ID: nht73-2.45

DATE: 01/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 8, 1973, asking us to confirm your understanding of paragraph S4.3.1 of Standard 210.

It is our opinion that each of the three drawings attached to your letter correctly indicates the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware" for the respective belt anchorage systems.

Yours truly,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

January 3, 1973

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This is to ask whether our understanding of MVSS 210 S4.3.1 is correct according to your interpretation.

We understand "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware" stipulated in MVSS 210, S4.3.1, exists at the point, as illustrated in the enclosed figures, when the retractor spool is considered to be the hardware.

CASE 1

Seatbelt webbing is directly in contact with the retractor spool when the webbing is extended to fit the 95 percentile male.

In this case, the nearest contact point exists at the point of contact of webbing and spool as shown in Figure 1.

CASE 2

Seatbelt webbing is directly in contact with the retractor spool through the underlying webbing when the webbing is extended to fit the 95 percentile male.

In this case, the nearest contact point exists at the point of contact of the most outside webbing and the next webbing as shown in Figure 2.

CASE 3

Seatbelt webbing is extended through the guide which meets the anchorage strength requirement of S4.2.

In this case, the nearest contact point exists at the point of contact of webbing and guide as shown in Figure 3.

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Liaison Office in USA

Enclosure

FIG 1

(Graphics omitted)

FIG 1

FIG 2

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-2.46

DATE: 12/10/73

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

TO: Hyattsvile Auto Glass

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 29, 1973, request to know if urethane bonding material must be used in the installation of windshields in new motor vehicles not yet sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

Standard 212, Windshield mounting, is a performance standard for new motor vehicles. We do not require the use of specific bonding materials such as urethane, but only that the vehicle conform to Standard 212, whatever material is used. The New York suit you mentioned may involve a question of due care in the installation of the windshield, separate from the question of meeting a Federal minimum performance standard.

YOURS TRULY,

IHyattsville Auto Glass

NOVEMBER 29, 1973

ROBERT DYSON ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HWY. SAFETY STANDARDS

DEAR MR. DYSON:

AFTER TALKING WITH YOU BY TELEPHONE ABOUT A STATEMENT MADE BY GENERAL MOTORS IN ONE OF THEIR BULLETINS ON THE USING OF URETHANE TO INSTALL WINDSHEILDS, I WAS TOLD OF A GLASS SHOP IN NEW YORK THAT IS BEING SUED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T USE URETHANE IN THE INSTALLATION OF A WINDSHEILD OF A 1974 MODEL VEHICLE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT SAFETY STANDARD 212 ONLY PERTAINS TO NEW VEHICLES NOT HAVING BEEN SOLD, AS WAS EXPLAINED IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 20, 1972. IS THERE ANY REGULATION THAT SAYS THAT A WINDSHEILD BEING INSTALLED IN A NEW 1974 MODEL VEHICLE (ONE NOT SOLD TO A FIRST PURCHASER) HAS TO BE INSTALLED WITH URETHANE BONDING MATERIAL? OR ARE WE STILL ALLOWED TO USE THE BONDING MATERIAL OF OUR CHOICE AS LONG AS IT CONFORMS TO STANDARD 212?

I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE YOU CAN GIVE US BECAUSE OF THE APPARENT HAZARDS AND LENGTH OF CURING TIME WE DON'T WANT TO USE URETHANE UNLESS WE ARE REQUIRED TO BY YOUR DEPARTMENT.

AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE ASSISTANCE YOU HAVE GIVEN US IN THIS AS IN PREVIOUS MATTERS.

SINCERLY YOURS

ROBERT WOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS

ID: 77-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/77

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

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David Martin Director of Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Technical Center Warren, Michigan 48090

Dear Mr. Martin:

Please find enclosed a copy of a recent interpretation of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that may be relevant to your company's compliance efforts. The interpretation clarifies that service brake control modulation by the driver is permissible in evaluating compliance of a vehicle with S5.3.1 of the standard.

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. W. E. Whitner

1-3-78 - LCL,RAR,DAM,RLL,DPD,GSB, RJD,MRB,CTT,JWS,RAW,WLW,JLM,WCC,DPR

DEC 20, 1977

Mr. Donald P. Weiher Chief Project Engineer - Safety AM General Corporation 32500 Van Born Road Wayne, Michigan 48184

Dear Mr. Weiher:

This responds to AM General's December 12, 1977, request to know whether modulation of the service brake control is permissible during stopping distance tests of an air-braked vehicle's compliance with S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Modulation would be employed to prevent lockup of wheels above 10 mph, as required by S5.3.1. The other questions in your letter will be answered separately.

Section 5.3.1 does not limit the type of brake application that may be employed. When a test procedure or condition is not specified, the manufacturer is free to conduct that aspect of the test in any reasonable manner.

In this case, the standard requires compliance in one out of six attempts, which is intended to increase the test driver's familiarity with the vehicle for test purposes. Driver modulation occurs in the real world and is, in the agency's view, a reasonable procedure by which to demonstrate compliance. The normal skill of a test driver is anticipated in compliance testing.

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.32

DATE: 11/06/75

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

TO: Mercer Machine & Hydraulics, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your October 17, 1975, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. I understand that your company manufactures, from hose and end fittings supplied by other manufacturers, hydraulic brake hose assemblies for use in motor vehicles.

For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of the standard (including two recent Federal Register notices) and an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

The standard specifies performance and labeling requirements for brake hose, end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. As an assembly manufacturer, you must certify that your assemblies comply with the standard by affixing a band as set out in S5.2.4. A designation of your choice should identify you as the assembler. You need register this designation with the NHTSA only once, even if you also manufacture air brake hose assemblies.

While the standard generally requires assemblies to be manufactured from conforming hose and end fittings, an exception (set out in S12.) permits the use of hose and fittings which meet the performance requirements but not the labeling requirements, until August 31, 1976. (The labeling requirements for hose and fittings became effective September 1, 1974; this exception is designed to facilitate the depletion of inventories of such components manufactured before that date.)

The standard does not specify the testing which you must do; it does specify the performance levels which assemblies must meet when tested by the NHTSA for compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires you to conduct a notification and remedy campaign with respect to noncomplying assemblies. You are 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 you perform has no effect on your notification and remedy obligations. If, however, you did exercise due care, you are not liable for the civil penalty. "Due care" is a flexible concept. It is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of your company, the amount of testing you perform, and other factors.

ID: nht75-2.10

DATE: 09/09/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 14, 1975, concerning the permissibility of placing arrow-shaped markings on tire sidewalls to show the locations of the treadwear indicators.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 specifies certain labeling requirements for passenger car tires. Standard No. 119 specifies similar labeling for tires designed for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. Although the arrows which you have described are not required by either of these standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to such markings provided that none of the required label information is omitted.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 14, 1975

Ref. No. H1/67

James Schultz -- Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schultz:

We have been informed that the Japan Automotive Tire Manufacturers Association has decided to issue a new standard on marking of wear indicators.

The standard requires that all kinds of passenger car tires and truck and bus tires, in Japan, have arrow-marks on both sides of the tire to show the locations of tread wear indicators.

The below shown drawings are details of the arrow-marks:

(Graphics omitted)

We assume that some of the tires with the arrow-marks will be exported to the United States, occasionally.

Therefore, we would like to ask you a favor by telling us whether or not the tires with arrow-marks are illegal in the U.S.A..

If they are illegal, please explain what law prohibits the tires with the arrow-marks.

We would very much appreciate it if you could give us the answer within this week.

If it is convenient for you, we would like to visit with you to discuss this matter at 2:00 PM on July 17, 1975.

Thank you for your cooperation, in advance.

Yours truly,

HIDEKIMI INOUE -- Manager-Technical Liaison

ID: nht75-2.45

DATE: 06/06/75

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

TO: State of Vermont

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1975, to this agency asking questions about paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, relating to headlamp flashers. Your reference to S4.5.8(b) is out-dated by approximately three years and I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 108 as it now exists.

You asked the reason for the section in question, which provides that "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes." You also asked whether all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, are "authorized" by this section to use flashing headlamps, and finally whether the standard prohibits States from promulgating regulations to control flashing headlamps.

S4.6(b) was not intended as a regulation of this aspect of motor vehicle performance, in the sense that it would preempt all State regulation of the sale or use of headlamp flashers. It is basically merely an exception to the requirement of Standard 108 that all lamps (other than turn signals, hazard warning signals, and school bus warning signals) be steady-burning. The section, in other words, was included to make it clear that automatic headlamp flashers are not prohibited by the Federal standard. With reference to your questions, this is the only way in which they are "authorized" by Standard 108.

We have concluded, therefore, that State regulation of headlamp flashers is not preempted by the Federal standard.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF VERMONT

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

April 17, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Request is hereby submitted for official interpretation of Federal Safety Standard 108-S4.5.8(b) as follows:

Reason for authorization of standard S 4.5.8 (b).

Are all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, authorized to use flashing headlamp(s)?

Does this Federal Standard prohibit states from promulgating regulations governing control of flashing headlamps.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt reply, I remain

Ernest D. Mathews Chief, Field Services

ID: nht74-5.28

DATE: 03/19/74

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

TO: Girling Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Girling's February 22, 1974, petition for abbreviated labeling on short(Illegible Word) hose in cases where the 6-inch interval required by S5.2.2 of Standard 106, Brake hoses, makes complete labeling impossible.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has modified the labeling requirement of February 26, 1974 (39 FR 7425) by specifying an interval of "not more than 6 inches" to permit the manufacture and labeling of short hose length without waste. Lettering may be any width so long as it is at least one-eighth of an inch high. Your petition, therefore, is denied as unnecessary.

Sincerely,

Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

February 22, 1974

Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Standard No. 106 - BRAKE HOSES (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8)

Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8) published in the Federal Register Vol.38, No.218 of November 13, 1974, requires Vacuum Brake Hoses to be labelled at 6 inch intervals with the following information, using letters at least 1/8 inch high -:

1) Symbol DOT

2) Manufacturers identification (for example, GY)

3) Month & year of manufacture (for example, 10/74)

4) Inside diameter of the hose (for example, 13/32)

5) VL or VH

It has become apparent that some brake system installations use vacuum hoses which are less than 6 inches long, sometimes only 1 1/2 inches long - and it appears physically impossible to print all of the above labelling requirements on some of these short vacuum brake hoses.

The various US State legislatures (for example, Pennsylvania) have always accepted this situation in relation to their brake hose labelling requirements and permitted vacuum brake hoses with only items 1) and 3) labelled, adding item 2) if possible.

We would therefore propose that very short vacuum brake hose lengths may be labelled: DOT - 10/74 and if possible: DOT - GY - 10/74.

We would very much appreciate your early, favourable ruling on this proposal.

P. Oppenheimer, Technical Legislation Manager

ID: nht75-4.12

DATE: 11/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Realco Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Realco Services' October 10, 1975, question whether the replacement of the four rails in the sides of a monocoque-type van would qualify as a vehicle assembly operation subject to certification to new vehicle standards, including Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The answer to your question is no. The position of the NHTSA with regard to the use of used trailer components that was discussed in the Stainless Tank and Equipment interpretation letter applies only to situations in which a new trailer body is installed on used running gear. These limitations do not apply where most of the used body (along with used running gear) is retained, as where one or more rails are replaced in the sides of a used monocoque van.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 10, 1975

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Realco Services Incorporated, owner of over 30,000 trailers which are leased to railroads and steamship companies would appreciate a clarification of a new versus used trailer, in the repair of trailers and the compliance of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

In your letter to Mr. Paul Krueger, Stainless Tank and Equipment, Inc., dated August 28, 1975, File N40-30, you refer to manufacturers and to retaining the main frame of the units to qualify as a used chassis.

In monocoque construction, the trailer side walls constitute the main load bearing members.

In the maintenance of our equipment, we find it necessary to replace one or more items of the trailer sides, ranging from a bottom rail to possibly all four rails, top and bottom.

As you know, lifting devices used by the railroads do considerable damage to the trailer top and bottom rails which in many instances demands their replacement.

We interpret the ruling to cover only the manufacture of trailers, not the repairs to equipment over its normal life. We would appreciate your confirmation that this is correct.

Very truly yours,

J. A. Davies

cc: C. J. Calvin - T.T.M.A.; J. M. Lillis

ID: nht75-4.41

DATE: 10/01/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1975, in which you asked whether Standard No. 217 requires a minimum retention or force in pushing out an emergency exit window after activation of the release mechanism.

You should note that the force applications specified in S5.3.2 for operation of the release mechanism and subsequent extension of the exit by an occupant are maximum requirements. Therefore, a push-out window which only requires enough force to lift the glass and subframe following operation of the release mechanism complies with the requirements of S5.3.2 and S5.4 as long as that force does not exceed the levels specified for the particular reach distance of the release mechanism.

The standard specifies no minimum force requirements for either the operation of the release mechanism or the extension of the exit following release.

SINCERELY,

September 11, 1975

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation

I am writing on behalf of one of our commercial clients, who has requested a legal interpretation of one point of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217).

The point in question pertains to paragraph S5.3.2 where a maximum force is quoted for window push out after the emergency release mechanism has been actuated. Our client has designed a side window system where, after the emergency release mechanism is activated, only hinges at the window top retain the window. Thus, no push-out force is required other than that to overcome the weight of the glass and sub-frame. The question of interpretation arises as to whether some form of retention is required at the bottom of the window after actuation or if a minimum push-out force at the proper access region applies.

I trust that the above information satisfactorily describes our problem and anxiously await your reply.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY, INC.

John Lomash Product Engineering Sales

ID: nht75-3.38

DATE: 11/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. P. Murtha - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 5, 1975, request for the criteria necessary for construction of testing equipment used to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121, are established as requirements that vehicles must be capable of meeting if tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). However, the standards are not developed as demonstration procedures that detail methods a manufacturer would use to establish that its products comply. The development of actual test protocols to determine that products conform to the requirements is the responsibility of the regulated industry and the associated industries that service them.

Thus the Thiele Corporation, as a manufacturer of air-braked vehicles, may choose whatever test method gives it an adequate basis for certification that its products comply (15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (a)). Test equipment has been developed by several commercial sources, and Thiele can choose proper systems by consulting with the manufacturers of the brake components it uses. As for specifications for a test track, actual road tests are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard No. 121 where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assemblers ascertain that their products conform.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

House of Representatives

November 5, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Mr. William Wells of Thiele, Inc., a private truck building company, has requested that I inquire about the requirements for testing equipment under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 that went into effect in March of 1975.

Mr. Wells is interested in testing his own vehicles rather than bringing them to a professional testing track. Will you please inform me, in writing, what the criteria are for a company to build its own testing equipment in order to conform with the safety standards.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

JOHN P. MURTHA -- Member of Congress