ID: nht79-3.40

DATE: 11/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. D. Dingell - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Donald Edwards. Mr. Edwards asks whether the passenger seat in a 1979 Dodge van is required under Federal law to be equipped with a safety belt.

Your earlier answer to Mr. Edwards was correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require light trucks (including vans) to be equipped with safety belts for each designated seating position. The passenger seat in Mr. Edwards' van would qualify as a designated seating position and would be required to have a safety belt.

Under the Federal certification regulations for motor vehicles, any person who alters a vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale is required to place an additional label on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). This provision would apply to the dealer who altered Mr. Edwards' vehicle by adding the passenger seat. The label would certify that the vehicle was still in compliance with all standards, including the safety belt requirements. Since the dealer did not install a safety belt, he probably did not place an alterer's label on the vehicle and he would, therefore, be in violation of the certification regulation. If this is the case, the agency has authority to require the dealer to remedy the noncompliance by installing safety belts on the van. Additionally, the dealer could be liable for civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for failure to comply with the Federal safety standards and regulations.

If Mr. Edwards has any problems in obtaining the required safety belts after receiving this information, please have him contact our Office of Enforcement at 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. (202/426-9700).

Sincerely,

ENC.

cc: MR. OATES; JUDIE STONE

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

October 22, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook: I am enclosing for your attention a copy of information sent to me by my Distrect Office concerning Mr. Donald Edwards question as to the requirement that seat belts be located at all seating positions in motor vehicles. I have advised Mr. Edwards that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 does, in my estimation, require such seating positions for occupants to be equipped with safety belts.

I would appreciate it if you would respond to me as to Mr. Edwards question relative to the dealership having told him that a safety belt was not necessary under Federal law for the optional passenger seat in the van he recently purchased.

With best wishes,

John D. Dingell Member of Congress

ENC.

INFORMATION TAKEN BY: District Office Cindy

DATE: September 24, 1979

NAME OF CALLER: Mr. Donald Edwards

STREET ADDRESS: 5000 Ternes Street

CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE: Dearborn, Michigan 48126

TELEPHONE NUMBER: 584-5924

OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES:

DETAILS OF CALL: 1979 Dodge Van

Mr. Edwards bought a 1979 Dodge Van, B100 Cargo van, at Crestwood Dodge, 32850 Ford Road, Garden City, Michigan 48135. The driver's seat came equipped with a seat belt that doesn't work, but he is going to have the dealer fix it. The passenger seat, which is an option, does not have a seat belt. Mr. Edwards stated he paid $ 80 for the seat, but it is not listed on the bill of sale. The dealership claims they threw it in. Mr. Edwards would like to know if it is a federal law that every seat in a vehicle has to have a seat belt. The dealership is telling him no. If it is a federal law requiring seat belts in vehicles, Mr. Edwards would like to have a copy of it.

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

ID: nht81-3.37

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dayton T. Brown, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4(b)(3) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as it applies to a continuous-loop, Type 2 seat belt assembly. You ask whether each structural component of such a seat belt assembly should be considered "common" hardware for both the pelvic and upper torso portions of the assembly.

Paragraph S4.4(b)(3) of Standard No. 209 specifies that the structural components in a Type 2 seat belt assembly that are common to pelvic and upper torso restraints shall withstand a force of not less than 3,000 pounds. Arguably, in a continuous-loop system with a sliding buckle latchplate, every component of the assembly could be considered "common" hardware since, as your letter points out, if one of the components should fail, the entire assembly could be rendered useless. However, the agency has stated in the past that testing for compliance with paragraph S4.4 of the standard on continuous-loop, Type 2 assemblies will be conducted by using a webbing clamp to segregate the portion of the assembly not being tested, i.e., to separate the pelvic and upper torso portions. This means that in continuous-loop systems the pelvic portion and the upper torso portion are not to be tested simultaneously. Although a test apparatus can be designed to simultaneously load a Type 2 continuous-loop assembly without the use of webbing clamps, the agency determined that such a test method is extremely difficult to perform. I am enclosing copies of two earlier letters of interpretation on this subject.

In light of this prior interpretation, the agency cannot conclude that all components of a continuous-loop system are "common" hardware for purposes of S4.4(b)(3). Rather, it is our opinion that only the latchplate, buckle and the inboard seat belt anchorage are common hardware for purposes of S4.4(b)(3). The belt retractor and the "D" ring should be considered only part of the upper torso portion of the continuous-loop system.

I would point out that it is up to the vehicle manufacturer to determine and certify compliance with all applicable safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The agency does not provide prior approval of any safety design or test method. Therefore, you are free to test seat belt assemblies by any method you believe to be sufficient to establish due care that the assemblies are in compliance with Safety Standard No. 209. In our opinion, however, the test method mentioned in your letter would maintain a somewhat higher standard of performance than that currently required by the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 3, 1981

Office of Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

I am requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4(b)(3) within Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The referenced paragraph pertains to the structural loading of the "common" hardware within a type 2 seat belt assembly.

We have always tested the buckle tongue and buckle assemblies as common hardware. My concern is, with a type 2, one retractor assembly which has a free sliding buckle tongue. I feel that each structural component within the assembly (e.g., the retractor, the sling or "D" ring) could be considered common to both the pelvic and torso portions, due to the fact if one of the components should fail, the entire assembly would be rendered useless.

One possible argument to my feelings would be, that during the actual dynamic crash environment as opposed to the static loading environment of the standard, there may not be sufficient time for all of the loads to be evenly distributed.

The reason for my request, is that Dayton T. Brown, Inc. conducts certification testing for various seat belt manufacturers. We do not want to overburden them by insisting that all of their components meet the common hardware requirements, nor do we want to jeopardize the integrity of the system by not fully testing it.

Very truly yours, DAYTON T. BROWN, INC.;

D. R. Wachsmuth -- Senior Test Engineer

cc: D. Delve NEF32 -- NHTSA

ID: nht87-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z.Jones; NHTSA

TO: Diane LeMire

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Diane Le Mire Traffic Administrator Equus Products, Inc. 17291-B Mt. Herrmann Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Dear Ms. Le Mire:

Thank you for your letter asking how our regulations would affect the manufacturing, importing, and distribution of a shade device for a vehicle. According to the sales brochure included with your letter, your product, which is called "VENTSHADES," is a stainless steel shade that is designed to be installed on the top of a vehicle's window frame. The purpose of the device is to allow vehicle occupants to partially lower their windows when it is raining and keep the rain out. In addition, the brochure sa ys that the ventshade can reduce glare. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following information is helpful.

I believe some background information about the agency may be of assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under w hich each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a foreign company importing an item of vehicle equipment into the United States mus t designate an agent within this country for service of process.

We do not have any standards that directly apply to your product. The agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The performance and other requirements of the standard apply to any item of glazing material used in a vehicle, including a windscreen made of plastic or other glazing materials. Your product is not made of a glazing material, but is instead made of steel, and is thus n ot covered by Standard No. 205.

However, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, use of your product can be affected b y section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(n) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency enc ourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

MAY 19, 1986

Ms. Jones Office of Chief Counsel RM #5219 NHTSA 400 7th S.W. Washington D C. 20590

Please be so kind as to forward all discloseable information pertaining to the manufacturing, importing, and distribution of VENTSHADES.

I have enclosed a copy of a sales brochure for a definition. The shade mounts to the outside of the vehicle. Please see the attached photocopy for a more complete description.

Please forward all correspondence to:

EQUUS PRODUCTS, INC. 17291-B Mt. Herrmann St. Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attn: Diana Le Mire

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Diana Le Mire Traffic Administrator

ID: nht80-3.39

DATE: 08/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Department Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success, New York 11042

Dear Mr. White:

In your July 30, 1980, letter you requested more information concerning the interpretation of Standard 120 (49 CFR S 571.120) set forth in my July 14, 1980, letter to you Specifically, you noted this agency's previous interpretation that Standard 120 requires the tire load range to appear on the vehicle label as part of the tire size designation required by S5.3.1. You asked if it is permissible for a vehicle manufacturer to list the tire size as either (1) 275/80R22.5 (143) (G), or (2) 275/80R22.5 (G)(143).

Neither of your listed examples would be acceptable as shown. However, alternative (2) could be used if it is modified to explain what the 143 listing means. As I stated in my July 14 interpretation of Standard 120, the purpose of that standard's labeling requirements is to provide the consumer with permanent and useful information concerning tires which can safely be used on that vehicle. As a general rule, the information can be most clearly conveyed to the consumer by following the format shown in the truck example following S5.3 in Standard 120. Minor variations of that format are permitted, provided the variations do not change or obscure the meaning of the label.

Once the necessary information has been clearly expressed in the units of measurement most familiar to the American consumer, (e.g., load range G), there is nothing confusing or misleading about expressing the load carrying capabilities in a different system of measurement, if the manufacturer clearly indicates that such is the case. Neither of your examples gives the consumer any clue that the 143 is not a part of the G load range rating. The vast majority of these consumers would have no idea that the number refers only to the ISO load index for the tire. Your first example lists 143 ahead of the letter indicating the load range, which would even further confuse the matter.

To comply with the requirements of Standard 120, a vehicle lable must list the load range (in the form of a letter) immediately following the size designation for the tire. If the manufacturer chooses, it may then list the ISO load index rating for the tire if it is clearly indicated as a separate rating. For example, the tire size shown in your example would not be confusing if it were shown on the label as follows: 275/80R22.5 (G) or (143).

Sincerely,

Signed by

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

30 July 1980

Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: NOA-30

Dear Sir:

This is in regard to your letter of July 14, 1980 which responds to our letter of June 10, 1980 wherein we requested an interpretation of appropriate tire marking required to appear on the vehicle certification label by 49CFR Part 567.

Your response is that listing the tire on the certification label as 275/80R22.5 143/140K would not be in compliance since the load range letter (in this case G) would not be indicated.

We are therefore considering have the tire size listed as follows:

275/80R22.5(143)(G) or 275/80R22.5(G)(143)

Please advise if these are acceptable. Your quick response would be appreciated.

Yours truly,

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

abb

ID: nht81-1.39

DATE: 03/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 16 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer COSCO 2525 State street Columbus, IN 47201

Dear Mr. Knoedler:

This responds to your letter of January 9, 1981, concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether a three-point harness system can be used on a rear-facing infant restraint. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Section 5.4.3.3 of the standard sets requirements for the belts or other devices used as an integral part of a child restraint to restrain a child. Section 5.4.3.4 of the standard, referred to in your letter, sets requirements for child restraint systems which consist solely of a harness, such as the Little Rider Child's Safety Harness formerly produced by Rose Manufacturing Co. (The harnesses covered by section S5.4.3.4 of the standard were formerly classified as type III seat belt assemblies and regulated by Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.)

Section 5.4.3.3. provides, in part, that its requirements apply to "each child restraint system that is designed for use by a child in a seated position...." In referring to systems that are used by a child "in a seated position", the section is referring to conventional, forward-facing child restraints where the child sits in the restraint in the same manner as he or she would sit in a chair. It does not refer to rear-facing devices for use by infants where the infant is always held in a reclining position.

Because rear-facing restraint systems use the surface behind the child as the primary means of restraining the infants, the belts in such systems are primarily used to control the excursion of the child upon rebound after an impact. Field and laboratory test data available on rear-facing infant restraints indicate that a three point belt system can adequately restraint a child in rebound situations.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

January 9, 1981

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Our company would like a written opinion by NHTSA on whether three-point harness systems will be allowed on rear-facing infant car restraints under the specifications outlined in the Standard No. 213-80 "Child Restraint Systems."

There have been rear-facing infant restraints which use three-point harness systems for many years. By a 3-point harness, I mean belts which pass over each shoulder of the child and a crotch strap to which the two shoulder straps attach. This method has been, and still is, being used on rear-facing restraints manufactured or sold by General Motors, Ford, Questor, Century, and Peterson. To my knowledge, there has never been any information gathered to indicate that such harness systems are anything but safe, effective, and convenient methods of restraining rear-facing infants.

It states in the Standard 213 under Section S5.4.3.4. Harnesses "Each child harness shall:

(a) Provide upper torso restraint, including belts passing over each shoulder of the child;

(b) Provide lower torso restraint by means of lap and crotch belt; ..."

Since there is no reference here to whether this applies to rear-facing or forward-facing units, does this mean that a three-point harness would not be allowed on rear-facing infant restraints? Such a requirement would ban from the market many universally recognized safe and effective infant restraints and apparently nothing would be gained in the way of increased safety.

As this may affect our method of manufacture, an early response to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer

cc: Val Radovich

ID: nht81-1.44

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nu-Wa Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Neil Ford Plant Engineer Nu-Wa Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 768 Chanute, KS 66720

Dear Mr. Ford

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 18, 1980

Administrator, NHTSA

Attn: VIN COORDINATOR

Reference: Vehicle Identification Number

Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) as established by Nu-Wa Industries, Inc. for Custom Covers and Campers, Inc.

The VIN application for Custom Covers and Campers, Inc. is being submitted by Nu-Wa as an engineering service. Additional computer services and coordination will be required of Nu-Wa as the new VIN system is incorporated by Custom Covers and Campers, Inc.

Custom Covers is a manufacturer or less than 500 units per year.

The target date for affixing the first VIN is January 1, 1981 although the application was not submitted 60 days prior to implementing the system.

Attachment "A" and Attachment "B" are enclosed to illustrate how to decipher the Custom Covers VIN. Attachment "A" describes each character used in the VIN. Attachment "B" indicates a typical Custom Covers VIN and the check digit computation.

The following information determines how to decipher the VIN characters, reference attachment "A" and NHTSA part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

1C9 - The first three (3) characters are the World Makers Identification as assigned by the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. SAE verification of the assigned number is to be mailed to my attention by January 1, 1981.

3 - The fourth (4th) character indicates the "type"; travel trailer-2, fifth wheel trailer-3, and truck campers-7.

2 - The fifth (5th) character indicates the "number of axles"; one axle-1, two axles-2, three axles-3, and no axles-9.

O - The sixth (6th) character is not used.

L - The seventh (7th) character indicates the units length in feet; 10-12 ft. -D, 12-14 ft. -E, 14-16 ft. -F, 16-18 ft. -G, 18-20 ft. -H, 20-22 ft. -J, 22-24 ft. -K, 24-26 ft. -L, 26-28 ft. -M, 28-30 ft. -N, 30-32 ft. -P, 32 ft. & up -R.

O - The eighth (8th) character is not used.

4 - The ninth (9th) character is the check digit. The check digit is computed as specified per para. 5.2.1 -5.2.4.

A - The tenth (10th) character is the model year as established by table II, paragraph 4.5.3.1.

A - The eleventh (11th) character is the plant location; Custom Covers and Campers, Inc. has only one plant location.

113 - The twelve (12th) thru the fourteenth (14th) characters are the manufacturers world maker identifier as assigned by SAE.

183 - The fifteenth (15th) thru the seventeenth (17th) characters are the sequential numbers as assigned by Custom Covers and Campers, Inc.

Please review the information and advise if any additional information is required or if the Custom Covers and Campers, Inc. VIN is acceptable as submitted.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

NU WA INDUSTRIES, INC.

NEIL FORD Plant Engineer

Attachments Omitted.

ID: nht81-2.17

DATE: 04/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: N. B. Echelberry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the vehicle owner's questionnaire you forwarded on March 9, 1981, concerning the installation of computer terminals in patrol cars assigned to the city of Miami Police Department. The questionnaire was recently forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether the installation violated any safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, a copy of which is enclosed, specifies performance requirements for the instrument panel. It can't be determined from the information you provided whether the terminals are located within an area of the vehicle covered by that standard. The standard generally regulates only the upper portion of the dashboard. If it is located within the regulated zone, the installation of the computer terminal on the vehicle's instrument panel may be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Modification of the instrument panel by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business during the installation of the computer terminals so that it no longer complies with Standard No. 201 would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION VEHICLE OWNER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

HL NO.: (Illegible Words)

OWNER

LAST NAME: ECHELBERRY FIRST NAME & MIDDLE INITIAL: NORMAN B. TELEPHONE NO. (Area Code): Work- 579-6540 Home- 579-6111

STREET ADDRESS: 2514 SHERMAN ST. CITY: HOLLYWOOD STATE: FL. ZIP CODE: 33020

VEHICLE INFORMATION

VEHICLE MAKE & MODEL: PLYMOUTH VOLARE MODEL YEAR: 79-80 BODY STYLE: 4 DR. VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NO.: UNK.

ENGINE SIZE (CID/CC): UNK. [X] GAS [] DIESEL MILEAGE: UNK DATE PURCHASED: [X] NEW [] USED DEALER'S NAME AND ADDRESS: AIR CONDITIONED: [X] Yes [] No

VEHICLE SPEED AT FAILURE: [] Parked NO. CYLINDERS: 8 POWER STEERING: [X] YES [] NO POWER BRAKES: [X] YES [] NO TRANSMISSION MANUAL (Speed): AUTOMATIC [X] Yes [] No [] 3 [] 4 [] 5 TYPE

FAILED COMPONENT/PART INFORMATION

COMPONENT/PART NAME: LOCATION: [] Left [] Right [] Front [] Rear FAILED PART: [] Original [] Replacement MILEAGE AT FAILURE: NO. OF FAILURES:

DESCRIPTION OF FAILURE: (OVER)

FAILED TIRE INFORMATION

MANUFACTURER: TIRE NAME: SIZE: TYPE FAILURE:

CONSTRUCTION: [] Belted [] Bias [] Radial FAILED TIRE: [] Original [] Replacement BELT MATERIAL: [] Steel [] Fiberglass [] Aramid [] Rayon LOCATION: [] Right Front [] Right Rear [] Left Front [] Left Rear [] Spare DOT IDENTIFICATION NO. *:

* The identification number consists of about ten letters and numerals following the letters DOT usually located near the rim flange on the side opposite the whitewall or on either side of a blackwall tire.

APPLICABLE ACCIDENT INFORMATION

ACCIDENT: [X] Yes [] No NO. INJURIES: UNK.- INFO NOT AVAILABLE NO. FATALITIES: 0

DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT: OVER SIGNATURE OF OWNER: (Illegible Words) DATE: 2-20-81

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM

I am employed by the City of Miami Police Dept.-400 NW 2 Ave Miami, Fl. Currently, nearly our entire fleet of patrol cars have had computer terminals installed in them. These terminals are approx. 12" x 12" x 18" high. They protrude from the center dashboard into the area over the front seat. Two thin metal brackets support this terminal. There have been accidents where our officers were injured as a result of this installation. I have made several inquiries to different agencies to determine if this is indeed a violation of a safety standard. I received your agencies name to send a request to.

Please respond if I have contacted the wrong agency. This is a serious matter, particularly for passengers in the front right side. These items are going to be installed in vehicles due for a near future delivery.

Thank you for your attention on this matter.

(Illegible Words)

ID: nht74-1.23

DATE: 08/01/74

FROM: R. B. Dyson -- NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation, David A. Martin (ASE)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to General Motors' July 10, 1974, request for interpretation of paragraph S3., Application, of Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses, relative to brake booster hose. You refer to language in the preamble to Docket No. 1-5; Notice 11, published June 28, 1974 (39 FR 24012), which stated:

The NHTSA has concluded that the difference in requirements for the hydraulic booster system justifies special performance requirements for this application. Until these requirements are developed, hydraulic brake booster hose running from pump to accumulator will be considered to be exempt from the requirements of this standard. Hose running from accumulator to booster will also be exempted if redundant booster is provided.

This language exempts hoses used in certain functions, but not all. Clearly, booster hose running from accumulator to booster without redundant boost would not be exempt. Therefore, your conclusion that Standard No. 106-74 does not apply to any hydraulic brake booster hose, hydraulic brake booster hose end fittings, or hydraulic brake booster hose assemblies is overbroad and for that reason incorrect.

We suggest you describe in another letter the booster applications in General Motors vehicles which are not clearly categorized by the Notice 11 language. We will then be able to tell you whether or not they are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

August 5 - RAR,RLL,DPD,JAN LCL,WCC,CRS,GFB

USG 1137

July 10, 1974

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Dr. Gregory:

This letter requests an interpretation of paragraph S3., Application of the amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106-74, Brake Hoses (Docket 1-5, Notice 11, published on June 28, 1974) as it relates to hydraulic brake hoses.

The General Motors petition (USG 1087, dated 3/27/74) for the exclusion of hydraulic booster hoses from applicability under MVSS 106 explained that both the low and high pressure hoses associated with the General Motors hydraulically boosted brake power assist units should be excluded from the hydraulic brake hose performance requirements due to their different working environment and construction. Moreover, we explained that the working fluid within these hydraulic booster hoses and the hydraulically boosted brake power assist unit is completely separate from the brake system master cylinder and the hydraulic brake hoses which contain the hydraulic brake fluid used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes.

Notice 11 preamble refers to this General Motors petition requesting exclusion of hydraulic booster hoses from the MVSS 106-74 requirements and concludes:

The NHTSA has concluded that the difference in requirements for the hydraulic booster system justifies special performance requirements for this application. Until these requirements are developed, hydraulic brake booster hose . . . will be considered to be exempt from the requirements of this standard.

This portion of the preamble leads General Motors to conclude that the Administrator's intent was to exempt all hydraulic brake booster lines.

Accordingly, General Motors interpretation of paragraph S3., Application, is that MVSS 106-74 does not apply to hydraulic brake booster hose, hydraulic brake booster hose end fittings, or hydraulic brake booster hose assemblies. A prompt verification of this interpretation is urgently needed, particularly since the amendment itself does not contain any provision stating that MVSS 106-74 is not applicable to hydraulic brake booster hoses, end fittings, and assemblies.

Very truly yours,

David E. Martin, Manager Automotive Safety Engineering

ld

ID: nht74-1.49

DATE: 05/10/74

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

TO: Superior Trailer Works

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 22, 1974, question concerning the certification responsibility of a small manufacturer of trailers that must conform to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You ask if road testing of any or all vehicles produced would be necessary to satisfy the requirements.

A manufacturer must "exercise due care" in certifying that the vehicles manufactured by him comply with the applicable standards (National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, @ 108(b)(2), 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(b)(2)). What constitutes due care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment to small manufacturers, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.

A small manufacturer of standard and custom trailers might fulfill his due care responsibility to assure that each of his trailers is capable of meeting the standard in several ways. For example, he could establish categories of models which share a common brake and axle system and certify them all on the basis of tests on the most adverse configuration in the category. Calculations should be written down in such a case to establish that reasonable care was taken in these decisions.

Alternatively, joint testing might be undertaken with a trade association or with a major supplier of brake and axle components. In the case of standard models, you might be able to rely on the supplier's warranty of his products' capacities.

Neither of these methods would require road testing of each vehicle manufactured, nor would every model have to be road tested. A manufacturer must simply satisfy himself that the trailer is capable of meeting the stopping performance requirements if it were tested by the NHTSA.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

April 22, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attn: James B. Gregory, Administrator

Gentlemen:

We are a small trailer manufacturing firm currently producing approximately 100 trailers per year. These trailers are predominantly standard models (with some variations in body length and height), however, we also manufacture some custom trailers, principally low beds.

We do not manufacture brakes or axles or air system components, instead we purchase a complete axle-brake assembly and the air components, and assemble them into a trailer chassis. Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 we will, of course, install components that meet the new requirements.

We are in the process of determining all the changes that we will be required to make under MVSS 121 and would appreciate clarification of the following:

1. Will we be required to road test complete trailers or will the inclusion of all certified components satify the requirements of the law?

2. If road testing of the complete trailer is required, is it required of every trailer produced, or would the test of a single prototype of a standard model be sufficient for all other trailers of the same model?

3. What road testing would be required for custom trailers that vary widely in length, width, height, capacity, etc.?

We have contacted several California trailer manufacturers, and they are in the same position that we find ourselves, i.e., no testing facilities of our own and without knowledge of any independent testing facility offering such a service. The size of the facilities required would make it all but impossible for any but a very large business firm to construct a special facility.

We are including some literature that will show the variations in equipment that we manufacture.

Your earliest possible comments would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

SUPERIOR TRAILER WORKS Charles R. Richards -- President

ID: nht74-2.19

DATE: 10/22/74

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

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Assoc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 4, 1974, in which you ask several questions regarding the possible manufacture of semitrailers designed to transport people. You state the semitrailers would be pulled by conventional tractors, would have air-operated bus-type side doors, a rear door for emergency exit, seats, handrails for passengers who stand, and windows that open and close. Communication between the passenger compartment and driver would be limited to a horn that the driver can blow and a blinking red light operable by either a passenger or the driver. You ask whether this type of vehicle is legal, whether it is legal to transport passengers in this fashion, and what specific requirements would be required to be built into the trailer.

We would consider the vehicles in question to be trailers under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and consequently subject to the standards applicable to trailers. These standards are Standard No. 108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment," Standard No. 106, "Brake hoses" (eff. as to trailers on September 1, 1975), and Standard No. 121, "Air brake systems" (eff. as to trailers on January 1, 1975), at this time. The trailers would, of course, have to be certified as conforming to all applicable standards, in accordance with the Certification Regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568).

Many States prohibit the transportation of passengers in trailers, and as a consequence NHTSA requirements for crashworthiness and occupant protection have not been made applicable to trailers. These requirements include those for restraint and seating systems, glazing materials, head restraints, and emergency exits. Whether or not State laws prohibiting the transportation of passengers in trailers would apply to semitrailers of this type would depend upon each State's interpretation of its law, and that information should be obtained from the various states. However, should it become a commonly permitted practice for persons to be transported in trailers, this agency would very likely expand its occupant protection and crashworthiness requirements through rulemaking to apply to these vehicles.

The transportation in interstate commerce of passengers for hire also falls within the regulatory authority of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, in the Federal Highway Administration. We have forwarded your letter to that agency, requesting that it respond directly to you regarding the effect of regulations it administers on vehicles of this type.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

September 4, 1974

James B. Gregory -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Dr. Gregory:

A member company is currently evaluating the possibility of manufacturing semitrailers which are detachable from the tractor, that are specifically designed to transport people or personnel. These trailers would be pulled over the Federal highways and would be pulled by a detachable conventional tractor. The trailers would be more or less conventional construction with the following basic specifications:

(1) The trailer would have an air operated bus type side door operated off the tractor air brake system.

(2) The trailer would have a rear door for emergency exit that could be operated from the inside.

(3) The trailer would be equipped with seats and handrails for those passengers standing up.

(4) The trailer would be equipped with windows that could be opened and closed.

(5) There would be no communication between the passenger compartment and driver compartment other than a horn that the driver can blow and a blinking red light that can be operated from either the interior of the trailer or the interior of the tractor.

Specifically, is this type of vehicle legal or is it legal to haul passengers over the highway with a detachable semitrailer of this type, and if it is legal what are the specific requirements that have to be built into the trailer?

We would appreciate receiving your thoughts on this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Burt Weller -- Engineering Manager