ID: nht80-3.19

DATE: 07/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 10, 1980, letter requesting an interpretation of the appropriate tire size markings required to appear on a vehicle's certification label by 49 CFP. Part 567. More specifically, you stated that Michelin intends to supply truck tires to an American truck manufacturer labeled with the tire size designations set forth by the International Standardization Organization (ISO).

Michelin listed the following as an example of an ISO size designation: 275/80R22.5 143/140K. The labeling in that example would not comply with the requirements of Standard 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119), so the tire manufacturer, Michelin in this case, would be permitted to sell tires with only that labeling. Further, any truck manufacturer citing tire information in this manner on its certification label would be violating Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120) and Part 567.

Paragraph S6.5 of Standard 119 specifies that all tires for vehicles other than passenger cars must have certain markings on the sidewalls. Among other things, these tires must show the actual number of plies in the tire, the composition of the ply cord material (S6.5(f)), and a letter designating the load range (S6.5(j)). As you stated in your letter, the ISO designation does not show the number and composition of the plies and, therefore, does not satisfy this requirement of Standard 119. You further stated in your letter that the 143/140 designation in the ISO marking shows the load carrying capacity of the tire. In the ISO system, the letter K denotes the speed rating for the tire, and not the load carrying capacity. Standard 119 explicitly requires a letter marking to denote the load range of the tire and your proposed use of the ISO marking fails to satisfy that requirement also.

The vehicle manufacturer is required by paragraph S5.3 of Standard 120 to affix a label to the vehicle providing information on appropriate tires and rims for the vehicle. Similarly, 49 CFR @ 567.4 requires a vehicle manufacturer to list a suitable tire size after the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) on the vehicle certification label. Subparagraph S5.3.1 of Standard 120 requires the label to include the size designation of tires appropriate for the GAWR.

To list the tire size designation appropriate for the GAWR, the vehicle manufacturer must list more than the dimensions of the tire (e.g., 7.50-20 in the truck example following S5.3 in Standard 120). This is because many truck tires have identical dimensions, but widely varying load carrying capacities. For instance, the 7.50-20 size tire comes in load range D, F, and G, with its load carrying capabilities ranging from 2,750 pounds for load range D up to 4,150 pounds for load range G. Thus, for the vehicle manufacturer to comply with the requirement that it show an appropriate tire size, the manufacturer must show both the dimensions and the load range of the appropriate tires.

The reason for requiring the vehicle manufacturer to list appropriate tires for the vehicle is to give the vehicle user a permanent and useful record of the tires that can safely be used on the vehicle. If a vehicle manufacturer were to use an ISO designation to indicate the load range of those tires, the user of the vehicle would be given information different from the letter designations which are required by Standard 119 to appear on the tires. Since needless confusion could arise from this situation, and this confusion would impair the purpose of the tire information labels, Standard 120 and Part 567 necessarily require that the load carrying capabilities of the tires be expressed in terms of a letter, as specified in Standard 119.

SINCERELY,

REF: PART 567

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION -- Technical Group

10 June 1980

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

Ref: Part 567 Certification

Dear Sir:

We intend to supply truck tires to an American truck manufacturer with size designations according to the standards of the International Standardization Organization (I.S.O.). An example of such a size marking is:

275/80R22.5 143/140K

You can see that there is no ply rating in this designation; the load carrying capacity being designated instead by the load index 143/140. These load indices have been established by the I.S.O.

As you know, Part 567 requires that truck manufacturers list a suitable tire size after the GAWR on the certification plate. We do not see anything in the regulations that would prohibit listing a tire with the I.S.O. size designation. However, the truck manufacturer has requested that we confirm that listing such a tire will be in accordance with D.O.T. regulations.

We are therefore requesting your written confirmation in this regard.

Your prompt attention to this request would be appreciated.

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht80-4.15

DATE: 10/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Guenther Auto Works

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 26, 1980 providing further information on your proposed manufacturing operation. I am pleased you found our earlier response "most workable and least bureaucratic" and hope that you will find this letter equally so.

A vehicle consisting of a new body on a used chassis, and retaining the same title, is a "used" vehicle, which does not have to meet the Federal safety standards that apply to new vehicles. If you were using the chassis of vehicles built on or after January 1, 1968, the resulting vehicle would have to meet the standards that applied when the original vehicle was built. However, there were no vehicle safety standards that applied before January 1, 1968 so your contemplated use of a 1964 chassis (or 1965-67 for that matter) frees you totally of responsibility for vehicle safety standards compliance, no matter whether you are a kit supplier or end assembler, or are using new or reconditioned components.

A few of our safety standards, however, apply to equipment items, specifically brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheelcovers/hub caps. If you buy any of these items from an outside supplier, and the item is manufactured in the U.S.A., it is virtually certain that it will be certified by its manufacturers as meeting federal equipment standards. From your letter, it would appear that only the glazing standard (Standard No. 205) might be of concern to your operations since you write that you "will have constructed . . . glass panes . . . ." Glazing bearing the designation "AS-1" must be installed in the windshield of the new body. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 for your information.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act you are a "manufacturer" with respect to any vehicle equipment you fabricate or vehicle you assemble. This means that in the event a "safety related defect" developed in your product, you would be obligated to notify the owners and remedy the defect. I enclose our "Part 573" which tells you how to file a defect report with us and "Part 577" which details how you notify purchasers and the optional remedies you may provide (See 577.5 (g)(i)(g)(v) and (g)(vi)). Finally, if you intend to assemble the vehicles yourself, or if you are fabricating glazing (or any other item covered by a Federal standard, you should submit the information required by our "Part 566" which I also enclose.

If you have any further questions we will, of course, be happy to answer them and we appreciate your wish to be informed of your obligations under Federal law.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 12, 1980

James A. Guenther -- Guenther Auto Works

Dear Mr. Guenther:

In reply to your letter of August 5, 1980, asking for copies of regulations that would apply to your proposed manufacturing operation, we must have more information if we are to help you.

The answers to these questions are needed. (A) Do you envision a "Kit car" type of operation in which an existing chassis is retained and a new body supplied. (B) What are the reconditioned components that you plan to use. (C) Will the vehicle carry a new car title or that of a vehicle previoully in use. (D) What parts will be new? What parts will be of your own manufacture?

We know of no other Federal agencies other than the Environmental Protection Agency and our own that regulate the production of passenger cars.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

9/26/80

Frank Berndt -- department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is in Reference to NOA-30; copy of your correspondence is attached. Thank you for your efforts thus far. Your response was the most workable and least bureaucratic of any received.

In response to your specific questions in paragraph #2:

(A) At this time I intend to use a 1964 Chassis, the Balance of Equipment (body, etc.) To be newly constructed. If I follow this procedure, what effect will your agency have on my efforts? If I progress into kit car operations, how will this change the effect your Agency will have on my efforts?

(B) In regard to reconditioned components, I will offer the 1964 chassis mentioned above along with a mid-to-late '60's engine, rebuilt and modified (possibly) for slightly more power. Most else will be new (body, etc.)

(C) Titles in the state of Illinois, I believe, would be carried forward on such a vehicle. (I am currently writing to state capital as follow-up to your question.)

(D) As noted above, when I install new wiring, body, interior, etc., the finished products will have much of my own work included. I will design; constructed body seat mounts, seats, Dashboard, ETC. I will have constructed (probably) Handles, Glass Panes, Wire itself (although I will probably fashion wires into proper harnesses and circuits) will probably come from outside suppliers.

Hope you can help, based upon this information,

If more specifics are necessary, please let me know.

Sincerely, Mr. James A. Guenther, Guenther Auto Works, 3908 West Main - 8B, Belleville, Illinois 62223

ID: nht73-5.6

DATE: 07/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Transportation Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, requesting clarification of provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 dealing with the identification of emergency exits (S5.1.1). You ask whether this paragraph requires in the case of a 66-passenger school bus having a rear emergency exit which is not located in an occupant space, 66 separate labels, assumedly one for each designated seating position. You ask clarification as well for the identification requirements for emergency exits in a 44-passenger bus with one emergency exit in the rear, three push-out windows on one side of the bus, and two on the other, and with each of the five windows contained wholly in one occupant space. You appear to construe S5.5.1 to require a label for the occupant space of each designated seating position in the bus where a release mechanism is not present.

Your interpretation of the standard is not correct, and the requirements do not call for the extensive labeling you suggest. Paragraph S5.5.1 (second sentence) calls only for the placement of a label in occupant space of an adjacent seat, when that occupant space does not contain a release mechanism. Adjacent seats are defined in paragraph S4. of the standard as only those designated seating positions within a specified distance from an emergency exit. Thus, a label is required only when the occupant space of a passenger seat does not contain an emergency exit release mechanism and that seat is an adjacent seat as defined in the standard.

In the case of the school bus you describe, there do not appear to be any adjacent seats, and accordingly no emergency exit identification labeling is required in any occupant space. The only labeling required by S5.5.1 would be that required to appear at the exit itself. The same result would appear to be

true with respect to the side push-out windows of the 44-passenger bus you describe if the release mechanism for each push-out window is within the occupant space of the adjacent seat. As you did not indicate the configuration of the seating positions at the rear of this bus we cannot provide you an opinion on the identification requirements at that location.

June 21, 1973

Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

Regarding MVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, please provide clarification of certain aspects as described below:

Paragraph S5.2.3 states that if a school bus contains any push-out windows or other emergency exits, these exists shall conform to S5.3 through S5.5. Most school buses are provided with a rear door which would be classified as an emergency exit and, therefore, under the terms of the standard, must comply with S5.3 through S5.5. If this is the intent of the standard, please supply clarification of S5.5.1.

The second sentence of S5.5.1 deals specifically with the release mechanism and was possibly intended to apply to an emergency exit which encompasses several occupant spaces - a configuration common to many intercity buses. However, if this standard is literally followed, at least two requirements develop which we feel were probably not intended.

First, paragraph S5.5.1 states, 'when a release mechanism is not located within an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label meeting the requirements of S5.5.2 that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within the occupant space." On a school bus with 3-3 seating, the release mechanism for the rear emergency exit is not located in an occupant space, and as a result of this, on a 66 passenger bus, 66 individual labels or decals indicating that the release mechanism is located in the rear of the bus would be required. In view of the controlled conditions under which children are transported, plus the fact that they are drilled and instructed in the use of such emergency exits, we feel this requirement would be unnecessary.

Another situation would be a bus with a capacity of 44 adults. The required emergency escape openings could be provided by the use of one emergency exit in the rear of the bus plus three push-out windows on one side of the bus and two push-out windows on the other side. Each of the five windows can be contained in one occupant space and would require, if S5.5.1 is followed to the letter, a whole range of labels to indicate the nearest release mechanism, such as:

Emergency exit instructions located next to:

Next seat behind;

Next seat ahead;

Second seat behind;

Second seat ahead;

Third seat behind; or

Third seat ahead; etc.

If the intent of the standard is as described above, we must make arrangements to procure materials for compliance with these requirements and in view of the imminent effectivity date, any clarification you can give would be appreciated.

WAYNE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION WAYNE CORPORATION

Ken J. Brown Director of Engineering

ID: nht73-6.15

DATE: 04/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1973, to Mr. Francis Armstrong, requesting various interpretations of Standards No. 208 and No. 209, with respect to safety belt systems.

Your first question, referenced to Figure No. 1 of the enclosure with your letter, relates to the required strength of the webbing in the case where two widths are connected together in an upper torso assembly. Under the webbing strength requirements of S4.2(b) of Standard No. 209, both pieces of webbing in the upper torso restraint must, individually, meet a 4,000 pound strength test. Under the assembly performance requirements of S5.3(b) of Standard NO. 209, a common pelvic and upper torso restraint must meet a 3,000 pound strength test. The latter would be true regardless of whether sewing or other means is used to make the belt assembly.

Your second question, referenced to Figure 2 of the enclosure, relates to the bolt strength required in the belt assembly anchorage. Under the provisions of S4.1(f), "equivalent hardware" is permissible in lieu of the 7/16" bolts. In such a case, the tests required under S4.3(c), as prescribed under S5.2(c), would be performed on the entire equivalent hardware, rather than or the individual components (bolts).

With respect to your third question, concerning the acceptability of belts that do not conform to the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209, our reply is that under the present circumstances such webbing would not conform to either Standard No. 208 or

Standard No. 209. As a result of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ford v. NHTSA, belts installed under Standard No. 208's third option in 1973 (S4.1.2.3) will have to conform to Standard No. 209. Unless Standard No. 209 is amended with respect to its elongation requirements, therefore, energy absorbing webbing of the type you describe will not be permitted in 1974 cars.

TAKATA KOJYO CO., LTD.

February 24, 1973

Francis Armstrong Director, Office of Compliance Motor Vehicle Program National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention to; Mr. J. Gilkey Mr. G. Hunter

This is to request you to enlighten us upon the under-mentioned questions of ours so as to let us manufacture right seat belts assembly conforming to MVSS.

Please note, in this connection, that we have been manufacturing seat belts successfully for many years for installation in the cars destined to the United States.

Question # 1. (Please refer to the Figure # 1)

As shown on the Fig. #1, we made one shoulder belt connecting one webbing of 2" wide with another of 1" wide by pattern-stitching as the Figure. In this case, what breaking strength is required under S4.2(b) of MVSS 209? Is our belt taken as an assemblied webbings in spite of its connection by stitching? In other words, is 3,000 lbs. the required breaking strength for the said belt? How about in case the 2" webbing is connected with the 1"one with hardwares? Please clarify this case too.

Question # 2. (Please refer to the Figure # 2)

In compliance with the request of our customers, auto-manufacturers, we are preparing to use two bolts of smaller diameter than 7/16" for fastening to the anchorage. In this case, is each bolt is required to withstand the breaking strength of 5,000 lbs or more?

Question # 3.

We are planning to use an Energy Absorbent belt for 1974 cars. Our Energy Absorbent belt conforms to the requirement of MVSS 208's S.I. 1,000, but extends more than 40% at 2,500 lbs. In other words, the belt does not conform to MVSS 209. Can our belt be accepted by you, the U.S. authorities when shipped to the U.S. installed in the cars destined to the U.S. markets? Are we right in understanding that MVSS 208 takes precedence of MVSS 209 in this particular case?

Thanking you in advance for your kind guidance at your earliest convenience,

T. Hiramine, DIRECTOR

Enclosed.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

TAKATA KOJYO CO., LTD.

February 26, 1973

Francis Armstrong, Director

Office of Standards Enforcement National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention to; Mr. J. Gilkey Mr. G. Hunter

Enclosed please find the two copies of sketches numbered as Figure # 1 and Figure # 2.

Kindly take a trouble to check whether the two sheets of copied sketches attached to our letter to you dated February 24, 1973 were numbered as Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively.

We are afraid if we attached two copies of same number by mistake. If so, please replace the wrong ones by the correct ones enclosed herewith. Provided our originally attached ones were correct ones, please just destroy these copies enclosed herein.

Expressing our apologies for inconvenience caused by our oversight,

Sincerely yours

T. Hiramine

Enclosure.

(Graphics Omitted)

(Graphics Omitted)

ID: nht73-6.3

DATE: 11/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1973, requesting a clarification of S7.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 (9-1-75) (Docket No. 70-20; Notice 2).

As you are aware, a proposed amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 (9-1-75) was published on August 20, 1973 with an anticipated September 1975 effective date (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 1). In the event that the proposed amendment of loading conditions is adopted, the present passenger car requirement, that the vehicle be at its GVWR during testing, will be superseded by the requirement that the passenger car be loaded "to its unloaded vehicle weight plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary dummies." Under these specifications, rear seat occupant weight will not be a factor of the test load condition unless a specific test requirement calls for dummies to be placed in designated rear seating positions. The proposed amendment would also make it unnecessary to firmly fix the dummies to the vehicle as is presently the case under S7.2.

We have also noted your views on luggage capacity weight and are placing your letter in Docket No. 73-20 as a comment to be considered.

If you require any further clarification, please do not hesitate to let us know.

OCTOBER 16, 1973

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Sir,

49 CFR, PART 571 Docket No. 70-20; Notice 2 Standard No. 301 - Fuel System Integrity

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited seeks clarification on the meaning of S 7.2 as published in the Federal Register 38 FR 22397, dated August 20, 1973.

S 7.1 requires the vehicle under test to be loaded to its GVWR and S 7.2 requires weight in excess of the unloaded vehicle weight to be firmly fixed to the vehicle so that it absorbs no significant portion of the vehicle's Kinetic energy.

It seems to us that the only way in which the added weight can absorb the vehicle's Kinetic energy is by actual deformation of the weight itself. Thus, it would be unacceptable to apply added weight which would reinforce the front structure of the vehicle. This would be entirely logical with a front engined vehicle, but would pose serious problems with a rear engined vehicle in which the luggage compartment was at the front of the vehicle. Would there not be practical difficulties in achieving the correct weight distribution, and is it not reasonable for the designer to intend the luggage in these circumstances to absorb some of the vehicle's Kinetic energy, particularly that due to its share of the total mass, when the vehicle is loaded to its GVWR?

2

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited does not make vehicles with luggage stowage capacity at the front, so that particular problem is of no immediate concern to us at this moment. We would, however, be very concerned if the conditions of S 7.2 were to be applied to any future rear barrier crash test, and hence our interest in seeking clarification. Our own suggestion would be to omit the luggage weight from the vehicle test weight, while a specification is drawn up for inexpensive test pieces representing more closely the density and crush characteristics of real life passenger luggage. Such test pieces would be stowed in the luggage compartment but not secured to the vehicle structure, again representing more closely real life conditions.

Docket No. 73-20, Notice 1. proposes an amendment to Standard No. 301, effective September 1975, which would permit the installation of dummies in the front outboard seating positions. It is not clear to us how the weight of the rear seat occupants is to be provided when ballasting the vehicle up to its GVWR. We sincerely hope that S 7.2 of Docket No. 70-20, Notice 2, will not be interpreted to mean that the added weight due to rear seat passengers must be rigidly attached to the vehicle. For obvious economic reasons, which are of vital importance to the low volume manufacturer, we would want to combine testing against Standard No. 301 with testing against other Standards, such as No. 208, and S 5.1 of Standard No. 208 requires anthropomorphic test devices to be installed at each designated seating position. The restraint systems used for these dummies to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 208 could not be described as rigid.

We should, therefore, be most grateful if you could clarify the requirements of S 7.2 of Standard No. 301 regarding the means to be used for installing additional weight to bring the test vehicle up to its GVWR.

Yours faithfully,

J. B. H. Knight Chief Development and Car Safety Engineer

Copies to: Trevor Williams Rolls-Royce Motors Inc. New Jersey.

K. B. Barnes The Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders Ltd. London.

ID: nht74-1.50

DATE: 07/11/74

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

TO: Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1974, request for interpetation of the volume requirements for service brake chambers in S5.2.1.2 and S5.1.2.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake System:

S5.1.2.1 The combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be at least twelve times the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms.

You also requested that reservoir volume be based on manufacturer "rated volume" based on the designed volume of the reservoir.

In testing for compliance with S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2, the NHTSA will accept a manufacturer's published "rated volume" of the brake chamber with the piston or diaphragm at maximum travel. This means that the manufacturer may specify the full stroke of the piston or diaphragm and compute the "rated volume" based on the designed volume of the chamber and the full stroke he has established. This volume may be somewhat larger than "nominal brake chamber displacement" which does not necessarily account for the void ahead of the relaxed diaphragm or piston, the so-called "prefill volume." This volume must be included because it must be pressurized along with the displaced volume.

In the absence of manufacturer's published ratings, the NHTSA will measure the brake chamber volume with the push rod at maximum stroke.

With regard to air reservoir volumes, the NHTSA will determine the volume of reservoirs by actual measurement. As a practical matter air reservoirs are simple structures whose volumes are relatively easy to measure.

Sincerely yours,

ATTACH.

Bendix

Heavy Vehicle Systems Group

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

May 10, 1974

Subject: Title 49 CFR, Part 571, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems

Dear Sir:

Concern has arisen in the motor vehicle industry relative to the matter of brake chamber and reservoir volumes as set forth in Section 5.1.2.1, of the subject standard which provides:

"The combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be at least twelve times the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms."

The question posed is: How will the sizing be verified for compliance purposes? Hence, an interpretation of Section 5.1.2.1 is requested.

Historically, the Industry has used the "nominal" or rated full stroke of brake actuators, in determining available stroke. In practice, it was understood that the nominal or rated full stroke is all that can be counted on to provide braking. (The recommended readjustment stroke followed by the Industry has been from 3/8 to 3/4 inch less than the "rated full stroke" depending upon actuator size.) Further, SAE recommended Practice J813, "Automotive Air Brake Reservoir Volume" does not go into any detail relating to strokes, tolerances, etc. of the various components involved in the actuation of a foundation brake.

The design of a braking system requires that a component, such as an actuator, which is called upon to give a specified stroke must have its own dimensions and tolerances so designated that its "minimum" travel provisions are those required for the system. To use the actuator's maximum stroke, taking into account tolerance stack up, as the basis for sizing a reservoir, appears to be unreasonable and would not increase the safety of the vehicle. (The maximum possible stroke is, of course, not available in every actuator and thus cannot be counted on for braking.)

It is therefore recommended that NHTSA give favorable consideration to an interpretation of Section 5.1.2.1 to provide that the brake chamber volume be specified at the advertised nominal or rated full stroke of the brake chamber. This volume can be determined by a manufacturer and precludes the necessity of adding additional reservoir volume to compensate for theoretical tolerances that in all likelihood will never become cumulative in the system.

An analogous situation exists with reservoirs. Because of the profusion of sizes and special configurations (different sizes and quantities of ferrules, and a variety of lengths and diameters) the minimum volume determined by physically filling several reservoirs of each configuration to measure the exact volume does not appear to add any reasonable degree of accuracy or safety.

Therefore, it is also recommended that the reservoir volumes be certified based on a "rated volume" produced by calculation using the actual nominal Engineering drawing dimensions. Ferrules would be ignored in the calculations as being insignificant and at any rate generally a "plus" for volume.

We solicit your comments on these matters and would be happy to discuss our recommendations with you if you feel that additional information is necessary.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt -- Group Director of Engineering

ID: nht74-2.17

DATE: 08/12/74

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

TO: Walter Case

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 13, 1974, request for approval of your "park-lock" device under the parking brake system requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, 49 CFR @ 571.121. After a trailer's emergency air supply applies the brakes through the service brake chamber in response to a low service brake air supply, your device locks the brakes in the applied position.

The relevant provision of the standard states:

S5.6.3 Application and holding. The parking brakes shall be applied by an energy source that is not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system. Once applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means.

The arrangement described would not meet this requirement because the energy source to apply the brakes (the emergency air supply) would be affected by loss of air pressure in the service brake system. For example, any failure in the service brake piston diaphragm would cause a loss of air pressure that would in turn "affect" the energy source that applies the parking brake. The brake chamber housing assembly is an element which is not considered to be part of the service brake system for this requirement.

Standard No. 121 does not specify the design of brake system components. Therefore we neither approve nor disapprove the use of particular components like the "park-lock" device. It may be used in any parking brake system which meets the requirements of the standard.

I would like to point out that the standard becomes effective January 1, 1975, for trailers, and that it does not regulate air brake systems on trailers manufactured before that date.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

June 13, 1974

Larry Schneider -- Chief Counsel National Highway Admn.

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This is being written at the suggestion of Mr. Sid Williams, made to me during a telephone conversation only a few minutes ago.

I am the inventor of a brake locking device for air brake system equipped trailers. This device which weighs barely two pounds has been pronounced by leaders of the Motor Freight industry as the greatest safety device offered the industry in thirty-five years.

Some eight or so weeks ago, B. F. Goodrich Company examined and tested this brake lock and informed us of their intention to use it on their new safety systems, these being readied for market. This followed careful examination of the requirements for complying with NVSS 121 by both B. F. Goodrich and ourselves.

Our device does not alter the regular braking system in any manner. This brake lock works in conunction with the long required and approved Reserve Emergency Valve and trailer emergency air supply system. With the improved (modulated) RE 4 Valve plus our (Park-Lock) brake holding device, safety involving trailers has been increased many fold whether on the highway, parking lot or at the loading dock.

Should the service brake air supply be broken intentionally or by accident the trailer emergency air supply would take over and bring the vehicle to a stop. In such an instance, the Park-Lock would lock the set brakes automatically when the air pressure dropped to 20 lbs.

We submit that our brake locking device meets all requirements of NVSS 121 and of particular reference to (e) paragraph of Div. 12-369-26508 which prompted B. F. Goodrich's bringing to our attention they had been informed there was some question about Park-Lock meeting one requirement. The question concerns a brake chamber diaphragm failure.

Conversations with two large Motor Freight Companies (Transcon - E.T.M.F.) answered our inquiry this way: Concerning failure or malfunction of a diaphragm was, according to their records the rarest of their problems. The only maintenance reports are that of slow leaks reported by the driver. Neither Company could recall a burst diaphragm. In the event of such leak there is a warning device in the cab calling such to the driver's attention.

Particular care was given to explain to us that should the service system fail, the trailers system would be activated by the RE 4 Valve and the vehicles would be brought to a stop, even with a leak in a diaphragm.

Should the trailer system malfunction, the tractor system, protected by the tractor protection valve, would provide the necessary braking power to bring the vehicles to a safe stop. Either way, they emphasize, adequate braking is there to bring vehicles to a stop and all that is really needed for safety is a satisfactory brake lock to fit the tried and proven system now in use.

The Park-Lock brake lock has been proven in regular service for over a year. It is small enough to hold in your hand. The device is simple of construction, has three moving parts making for little wear, or requirement of maintenance.

We will appreciate your careful examination and checking out of our claims. The same, we are confident, can be said for the industry who has hailed our safety device.

Sincerely yours, Walter Case -- PARK-LOCK, INC.

ID: nht78-3.12

DATE: 07/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Hon. John Glenn -- U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 7, 1978, pertaining to your constituent's, Mrs. Carl A. Koch, concerns regarding motor vehicle seat backs that do not permanently lock.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, copy enclosed, requires that hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat or seat back and a control for releasing that restraining device. The industry is currently installing two types of seat back latches, a manual conventional type of latch and a new inertial locking device. The standard requires that the locks withstand a load 20 times the weight of the hinged portion of the seat and is not required to withstand the load of an occupant striking the seat back. Rear occupants are expected to be restrained by the rear seat belts, however, seat backs in locked position, because of some padding, do provide some protection for unrestrained occupants.

The seat back latch referred to by your constituent is an inertial seat back latch which is neither required nor prohibited by the standard. The industry, in an effort to facilitate rapid egress from a motor vehicle in emergency situations, such as a fuel fire, have introduced inertial seat back latches. The seat back latch will lock when the low forces of a panic breaking situation occurs or a high impact force occurs, releasing itself automatically when the inertial forces drop to a predetermined force, normally approximately .5g, allowing rapid occupant egress.

We believe there can be positive post-crash escape advantages for the inertial type seat back latches, however, it would appear from Mrs. Koch's experience that it may be warranted to initiate an investigation of the type of inertial latches installed in the 1978 Ford Granada. Accordingly, I am forwarding a copy of your letter to our Office of Defects Investigation for their action to determine if and what corrective action may be warranted.

I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to Mrs. Koch's inquiry. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

Michael M. Finkelstein Acting Associte Administrator for Rulemaking

June 2, 1978

Dear Senator Glenn,

I have no idea who to write to about what I consider a major problem and since your name and address was listed in the paper and I voted for you I am asking you to get my complaint to the right person.

I recently purchased a 1978 Ford Granada, two door car. No one told me that the seats now do not lock permanently in place and must be released. A small truck with no stop lights on back caused me to brake real fast and my eight year old was sitting on the end of the back seat and the seat acted as a slide when it fell forward and propelled my daughter right up into the windshield. I took it to the service department and have even written Ford Motor Company and they tell me that they cannot lock this seat for me as Ralph Nader has made them put in this kind of seat. They further told me that until I have an accident and maybe kill one of my little ones by having them fly out the windshield they have no way of proving wether my seats actually lock on rapid decellaration. There could be a malfunction and they have no way of checking it out. I can't believe that if you could fly in outer space there isn't something that could be done to give you a choice of wether we want our seats locked while we are driving or wether we prefer them to be movable. If no one is in the car and you stop fast the seat flies forward. It is a distraction and safety hazard. When a child is old enough to open a seat belt it is impossible to keep him in them if he wants to be able to see out the side or front window. I bought a two door car because I have eight children from twenty six to six and I want them confined while I am driving where if anything happens they will receive the least injury possible. With locked seats and no doors to open or windows to open the child is farely safe and I have never had a scare like the incedent that I related at the beginning of my letter.

I am sorry but I think Ralph Nader has made a big goof and who ever in government that is responsible for helping him make this change in automobiles better take a second look and do some more testing. I feel the manufacturer should also be required to have some way of testing to make sure that if I have an accident that these seats are going to lock as we are told they will. I have taken this car out in the country and slowed rapidly, stopped fast and done everything short of hitting a brick wall and these seats will not lock.

Thank you for getting my complaints to the right person,

Dolores A. Koch (Mrs. Carl)

ID: nht78-4.13

DATE: 11/28/78

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

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 19, 1978, questions about the effect of the PACCAR V. NHTSA decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.

Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision. Only the "road testing" requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.

One question raised is whether the court invalidated these "road testing" requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation "at the time [the standard] was put into effect" (573 F2d. at 640).

Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks "no lockup" performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.

A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have already been antilock equipped, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states 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 . . . .

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the first retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.

The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different in the case of a manufacturer or agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under @ 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken. "Adequate repair" is defined in @ 159(4) not to include "any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment." The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safet related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.

A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export) trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain "road testing" portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, "no lockup", timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.

Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes an importation in violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.

ID: nht78-4.24

DATE: 12/12/78

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

TO: James P. Bally, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEC 12 1978 NOA-30

James P. Bally, Esq. Messrs. Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz 140 East Town Street. Columbus, Ohio 43215

Dear Mr. Bally:

We understand that you are interested in an interpretation of the relationship of a rear lighting system, developed by your client Mr. Leno Bevilacqua, to Federal motor vehicle lighting requirements. As you described this device in your letter of September 29, 1978, to the Nevada Department of Highways:

"The device will project a green light for the vehicle which would be in a constant or accelerated speed, a yellow light for the vehicle in a decelerated moving state and a red light for the vehicle which would be stopping."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, (49 CFR 571.108) neither requires nor expressly prohibits a lighting device of this nature as original equipment on motor vehicles. One section of the standard, however, S4.1.3, prohibits the installation of all original lighting equipment not mandated by the standard "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." While we make no judgment with respect to Mr. Bevilacqua's 18-inch long 1 1/2 inch high rectangular device, I think it important to note that the agency's research into rear green signal lights indicate that there may be disadvantages rather than advantages to such a lighting system. One major disadvantage is the problem of confusing the unfamiliar colored rear lamps in urban environments having multicolored lights.

Standard No. 108 does not cover this device as an aftermarket item, and it would therefore be subject to regulation by the individual States.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION REGION IX TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER - SUITE 610 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

October 24, 1978

Mr. James P. Bally Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz Attorneys at Law 140 East Town Street Columbus, Ohio 43215

Dear Mr. Bally:

Your letter of September 29, 1978 concerning an automobile safety signal system with reference to Saflect Signal Corporation and Mr. Leno Bevilacqua, was forwarded to this office. You requested an interpretation concerning conformance to Federal requirements.

We have forwarded the correspondence to our Washington, D.C. headquarters for reply.

Sincerely,

Joseph F. Zemaitis Motor Vehicle Programs Specialist

cc: Associate Administrator for Rulemaking NHTSA, Washington, D.C.

state agencies, therefore, our expression or interpretation is only an unofficial expression of our view in an attempt to be of some assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

William H. Raymond Deputy Attorney General Assistant Chief Counsel Department of Highways

WMR/l

cc: Joe Souza, Highway Engineer Darwin Garvin, FHWA, 1 with enclosure Brian Nelson, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, DMV, with enclosure

STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 12635 SOUTH STEWART STREET CARSON CITY 89712

ROBERT LIST MELVIN L. BEAUCHAMP ATTORNEY GENERAL October 10, 1978 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CHIEF COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

Mr. James P. Bally Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz Attorneys at Law 140 East Town Street Columbus, OH 43215

Dear Mr. Bally:

Your letter of September 29, 1978, to our Highway Engineer was referred to this office for reply. A copy of your letter is attached hereto.

We are also attaching a copy of Nevada's Motor Vehicle laws which relate to "lamps and other lighting equipment." While this Department is not directly involved with motor vehicles and vehicle equipment, it would seem the proposed safety signal system would be subject to regulation, specifically under the provisions of NRS 484.563.

We are sending a copy of your letter to the District Office of the Federal Highway Administration for possible comment. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Darwin Garvin who will, if he can be of assistance, reply to you directly or forward your request to the appropriate office.

In addition, we are sending a copy of your letter to Brian Nelson, Esq., Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Motor Vehicles, whose agency is responsible for enforcing the motor vehicle laws which contain the attached statutes. Since this is their area of expertise, they should be able to give you their interpretation of whether or not your proposed system would meet the legal requirements of our state.

If this office can be of further assistance, please feel free to request the same.

It is the policy of the Nevada Attorney General's Office to give statutory opinions only to state officials or