ID: nht73-6.2

DATE: 03/01/73

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

TO: Michigan Law Review

COPYEE: MR. VINSON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your undated letter to the National Highway Safety Bureau (since December 31, 1970, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standards intended to protect the pedestrian and cyclist.

You ask when Standard No. 211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub caps was proposed and enacted. This standard was one of the Initial Federal standards proposed late in 1966 and issued in late January 1967 effective January 1, 1968, as to original and replacement equipment. This date is almost four months earlier than the date of the accident in Passwaters v. General Motors Corp., 454 F. 2d 1270 (1972) and thus there is no connection between the two. Standard No. 211 derives from a Swedish standard on vehicle exterior protrusions. Eventually we hope to have a definitive standard on exterior protrusions (incorporating Standard No. 211) intended to prevent serious injury to a pedestrian during the initial impact with the vehicle and to control his trajectory to reduce the severity of secondary impacts. The rule would specify impact force distribution and response requirements for exterior vehicle surfaces.

Our initial rulemaking effort in this area was the issuance of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking establishing Docket No. 2-5, published October 14, 1967, (32 F.R. 14278) asking for general comments on size, shape, location, and sharpness of vehicle corners and edges. At the present time, proposals for research to establish threshold-of-injury data and to investigate techniques for reducing injury are being developed. On the basis of this data we will propose a standard on pedestrian protection. Under our current plans, the final standard would be issued late in 1975 with an effective date of September 1, 1990. We also plan to issue a standard on motorcycle rider protection systems around February 1, 1974, with an effective date of January 1, 1975. The agency's standard on motorcycle headgear, under current plans, will be issued around June 1, 1973, with an effective date of September 1, 1974.

ID: nht74-1.44

DATE: 09/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pan Commercial

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 27, 1974 asking for a clarification of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

You are correct in your impression that under section 103(d) of the Act "no state legislation can be more stringent than the Federal ruling." Under paragraph S4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108, effective October 14, 1974, "a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be equipped with turn signal lamps." This means that as of that date, only motor-driven cycles whose maximum speed exceeds 30 mph are required to be manufactured with turn signal lamps. Lower-speed cycles may continue to be provided with them if the manufacturer chooses, but a State cannot require him to do so. This is the result of the preemptive effect of section 103(d).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

August 27, 1974

R. Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Adminstration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

I am referring to the proposed legislation docket #74-16 pertaining to modifications of requirements for motor driven cycles. Under this proposed ruling, article 571.108 S4.1.1, a motor driven cycle with a speed of less than 30 MPH would not need to be equipped with turn signal lamps.

I have contacted the Registry of Motor Vehicles in Massachusetts and in their opinion Massachusetts will always require turn signal lamps. I was under the impression that under section 103D of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no state legislation can be more stringent than the Federal ruling.

In the light of the proposed Federal ruling and the apparent contradiction of State and Federal Traffic Laws, may I ask you for your advice in this matter,

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

PAN COMMERCIAL; Bernard E. Wuthrich

ID: nht74-1.7

DATE: 12/18/74

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

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dec 18 1974 N40-30 (TWH)

Mr. J. R. Farron Group Director of Engineering The Bendix Corporation 401 Bendix Drive P. 0. Box 4001 South Bend, Indiana 46634

Dear Mr. Farron:

This responds to your undated letter which requests a determination that the Bendix "Hydro-boost" qualifies as a brake power assist unit" as that term is defined in Standard No. 105-75. You describe the unit as designed with a "push through" cabability in both the "normal" and "failed power" operating conditions, and with an accumulator that permits low pedal effort for a limited number of brake applications after a power failure has occurred.

The following definitions distinguish a "Brake power assist unit" from a "Brake power unit":

"Brake power assist unit" means a device installed in a hydraulic brake system that reduces the operator effort required to actuate the system, and that if inoperative does not prevent the operator from braking the vehicle by a continued application of muscular force on the service brake control.

"Brake power unit" means a device installed in a brake system that provides the energy required to actuate the brakes, either directly or indirectly through an auxiliary device, with the operator action consisting only of modulating the energy application level.

In the preaamble to Notice 8 of Docket No. 70-27, we made the further clarification that the capabilities of the unit in the "failed power" condition determine whether it is a brake power assist unit. A copy of this discussion is enclosed. Because the Bendix "Hydro--boost" in the "failed power" condition does not prevent the operator from braking the vehicle by a continued application of muscular force on the service brake control (i.e.. with "push through" capability), it qualifies as a brake power assist unit under the definitions of Standard No. 105-75.

Yours truly,

Original Signed By

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure SECURITY=000

ID: nht74-2.24

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of S5.3.1.2 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. That section permits certain vehicles to avoid the stopping distance requirement if their brakes conform to a retardation formula and values found in another section of the standard (S5.4.1).

The language of S5.3.1.2 makes clear that any truck in the described category need not meet the stopping distance requirements if its brakes satisfy the retardation formula and values of S5.4.1, and therefore none of the exceptions found in S5.4.1 apply to vehicles subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.2.

This interpretation also appears in the preamble to Notice 2 of Docket No. 73-10, and is enclosed for your information.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

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

Subject: Request for Interpretation of Standard 121, Docket 74-10; Notice 2, Section 5.3.1.2

Dear Dr. Gregory:

The amended standard, Section @ 5.3.1.2 states that a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1975, that has a front steerable axle with a GAWR of 16,000 pounds or more, or a front steerable drive axle, need not meet the stopping distance requirement if its brakes conform to the retardation formula and values of @ 5.4.1 applied to the vehicle as a whole and to the front axle system separately.

However, Section @ 5.4.1 as now amended, applies only to "each vehicle designed to be towed by another vehicle equipped with air brakes" and, therefore, there are no retardation requirements applicable to either a towing vehicle or to a vehicle which is used by itself. Under the circumstances, it would appear that such vehicles would not be required to meet any specific retardation requirements.

We request an interpretation of the applicability of @ 5.4.1 to these special classes of vehicles for the interim period where no stopping distance requirements are in effect.

Sincerely, WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION; J. W. Lawrence -- Manager Safety and Environmental Engineering

ID: nht79-4.38

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo USA Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 26 1979

NOA-30

Mr. M. Ogata Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Ogata:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the labeling requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You ask whether the brand name of your vehicles, "Mazda", may be dropped from the label on your seat belts.

The answer to your question is yes. Paragraph S4.1(k) of Safety Standard No. 209 requires the seat belt label to include year of manufacture of the assembly, model name or number of the assembly, and trade-mark of manufacturer or distributor. The name of the vehicle on which the assembly will be installed is not required to be on the seat belt assembly label.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 6, 1979

Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear sir,

RE: Request for Interpretation of MVSS 209

Enclosed please find a copy of our seat belt label that we manufacture according to MVSS 209, 4.1 (k). As can be seen on the label, we show the year of manufacture, the model and the name or trademark of manufacture as follows:

MFD. DATE: 1977 MODEL NO: NSB5YB10 MFD. BY NSK-WARNER K.K. FOR TOYO KOGYO CO., LTD.

We have shown the brand name of our vehicles, "MAZDA" on the top of the label for many years.

Presently, we are thinking about deleting the word "MAZDA". Is this possible?

Your earliest response would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

M. Ogata Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Office

Enclosure

ID: nht80-1.12

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brotherhood Racing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your conversation with Mr. Hugh Oates of my office concerning the manufacture and installation of replacement fuel tanks.

Enclosed please find (1) a copy of a letter concerning the legal implications of replacing a vehicle's fuel tank with a larger tank, (2) a copy of a letter concerning the legal implications of building and installing auxiliary fuel tanks which discusses issues also relevant to replacement fuel tanks and (3) a notice describing how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

In addition to the points raised in the enclosed letters, I would like to point out two additional factors. First, please note that if you go into the business of manufacturing replacement fuel tanks you must submit identifying information and a description of the items you produce to this agency in accord with 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed).

Second, as you will note from the enclosed letters, a manufacturer or other person specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act who installs an auxiliary or replacement fuel tank in a new or used vehicle must not compromise the vehicle's compliance with relevant safety standards. Thus, in installing replacement fuel tanks you should be aware not only of any effect that your installation may have upon the vehicle's fuel system (see Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301-75, Fuel System Integrity), you should also be aware that your installation might affect, among othert things, the vehicle's braking system (see Safety Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems) or the vehicle's weight as it relates to safety standards concerning tires (see Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, applicable to passenger cars, and Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars).

I hope that you will find the enclosed material helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Ms. Debra Weiner of my office at 202-426-2992.

ENCLS.

ID: nht78-1.40

DATE: 09/05/78

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

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 19, 1978, letter asking whether the State of California is preempted from requiring that all seats in school buses be forward facing.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) specifies that no State shall have in effect a safety standard concerning an aspect of performance regulated by a Federal safety standard, unless the State standard is identical. The Act provides a limited exception to the above where a State or local municipality has a requirement which applies only to vehicles purchased for their own use and which imposes a higher standard of performance.

Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, specifies that seats shall be forward facing except seats designed to transport the handicapped. Seats for the handicapped may be side facing to permit ease of access. The California standard requiring forward facing seats regulates the same aspect of performance, seat orientation, as the Federal standard. Since the California standard is not identical to the Federal standard and, in fact, conflicts with the Federal standard, it is the opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it is preempted.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

July 19, 1978

Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton

Subject: Seats - Side Facing - Handicapped Vehicles

In the Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 134 - Monday, July 12, 1976, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 571.222-S4 was admended to permit side-facing seats in handicapped vehicles.

It has come to our attention that the State of California has a regulation that permits only forward-facing seats.

The question is does the Federal definition that permits the side-facing seats preempt the California regulation?

Thanking you in advance, we remain

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: nht78-2.2

DATE: 12/08/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: AMF Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. W. Fink AMF Incorporated 3700 W. Juneau Avenue P.O. Box 653 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in response to your letter of November 7, 1978, concerning the lettering permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and in confirmation of your conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

Paragraph S4.3.1 of the standard provides that the type face utilized for the vehicle identification number shall consist of capital, sans characters. Although the "1" in the "posident" type face which you propose to use has a slight at the top, the type face would still be considered sans . Consequently, there is no bar to utilizing "posident" if you desire.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 7, 1978

Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Jr. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

On October 19, 1978 a member of my staff, Harvey Medinger, called you to determine if special stamping tools (typefaces) such as the "Posident" were permissible for stamping the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) required by Standard No. 115. Your response was generally favorable; but, you requested a drawing of the Posident typeface. Enclosed is the requested drawing.

Due to the high theft rate of our cycles, we wish to continue using a unique typeface not readily available to the general public.

The Posident characters meet all requirements of Standard No. 115; except, the sans requirement. Per Standard No. 115, letters I, O and Q would not be used.

Please review this request and inform us of your decision.

Very truly yours,

R. W. FINK Mgr./Information Systems

RWF/meo

Enclosure

ID: nht79-1.45

DATE: 03/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your letter of October 17, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls, and Displays. You asked whether placing the turn signal symbol on the turn signal switch handle so that the arrows are vertical would comply with the standard.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear preceptually upright to the driver. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure quick and accurate identification of the vehicle controls. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle.

SINCERELY,

OF AMAERICA, Inc.

October 17, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: @ 571.101 101-80

Dear Sir:

Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd, the manufacturer of Subaru motor vehicles, is working on their 1980 Model Year car lines for the U.S. market. Last week via telephone we contacted NHTSA's Mr. John Carson for an opinion about the identification symbol markings which will be required on our turn signal switch. Mr. Carson informed us that we are not the only auto manufacturer to inquire about vertical arrows but that we should write for an interpretation.

Fuji plans to identify their turn signal switch handle by using arrows as shown in Table One of the standard, but plans to have the arrows in a vertical mode rather than horizontal. If we (FHI) do display the "arrows" in a vertical axis will our symbol be in compliance?

John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance

CC: FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD; FUJI LIAISON OFC.

ID: nht89-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD

ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SADATO KADOYA --

MAZDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8/24/89, FROM SADATO KADOYA OF MAZDA TO STEPHEN WOOD OF NHTSA RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 108: LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1989, with respect to an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, as it applies to the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

The paragraph requires that no portion of the lens shall be lower than 3 inches below the rear window, if the lamp is mounted below the rear window. Your letter depicts two areas in which a lamp lens may be mounted, denoted "(A)" and "(B)". In both, th e lower edge of the rear window is curved. In "(A)", the boundary of the allowable area is curved, and follows the curve of the lower edge of the rear window at a parallel distance of 3 inches. In "(B)", the boundary of the allowable area is a straight line which measures 3 inches from the end of the lower edge of the rear window, but which is greater than 3 inches at all other points because of the curve of the window.

The initial requirement of paragraph S5.3.1.8 is that the highmounted lamp be "mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the rear." This means that the 3-inch distance is measured from the lower edg e of the rear window that is at the vertical centerline. Thus, your "(A)" is the correct location because the boundary line is 3 inches directly below the center point of the vertical centerline, and your "(B)" is not acceptable because its boundary line is more than 3 inches below that point.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,