ID: aiam2120

Dear Mr. Webb: This is in response to your letters of November 12 and 13, 1975, i 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 adequat 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 perio 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, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: nht75-1.33

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John H. Mueller -- Manager, Engineering Standards

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of March 25, 1975, which suggested an inconsistency in the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

S5.1 of the standard requires each hydraulic brake hose assembly to be equipped with end fittings which are attached by means of crimping or swaging. You have correctly pointed out that S5.2.3 specifies labeling requirements for "hydraulic" end fittings which are neither crimped nor swaged, even though at present there are no hydraulic fittings that fit that description. This language appears as part of S5.2 because S5.2 is incorporated by reference in and assemblies used in air and vacuum brake systems, respectively. Although there is thus no inconsistency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is considering a clarifying amendment along the lines you have suggested, which would eliminate S5.2.3 and specify the labeling requirements directly in S7.2 and S9.1.

Thank you for pointing out this potential source of confusion.

Sincerely,

March 25, 1975

Reference: MUE-534

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

Subject: FMVSS 571.106 Para. S5.2.3 Labeling Hydraulic Brake Hose End Fittings

Dear Mr. Dyson:

The standard erroneously specifies labeling for certain end fittings that are not allowed by the standard's construction requirements. Please consider the following explanation and recommendation.

Notice 16 reiterates that hydraulic brake hose assemblies must be made with the end fittings crimped or swaged onto the hose. Consistent with the Notice, Paragraph S5.1 requires all assemblies to be crimped or swaged. Unfortunately, Paragraph S5.2.3 then explains how to label end fittings that are not crimped or swaged.

Since the standard does not allow end fittings for hydraulic brake hose that require labels, no label should be described. An appropriate correction would be to drop Paragraph S5.2.3 from the standard. Air brake hose end fittings that do require labels could then be regulated under Paragraph S7.

Yours very truly,

THE WEATHERHEAD COMPANY --

John H. Mueller,

Manager, Engineering Standards

ID: 24572.ztv

Mr. Robert G. Mills
Supervisor, Homologation and Publications
Triumph Designs Limited
Jacknell Road,
Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate
Hinckley, Leics. LE10 3BS
England

Dear Mr. Mills:

This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 2002, seeking a further clarification of the applicability of S7.9.6.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to motorcycle headlamp designs that Triumph is contemplating. You have enclosed two illustrations of potential designs. You referred at various points in your letter to "main beam" and "dipped beam." These are not terms used in Standard No. 108. For purposes of this reply, we assume that "main beam" means "upper beam," and that "dipped beam" means "lower beam."

In our letter of May 24, 2002, to you, we pointed out that the Triumph headlamp design discussed in that letter should be designed to comply with S7.9.6.2(a), rather than S7.9.6.2(b) as you had originally thought. Your review of that paragraph has raised doubts as to whether your design meets that paragraph. The sentence of S7.9.6.2(a) that concerns you reads:

If the headlamp contains more than one light source, each light source shall be mounted on the vertical centerline with the upper beam no higher than the lower beam, or horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline and mounted at the same height.

Illustration 1 depicts two upper ("main") beam and two lower ("dipped") beam light sources, horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, with the lower beam sources mounted below and inboard of the upper beam light sources. You informed us that your design does not permit mounting all four light sources at the same height, but nevertheless ask whether the design is acceptable since the individual beams will be mounted at the same height. Illustration 2 depicts a "headlamp unit containing three light sources," the center light source providing the upper beam and that the two adjacent light sources, mounted slightly higher, providing the lower beam. You ask whether this three-light source design is acceptable.

The headlamp designs shown in Illustration 1 and Illustration 2 do not meet the design requirements of S7.9.6.2(a) because all light sources are not mounted at the same height, though horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline.

You also asked whether incorporating different numbers of light sources for upper and lower beams, as in Illustration 2, would comply with Standard No. 108. There is no restriction for the number of light sources used in the upper or lower beams of a motorcycle headlamp system designed to conform to the photometry requirements of S7.9.2(a) and the installation requirements of S7.9.6.2.

ref:108

d.8/9/02

ID: aiam0105

Dear Mr. Seitz: Your letter of July 3, 1968, addressed to Mr. George C. Nield, of th National Highway Safety Bureau has been forwarded to my office for reply.; The installation of dual controls on driver education cars is not *pe se* in violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the secondary equipment must meet the same safety standards established for the primary controls. The secondary steering column must fulfill the same requirements made for the primary column as set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 203 and 204. The installation of an additional foot brake must not affect compliance with Standard No. 105. However, duplicate compliance with the control location and identification requirements of Standard No. 101 is not required since the 'driver' of such a vehicle remains the person seated behind the primary controls. For the same reason the 'driver' mirror requirements of Standard No. 111 apply only with respect to the person seated at the primary controls.; Changes may be made to original equipment when necessary fo installation of secondary controls but none of the standards requirements specified may be eliminated or adversely affected by the alteration.; You may make available copies of this letter to dealers and intereste parties.; Sincerely, Eugene B., Laskin, Acting Director, Office of Standard Preparation;

ID: aiam0104

Dear Mr. Seitz: Your letter of July 3, 1968, addressed to Mr. George C. Nield, of th National Highway Safety Bureau has been forwarded to my office for reply.; The installation of dual controls on driver education cars is not *pe se* in violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the secondary equipment must meet the same safety standards established or the primary controls. The secondary steering column must fulfill the same requirements made for the primary column as set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 203 and 204. The installation of an additional foot brake must not affect compliance with Standard No. 105. However, duplicate compliance with the control location and identification requirements of Standard No. 101 is not required since the 'driver' of such a vehicle remains the person seated behind the primary controls. For the same reason the 'driver' mirror requirements of Standard No. 111 apply only with respect to the person seated at the primary controls.; Changes may be made to original equipment when necessary fo installation of secondary controls but none of the standards requirements specified may be eliminated or adversely affected by the alteration.; You may make available copies of this letter to dealers and intereste parties.; Sincerely, Eugene B. Laskin, Acting Director, Office of Standard Preparation;

ID: nht76-3.2

DATE: 07/16/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to Jeep Corporation's March 9, 1976, petition for rulemaking as supplemented by its letter of April 1, 1976. The petition requested an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, that would add the following sentence at the end of S7.1.6(b):

For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories.

The supplement to the petition included a list of 15 examples of such work-performing accessories. The amendment would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove these accessories before performing compliance testing pursuant to the standard.

In Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, (15 U.S.C. 1392 note), Congress directed that the fuel system integrity standard take effect in the form in which it had been most recently published. Conditions for amending the standard were specified in Section 108(b) as follows:

Amendment or Repeal of Standard. -- The Secretary may amend the standard described in subsection (a) in order to correct technical errors in the standard, and may amend or repeal such standard if he determines such amendment or repeal will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.

The practical result of the amendment requested by Jeep would be that certain vehicles would not, as is presently specified, be required to conform to the standard in the form in which they are actually delivered to purchasers and used on the highways. In fact, the presence of work-performing accessories could seriously degrade a vehicle's performance in the standard's barrier crash tests. We therefore cannot conclude that the requested amendment "will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety." Furthermore, the amendment goes beyond the mere correction of technical errors in the standard. Consequently, Jeep's petition must be and is hereby denied.

Despite this denial, however, the NHTSA interprets the term "unloaded vehicle weight" in a manner that provides some of the relief that Jeep has requested. The term is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as follows:

'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

The "weight of a vehicle" includes the weight of those accessories that are installed on a vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily removed. Among such accessories are the following: air bag suspension systems

draw bars

headlamp and radiator protectors

helper-springs

hitches

pintle hooks

power take-offs

push bumpers

step bumpers and side steps

tire carriers

wreckers

The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the "weight of a vehicle". Consequently, accessories in this latter group would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75. Among these are the following:

snow plows

spreaders

tow bars

Categorization of winches, the remaining accessory that you have listed, depends on the nature of the particular winch. One that is generally removed only when its presence interferes with other vehicle functions would be included in the evaluation of "unloaded vehicle weight". A portable winch that is ordinarily removed after use, however, would not be included in that evaluation.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

April 1, 1976

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

On March 9, 1976 the Jeep Corporation petitioned the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for rulemaking to exempt work-performing accessories from the test requirements of FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, as the standard applies to multi-purpose vehicles and light trucks. This letter transmits additional information to supplement our March 9 petition.

It has occurred to us that a summary of the types of available work-performing accessories referenced in our petition might be of benefit to you in your efforts to evaluate the merits of the Jeep petition. We, therefore, submit the following list of work-performing accessories, or work-related accessories, for your information and review:

Air bag suspension systems

Draw bars

Headlamp and radiator protectors

Helper springs

Hitches

Pintle hooks

Power take-offs

Push bumpers

Snow plows

Spreaders

Step bumpers and side steps

Tire carriers

Tow bars

Winches

Wreckers

In addition, we have attached copies of the booklet "Jeep Vehicle Special Equipment and Jeep Vehicle Accessories Catalog" which includes illustrations of the type of accessories and devices discussed above as well as descriptions of other factory-approved equipment and accessories that are available on these unique vehicles.

We request your prompt and favorable acceptance of this petition since less than five months remain before FMVSS No. 301 becomes effective as applied to MPV's and light trucks.

George E. Brown Executive Director - Vehicle Emissions & Safety

ATTACHMENTS Jeep Corporation

March 9, 1976

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

RE: Petition For Rulemaking Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity

On October 16, 1975, Jeep Corporation submitted a petition to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" so that work-performing accessories would not be included. That petition was subsequently denied (your letter N40-30) on the grounds that the NHTSA has adopted a policy of evaluating potential dynamic testing problems with heavy or protruding accessories on a "standard-by-standard" basis.

In accord with that stated NHTSA policy, Jeep Corporation, herewith, submits the attached petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include the work-performing accessories used on trucks and multi-purpose vehicles.

George E. Brown Executive Director Vehicle Emissions and Safety

March 9, 1976

PETITION TO AMEND FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD (49 CFR PART 301) FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include work-performing accessories for trucks and multipurpose vehicles. Thus, the test conditions for Standard No. 301 would then be consistent in this respect with those for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

The Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator's consideration of this petition for the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, for the following reasons:

Currently, the Test Conditions of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, Are Not Consistent with Those of Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion

In the preamble to the proposal for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, Docket No. 74-21; Notice 2, the Administrator stated:

"Finally, the NHTSA is continuing to promote compatibility and economy in barrier crash testing by adopting vehicle loading and dummy restraint requirements in Standard No. 219 identical to those set out in proposed amendments to Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, 49 CFR 571.301 (40 FR 17036, April 16, 1975)."

Jeep Corporation fully supports the Administrator's efforts to promote compatibility and economy in barrier testing; however, the requirements for Standard No. 219 and 301 do not provide the desired compatibility or economy.

Section 7.7b of Standard No. 219 referring to the test loading and dummy requirements for multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses states:

"For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work performing accessories."

Standard No. 301 does not provide for the exemption of work-performing accessories and, therefore, is not compatible with Standard No. 219 and thus requires clarification regarding the loading conditions for barrier testing.

Barrier Tests Including Work-Performing Accessories Would Not Be Representative of Normal Production Vehicles

Multi-purpose vehicles, because of their nature, are used in many ways with equipment not typical of normal passenger car usage. Barrier tests involving work-performing accessories would not be representative of most production vehicles. For example, the barrier test results of a truck with a snow plow on its front and carrying a salt spreader on its rear should not be used to depict base vehicles because of the possible protection offered to the base vehicle by its work-performing devices.

Excessive Barrier Test Requirements May Cause Some Accessories Specifically Engineered for Jeep Vehicles to be Removed From the Marketplace

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as Jeep Special Equipment, are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory-installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modifications which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle.

Marketing of these engineered accessories may not be possible, however, if the dynamic testing procedures of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, differ from the test procedures specified for other standard such as Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, and require multi-purpose vehicles to be tested with a myriad of special equipment accessories. Programs to assure compliance to any Federal Safety Standard specifying barrier testing with all possible equipment combinations would create a testing and financial burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which may not be in the best interest of public safety.

Summary

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator to amend Section 7.1.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, by adding the sentence underlined here:

". . . same. Each dummy shall be restrained only by means that are installed in the vehicle for protection at its seating position. For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

Jeep Corporation submits that such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.

ID: aiam3303

Dear Mr. McAskin: This responds to your December 7, 1979 letter to Docket No. 79-03 Notice 2 on Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Systems. That letter was in part a comment to the docket and in part a request for an interpretation of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. The points raised in your comment to the docket will be considered in our final rule on the issues proposed in Notice 2. This letter responds to your interpretive question whether your trailer emergency valve is permitted in accordance with the requirements of section 5.2.1.1 of the standard. The answer to your question is no.; Section 5.2.1.1 of the standard requires that vehicles be equipped wit a reservoir that is capable of releasing the parking brakes when the air in the service brake system fails. The valve that you suggest would not provide such a reservoir but would merely reroute air from the trailer air supply system which would be used to release the parking brakes. The agency does not believe that this complies with the requirement that a reservoir be provided.; Recently, the Berg Manufacturing Company has petitioned the agency t amend the standard in a manner that would permit the type of system that you suggest. The agency is now evaluating that petition and will issue a notice in the near future addressing this issue. We suggest that you closely follow this rulemaking action.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen M. Padula -- Industry Standards and Government Regulations, Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/21/95 LETTER FROM STEPHEN M. PADULA TO WALTER K. MYERS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Padula:

This responds to your letter of March 21, 1995, in which you asked whether it is permissible to have a treadwear grade of 00 or 000 on tires under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104. The answer to your question is yes.

As you know, the UTQGS currently provide that all new passenger car tires sold in the United States must be graded by their manufacturers or brand name owners for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The grades must be assessed in accordance with paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of the UTQGS and must be molded into or onto the tire sidewall.

Paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires the treadwear grade to be expressed as 2 or 3 digits, representing the percentage (P) of the NHTSA nominal treadwear value, computed as follows:

Projected

P = mileage 30,000 X 100

The percentage derived from the above formula is then rounded off to the nearest lower 20-point increment to arrive at the treadwear grade.

In your letter you proposed a hypothetical example of a tire with a projected mileage of 5,000 miles, which would compute as follows:

P = 5,000 30,000 X 100 = 16.67

Rounded off to the nearest lower 20-point increment, the treadwear rating for that tire would be 00 or 000.

Your example would be correct, if tires still exist that have a projected tread life of 5,000 miles. Although NHTSA has not found any tires so rated, under the current provisions of the UTQGS, it is possible, as demonstrated by your example, to have a U TQGS treadwear rating of 00 or 000.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10811

Mr. Stephen M. Padula
Industry Standards and
Government Regulations
Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company
P.O. Box 2501
Greenville, SC 29602

Dear Mr. Padula:

This responds to your letter of March 21, 1995, in which you asked whether it is permissible to have a treadwear grade of 00 or 000 on tires under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104. The answer to your question is yes.

As you know, the UTQGS currently provide that all new passenger car tires sold in the United States must be graded by their manufacturers or brand name owners for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The grades must be assessed in accordance with paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of the UTQGS and must be molded into or onto the tire sidewall.

Paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires the treadwear grade to be expressed as 2 or 3 digits, representing the percentage (P) of the NHTSA nominal treadwear value, computed as follows:

Projected P = mileage x 100 30,000

The percentage derived from the above formula is then rounded off to the nearest lower 20-point increment to arrive at the treadwear grade.

In your letter you proposed a hypothetical example of a tire with a projected mileage of 5,000 miles, which would compute as follows:

P = 5,000 x 100 = 16.67 30,000

Rounded off to the nearest lower 20-point increment, the treadwear rating for that tire would be 00 or 000.

Your example would be correct, if tires still exist that have a projected tread life of 5,000 miles. Although NHTSA has not found any tires so rated, under the current provisions of the UTQGS, it is possible, as demonstrated by your example, to have a UTQGS treadwear rating of 00 or 000.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:575 d:5/17/95

ID: nht90-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MICHAEL S. KMIECIK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-21-89 FROM MICHAEL S. KMIECIK ATTACHED;

(OCC 4169); GRAPHICS OMITTED. TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to vehicle modification kits you wish to purchase, to be used in conversion of Datsun 240-280Z cars from closed to open vehicles. You have asked for the safety standards that apply to 1974-78 convertibles, and whether the conversion kit meets these standards. I regret the delay in responding.

We appreciate your efforts to meet the requirements of the National Traffic and motor Vehicle Safety Act. As you appear to realize, the Act requires, in essence, that vehicle alterations by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business must not render wholly or partially inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a vehicle at the end of its conversion process must continue to meet the standards that applied at the time that it was first manufactured. This does not preclude conversions that render compliance with a standard physically impossible; obviously an open car cannot meet, for example, the standard for roof crush resistance (Standard No. 216), and convertibles, are, in fact, exempt from it. Such a conversion would allow substitution of a two-point (lap belt) restraint system in a convertible for a three-point (lap-shoulder belt) restraint system that may have been installed when it was a closed car (Standard No. 208).

After the vehicle alterations are complete, the vehicle must conform to the barrier tests specified in several standards. We note that the items that comprise the kit are intended to add rigidity to the body and frame after removal of the top, but are unable to advise you of the effect these modifications would have upon the safety performance of the vehicle as converted.

There are no Federal safety standards that apply to the individual items in your kit. The standards that apply to motor vehicles, including convertibles, manufactured from October 1, 1973, through September 30, 1978, will be found at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. Specifically, the standards appear in volumes titled 49 CFR Parts 200 to 999, revised as of October 1, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977. Originally, these volumes were available through the U.S. Government Printing office (which may have an Omaha outlet). If they are no longer available through the GPO, we recommend that you consult a local law library.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.