ID: nht74-5.49

DATE: 05/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Triboro Coach Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1974, concerning your request for an exemption from the roof emergency exit requirements (S5.2.1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217). We had denied an earlier request on March 27, 1974, following your letter to us of February 13, 1974.

We must again deny your request. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to motor vehicles (some apply to equipment only) specify safety requirements which apply to vehicle types generally (passenger cars, trucks, buses, etc.) and must of necessity be based on the use to which such vehicle types are generally put. The NHTSA has determined through the administrative rulemaking process that buses, including buses for use in urban environments, must have a roof emergency exit when a rear exit can not be installed due to the configuration of the bus. In most cases, including many urban situations, the roof exit can be an important safety feature, particularly when the bus is overturned on a side. While we do not dispute the facts you present, we view the situation as unsual, and not a suitable basis for modifying a requirement applicable to every urban bus. Our regulations do not permit exemptions from requirements for buses sold to one party.

However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @@ 1391 et seq.) under which Standard No. 217 is issued, a vehicle need not conform to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard after its sale to its ultimate user. Consequently there is no Federal prohibition to your modifying or eliminating the roof exits in these buses if you wish, after you receive them from the manufacturer.

SINCERELY,

Tribo Coach Corporation

April 4, 1974

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

Att: Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

In reply to your letter dated March 27, 1974, N40-3 (MPP)

Subject: Roof emergency exit (S5.2.1) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217

I am sure that you are becoming increasingly familiar with problems of making buses safer; this has also been our prime concern. In your letter you stated in order that the requirements be modified, there must be a showing, that their cost is unreasonable in terms of the safety benefits achieved. Again we are not concerned with the cost ratio, safety is our and your prime concern. About the abuses which the buses are subject to, you must take into account exactly, that which is going on in the buses. Bus seats being torn off there mounting, then seat cushions being thrown out of the window, window frames being dismantled and thrown out, screws from internal panels being removed and panels thrown out of buses, glass being broken, whereby cost and replacing is almost impossible, seat being cut up so as to be unrecognizable.

You speak of possible alternative steps taken to develop designs that will minimize the tampering with. I would like at this time to say that it is my opinion, in order to achieve the safety that we are both looking for, we should first develop the means to modify this condition that I presently see as a very dangerous and hazardous condition. Visualize the roof hatch being opened and the pupils boosting each other thru this hatch. What do you think will happen when the driver discovers this? immediately he will hit the brake pedal and where do you think the pupils will wind up? also, think of the traffic following. The hitting of the brake pedal will not be deliberately on our drivers part.

In an accident such as a roll over the bus can land on one of four sides. If it lands right side up that is on four wheels, there will be one entrance and one exit door. Eight large picture frame windows, if it lands on the left side. It will have one entrance door and one exit door and four large picture frame windows. The entire front windshield and the entire rear windshield, which are set in rubber can be kicked out very readily in any of the four positions, making an opening large enough to walk out in a standing position, if it lands on the right side there are four large picture frame windows. Also remembering the front and rear windshields, the most important part to remember, is in a roll over the sides of the bus will be pushed in there by buckeling up the roof. Because of the structure of the vehicle which I believe will distort the roof hatch and make it inoperable. This has been proven to be a fact.

To give you a short resume of my experiences aroun buses, listed below are the following:

1. 42 years as Superintendent of all Equipment.

2. A graduate of Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York.

3. Triboro Coach Corporation operates 165 city coaches.

4. Varsity Transit Inc. which is a school bus operation only and operates 1,378 vehicles which includes 80 lift buses hydraulically operated for wheel chairs.

This resume is not intended to impress you, or that I am an authority on the subject, but rather to show that I am familiar with the importance of that which you seek.

William J. Cicero Supt. of Maintenance

ID: nht75-3.32

DATE: 05/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Aslan Truck Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1975, explaining your reasons for not purchasing bulk agricultural commodity trailers that conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You said that you expect that the new systems will be disabled or destroyed by rough usage in the fields, and that you intend to manufacture trailers that do not conform to the standard.

We have no reason to believe that the new axle systems will be more susceptible to field hazards than are present systems. Most antilock systems are designed so that the outboard sensor is enclosed in the hub and the wiring harness is routed inside the axle to the antilock module. There are antilock systems that incorporate the antilock module and air valve in the same location as the relay valve found on pre-121 vehicles. We therefore expect little change in the susceptibility of these vehicles to field hazards.

You stated that you intend to manufacture air-braked trailers for your own use which do not comply with Standard No. 121. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq.) prohibits the manufacture of non-complying vehicles after the effective date of an applicable standard as follows:

@ 1397 (a) (1) No person shall --

(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section; . . .

From your description, your plans to build vehicles which would subsequently be introduced in interstate commerce (i.e., driven on the public highway) would appear to be in violation of this section. Civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation can be assessed under @ 1398 of the Act.

I am interested in hearing from you on your experience with Standard No. 121 if you choose to purchase any complying vehicles. In any case, I would like to assure you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in the process of monitoring the standard's economic impact. The NHTSA will attempt to identify any modifications that would lower the standard's cost while achieving comparable levels of safety.

SINCERELY,

April 15, 1975

James B. Gregory, Administrator U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Received your letter of March 31, 1975, in regards to the Standard No. 121, Air brake System.

I understand very well your reasons for denying my request for exempting agriculture trailers from the new brake law No. 121. It is impossible for us to comply with the new regulations. We see nothing but trouble with them in the fields, after we have dropped them to the roadside of the ranches where the farmer is harvesting. He will drag them through the field with his own farm tractor, which has no air. He will pull them over weeds, tomato vines, grain fields and many other types of field harvesting in plowed ground. Our feeling is that it will create nothing but trouble with the brakes locking and not working.

I have two hundred and fifty bulk agriculture trailers in the field during harvest season, and I do not have the time and the extra help to keep these trailers in working order if the brakes lock up. With our present trailers we do not have any trouble of any sort and that is the way we are going to continue to operate.

We had an order, for the 1975 season, 100 more new trailers to be able to meet the volume of the additional acreages that are being planted this year. Unfortunatly, we had to cancel our order and are buying as many of 1973-74 trailers that we can find and what we cannot find we will build ourselves.

You said that the major concern is that these trailers could be used in the winter months. It is impossible for us to use these bulk trailers for anything other than bulk harvesting. There are no floors, no stake pockets and the fiberglass bulk tanks cannot haul anything else but raw food products, which are grown and harvested during the May, June, July, August, September, October, and November months.

In regard to the petition filed by Utility Trailer Co., our opinion is that all of the Anti-Skid Standard No. 121 brake law should be excluded from the 1975 harvest season so the manufactures can have one year to try it in various localities to see if it will work satisfactory. Otherwise, I do not believe any of the truckers, including myself, will be interested in buying any trailers that are not guaranteed to be trouble free.

Our company, which happens to be one of the largest bulk haulers in California, will not buy or use any trailers with the new 1975 Standard No. 121 brake system. Up until the time it can be proven to me that it will be absolutaly trouble free, we do not dare to take the chance. I sure do not want to invest an extra one hundred and fifty thousand dollars to find out; our costs are high enough now.

A. L. Aslan

ASIAN TRUCK SERVICE

ID: nht75-3.37

DATE: 11/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G.G. Mannella for James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: National Association of Motor Bus Owners

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of November 12 and 13, 1975, in which you requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration immediately suspend the effectiveness of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to buses, without waiting until the end of a comment period. In a notice published November 13, 1975, 40 FR 52856, this agency proposed such a suspension with a 30-day comment period ending December 15, 1975.

Secretary Coleman has made clear his commitment to allowing adequate time for public comment on rulemaking actions. The normal minimum time for public comment on Department of Transportation actions has been established as 45 days. In this case, because of the special urgency of the matter, the period was reduced to 30 days. I believe we all recognize that this action is a significant one, affecting the performance and cost of most of the transit and intercity buses in the country. In these circumstances, it is our judgment that the 30-day period is the minimum that can be justified for comment by the interested public, and your request is therefore denied.

We also recognize, as you have pointed out, that for this short period there may be some uncertainty and some interruption of normal activities within the affected industries. We will make every effort to reach and announce a decision as soon as possible after the end of the comment period.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

November 13, 1975

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

Dear Dr. Gregory:

This will supplement my letter of November 12, 1975, in regard to the problems created by failure to make effective immediately the suspension of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 requirements respecting the brake anti-lock system on buses.

We understand why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not want to deny any opponent of the proposed suspension an opportunity to be heard. Also, we are sure NHTSA does not want to halt sales of buses for six weeks or so, to disrupt bus manufacturing schedules, to cause temporary lay-offs of employees, or to require purchasers of buses to choose between taking immediate delivery of a needed bus or saving some $ 1,300.00 by postponing acceptance of delivery. These are the consequences of failure to make the suspension effective immediately.

We offer the following solution which, in our opinion, will fully protect the rights of any protestant of suspension if one should appear.

We suggest the suspension be made effective immediately, provided, the manufacturer and purchaser of any bus sold between now and January 1, 1976, agree in writing to the installation of the anti-skid device on or before January 8, 1976, if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that suspension of the MVSS-121 requirement is unwarranted.

Since NAMBO members will be attending their Annual Meeting in Phoenix beginning Saturday, November 15, I am turning this matter over to NAMBO's General Counsel, Drew L. Carraway, Esq. of the firm of Rice, Carpenter and Carraway. Mr. Carraway will be in touch with your General Counsel's office to ascertain whether our proposal is satisfactory and advise those of us in Phoenix of your decision on this important matter.

Sincerely yours,

Charles A. Webb -- PRES.

cc: Frank A. Berndt (Acting Chief Counsel); Richard Dyson (Chief Counsel's Office)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

November 12, 1975

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

Dear Dr. Gregory:

ON November 11, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a proposed amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, 49 CFR 571.121, to suspend, until January 1, 1977, service brake stopping distance requirements as they apply to buses.

In its tentative findings the Administration correctly noted that the present anti-lock system in buses is "characterized by malfunction that warrants its deactivation on all vehicles on which it is installed while a correction is fully developed" and that "a situation wherein purchasers of new buses are required to pay for anti-lock systems which are to remain deactivated for an indefinite period is inappropriate. NAMBO agrees with these findings.

The publication of this notice of proposed amendment of MVSS No. 121 creates a further problem for bus manufacturers since potential bus buyers will not purchase buses manufactured prior to whatever date the NHTSA may publish a final rule in the Federal Register due to the problems created by the anti-lock components as well as their cost.

Therefore, NAMBO urges the Administration to authorize the suspension of installation of potentially defective anti-lock components in buses pending a decision on the proposed amendment to MVSS No. 121.

The Annual Meeting of our Association begins on Sunday, November 16, in Phoenix, Arizona, at which time we will discuss and prepare a detailed explanation of the problems which would be created if the suspension cannot be made effective immediately. Our letter will be hand delivered to you on Thursday, November 20, with a copy to Mr. Richard Dyson of the Chief Counsel's Office.

Sincerely yours,

Charles A. Webb -- PRES.

cc: Richard Dyson

ID: nht94-4.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

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

TO: Bruce Monnie -- Senior Designer, Advanced Design Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8/5/94 FROM BRUCE MONNIE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 10253)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for a product you have developed to improve the securement of child safety seats. You stated that the product is a one-piece steel bracket which "is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder portions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt." You indicated that the product would be installed on a temporary basis and that it would be sold in the "aftermarket" to persons owning child restraint systems. You request an interpretation of whether Standards No. 209, 213, or any other standard would apply to your device.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. It appears from your description of the product that it would be a type of device that we call a "locking clip." A locking clip is a bracket into which a vehic le's lap and shoulder belt webbing is threaded. A locking clip tightens the webbing around a child safety seat and prevents the safety seat from moving easily. We have no safety standard that applies to locking clips. Standard 209 sets forth requiremen ts for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply. Standard 213 is our standard for child restraints. It applies to "any device except Type I or Type I I seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less" (S4 of Standard 213). Since your device would not itself restrain, seat or position a child, it would not be a child restr aint system. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would not apply to your product.

While no FMVSS applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. n1 In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be re sponsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. I t appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its in stallation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system or the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we have a concern about the possible misuse of your device. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. Your device attaches to the belt system, and will stay in place until the consumer removes it. Since it attaches to the belt system, it could affect the ability of the system to protect an adult occupant, or a child restrained without a child safety seat. We suggest that you provide clear instructions to the c onsumer to remove the device from the belt webbing when the belt system is used without a child restraint system.

In closing, I note for your information that NHTSA published a final rule in October 1993 requiring the safety belts in new motor vehicles to be capable of tightly securing child safety seats, without the necessity of the user's attaching any device, suc h as a locking clip, to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. The rule applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1995. I have enclosed a copy of the rule.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-7.16

DATE: November 20, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herbert J. Lushan -- Regalite Plastics Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-91 from Herbert J. Jushan to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6505)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the use of tinted flexible plastic glazing in certain jeep-type vehicles. You explained that a customer has asked you to manufacture a bronze-tinted clear plastic flexible window for installation in the rear side and rear windows of its vehicles. You indicated that this glazing material would not satisfy the minimum light transmittance requirement of Standard No. 205 and requested confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits the use of such glazing for rear and side windows in these vehicles. Further, during two telephone conversations on October 29, 1991 and October 30, 1991, you informed Elizabeth Barbour of my staff that your question specifically refers to the use of this glazing on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and the two-door Geo Tracker. You also confirmed to Ms. Barbour that the glazing materials to which your letter refers would be installed as original equipment, but added that your company is also involved with after-market products. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question.

By way of background information, S103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Among Standard No. 205's requirements are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance, measured by Test 2 in ANSI Z26. A minimum of 70% light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars.

ln trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying sections S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111) and thus, subject to the minimum light transmittance requirement. The windows

to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Thus, Standard No. 205 permits the use of tinted glazing materials (i.e. items of glazing that are not subject to Test 2) for windows to the rear of the driver in such vehicles when they are equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars.

As stated above, you described the product you wish to manufacture as tinted flexible plastic, Item 7 glazing, which would be installed in the rear side and rear windows of the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker. According to the agency's information about these vehicles, the rear side and rear windows are part of a removable soft-top. Standard No. 205 permits glazing used for readily removable windows in these locations to be manufactures out of flexible plastic glazing (Items 6, 7 and 13), among other types of glazing. Thus, since these specific window locations on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker are not subject to the light transmittance requirement, and since Standard No. 205 permits use of flexible plastic glazing for readily removable windows, the Standard would permit you to manufacture the bronze-tinted flexible plastic glazing for the use your customer requested.

You also states that your company is involved with after-market glazing materials. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. According to this provision, your company, for example, could install the Item 7 glazing in the rear side and rear windows of a Suzuki Sidekick or Geo Tracker after that vehicle is first sold to a consumer. This provision would, however, prohibit the after-market installation of tinted flexible plastic glazing in the front side windows of that vehicle because such installation would cause the glazing of the front side windows to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners themselves. No section of the Safety Act prevents vehicle owners themselves from installing any product on their vehicles, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. The actions of individual vehicle owners may be regulated or precluded by individual States, which have the authority to regulate owner modifications and the operational use of vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht67-1.2

DATE: 06/19/67

FROM: WILLIAM HADDON, JR. -- M.D. FOR LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, NHTSA

TO: E. W. Kintner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Re: Your Request for Interpretation -- Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105

This is in response to your letter of May 29 on behalf of Minnesota Automotive, Inc., requesting an interpretation of Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105 such as would allow the installation of a one-way check valve hydraulic parking brake system as a supplement to the friction type system required by that Standard.

Standard No. 105, by its own terms, applies to passenger cars and not to any other category of motor vehicle. As to passenger care either of the statements set forth in your letter in correct and you may so inform your client. This Standard does not proclude or prohibit the installation of one-way check valve hydraulic brake systems on passenger care which, of course, must be also equipped with parking brakes meeting the requirement.[Illegible Word] $ 4.3 of that Standard.

Since this interpretation is fairly obvious it is not suitable for publication in the Federal Register.

Thank you for the support expressed in your letter.

Sincerely,

May 29, 1967

Lowell K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Request for Interpretation -- Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105

Dear Mr. Bridwell:

Minnesota Automotive, Inc., which I serve as counsel, has authorized me to submit a Request for Interpretation of Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105 to your office for clarification of the permissible use of brake lock safety devices as a parking brake system, in addition to the safety equipment required by that standard.

Minnesota Automotive, located in Mankato, Minnesota, manufactures a line of hydraulic brake products, including a one-way check valve hydraulic parking brake which connects into the primary braking system hydraulic unit and shoes. This device, without interfering with normal brake service, will fit any vehicle on the road having a hydraulic braking system, and when actuated will effectively convert the system into a powerful, reliable parking brake lock. Where a dual service brake is employed, two of these devices can be used, one geared to each hydraulic system. These devices serve as important supplements to the standard parking brake system of the vehicle.

The hydraulic brake lock is designed to meet the needs of heavy duty and high frequency parking brake usage. I might mention parenthetically that the brake locking devices manufactured by Minnesota Automotive are no longer under patent; other automotive equipment manufacturers have marketed and are marketing safety brake lock products using the one way check valve principle.

Problems have arisen in the marketing of these safety products, particularly with respect to vehicles currently subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, because of that agency's safety regulation on parking brakes. Specifically, Section 193.41 of the ICC Motor Carrier Safety Regulations provides that the "parking brake or brakes, shall . . . remain in the applied condition . . . despite . . . leakage of any kind. . . ." Since the brake locking device in connected into the service brake hydraulic system and consequently will not function if there is leakage in the latter, many potential users of the device have construed the ICC regulation as prohibiting the use of such a device, even when installed in addition to a parking brake system meeting the requirements of the regulation.

A potential difficulty is again presented by Paragraph S4.3 of Initial Standard No. 105, as well as related standards which may be developed by the Bureau in the future. Standard No. 105 requires a "parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means . . . "Although we would agree that neither this language nor the above noted standard necessarily implies that safety locks are not permitted, the marketing resistance based on the existing ICC regulation indicates the need for clarification in this area.

In view of this experience, we respectfully request an interpretation as to whether Initial Standard can be construed as follows:

1. Paragraph S1 of Initial Standard No. 105, which sets out the purpose and scope of the standard, is not to be construed as prohibiting the use of hydraulic holding devices, such as one way check valves, in hydraulic brake systems, in addition toparking brakes which meet the requirements of Paragraph S4.3: or alternatively,

2. The requirement of Paragraph S4.3 that a parking system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means be provided does not preclude the installation of hydraulic holding devices, such as one way check valves, in addition to the mechanical parking brakes.

Because of the desirability for all manufacturers producing these safety devices of an official position establishing the propriety of using such one way check valve brake locks, we further request that any interpretation to this effect be published in the Federal Register.

On behalf of Minnesota Automotive, I want to take this opportunity to assure you of our complete support of your efforts in attempting to meet the challenging goal of developing meaningful vehicle safety standards. We congratulate you on the significant progress made thusfar.

Should you require any additional information with respect to our Request for Interpretation, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Earl W. Kintner -- ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN

ID: nht68-1.17

DATE: 04/30/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH LUCAS LIMITED

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1968, to the Deputy Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning your interpretation of certain requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The installation requirements contained in the SAE Standards that are referenced in Standard No. 108 are enforceable requirements unless specifically excepted by Standard No. 108. With respect to the installation of license plate lamps, Standard No. 108 provides an exception to the "Installation Recommendations" contained in SAE Standard J587b, in that Standard No. 108 requires a location "at rear license plate." This exception permits installation of the lamp at the top, sides or bottom of the license plate, instead of top and sides only as specified by SAE installation recommendations.

With two exceptions, the lighting devices required by Standard No. 108 must use bulbs conforming to SAE Standard J573b and bulb sockets conforming to either SAE Standard J56b or SAE Standard J822. The two exceptions are (1) motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584, and (2) disposable (throw-away) type lamp assemblied (other than sealed-beam headlamps) that do not use sockets. Sealed-beam headlamps must conform to SAE Standard J567a and J580a which, in turn, require sealed units conforming to SAE Standards J567b or J822. The disposable type lamps ((2) above) are excepted from the requirements of SAE Standard J567b since thy are equipped with non-replaceable bulbs and electrical connectors rather than sockets. It is to be noted that Standard No. 108 is not applicable to motorcycles until January 1, 1969.

Sincerely,

The Administrator Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

For the attention of Deputy Director National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Sir,

We wish to refer to U.S. Federal Standard 108 and two problems which we foresee in meeting the requirements.

1. Illumination of Licence Plates

We have been considering the implications of a recent report that the Federal Safety by Authorities are treating the 'Installation Recommendation' in S.A.E. J587b (Licence Plate Lamps) as an enforceable part of the Standard.

Since this paragraph is not part of the Test Specification, it is not wholly within our power to ensure compliance with it, since we cannot always be sure that a vehicle manufactures will locate a given number plate scheme in the attitude which we recommend. There is nothing to stop Adminvorrthing the whole scheme while continuing to comply with the photometric specification.

Thus, we are greatly concerned that a passage which is specifically stated to be a recommendation should be enforced. There has, up to the present, been no information to this effect. We have always understood that it is not the intention of the Society of Automotive Engineers that their recommendations should be enforced and that only when such a recommendation has been given a thorough trial may it then be made into a standard.

The Tail-lamp J585 and Turn-signal lamp J588 standards contain installation requirements. We should like to know if these are also being regarded as a part of the Standard and are being enforced.

2. Lamp Bulbs

There have also been indications that only those bulbs listed in S.A.E. Standard J573b will be acceptable under the new Federal Standard. The various S.A.E. standards for different functions of lamps all refer to Section C of S.A.E. standard J575 which in turn refers to standard J575b, but also states that where special bulbs are specified they should be submitted in with the devices and the same or similar bulbs should be used in the tests. The implication of this is that lamps not having bulbs fitted to them which comply with the S.A.E. standard could be submitted with samples of their own bulbs, and the lamps would be acceptable in this form.

The use of cartridge bulbs presents rather a special case since many of the signalling lamp standards (notably the back-up lamp standard J 595b) also call up the bulb-socket standard J 567, and the Federal Standard itself calls up the Recommended Practice J822, so that there is no provision for a suitable socket for the cartridge bulbs. This will therefore be the subject of a separate petition.

However, Motor-cycle headlamps are rather different. In this case no bulb socket standard is called up. We have always sent over motor-cycle headlamps fitted with bulbs with British pre-focus caps. The majority of British motor-cycles transmit too much vibration to the headlamps for sealed-beam units to be practical. If it is the intention to require that only bulbs listed in the S.A.E. standard shall be fitted to all motor vehicles, then a situation will arise where there will not be suitable headlamps available for British motor-cycles.

We submit the above points for consideration and would be pleased to know whether our interpretation of the Standard and whether the difficulties we anticipate are, in fact, real, and to know what line is ought to take in order to comply with the Standard.

Yours truly,

JOSEPH LUCAS (ELECTRICAL) LIMITED --

M.D. Prickett, Chief Engineer - Special Duties

ID: nht71-3.6

DATE: 05/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Louisiana Independent Tire Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The "Flash Notice" that you forwarded to us on April 23, 1971, and your telephone conversation of May 10 with Mike Peskoe of my staff have raised certain questions concerning your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires."

On page 1 of the "Flash Notice" you state, "But, so far as testing goes, it's apparent the risk for retreaders not to do their own testing to prove compliance is substantially greater than anticipated." You proceed to discuss whether manufacturers should test their own tires in order to prove "due care." As part of this discussion you refer to the statement in the preamble in the Notice of March 5, 1970, concerning what could suffice for a valid certification, and state that we have told you that this preamble is "still basically valid."

There is evidently some confusion as to the purpose and meaning of "due care" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and also as to the difference between compliance and certification.

A manufacturer of a retreaded tire that did not comply with the standard but who used due care in manufacturing the tire to comply with the standard cannot be subject to a civil penalty. The answer to your hypothetical question on page 3, "What if due care is used, but the tire doesn't comply" is that the manufacturer cannot be subject to a civil penalty in this situation. (He may, however, be required to send defect notification letters and be urged to recall.) We do not agree that one is "guilty until proven innocent." A finding of noncompliance must first be made by the agency. Once the agency, through testing or otherwise, discovers a noncompliance, it is then up to the manufacturer to show that he exercised due care. Although the issue of due care is one that is ultimately decided by a court, the agency, in determining whether to seek a civil penalty, will make a preliminary determination on this issue.

You asked in your conversation of May 10 that we amplify what is meant by "due care." "Due care" is a legal concept embodying the care that would be exercised by a reasonable man under the circumstances, and the circumstances of each situation must be considered in determining whether due care has been exercised. The set of cirumstances set forth in the preamble of March 5, 1970, might constitute "due care" in a large number of situations. To be sure, a manufacturer who tests his own tires might be considered in some cases to have exercised more care to insure that his tires complied with the standard than one who relied on tests by a third person on other tires that were similarly manufactured. Each potential case would be considered, and decided, by the agency on the facts peculiar to it.

The "Flash Notice" also mentions "certification" in such a way that clarification of the term is indicated. First, all tires manufactured after the standard's effective date must be certified. Certification is accomplished, as you know, by placing the symbol "DOT" on the tire in a prescribed location.

In practice, all tires will have the symbol "DOT" affixed to them after January 1, 1972, as manufacturers could not manufacture these tires without placing the mark on them. The answer to your question on page 3, "What if one certified does not comply" is that even if the tire fails to comply, if the manufacturer has exercised due care, in the view of the court, in manufacturing the tires to comply to the standard, his certification will not be considered "false or misleading," and no civil penalty can be imposed. The same "due care" that will suffice for compliance will suffice for purposes of certification. Manufacturers' efforts should be directed to manufacturing tires that conform to the standard.

Your "Flash Notice" also incorrectly explains certain provisions of the standard. First, with reference to which tests a particular tire must pass, S5.1.1 requires each tire to be able to pass every test, but when a single tire, during the agency testing, is subjected to one of the groups of tests specified in S5.1.1, that particular tire will not be tested further. As indicated to you on the phone, this is similar to the test procedure of Standard No. 109. It merely reflects that fact that certain tests, such as strength, normally destroy the tire.

Your statement on page 4 concerning the labeling requirements, that retreaders can "buff off the labeling required in retreading without worry, since it is displayed in other areas," is unclear to us. The standard requires each item of information required by Standard No. 109 to be retained in at least one location (Standard No. 109 requires each item to be on both sidewalls) on the complete retreaded tire. Retreaders must therefore take care that each tire retains the original marking to this extent.

Finally, with reference to the physical dimension requirements of S5.1.2, the 10 percent tolerance refers only to the maximum dimension with respect to the section width specified in the tables of Standard No. 109. Your reference on page 4 to "10% under" is incorrect, since no minimum measurement is stated in the standard. However, the section width is a variable in computing the size factor which must be at least the minimum specified for the tire in the tables in the Appendix.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

ID: nht73-4.36

DATE: 07/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Tire Retreading Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 12, 1973, to Dr. Ed Wallace, concerning Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires. In your letter you suggest the following: that the standard be amended to prohibit the retreading of casings having "damaged bead wire", that labels be allowed to be placed on any portion of the completed tire, and that the required labeling, "bias/belted", be changed to allow the labeling of the word "belted".

With respect to your request to prohibit the retreading of casings having damaged bead wire, you state that the standard contains a "loophole" because it prohibits the retreading of casings having "exposed" bead, but does not prohibit the retreading of casings having "damaged" bead. We do not agree that this is a loophole, even though the standard has no explicit prohibition along those lines. The retreading of a casing that is damaged in any significant way would constitute the manufacturing of a defective tire, and the manufacturing retreader would be subject to the defect notification provisions (Section 113; 15 U.S.C. @ 1402) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. It is true that the explicit prohibitions of the standard offer clearer guidance than the defect provisions. The problem is that "damage" is too vague a concept to define a tire condition -- in fact, it really is little more than a synonym for defective. We would give serious consideration, however, to a petition listing specific bead conditions which you believe should be the subject of new requirements in the standard. You should also note that damages caused by a defective tire, although it conformed to Standard No. 117, could still subject its manufacturer to civil liability in a private action (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)).

You further request that we allow the label (presumably the label containing the items of consumer information required pursuant to S6.3.1) to be placed on the tread area of the tire. The NHTSA responded to this request in the notice responding to petitions for reconsideration published July 15, 1972. In that issuance we stated our position that affixing the label to the sidewall would more likely ensure that the label would be retained on the tire until its installation on a vehicle. We also indicated that the standard did not prohibit the placing of an additional label on the tread, which location, it was argued, facilitated storage.

Your final request is that the requirement that the words "bias/belted" be labeled onto that type of tires be amended to require only the word "belted". You indicate that most new tire manufacturers use the word "belted". The NHTSA does not believe the word "belted" to be sufficiently explicit, as radial tires are also "belted" and the possibility of confusion is quite obvious. However, we are aware that Standard No. 109 does not require the labeling of the words "bias/belted", and we plan to take steps with respect to Standard No. 117 so that no additional labeling will be required for a retreaded tire that retains its original casing labeling.

Sincerely,

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

June 12, 1973

Ed Wallace National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

While we recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 117 has only been in effect a few days, we have already come across a few problems as presented to us by our members. One of the problems does have a safety related consideration and we believe it should be acted upon immediately. Two other suggestions are more in the way of an administrative change to 117 and while they should be accomplished as soon as possible, they are not quite as urgent as the safety related item.

The safety related item would be an addition to paragraph S5.2.1. A new sub-paragraph (b) should be added, with these words: "On which a bead wire is damaged." The reason for this suggestion is that we have found some retreaders who are looking a little too closely at the actual wording of the regulation and not following commonly accepted practices of good inspection. A few retreaders are accepting for retreading casings having a damaged bead, yet the bead is not exposed. The suggested change will close that loophole.

The second change we recommend is that the wording with regard to the placement of the label be modified to permit the placing of the label on any outside portion of the completed tire. The reason for this request is that no matter where the label is placed, it disappears soon after the tire is mounted on a vehicle. Standard practice finds any affixed label serves its intended uses best when placed on the tread area.

A third suggestion is one we have noted before. This concerns differences in the labelling requirements in Standard 109 as compared to Standard 117. I refer specifically to the words "bias belted" which appear in 117 and do not appear in 109. We believe one standard or the other should be changed to correspond with what we actually find on a tire. As you know, many manufacturers of bias belted tires indicate that fact by using the word "belted" even thought it is not required by Standard 109.

We believe the above changes could be accomplished administratively without the necessity of going through the normal procedure for changes to the regulations.

Philip H. Taft Director

ID: nht73-4.44

DATE: 08/07/73

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

TO: Hank Thorp Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1973, which asks if the Manufacturer Code proposal (38 FR 14968, June 7, 1973) as it applies to wheel nuts (1) requires all manufacturers, including vehicle manufacturers, to label their products, (2) permits labeling with self-adhesive stickers, and (3) has authorized the issuance of codes at this time. In addition, you requested a clarification of an interpretation of Standard 211, Wheel nuts.

The answer to your first question is yes. The labeling requirements apply to foreign and domestic manufacturers of passenger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles and to manufacturers of equipment for those vehicles. The term "manufacturer" includes an importer of vehicles or regulated equipment.

The use of a self-adhesive sticker in satisfaction of the permanent and legible labeling requirements of the proposal is permissible, so long as the information printed thereon is indelible and the label is affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.

No codes have been assigned at this time. Assignment will not occur until a decision is reached as to issuance of a final rule.

The small hexagonal nuts which you import and which you describe as serving the same purpose as the small hexagonal nuts which secure factory-mounted, steel wheels to an axle, are not wheel nuts under the standard. The reference to normal coverage by a hub cap or wheel disc is simply descriptive of their location.

MINILITE

July 7, 1973

James E. Wilson Associate Administrator Traffic Safety Programs U.S. Department of Transportation

I am writing to you with respect to the proposed rules (49CFR Parts 566, 567, 568, 571) as published in Volume 38, #109, of the Federal Registration of Thursday, June 7, 1973. I have a number of questions concerning these proposed rules which should also be construed, in part, as comment upon the proposed rules before adoption.

1. As exclusive U.S. Importer of light alloy road wheels, trademarked MINILITE(register) (Registration #893174), we also import wheel nuts and hub caps used with these wheels.(Illegible Word) 1 January 1968, we were required by the U. S. Bureau of Customs to clearly(Illegible Word) the containers in which these products were imported to indicate that they complied fully with Section 571.211. At that time, manufacturers of identical products for the aftermarket within the United States were not required to show similar statements of compliance on their packages. Do the proposed rules referenced above affect all manufacturers of these products, whether or not they are imported or not and whether or not they are used in the assembly of new motor vehicles?

2. Please refer to the specifics of Part 571; S211-1. This standard was revised effective 7/25/69 to add an interpretation as follows.

"INTERPRETATION"

A clarification of the term "wheel nut" as used in the requirements section S3 of Standard No. 211 has been requested. This section states that "wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections." A "wheel nut" is an exposed nut that is mounted at the center or hub of a wheel, and not the ordinary small hexagonal nut, one of several which secures a wheel to an axle, and which is normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc."

The wheel nuts we import are small hexagonal nuts and 4 or 5 are used to hold each wheel to the axle. The U. S. Bureau of Customs has not considered these to be of the type affected by this standard. However, due to the nature of light alloy wheels, our wheels nuts are not "normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc". I am requesting a written interpretation as to whether the small hexagonal wheel nuts used with light alloy wheels but not normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc are covered by Standard 211.

3. If the answer to #2 above is no, I would comment that it would seem appropriate to change the language of Standard 211 and designate that the standard covers "center lock wheel nuts" rather than "wheel nuts".

4. Regards hub caps; our cap is a smooth chemically brightened aluminum cap of either 2 5/8 or 3 1/8 diameter which is pushed through the center hole from the back of the wheel before the wheel is mounted to the axle. It is clear that this is covered by the Standard and would, therefore, require manufacturers identification if the proposed rules are passed. Does the comment that "each wheel nut, wheel disc, and hub cap to be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the manufacturers code number . . ." permit labeling to take the form of a self-adhesive label affixed to the inside of our hub cap so as not to be visible when the cap is fitted to an automobile?

5. If your answer to question #1 indicates that stateside manufacturers of after-market hub caps are not affected by the standard and/or the proposed manufacturers certification requirements, I would comment that the standard is missing the main(Illegible Word) of its purpose; that is, to eliminate winged extensions from center lock wheel nuts and hub caps on vehicles used on the public highways of the United States. The prime source of hub caps produced with eared extensions is from automotive aftermarket manufacturers located in this country.

6. Are assignment of manufacturers identification numbers being made now, or will this assignment be made after the proposed rules are adopted?

I look forward to a reply from you on the above points.

Hank Thorp