distributor would be the final stage manufacturer. Distributors (the final stage manufacturer) typically complete warranty work, as it applies to the body, on a customers vehicle and subsequently submit a warranty claim to the body manufacturer for coverage under its warranty plan. If the distributor is the final stage manufacturer of more than 500 vehicles per year, then presumably the distributor must report warranty information to NHTSA. There is the potential that both the distributor and the body manufacturer will submit warranty information to NHTSA on the same warranty claim. How is this situation to be handled?

In the example you give, the body manufacturer is subject to the reporting provisions of Section 579.27. This section requires reporting only of information regarding claims and notices of incidents involving deaths. There is no requirement that the body manufacturer report warranty claims to NHTSA, even if it receives them. However, the entity that you have characterized as the "distributor" would be a vehicle manufacturer under our statute and thus would have to submit warranty data if it produced 500 or more vehicles of a given category per year. It is possible that such claims may also be reported by the chassis manufacturer (although it probably would not have to do so), but our screeners will be able to adjust to avoid double counting.

NTEAs third question was as follows:

Some body manufacturers install the bodies on truck chassis themselves (thus becoming the final stage manufacturer) while also selling some bodies through distributors, who become the final stage manufacturers of those vehicles. Does this body manufacturer need to submit reports as both an equipment manufacturer and a motor vehicle manufacturer? Do they need to submit one form for the bodies sold as equipment and one for the bodies they installed as the final-stage motor vehicle manufacturer? If so, should the equipment manufacturer form cover both those bodies sold via distributors and those bodies installed directly? Does the body manufacturer need to report on behalf of its independent distributors?

The body manufacturer must submit reports as both an equipment manufacturer and a motor vehicle manufacturer when circumstances dictate. However, as discussed above, only the limited reporting requirements of Section 579.27 apply to manufacturers of bodies furnished to persons who become the final stage manufacturer. If the body manufacturer becomes a final stage manufacturer of less than 500 vehicles annually, the limited reporting requirements of Section 579.27 will also apply. Each claim or notice of a death it receives as a body manufacturer and as a vehicle manufacturer must be reported separately. If the body manufacturer is the final stage manufacturer of 500 or more of any category of vehicles annually (e.g., medium heavy vehicle), it must furnish full reports as specified in the sections that apply to the type of vehicle completed.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/11/03

ID: volvov70.crs

Mr. William Shapiro
Director, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter of January 6, 2000, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on vehicles within a new, early 2001 model year passenger car line, to be designated as the "Volvo V70," that Volvo plans to begin offering for sale on or about March 15, 2000.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. As identified in your letter, and in an accompanying drawing, the alternate location for which you have requested approval is on the vehicle's B-pillar, facing the door opening of the rear door on the driver's side. You note that by letter dated April 29, 1998, NHTSA approved this same location for the placement of the certification label on vehicles within the Volvo S80 line. You state that the new Volvo V70 shares with the S80 many safety features that involve structural design, and has the same basic vehicle platform as the S80.

Your letter states that it is not possible for the certification label to be placed in any of the locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4(c) owing to the size of the label, the corresponding surface geometry of each of those locations, and adhesion difficulties owing to the surface properties at some of those locations. You state that the alternate location that Volvo has proposed will meet the requirements of 49 CFR 567.4(c) because it is in "the same general area" as the locations specified in that section, and because a label in the proposed location will be "easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except an outer door."

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for vehicles in the new V70 passenger car line would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.2/22/2000

ID: hatler

ID: jackson