ID: 77-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/10/77

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

TO: Indiana Mills and Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1977, to Mr. Francis Armstrong of our Office of Standards Enforcement, in which you asked whether our regulations require seat belts in fifth wheel vehicles.

Our seat belt requirements are specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), which applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. I am assuming that by fifth wheel vehicle you mean a towed vehicle attached to the towing vehicle by means of a fifth wheel. If I am correct in this assumption, these vehicles would be classified as trailers, which are not subject to Standard No. 208. There would therefore be no Federal requirement for seat belts in these vehicles.

SINCERELY,

October 4, 1977

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcements Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

To further promote the R.V. industry, the Pennsylvania Recreational Vehicle and Camping Association (PRVCA) supported fifth-wheel riding, provided certain safety features were incorported.

Now, fifth wheel riding has been made part of the Pennsylvania Vehicle code, becoming legal July 1, 1977. This brings to 25 the number of states that have made it legal to ride in fifth wheels. The law requires seat belts in all designated seating. Would you please advise me as to how the code speaks to the use of seat belts in fifth wheel vehicles.

Thank you for your assistance.

Robert W. Locke Manager RV Sales -- INDIANA MILLS AND MANUFACTURING, INC.

ID: nht75-1.3

DATE: 03/03/75

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

TO: Paul Utans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 3, 1975 N40-30 (TWH)

Mr. Paul Utans 55 Concord Street Englewood, New Jersey 07621

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your January 19, 1975, questions whether S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, permit a brake fluid warning statement on a filler cap to be partially obscured by a locking component placed over it, and whether the statement may include the name of an automobile manufacturer in association with the recommended type of brake fluid.

The answer to both of your questions is no. Section S5.4.3(b) requires that the statement be "located so as to be visible by direct view". This requirement prohibits an arrangement which would obscure any part of the statement, as would the design described in the drawings which accompany your letter. Section S5.4.3(b) permits a location within 4 inches of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or cap to accommodate arrangements which do not permit use of the filler cap as a location.

The content of the brake fluid warning statement required by S5.4.3 is specified in every respect other than designation of the recommended type of brake fluid. However, S5.4.3 does limit the permissible designation to "the recommended type of brake fluid as specified in 49 CFR S?571.116" and sets out an example of "DOT 3". These criteria do not permit the addition of an automobile manufacturer's name. Such a recommendation could, of course, appear separately in the vehicle's owner's manual.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.44

DATE: 12/01/75

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

TO: Detroit Testing Laboratory

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your November 7, 1975, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning testing for the performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. I understand that you have a contract with a hose manufacturer to perform certification testing of the brake hose and brake hose assemblies which he manufactuers, and that four motorcycle companies purchase assemblies from your client which are identical but for their varying lengths.

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, Standard No. 106-74 does not specify the testing which a manufacturer must do before certifying that his hose and assemblies comply; it does specify the performance levels which these products must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires the manufacturer to conduct a notification and remedy campaign with respect to noncomplying hose and assemblies. He is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each noncomplying assembly (not to exceed $ 800,000 for each related series of noncompliances). The amount of testing which he performs has no effect on his notification and remedy obligations. The civil penalty liability, however, does not apply to a person who establishes that he did not, while exercising due care, have reason to know that his product did not comply. "Due care" is a legal concept evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of the company, the amount of testing performed, and other factors.

ID: nht75-1.48

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transcraft Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of September 9, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer of this agency, concerning the testing of brake hose assemblies pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74.

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the standard does not specify the testing which you must conduct; it does specify the criteria which the assemblies must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance. While the surest way for you to be confident of compliance would be to follow the procedures in every detail, you are not legally obligated to do so. Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), requires you to assure yourself that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the procedures set out in the standard, your assemblies will meet the specified criteria. In addition, you are required to repair or replace without charge noncomplying assemblies. In the event of noncompliance or failure to remedy the noncompliance, the Act specifies a civil penalty not to exceed $ 1000 for each violation (and not to exceed $ 800,000 for any related series of violations). The exercise of due care in ensuring that the assemblies comply with the standard is a defense to an action for civil penalties for noncompliance. In such a situation, however, the Act nevertheless requires you to remedy the noncompliance.

If you manufacture brake hose assemblies and install them in vehicles which are also manufactured by you, then those assemblies are exempted by S5.2.4 of the standard from the requirement that assemblies be labeled by means of a band.

ID: nht75-1.49

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 5, 1975, which inquired about the permissibility of iron-branding the letters "N.A." on the sidewall of certain passenger car tires to indicate that they are not adjustable under your warranty.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, specifies labeling and performance requirements for such tires. The NHTSA has no objection to the provision of additional labeling information such as the "N.A." which you have suggested. However, the tire must continue to be capable of meeting the standard's performance requirements at the completion of the hot-branding process.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 5, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel -- N.H.T.S.A. Att: Mark Schwimmer, attorney

Sir:

In reference to the phone conversation Friday morning, I am sending you a written request for the following information:

We would like to know if there are some objections from your office to iron-brand N.A. (not adjustable) tires which may present possible vibrations, bleeding white sidewall, unbalance or which may not deliver the 40.000 mile guarantee even though they belong to a tire line which has the 40.000 mile guarantee.

The tires involved (which are approximately 5000 units) will be sold at a discount of about 50%.

Of course such tires have all the safety guarantee as the regular premium ones.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION -- G. Buzzi-Ferraris, Technical Manager

ID: nht75-2.24

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: County of Los Angeles Road Department

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of April 28, 1975, concerning tires used on pull brooms.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, (copy enclosed), specifies labeling and performance requirements for all tires designed for use on pull brooms. This standard applies to all such tires manufactured on or after March 1, 1975. There is presently no requirement, however, that vehicles be equipped with tires conforming to the standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed and is considering the issuance of a new Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, which would require all new pull brooms manufactured after its effective date to be equipped with tires conforming to Standard No. 119.

YOURS TRULY,

TO: Dear Sir

FROM: (Illegible Word)

Date 3-6-75

Please send me all the necessary information you have about implement (Illegible Words) (Illegible Line)

Thank you

76L265 Cdb 274 LOS ANGELES COUNTY LETTERGRAM

TO: E.T. Driver

FROM: Carl Morton

Subject: Implement tires.

Date: 4-28-75

Reply no N41-33

Our fleet of Pull Brooms are equipped with implement rib type tires. They are used 100% of the time on Highways.

Please advise

Thank you Carl Morton

ID: nht74-5.23

DATE: 04/03/74

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

TO: Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 1, 1973, letter and subsequent communication with Mr. Sidney Williams of the NHTSA Handling and Stability Division concerning the conformity of your trailers with Standard 121. You asked particularly about the diversion of service reservoir air for use in the air suspension unit, the location of the service reservoir check valve, and test conditions for extendable platform trailers. This will also acknowledge receipt of your March 14, 1974, petition for longer application and release time for special length trailers.

The NHTSA has not issued any prohibition on the use of service brake system air in auxiliary systems such as windshield wipers and air suspensions. You may tap air from the system as long as the system still meets all the requirements listed - in particular the ability of the reservoir, when pressurized to 90 psi, to release the vehicle's parking brakes at least once.

The check valve may be placed at the isolated tank to protect the trailer service reservoir as specified in S5.2.1.5, as you have detailed it in your schematic drawing.

With regard to extendable platform trailers, they should be certified in the most adverse configuration. No special configuration has been specified, and the NHTSA is free to test the vehicle at any length at which it is designed to operate.

The Fruehauf Corporation has also petitioned for relief from the application and release time requirement as it applies to extendable trailers. These petitions are under consideration and will be answered when that consideration is complete.

ID: nht75-4.23

DATE: 07/22/75

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

TO: Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss & Gershon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1975, in which you request an interpretation that roof vent covers in recreational vehicles are excluded from the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. Further, you ask our interpretation of the extent to which States may procedurally regulate the conformity of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with Federal safety standards.

We have reviewed the extensive brief you submitted in relation to the applicability of Standard No. 205 to recreational vehicle roof vent covers manufactured by injection molding, and have determined that roof vent covers fall within the purview of the Standard. Nevertheless, we concur in your view that roof vent covers manufactured by the injection molding process are not susceptible to testing under the procedures found in USAS Z26.1. Consequently, we intend to issue in the near future proposed rulemaking which would establish a surrogate testing procedure for this type of roof vent cover. Until this new procedure is adopted, the NHTSA intends to take no action against manufacturers who do not certify that their injection molded roof vent covers meet the requirements of Standard No. 205 which incorporate the requirements of USAS Z26.1.

With respect to State action concerning the conformity of motor vehicles and equipment to motor vehicle safety standards, we are currently reviewing our position in light of a suit brought last month against the State of Pennsylvania. We shall advise you when a conclusion has been reached.

ID: nht95-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 11, 1995

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- EXEC DIR. NYSBDA

TO: Walter Myers -- STAFF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO RICHARD KREUTSIGER (A43; PART 565)

TEXT: MR. MYERS; I DID TRY TO REACH YOU BY PHONE ON FRIDAY (2/10/95) PERTAINING TO THE LONG STANDING QUESTION RELATING TO THE INTRUSION OF THE LEFT SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR ON A SCHOOL BUS OF THE FOLDING SEAT, UNDER PROVISIONS OF FMVSS 217 AMENDED, WHEN THERE IS VERY DISTINCT ILY DEPICTED A 30 CENTIMETER AISLE (CLEAR) EVEN THOUGH THERE IS FROM 1/4" TO 3/4" INTRUSION BY THE FOLD UP SEAT FRAME.

I WILL BE ATTENDING A MEETING MONDAY (2/13/95) AT WHICH I AM CONFIDENT THAT THIS QUESTION WILL ONCE AGAIN ARISE - AND I WOULD BE MOST GRATEFUL ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF ACTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FOR YOU TO CONTACT ME AT 607-722 - 7575

I AM NOT NOT TRYING TO PICK ON YOU BUT ANOTHER QUESTION HAS DEVELOPED WHICH IN MY RESEARCH OF THE CFR FOR TRANSPORTATION HAS NOT PROVIDED ME WITH MUCH OF AN ANSWER.

THE "QUESTION" PERTAINS TO "MODEL YEAR" DATING. I HAVE FOUND UNDER THE SECTION RELATING TO "VIN" THAT THE MODEL YEAR IS TO BE INCLUDED AT A SPECIFIED POINT - BUT MY DIRECT QUESTION - IS THERE ANY FEDERAL MANDATE STATUTE - REGULATION - LAW - THAT PROVIDE S A SPECIFIC DATE OR TIME FRAME IN WHICH A MANUFACTURER HAS TO CHANGE MODEL YEAR DATING - PROVIDING ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE VEHICLE PRODUCTION MAKE-UP OR DESIGN FEATURE. I AM AWARE THAT MOST OF THE BIG THREE AUTO COMPANY'S MAKE ANNUAL CH ANGES, BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS ADDING OR DELTING A "WIDGET". ANY INFORMATION YOU MIGHT HAVE WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED. THANK YOU.

ID: nht95-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/15/95 FAX FROM TILMAN SPINGLER TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: We have received your FAX of February 15, 1995, asking whether a proposed design "for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108."

The agency does not advise manufacturers whether particular designs are regarded as "conforming." That determination is to be made by the manufacturer in certifying that its product conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Howe ver, we can provide you with an interpretive guideline. Section S4 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" as a headlamp "comprising a bonded lens reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources." The intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp. This means that, if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced. If your design is such that the lens cannot be removed from the reflector assembl y for replacement, it would appear to meet the definition in S4.

As you are well aware, NHTSA granted your company's petition for rulemaking, and, in November 1994, proposed an amendment of the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that would allow a replaceable lens if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2. Comments were due on this proposal February 21, 1995. In due course, after review of the comments, NHTSA will decide whether it will pursue further rulemaking or terminate the rulemaking action.