ID: nht76-2.47

DATE: 02/12/76

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

TO: F. A. McNiel

COPYEE: HON. J. J. PICKLE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your petition of November 7, 1975, "for the correction of subsection S4.5.4 and S4.6(b) as set forth by existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108."

It is your opinion that S4.5.4, which requires activation of stop lamps upon application of the service brakes, is design restrictive, and "leaves no opportunity for innovation by the private sector for other solutions for the activation of a motor vehicle's stoplamps". You have suggested that S4.5.4 be amended to include at its end "or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle".

Any performance standard is design restrictive to some extent; it must restrict manufacturers to designs that meet the desired performance requirements. Its validity as a performance standard depends on whether the restrictions of the standard are only as narrow as reasonably necessary to achieve the desired safety performance. In this case we have found that the requirement meets this test. A signal to other drivers that the service brakes are being applied is precisely the performance being sought in S4.5.4. A signal based on some other condition (e.g., vehicle deceleration, might not be as timely, or might fail altogether to operate at the critical moment (as where it is based on lifting the accelerator pedal). Since the requirement is limited to the desired safety performance, we find it valid, and your petition in this area is denied.

You also ask for an amendment of S4.6(b) to include "rearlamps" among those that may be flashed for signalling purposes, since you believe that conventional wiring circuits presently allow these lamps to be flashed when headlamps are flashed. When the headlamps are flashed by means of the on-off switch, it is true that rear lamps will flash. But that type of flashing is in no way restricted by the standard. The flashing intended to be regulated by S4.6(b) is by automatic means (see S3 definitions) and, except for rear turn signal lamps, these automatic devices would not be connected to rear lamp circuits. Thus, there appears to be no need for the amendment you suggest and your petition is accordingly denied.

We appreciate your continuing efforts on behalf of traffic safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

F. A. McNiel 611 Bouldin Avenue Austin, Texas 78704

NOVEMBER 7, 1975

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: A petition for the correction of sub-sections S4.5.4 and S4.6(b) as set forth by existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Gentlemen:

Quoting from a letter date of Jan. 29, 1968, from William Heddon Jr., Director of the Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau, in answer to a letter that Congressman J. J. Pickle had forwarded to the Department of Transportation in my behalf, - Director Haddon states:

"under the law the Congress directed us to set 'performance' standards and not standards requiring specific devices or designs. The Congress chose this approach to give the private sector the greatest opportunity for innovation and to permit a variety of solutions in meeting specific performance requirements".

The 'performance' standards as established by FMVSS No. 108 for the functioning of a motor vehicle's stoplamps are as follows;

Except for the size, location, lens type, and candlepower, the only standard 'set' for stoplamp functioning that is covered by FMVSS No. 108 is sub-section S4.5.4, which states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes".

Sub-section S4.5.4 is in direct conflict with Director Haddon's letter on two seperate counts, i.e.

1. Said section as worded constitutes a mandate of intendence that a 'specific design' (use of the service brakes) shall be the only means used to activate a motor vehicle's stoplamps.

2. Also, as worded sub-section S4.5.4 leaves no opportunity for innovation by the private sector for other solutions for the activation of a motor vehicle's stoplamps.

In order to comply with Director Haddon's interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, I propose that sub-section S4.5.4 be expanded to read as follows:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon the application of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle".

Under Section S4.5 'special wiring requirements'

Sub-section S4.5.7 states - (a) "When the parking lamps are activated the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated", - and (b) "When the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated". - Thus, the said section stipulates that it is mandatory that the side marker lamps be in-circuit with the taillamps and license plate lamps.

Under Section S4.6 'when activated'

S4.6 states, - (a) "Turn signal lamps, hazard warning lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall flash", - and (b) "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes".

Contextually, S4.5.7 (a) and (b), and S4.6 (b) make it unlawful to flash headlamps and side marker lamps by use of the conventional lamp activating means, as this act would also flash taillamps and license plate lamps.

The only manner by which headlamps and side marker lamps could be flashed and still leave taillamps and license plate lamps steady-burning would be to isolate headlamps and side marker lamps from the conventional wiring circuit by means of auxiliary wiring and switching means which would operate indipendent of the conventional lighting system.

Installation of such auxiliary wiring and switching means would tend to be costly, - and to what avail? In what instance could the flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes enhance traffic safety, - and at the same time, the flashing of taillamps and license plate lamps be detrimental to traffic safety?

To make S4.6(b) credible, and to prevent perhaps millions of motorists from unwittingly breaking the letter of the law by flashing a vehicle's lights with the conventional light switch, I propose that the word 'rearlamps' be inserted after the word 'headlamps' to make the sub-section read -- "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps, rearlamps, and side marker lamps for signaling purposes".

In order to bring FMVSS No. 108 more into line with the apparent intent of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, I respectfully petition the Department of Transportation for rule making to re-phrase sub-sections S4.5.4 and S4.6 (b) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to include the wording that I have proposed.

Such re-phrasing would establish a standard against which any beneficial means for activating a motor vehicle's stoplamps could be tested.

Such a standard would provide an opportunity for the private sector to innovate means for improving the 'performance' of a motor vehicle's conventional stoplamps in a manner that could materially reduce the toll of "10 percent of the fatal motor vehicle accidents and 49 percent of all motor vehicle accidents" ascribed by the National Highway Safety Bureau as resulting from rear end collision type accidents.

Such re-phrasing would also remove the current restriction that now makes it unlawful under any circumstances for a motorist to flash a vehicle's lamps by the use of the conventional lamp activating switching means.

Respectfully,

Fred A. McNiel Traffic Safety Advocate

copy: Hon. J. J. Pickle

ID: 86-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas T. Griffing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas T. Griffing Manager, Technical Services Yokohama Tire Corporation 1530 Church Road Montebello, CA 90640

Dear Mr. Griffing:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Glen Ludwig, of our Enforcement division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that your company would like to label the following information on medium truck tires, in addition to the information specifically required to appear on the tires by Standard No. 119:

1. the load index specified by the International Standards Organization (ISO): and

2. the speed rating specified by the European Tire and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO).

You asked two questions concerning these markings. First, you asked whether Standard No. 119 allows tire manufacturers to place two different load plates on tires, one for Standard No. 119 and one with the ISO load index, even if the maximum load given in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value for the maximum load of the listed ISO load index. The answer to this question depends on whether the ISO load index information is presented in a manner that would obscure or confuse the meaning of the information required to appear on the sidewall of the tire by Standard No. 119, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information.

Paragraph S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to this standard. The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. See, for example, the enclosed April 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Standard No. 119 permits tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

It is not clear from your letter whether you are proposing to add just the ISO load index to the required information on the sidewall of the tires, or that load index and a separate maximum load rating expressed in kilograms. If you are proposing the former course of action, Standard No. 119 does not prohibit tire manufacturers from adding the ISO load index to the information required by Standard No. 119 to appear on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the load index is shown in such a was that it is not confusing to consumers. This agency sent two letters to Michelin Tire Corporation on this subject, dated July 14, 1980 and August 28, 1980. I have enclosed copies of these letters for your information.

If, on the other hand, you are proposing the latter course of action, NHTSA has said that the load and inflation pressure information can be expressed in both English units and metric units, provided that the metric units are equivalent to the English units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. However, Standard No. 119 does not permit a tire manufacturer to list two different maximum load values on its tires. See the enclosed August 18, 1983 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Accordingly, if your company's tires were to List one value as the maximum load rating in pounds and a different value as the maximum load rating in kilograms, NHTSA would consider such labeling to be a violation of the requirement in S6.5(d) that tires be labeled with "the maximum load rating". Two different maximum load ratings on the same tire could confuse consumers, and give rise to questions about which of the two loads is really "the maximum load" the tire can carry. Such confusion would frustrate the purpose of the labeling requirement in Standard No. 119. Accordingly, such labeling would violate the requirement of S6.5(d) of the Standard.

Your second question was whether this Department put out any special instructions for tire manufacturers regarding the placement on the tire of the ETRTO and ISO information. As explained above, Standard No. 119 prohibits the addition of information to tire sidewalls only if such information confuses or obscures the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeats the purpose of the required information. There are no further "special instructions" concerning this requirement. In past agency interpretations, the agency has made clear that the ETRTO speed ratings and the ISO load indices may be included in a tire's size designation without violating this prohibition. See the enclosed June 25, 1981 letter to Mr. Keigo Ohgiya for the ETRTO speed ratings and the August 28, 1980 letter to Mr. John B. White for the ISO load indices.

This agency position leaves wide latitude for the tire manufacturers to incorporate such additional information onto the tire sidewalls. One of the reasons for allowing this wide latitude is this agency's hope that the tire manufacturers can collectively agree, through the standardization organizations, to a resolution of the potential problems associated with providing additional information. If the tire companies jointly agree on a method of presenting this information that is not confusing to consumers, no "special instructions" or other actions by this agency would be needed.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 5, 1986

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington D.C. 20590 ATTENTION: Mr. Glen Ludwig

Dear Mr. Ludwig:

Yokohama has been requested by our European Subsidiary Company to install the required load index and speed symbols specified by ETRTO and ISO standards on our medium truck all steel tires for shipment and distribution there. Considering this request, Yokohama recognizes that in addition to the load and inflation markings mandated by FMVSS 119 regulation, a separate plate 'ill have to be installed for the aforementioned ETRTO/ISO markings since carrying capacities and some other information are dissimilar based upon two separate standards. This situation has prompted us to contact you in attempt to clarify the situation and insure we are in compliance with the U.S. Federal regulations.

Accordingly, would you please respond to our questions below concerning these markings:

1. If Yokohama places 2 different load plates on the tire, one for DOT 119 and a separate load index for ETRTO/ISO, is this compatible with the FMVSS 119 regulations even though the load in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value of the load index?

2. Is there any specific instructions put forth by the Department of Transportation to the placement on the tire of the additional ETRTO/ISO information?

In addition to your specific answers to these questions would you please comment upon any other information which you feel pertinent to these tire markings as it applies to Federal FMVSS 119 compliance.

Thank you for you assistance and cooperation.

Thomas T. Griffing Manager Technical Services

TTG:lea

ID: nht79-2.27

DATE: 10/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 30, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director-Engineering Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria, Ohio 44035

Dear Mr. Hildebrandt:

This responds to your September 20, 1979, letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to give you written confirmation that your tandem axle trailer brake system complies with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The NHTSA does not provide advance determinations of compliance with the agency's safety standards. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to test for and certify the compliance of its vehicles or equipment. The agency cannot always tell by diagrams and word descriptions whether a system will or will not comply with applicable safety standards. Compliance of a braking system, such as yours, can only be determined when tested on a completed vehicle.

Our technical staff has reviewed the diagrams and the letter that you submitted. In their opinion, your system appears to comply with the requirements of the standard. However, this is merely an opinion based upon your submission and does not bind the agency in any way should your device fail any compliance tests conducted by the agency.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Sept. 20, 1979

Subject: Request for Confirmation - FMVSS 121

Gentlemen:

A customer of The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group (Bendix), has requested that Bendix obtain written confirmation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that the two reservoir tandem axle trailer brake system (Bendix System) shown and described herein, meets the requirements of Section S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems. Previous Bendix studies concluded that based on the interpretation given by the NHTSA letter of January 22, 1976, to Wagner Electric Corporation (copy attached) the Bendix System is in compliance with these reservoir requirements.

The design objectives for the Bendix System were safety, performance, reliability, simplicity, and economy of cost and space. Two years of production installations of this Bendix System have proven that the design objectives have been met.

The Bendix System (Figure 1), utilizes two service reservoirs for normal service braking and reserves sufficient air pressure in one or the other to provide the required spring brake release in the event of a failure to a reservoir.

The major component of the Bendix System is the SR-4 Spring Brake Control Valve (Figure 2) whose operational functions are as described herein.

SYSTEM CHARGING

Trailer supply line air pressure enters the SR-4 valve at the trailer supply port, actuates the control piston, opens the spring brake inlet/exhaust valve and flows into the cavity under the pressure protection piston. When the air builds to a pressure of aproximately 55 psi, the pressure protection inlet valve opens and the air pressure flows past Check Valve "A" and into the rear service reservoir and PR-3 Pressure Protection Valve and then past Check Valve "B" and through the open spring brake inlet/exhaust valve and into the spring brake units. Air pressure is prevented from passing into the front service reservoir by Check Valve "C". When the pressure in the PR-3 valve reaches approximately 60 si the PR-3 inlet valve opens and the air pressure flows past the PR-3 check valve and into the front service reservoir. Both reservoirs and all the spring brake units can now be charged to full system pressure and parking brakes will be released.

NORMAL OPERATION

Service Brakes

Trailer service brakes are controlled by application and release of pressure in the trailer service line connected to the control port of the relay valve. Air pressure consumed from the front reservoir is replenished from the rear reservoir and the trailer supply line via the open PR-3 Pressure Protection Valve. The combined volume of front and rear reservoirs is at least 8 times the volume of all the service chambers at maximum travel.

Since the rear reservoir is in communication with the front reservoir via the open PR-3 Pressure Protection Valve during normal operation (system supply pressure in excess of 60 psi) that total service reservoir volume of the system is in compliance with the requirements of S5.2.1.2.

Parking Brakes

Trailer parking brakes are controlled by application and release of air pressure in the trailer supply line. Loss of supply line pressure due to trailer breakaway, leakage or operation of tractor valving causes the pressure protection valve to close and deactuates the control piston, which closes the spring brake inlet/exhaust valve and vents the air pressure in the spring brake units via the SR-4 exhaust port; thereby causing application of all trailer parking brakes. Reapplication of air pressure in the tractor supply line reactuates the control piston, opens the spring brake inlet/exhaust valve and pressurizes the spring brake units with the air pressure contained in both reservoirs; thereby releasing all trailer parking brakes.

SERVICE FAILURES

Failure of Rear Reservoir System

With a failure in the rear reservoir full air pressure is retained in front reservoir due to the check valve in the PR-3 Pressure Protection Valve and Check Valve "B". Pressure in trailer supply line is maintained at approximately 55 psi due to closing of the pressure protection inlet valve. The reduced trailer supply line pressure actuates the low pressure warning on the tractor alerting the driver to a system failure. The trailer parking brakes do not automatically apply because the trailer supply pressure keeps the control piston actuated and front reservoir pressure is maintained in the spring brake units. In this failure mode, trailer braking is provided by service brake applications on both axles using the air pressure retained in the front reservoir, or by a manual parking brake application on both axles, releaseable by the air pressure retained in the front reservoir.

Failure of Front Reservoir System

With a failure in the front reservoir, approximately 55 psi air pressure is retained in rear reservoir due to closing of the PR-3 Pressure Protection Valve and Check Valve 'C'. Pressure in trailer supply line is maintained at approximately 55 psi due to closing of the pressure protection inlet valve. The reduced trailer supply line pressure actuates the low pressure warning on the tractor alerting the driver of a system failure. The trailer parking brakes do not automatically apply because the trailer supply pressure keeps the control piston actuated and full pressure is maintained in the spring brake units. In this failure mode, trailer braking is provided by a manual parking brake application on both axles, releaseable by the air pressure retained in the rear reservoir. Air pressure in rear reservoir is rechargeable to approximately 60 psi from the trailer supply line pressure.

With respect to the foregoing service failures in the front and rear reservoir systems, the failure modes depict system functions after the reservoirs have been pressurized to 90 psi air pressure and the respective reservoir pressure has been vented to atmosphere to simulate an extreme failure in a service brake system.

In summary, the Bendix Two Reservoir Tandem Axle Trailer Brake System, with its four wheel non-automatic "back-up" braking on tandem axle trailers under conditions of a trailer service system failure, complies with the noted reservoir requirements of FMVSS 121 and provides the safety, performance and economy of cost and space objectives necessary for acceptance by the industry.

Bendix hereby respectfully requests from the NHTSA written confirmation similar to that issued to the Wagner Electric Corporation that the Bendix System complies with the requirements of Sections S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.2 of FMVSS 121. We would be pleased to discuss this system in more detail at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director-Engineering

RWH:ep

Attachments

ID: 02409GF

Robert E. Norton II, Esq.
Senior Staff Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
1000 Chrysler Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766

Dear Mr. Norton:

This responds to your letter dated November 8, 2002, concerning the lease of specially ordered prototype vehicles to the United States Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command. In your letter you state that your company is entering into a contract to provide the vehicles for a military research program. The vehicles will be built in conformity with contractual specifications. It is our understanding that the vehicles will not be certified to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). You further state that DaimlerChrysler will retain the title to the vehicles and lease them to the Army. You ask us to interpret 49 CFR 571.7(c), which provides that no Federal motor vehicle standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications, as applying to this lease arrangement. 

It is our opinion that a transaction where a vehicle is manufactured for, and leased directly to, the Army in conformity with contractual specifications is tantamount to a sale directly to the Army for purposes of 571.7(c). We note that as a general matter, applicability of the FMVSS does not vary depending upon whether a vehicle is sold or leased to a consumer. That is, all FMVSS applicable to vehicles sold by manufacturers are also applicable to vehicles leased by manufacturers. Similarly, in applying 571.7(c), we see no reason to treat vehicles manufactured for, and leased to, the military differently from vehicles sold to the military.

Please be advised that upon the termination of this lease arrangement, DaimlerChrysler cannot sell these vehicles to the general public, unless they were originally certified to the FMVSS. If the vehicles were not originally certified to the

FMVSS, DaimlerChrysler will need to take the necessary steps to prevent the vehicles subsequent use on U.S. highways. For example, DaimlerChrysler may choose to destroy the vehicles, export the vehicles, or sell the vehicles to the military.

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Senior Assistant Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.1/16/03

ID: 6320.jeg

Mr. John Lovstedt
Highway Safety Manager
DOT/HWY-V, Room 511
Kapolei, Hawaii 96707

Dear Mr. Lovstedt:

This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between Federal and State laws relating to kit cars. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

In your letter, you cited the example of a kit car in which everything except the engine and transmission is new. As you suggest in your letter, this would be considered a new motor vehicle under Federal law. The assembler would be the "manufacturer" of the vehicle. Under Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle. The manufacturer would also have to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

You stated, however, that Hawaii State law allows a person to build, register, use, and sell for use on the public roads such a vehicle without certifying compliance with the FMVSS, and asked whether this portion of the law would be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30103. You also stated that you do not see how a person could ever "legally register" a car like this, yet people seem to be registering them in other states.

While we decline to provide an opinion about the Hawaii law you cite, I will note that the issue of whether a kit car is considered to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle is a matter of Federal law, not State law. Thus, a person who manufactured a kit car that did not comply with the FMVSS and sold it, offered it for sale, or introduced it into interstate commerce would be in violation of Federal law, regardless of any State laws.

The issue of whether the person could legally register the vehicle would be a matter of State law. However, even if the State law did permit such registration, the person would still be in violation of Federal law.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.10/29/03

ID: 23197rbm-2

James T. Pitts, Esq.
Winston & Strawn
1400 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-3502





Dear Mr. Pitts:

This letter responds to your recent correspondence where you ask the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for clarification of the provision in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 that excludes small volume manufacturers from the phase-in of the requirements for advanced air bags. ⁽¹⁾ As noted in your letter, FMVSS No. 208 currently excludes from the phase-in vehicles manufactured by a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 vehicles worldwide annually. While not subject to the phase-in requirements, small volume manufacturers are required to meet the requirements for advanced air bags effective September 1, 2006.

You queried whether a wholly-owned subsidiary of a manufacturer could qualify as a small volume manufacturer under a corporate arrangement that effectively treats the subsidiary as a totally separate corporate entity. Your letter indicated that the parent company does not manufacture vehicles for the U.S. market. You particularly emphasized the arms length relationship between the parent and the subsidiary, as well as the separate manufacturing plants, separate relationships with suppliers and sub-contractors, and the fact that the parent-subsidiary relationship would be the result of the acquisition of an existing small volume manufacturer.

Based on a review of the proposed corporate structure, we believe that the subsidiary would probably qualify as a small volume manufacturer for purposes of the relevant provision of FMVSS No. 208, even though wholly owned by a much larger vehicle manufacturer. However, we believe that the determination of whether the subsidiary is a small volume manufacturer for FMVSS No. 208 is no longer pertinent.

In our response to petitions for reconsideration of the advanced air bag final rule, published December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65376), we changed the provision so that vehicles that are manufactured by an original vehicle manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United States are not subject to the phase-in requirements. Again, we note that small manufacturers have always been required to meet the advanced air bag requirements after the phase-in ends on September 1, 2006. A complete explanation of the change is provided in our response to the petitions.

I hope this adequately resolves your concerns. Should you have any additional questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.3/1/02





---

¹ The advanced air bag requirements were published as a final rule on May 12, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 30680).

ID: nht79-2.24

DATE: 10/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kei Matsui Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 18, Hiroshima 730-91 Japan

Mr. Matsui:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1979, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) views on whether the inclusion of optional equipment on certain Mazda models would be sufficient to create a number of different series within that model.

Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) states that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. "Line" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type." "Series" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line', denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes."

Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that models equipped with different optional equipment could each be designed a "series" if Mazda desired. Nonetheless, the definition of "series" makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the "series" designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If the difference between the potential series are superficial and a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality, the agency will not require such a designation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 11, 1979 Our Ref. No. RDE-79-8

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Sir:

Subject: Question on Interpretation of FMVSS No. 115 "Vehicle Identification Number" Docket No. 1-22, Notice 8

We are now developing a system to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 115 published in the March 22, 1979 Federal Register. As shown in the attached tables, our vehicles are advertized and sold under the designations given according to their specifications. For example, the Mazda GLC has the designations of "Basic", "Custom", "Decore Package" and "Sports".

Although these designations are utilized for the purpose of sales, they have been only given according to the level of the optional parts installed. Therefore, we think that these designations do not correspond to "Series" stipulated in S3 "Definition".

We would like to confirm whether our interpretation is correct or not. We would appreciate your reviewing our above request and advising us of your comment at your earlist convenience.

Sincerely yours,

Kei Matsui Manager Development Administration Division

ID: nht81-2.45

DATE: 07/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 12, 1981, concerning the strength requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, for a dual buckle (i.e., a two buckle unit) anchored in a vehicle by one common anchorage attachment.

As explained below, I disagree with your judgment that the standard does not deal adequately with the dual buckle design. Your proposal to test the dual buckle with 5,000 pounds of force is also incorrect; the correct force is 6,000 pounds.

Section 3 of the standard defines "hardware" as "a metal or rigid plastic part of a seat belt assembly." That section further defines "attachment hardware" as "any or all hardware designed for securing the webbing of a seat belt assembly to a motor vehicle." As described in your letter and shown in its attached photograph, the dual buckle has a common metal anchorage attachment. Since the purpose of that metal part is to secure the webbing to the vehicle, it is considered attachment hardware.

Section 4.3 (c)(2) specifies that "attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 6,000 pounds or 2.720 kilograms without fracture . . . ." Since the common anchorage attachment is designed to receive the force created by the ends of two seat belt assemblies, it must meet the requirements of S4.3(c)(2).

You are correct that the attachment bolt is required to withstand a force of at least 9,000 pounds or 4,080 kilograms under paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of the standard.

Sincerely,

MARCH 12, 1981

F. BERNDT, CHIEF COUNSEL -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs,

FMVSS 209

We have been asked to test for FMVSS approval a Dual Buckle anchored in the vehicle by one bolt, the Dual Buckle having common anchorage attachment.

The standard does not cope fully with this design and I suggest that it is tested in the following manner. The Dual Buckle should be tested statically at 5000 lbs and survive this test. This test would be in addition to the loop load test. The anchorage bolt would be tested to 9000 lbs. I have chosen 5000 lbs as a test limit for the following reason. The loop load test is done at 5000 lbs, the attachments being subjected to a load of 2500 lbs during this test. To prove the dual buckle we need to test it statically at twice this load of 2,500 lbs i.e. 5,000 lbs.

I would appreciate your comments on my proposal.

I have also written this letter to Mr A Cardarelli of AAMVA.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY COMPONENTS SECTION, BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION

(Photo Omitted)

ID: nht80-3.24

DATE: 07/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagon of America, Inc., Dietmar K. Haenchen, Administrator, Vehicle Regulations

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren, Michigan 48092

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1980, asking for information of your interpretation of Section 4.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This section states that lamps "shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle ... that is not designed to be removed except for repair." It is your belief that this section would allow a configuration in which back-up lamps and license plate lamps could be mounted on the deck lid.

We concur with this interpretation. The requirement for rigidity is meant to insure that lamps and reflectors do not sway in the wind on hinges or flexible mud flamps when the vehicle is in motion. The passenger cars you propose to manufacture will normally be operated with the deck lid closed and the lamps in full view on a rigid part of the vehicle as the standard requires. However, placement of a stop lamp and taillamp on a deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance, and hence a safety related defect requiring notification and remedy.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

2 April 1980

CERTIFIED MAIL

Subject: Interpretation - FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Volkswagen requests your concurrence of our interpretation of FMVSS 108; lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment as it applies to the mounting of lamps as specified in section S4.3.

Subsection S4.3.1 states ...each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair,...

It is Volkswagen's opinion that the above requirement would not preclude the mounting of lamps on movable flaps such as a deck lid since the deck lid is a rigid structure removed only for repair. With this rationale, present planning by Audi NSU Auto Union is to incorporate the backup lamps and license plate lamps into the deck lid of several future models (see attached sketch).

Marx Elliott of the NHTSA in a phone conversation with a member of my staff, indicated that he thought Volkswagen's interpretation was correct, however, he recommended that we obtain a interpretation from your office.

Response to this request at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen

Encl.

ID: nht80-4.22

DATE: 12/02/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Seats Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 31, 1980, letter asking a question about the appropriate test force for school bus seat belts. In particular, you ask whether seat belts mounted on a seat frame that employ a common U-Bolt would be tested separately or simultaneously.

As you are aware, the agency issued an interpretation stating that for purposes of complying with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, seat belts mounted on a school bus seat frame can be tested separately as long as they have separate anchorages. In that interpretation, the agency indicated that it would not consider the seat to be a common anchorage when testing school bus seat belts.

If I understand your letter correctly, your seat frame has separate anchorage holes in it. However, the inside portions of the two seat belt systems would be tied together by a common U-Bolt. If this is the means by which you will manufacture your school buses, the seat belts must be tested simultaneously. The use of the U-Bolt provides a common anchorage between the two seat belt systems which require simultaneous testing.

Seats

October 31, 1980

Roger Tilton U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

I am requesting further clarification on FMVSS Standard 222, school bus seating, in the area of seat belt load requirements as outlined in FMVSS Standard 210.

It is my understanding that the simultaneous load testing for two passenger seats is not required but that the 5,000-pound force must be tested at each seating position as long as each seating position provides its own anchorage holes for seat belt mounting.

The clarification of this ruling I am requesting is: on a two-passenger seat, in the metal frame construction, there are holes or provisions for individual mounting of seat belts. If a person mounted these two seat belts in the center by means of a "U-Bolt" sliding the belts on the "U" and then attaching the two nuts, would this means still fall under the above mentioned requirements?

Harold J. Van Duser Engineering U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

OCT 27 1980

Mr. Harold Van Duser Seats, Inc.

Dear Mr. Van Duser:

Pursuant to your telephone request of October 15, 1980, asking for information relating to the test requirements for seat belts in school buses. I am enclosing a previous agency interpretation specifying the required test forces. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

Roger Tilton