ID: nht76-1.45

DATE: 06/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: NTDRA Dealer News

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to point out an error in an article that appeared in the May 24-31, 1976, issue of NTDRA Dealer News (Vol. XXXIX, No. 15). The article summarized a recent Federal Register notice (41 FR 18659; May 6, 1976; Docket No. 71-19; Notice 4) that delayed certain effective dates of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The error appears in the paragraph of the article that reads:

Section 5.1.1 says that rims used must be those designated by the tire manufacturer. The effective date has been changed from March 1, 1977 to September 1, 1979.

One requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims that have been designated by the manufacturer of the vehicle's tires as suitable for use with those tires. The effective date of this requirement was originally established as September 1, 1976, and was not delayed by Notice 4. Another requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims that comply with the standard, i.e., with rims that are marked according to S5.2, Rim Marking. Only the effective date of this vehicle requirement was changed from March 1, 1977, to September 1, 1979.

A clarification of these effective dates in a forthcoming issue of NTDRA Dealer News would be much appreciated.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Federal Register Lists Changes In Standard #120

WASHINGTON, D C -- The Department of Transportation has announced several changes in Standard #120. The Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The changes are

Section 5.1.1 says that rims used must be those designated by the (Illegible Word) manufacturer. The effective date has been changed from March 1, 1977 to September 1, 1979.

Section 5.2 concerned with rim markings will be made effective August 1, 1977 rather than August 1, 1976

Section 5.3 concerning the certification label will apply to vehicles made on or after September 1, 1977 rather than 1976 When the Standard was issued on January 23, 1976, DOT told passenger car manufacturers that descriptive labels placed on new cars must make reference to the weight to be carried and to specify the tire size to be used and at what air pressure. The notice to new car makers had an effective date of September 1, 1976. It has been changed to September 1, 1977.

ID: nht76-1.46

DATE: 03/08/76

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

TO: Georgette A. Sears

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 6, 1976, requesting information as to the Federal standards and regulations that are applicable to the manufacture of an "18' pull type horse/stock trailer combination."

Manufacturers of trailers of the type you describe must certify that their product is in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, 49 CFR 571.108, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selections and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.120. Please note, however, that Standard No. 120 is not effective until August 1, 1976, for the rim marking requirements (S5.2), and September 1, 1976, for the remaining requirements, so trailers manufactured before these times will not have to be certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 120.

The procedure for certification is specified in 49 CFR Part 567, and requires the manufacturer to affix a label to his product certifying that it is in compliance with the requirements of applicable Federal regulations. You should check the trailer that you purchase to make certain there is a certification label. Part 567.4(d) specifies that the certification label for trailers shall be affixed to a location on the forward half of the left side, such that it is easily readable from outside the vehicle without moving any part of the vehicle.

There are no Federal regulations concerning the connection of trailers to trucks or other vehicles. Nevertheless, from a safety stand point it is important that you ascertain the hauling capacity of your truck-trailer system in order to avoid overloading that could create potential safety hazards. You should obtain information from the manufacturer concerning the "tongue weight" of the trailer when fully loaded, and relate it to the gross axle weight ratings of your towing vehicle, found on its certification label on the door or door post. The trailer manufacturer may also have further recommendations as to the capacity of the vehicle needed to tow one of his trailers safely.

Please contact us if we can of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

EASTERN TURTLE TOP

TO: U.S. Gov't-Dept of Transportation National Transportation Safety Board General Info.

SUBJECT: Trailer Safety Date: Jan. 6, 1976

Gentlemen: I would like to know what Federal Standards apply to the building of an 18' pure type horse/stock trailer combination. I am in the process of ordering one from a company in Ohio (ARK) and want to be certain it is a safe carrier - including the connection to my pick-up truck. Can you help me to ascertain what is considered safest for our personal safety and the safety of others on the road? Thank you. (P.S. This transfer will haul 4-Horses or 6 (11001b) show cattle ----)

Sincerly, Georgette A. Sears

ID: nht76-1.47

DATE: 11/17/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 16, 1976, question whether any Federal regulation requires that the maximum load rating assigned to a passenger car tire be reduced by approximately 10 percent in calculating its maximum load rating for use on a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), truck, or bus.

The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, became effective September 1, 1976, and provides for the reduced maximum load rating you describe. Section S5.1.2 of the standard provides in part that "[when] a tire listed in [the passenger car tire standard] is installed on a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, or trailer, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing by 1.10 before calculating the sum [that must at least equal the axle system's gross axle weight rating]." A copy of the standard, with subsequent amendments, is enclosed for your information.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 16, 1976

John W. Snow National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We have noted that page XI of the 1976 Tire and Rim Association standards, copy enclosed, requires that a passenger car tire be loaded to not more than 91 percent of its rated load when used on a truck, bus or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Is this limitation included as a part of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 or 119?

If the requirement is applicable, we propose to include it in our Vehicle Equipment Inspection Guide. If the restriction is not referenced in the standard, are we preempted from adopting it as a part of the enclosed State regulations on tires?

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: nht76-1.48

DATE: 02/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: file

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht76-1.49

DATE: 12/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes' April 21, 1976, question whether motor vehicle rims that are labeled in conformity with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, may be installed on passenger cars.

The requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 120 for labeling of rims for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles do not affect the use of those rims on passenger cars. This situation would change if Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, is modified in the future to prohibit one or more of the items required by S5.2, but such an eventuality is considered to be unlikely.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

November 9, 1976

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

RE: Request for Interpretation: FMVSS-120

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We requested an interpretation on this safety standard in April, 1976 and have not yet received a reply. A copy of my April 21 letter is enclosed for reference.

May we hear from you soon on this matter? We have some pressing business decisions to make.

Very truly yours,

John F. McCuen

enclosure

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

April 21, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS-120 Non-Passenger Car Rims

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Kelsey-Hayes Company is a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment including rims for passenger car, truck, and other vehicle applications.

We make some rims that are used for both original equipment passenger cars and original equipment recreational trailers. As we understand the provisions of FMVSS-120, such a rim, when manufactured and sold for use on a trailer, must conform to FMVSS-120. It is not clear, however, whether rims conforming to FMVSS-120 may also be used on new passenger cars.

We envision circumstances under which a rim marked in conformance with FMVSS-120 is inadvertently shipped to a passenger car assembly plant for use on a new passenger car. We seek your interpretation of whether or not a manufacturer of passenger cars may use rims conforming to FMVSS-120. Assuming there is a safety benefit to the marking of rims for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, we assume those benefits are comparable when the same rim is used on a passenger car. This apparent benefit would seem to outweigh the costs associated with segregating identical wheels as a factor of the customers to whom we ship them to.

Accordingly, (Illegible Words) which would enable us to sell (Illegible Words) to FMVSS-120 for original equipment passenger car applications.

Very truly yours,

John F. McCuen

ID: nht76-1.5

DATE: 02/18/76

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

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 3, 1976, letter pointing out an error in the publication of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, in Supplement 109 to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

While the Federal Register is, of course, the official source of the law, we share your concern for the accuracy of the supplements. The error in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 was discovered immediately upon its publication and steps were taken to correct it. We expect the correction to appear in the supplement to be mailed on February 25, 1976.

YOURS TRULY,

Ford Motor Company

February 3, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" - Supplement 109, dated December 3, 1975

In the subject publication, the technical reproduction of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101, "Control Location, Identification and Illumination, Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses" is in error. Columns 3 and 4 of Table I are incorrect, and page 3 was revised without a change in the revision date.

Attachments I through IV show Table I:

* as it appears in the December 3 supplement,

* before the latest amendment,

* amendments published in Docket 1-18; Notice 11 (40 FR 31770-71) July 29, 1975,

* as it should appear.

We appreciate the fact that the Federal Register is the official source for information related to amendments to the rules. Howeve, the value of the supplement lies in the fact that the revisions and pagination provide for a complete and up-to-date reference that is of continued use. Mistakes in this document may lead to unnecessary confusion.

Because of the importance of this document in our daily work and because the source of the information originates with your staff, we would like to request that you look into this matter to correct the current mistake and, if possible, have some member of your staff included in a galley proof review procedure to ensure that supplements are complete and accurate.

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

Table 1 -- Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) None Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) None Manual Choke Choke None Head Throttle Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illegi.) (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps or CL (Illeg.) Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash (Illeg.) Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def None Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 COLUMN 5 Alternate Motor Vehicle Equipment Control (Illeg.) Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

n1 Use when engine control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification Lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Framed areas may (Illegible Words).

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE 1 - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) Manual Choke Choke Hand Throttle Throttle Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illeg.) Vehiclular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) or CL LPS Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes (Illeg.) Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

(Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted) Column 1 Column 4 Alternate Permissible Symbol . None None None None None Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) None Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) None None (Illegible Word) areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE I - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Motor Vehicle Equipment Word or Permissible Control Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start ENGINE START n1 None Engine Stop ENGINE STOP n1 None Manual Choke CHOKE None Hand Throttle THROTTLE None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Headlamps and Taillamps LIGHTS n2 (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal HAZARD (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps CLEARANCE LAMPS n3 or CL LPS (Illeg.) Identification Lamps IDENTIFICATION LAMPS or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping WIPER or System (Illeg.) (Illeg.) Windshield Washing WASHER or WASH (Illeg.) System Windshield Defrosting DEFROST or DEF None and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Conditioning System

COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 n3 COLUMN 5 Motor Vehicle Equipment Alternate Illumination Control Permissible Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes n1 Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and (Illeg.) n4 Taillamps Vehicular Hazard (Illeg.) n4 Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) n4 Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Washing (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Defrosting None Yes and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Yes Conditioning System

n1 Use when (Illegible Word) control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side maker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification lamps and/or side market lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Heated areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-1.50

DATE: 06/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 23, 1976, letter concerning the rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

In its present form, S5.2 requires a rim to which the standard applies to be marked with its size designation and, if it is a multi-piece rim, its type designation as well. There is no prohibition on the marking of additional information beyond that which is required. Therefore, the marking of single piece rims with a type designation is permitted.

Please note that, in a notice published on May 6, 1976 (41 FR 18659, Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration delayed the effective dates of several of the standard's requirements. In particular, the effective date of S5.2, Rim Marking, was delayed until August 1, 1977. A copy of this notice is enclosed for your convenience.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

February 23, 1976

Frank A. Berndt -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 120, S5.2

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, 'Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars," which was published in the Federal Register of January 23, 1976 as Docket No. 71-19; Notice 3.

In S5.2, it lists the information required to be marked on each rim on and after August 1, 1976. As we understand it, this requirement does not prohibit marking of additional information on rims. For example, although S5.2(6) requires that each rim be marked with information of the rim size designation, and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation, we believe that single piece rims should also be marked with the rim type designation, such as the type of flange denoted as J, JJ, etc., for reasons of vehicle safety.

We would appreciate your informing us of the correct interpretation at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

D. KIWANO FOR

K. Nakajima -- Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office

ID: nht76-1.6

DATE: 04/06/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: American Bosch Electrical Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 23, 1976, question whether Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, still references SAE J903a as it did in 1969, and whether a future reference to SAE J903b or SAE J903c is anticipated.

The answer to your first question is yes. The answer to your second question is no. A proposed change in Standard No. 104 would be published in the Federal Register, and interested persons would be given an opportunity to comment.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

American Bosch Electrical Products

February 23, 1976

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 104

Gentlemen:

As a manufacturer of automotive windshield wiping systems we have a requirement to maintain compliance with the referenced standard. FMVSS 104, effective January 1, 1969, references SAE J903a (May 1966) as criteria for test conditions of wiping systems. Concerning these two documents we have several questions:

1. Is FMVSS 104 currently of effective date January 1, 1969?

2. Are any changes in FMVSS 104 pending that (Illegible Word) reference SAE J903b or SAE J903c? If so, please explain.

This information is needed for present planning. Please reply to the attention of the undersigned.

Sincerely,

Alvin L. Slayton, Engineer -- Product Reliability Department

ID: nht76-1.7

DATE: 02/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alaska Traffic Safety Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to a request by Mr. William Hall, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regional Administrator for Region X, for a review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems with special consideration of the comments of Mr. Robertson in his memorandum of November 24, 1975.

It is the opinion of this agency that Standard No. 104 is appropriate for the State of Alaska. The essential feature of a wiping system, as far as safety is concerned, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are washed and wiped. These areas are established in the standard and are determined by the angles from the driver's eye position over which the windshield must be kept clear to provide a proper field of view. While targets of driver attention and environmental conditions may differ from state to state, if the critical areas are clear, the field of view provided to the driver is sufficient. The 1976 Scirocco appears to provide the required field of view.

The question therefore becomes whether the Federal standard on windshield wipers is intended to cover all aspects of wiping systems. If so, the situation is analogous to that presented to the court in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV S74-126 (E.D.Cal. 1974) which resulted in a holding that Standard No. 108 did preempt an inconsistent state regulation in the field of lighting requirements. The NHTSA has determined that the standard on windshield wiping systems, No. 104, is intended to leave the number of wipers to the discretion of the manufacturers. Under Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir, 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Thus, a state regulation differing from the standard would impair the Federal superintendence of the field within the meaning of the doctrine set forth in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963) and be preempted under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, U.S.C. 1392(d).

ID: nht76-1.8

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pacet International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your June 15, 1976, question whether Arcoflex windshield wiper blades must be certified as being in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards before they may be sold as aftermarket equipment through vehicle distributors' dealer parts programs.

Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, requires vehicles to be equipped with a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets specified performance requirements. It is up to vehicle manufacturers to certify that each vehicle they produce conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 104, in accordance with the certification procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 567.

Standard No. 104 is not an equipment standard, however, and is not applicable to wiper blades sold in the aftermarket. Therefore, there is no requirement that Arcoflex windshield wiper blades be certified, so long as they are not installed on vehicles as part of the wiping system prior to the first sale of the vehicle.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PACET INTERNATIONAL

The Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Gentlemen

This Company imports Arcoflex windshield wiper blades from Italy and sells them through the import aftermarket throughout the US. It is my understanding that your Department has no interest in this activity.

Recently, however, we have endeavored to sell our product to the import car manufacturers' US distributors for marketing through their dealer parts programs. The representatives of some of these companies have expressed the concern that, since they are wholly owned by the car manufacturers, your Department may wish for our product to be certified, even though it will not be used as original equipment on their cars.

Please be kind enough to clarify, therefore, whether or not Arcoflex wiper blades need to be certified by your Department before they may be sold through import car distributors' dealer parts programs.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated, since important sales decisions depend upon your reply.

Yours very truly,

Peter W Mole