ID: 77-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meyer Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 18 1977 N40-30

Mr. D. J. Henry Executive Vice President Meyer Products, Inc. 18513 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44112

Dear Mr. Henry:

This is in response to your November 16, 1976, letter concerning the removal of snow below assemblies prior to testing motor vehicles for conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity.

You have pointed out that a snow plow assembly includes components other than the part that actually contacts and moves the snow. You have requested confirmation of your interpretation that "no part of the snow plow assembly, including mounting components, was to be attached to a vehicle for purposes of (compliance testing ..."

That interpretation is incorrect. The presence or absence of snow plow components on a vehicle during compliance testing depends on whether the components are included in the vehicle's "unloaded vehicle weight". As the July 16, 1976, letter from Mr. Robert Carter of this agency to the jeep Corporation indicates, unloaded vehicle weight includes the weight of accessories that are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. The statement in that letter that "snow plows" would be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing can be amplified as follows: 1) A snow plow, i.e., the component of a snow plow assembly that actually contacts and moves the snow, will be removed. 2) Those other components of a snow plow assembly that, like the snow plow itself, are ordinarily removed when not in use will also be removed. 3) Those components which are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when not in use will not be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing. The agency will abide by a manufacturer's good faith categorization of accessories and components of accessories.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt

Acting Chief Counsel

November 16, 1976

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Recently, our Sales Manager, Mr. Michael Groff, had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Robrt N. Williams of your organization in regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301-75, and Mr. Williams suggested that we address this letter to you.

Meyer Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of snow plows and salt spreaders for installation on or use in conjunction with motor vehicles, and we have been concerned about the effect of FMVSS 301-75 upon our business and that of our distributors.

In attempting to determine what, if any, action we should be taking with respect to FMVSS 301-75, we have examined a letter dated July 16, 1976, from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to Jeep Corporation, which states that snow plows "would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75." As you will appreciate, a snow plow assembly consists of many components other than the moldboard that actually contacts and moves the snow. It has been our interpretation that no part of the snow plow assembly, including mounting components, was to be attached to a vehicle for purposes of teting the vehicle for compliance with FMVSS 301-75, and Mr. Groff has reported to us that our interpretation was orally confirmed by Mr. Williams.

In order to better asdsure our distributors that the installation of Meyer Products snow plows by them will not require them to retest the vehicles and will not result in their violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, or the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, we would appreciate your sending us a leter confirming our understanding as recited above.

Since winter and the snow season have already arrived, it is imperative that we advise our distributors with respect to FMVSS 301-75 immediately, and we, therefore, request and thank you for your prompt response to this letter.

Sincerely yours,

MEYER PRODUCTS, INC.

D. J. Henry Executive Vice President

DJH/lt

cc: Marc W. Freimuth, Esq. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey

cc: Mark Schwimmer, Esq. National Highway Traffice Safety Administration

cc: Robin N. Williams National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ID: 77-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Union Carbide Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 31, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, currently requires a border around the safety warnings that are required to be placed on brake fluid containers.

Standard No. 116 was recently amended (41 FR 54942, December 16, 1976) to specify color coding requirements for hydraulic brake system fluids and to make a minor change in the required warning label. The proposal preceding this amendment did specify that the safety warnings on brake fluid containers be surrounded by a color coded border (40 FR 56928, December 5, 1975). However, after reviewing the comments submitted regarding the cost of the proposed borders and after reevaluating the expected safety benefits, the agency decided to withdraw the proposed requirement. The final rule, therefore, did not include a requirement for color coded borders.

Although Standard No. 116 does not require a border around the safety warnings on brake fluid containers, manufacturers are permitted to use a border if they choose.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

January 31, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

It is my understanding from reading Docket No. 71-13; Notice 12 published in the Federal Register 41, No. 243 - Thursday, December 16, 1976, that the border around the warning statement on brake fluid containers specified in Standard No. 116 (49CFR 571.116) is no longer mandated.

It is my further understanding that a border around the statement is permitted for the purpose of setting off the statement from the balance of the information on the label.

If my understandings are correct, I wish to receive written confirmation of them from your office.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Whitehead -- Manager, Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs

cc: D. Raymond; F. M. Redler; R. W. Shiffler; G. W. Warnock

ID: 77-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Silver Thread Studios

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 1, 1977, letter requesting information concerning the Federal regulations that would be applicable to glazing for use in van-type vehicles. Your assumption that the glazing regulation is not applicable to plastic material used for porthole windows and sun-roofs in vans is incorrect.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, 49 CFR 571.205, specifies requirements for all glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard specifies the types of glazing that may be used in various locations in vehicles and, in addition, specifies performance requirements for each type of glazing. Although the standard does permit the use of plastic glazing in side windows and sun-roofs of van-type vehicles, the plastic glazing must meet specified performance requirements.

I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 (and the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) for your information. From the standard you will be able to determine the various types of glazing that may be used for side windows and sun-roofs in vans.

SINCERELY

SILVER THREAD STUDIOS

February 1, 1977

Office of Chief Council National Highway Transportation Safety

Mr. Rodness of your White Plains office referred me to you.

We are planning to manufacture windows for vans and would like to know which windows are required by law to be made of safety glass. More specifically, we are interested in the laws pertaining to portholes, sun-roofs and rear windows.

Portholes are those windows of varied design (such as heart shaped, etc.) currently made of plastic material and positioned on the side of the van to allow light in the rear of the van. Sun-roofs are those windows installed on the roof which can be opened to allow air in the rear of the van.

Both of these windows are currently made of plastic material, and I believe that safety glass regulations do not apply to them.

Could you please comment on this.

Thank you for your cooperation. I remain

Steven Katz

ID: 77-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ward School Bus Mfg., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 7, 1976 and January 8, 1977, questions whether 53 described intersections of bus body components qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. This also responds to your question whether the seating reference point in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, can be located using nominal seat cushion deflection.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 53 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that the areas corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs of your letter are bus body joints and therefore must meet the 60-percent joint strength requirements: 1 through 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 51. Additionally the joint described in your January 8, 1977, submission must comply with the standard.

The illustration accompanying paragraph 16 shows a second joint between a door post and exterior trim panel with the notation that this joint is "Not Required To Meet Std." The agency concludes that this joint also must meet the requirements of the standard, because it is a connection of a body component with a body panel that encloses occupant space.

The lower skirt section described in paragraph 35 is not a body panel that encloses occupant space, because it is located entirely below the level of the floor line and, therefore, is excluded from the standard's requirements.

In the control console area, the interior side panel described in paragraph 38 and the shoulder cap (wire cover) described in paragraph 43 are considered maintenance access panels, whose joining with the bus body is excluded from the requirements only if a wire is installed behind them.

The turn signal housings described in paragraph 40 and 41 are not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and are therefore not considered body components for purposes of the requirements.

The front and rear headers described in paragraphs 47 and 48 are considered primarily structural and have only an incidental role in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered "body panels" for purposes of the requirements.

The rubrail described in paragraph 49 is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, is not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which it is fastened, it should be modified as necessary to prevent it from affecting testing of the underlying joint.

Because the plywood described in paragraph 50 is attached to a floor panel and is only added to some buses for insulation purposes, it is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

The NHTSA concludes that parts A, E, and F of paragraph 52 describe joints between maintenance access panels and the bus body. The heater ducts in parts B, C, and D are the type of ventilation space that is not subject to requirements for joint strength.

In response to your question concerning the effect of seat cushion deflection on the location of the seating reference point, the NHTSA has determined that the definition of seating reference point contemplates some deflection of seat cushions to simulate compression of padding material under the weight of a human torso and thigh. As noted in the preamble of the second proposal for a school bus seating standard (39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974), "It can be seen that the manufacturer's freedom to locate the point is sharply restricted by the definition which specifies that it actually simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh, following SAE placement procedures." However, since the seating reference point is an approximation of the pivot center, the NHTSA permits the manufacturer to locate the point based upon nominal seat cushion deflection.

SINCERELY,

Ward SCHOOL BUS MFG., INC.

December 7, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength

We have interpreted FMVSS 221 and are currently working on design changes which will enable us to meet this specification in the future. Since there is some latitude for interpretation in the specification, the purpose of this letter is to convey to you exactly our interpretation of FMVSS 221 as it relates to our body design and request that you review the interpretation.

We ask that you reply to each item as to the validity of our interpretation. This review is being requested in order to eliminate the possibility of erroneous designs due to incorrect interpretation of the standard.

We have chosen a format which we feel is concise and will minimize the paperwork involved. The subject joints are numbered consecutively with the first group being those which we have determined must meet FMVSS 221. It should be noted that there are a few compound joints in this group which contain areas which we feel are not required to meet the standard. These situations are noted on the drawings.

The second group is those joints which we have determined as not being required to meet FMVSS 221. Our reasons for the classification are included with this second group. Drawings and photographs have been used to illustrate each joint. The drawings are not necessarily to scale but were drawn in a manner designed to best illustrate the joint configuration. Individual joint drawings and photographs have been numbered to correspond with the joint descriptions contained herein.

If you need any additional descriptive information, please let us know.

We ask that the drawings and photographs be given confidential treatment.

It should be noted that it is our understanding that any components which are completely below the bus floor level or forward of the windshield are not required to meet the provisions of FMVSS 221.

BY OUR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 221, THE FOLLOWING JOINTS (NUMBERS 1-34) ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE 60% JOINT STRENGTH STANDARD.

1. Front cap joint to upper front cowl.

2. Upper front cowl joint to lower front cowl.

3. Rear cap joint to header and rear outside panel.

4. Rear panel (interior and exterior) joints to emergency door frame.

5. Rear exterior panel joint to rear bottom frame.

6. Rear cap inside lining joint to header.

7. Rear inside lining joint to header.

8. Rear interior lining joint to frame bottom channel.

9. Rear emergency door drip trough joint to header and end cap.

10. Rear inside lining joint to bow.

11. Side skirt joint to floor.

12. Skirt section joints.

13. Center skirt section joint to wheel well.

14. Floor section joints.

15. Wheel well joint to floor.

16. Exterior trim panel (immediately adjacent entrance door) joint to bow and side sheet.

17. Interior trim panel (immediately adjacent entrance door) joints to entrance door frame and bow.

18. Interior side sheet joint to rear interior lining and rear frame corner post.

19. Interior sheet joint to exterior side panel and sill.

20. Interior sheet joint to skirt and back-up angle.

21. Interior side sheet overlap and joint to bow.

22. Interior top lining joint to bow.

23. Interior front header lining joint to header.

24. Interior front header lining joint to interior top sheet and bow.

25. Side window header joint to inside and outside lining.

26. Exterior front cap joint to top skin and bow.

27. Top skin joint to top skin and bow.

28. Exterior side sheet joint to skirt.

29. Rear sheet joint to aft edge of exterior side sheet and reinforcing channel.

30. Exterior rear sheet joint to bow.

31. Left front exterior panel---top section joint to bottom section.

32. Left hand exterior panel forward edge joint to front cowl and post.

33. Left front exterior panel to driver window sill.

34. Aft edge of left front exterior panel joint to side sheet and bow.

BY OUR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 221, THE FOLLOWING JOINTS (NUMBERS 35-52) ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 60% JOINT STRENGTH STANDARD.

35. Lower center skirt section joint to upper center skirt section.

Reason: In view of the joint configuration, the lower section does not act to enclose occupant space. The joint between the upper center skirt section and the floor is required to meet the standard.

36. Exterior bow cover joint to sill, side sheet, and bow.

Reason: This is a small panel which is insignificant in enclosing occupant space. The vertical edges of this panel are also curved around the bow edges and do not present a flat edge.

37. Exterior trim panel at driver's window joint to "Z" bar and bow.

Reason: This is a small panel which is insignificant in enclosing occupant space. The vertical edges of this panel are also curved around the bow edges and do not present a flat edge.

38. Control console area interior side panel joint to front framework.

Reason: This is considered a maintenance access panel because the bus body wiring passes through it and the control console is installed against it.

39. Front cowl leg, left and right hand, joint to front framework and cowl.

Reason: These legs are structural members.

40. Rear turn signal housing joint to rear panel.

Reason: The turn signal housing is not considered a panel and it does not join the rear panel at a panel edge.

41. Front body mounted turn signal housing joint to front cowl.

Reason: The turn signal housing is not considered a panel and it does not join the cowl at a panel edge. Also, these turn signals are optional items which are not installed on every bus.

42. Inside lining joint to outside lining at rear visibility windows.

Reason: The grazing rubber for glass mounting is installed along this joint. The window area is excluded from the 60% requirement in Section S4 of Standard 221. Also this is not a panel edge but rather a hole in the panel. The edges of the panel are required to meet the standard.

43. Shoulder cap (wire cover) joint to interior side sheet and window sill.

Reason: In most cases, bus body wiring is routed inside this cap thus making it a maintenance access panel and excluding it from the joint strength standard. It is understood that in cases where there are no wires beneath the cap, the subject joints are required to meet the 60% joint strength requirement.

44. Exterior side sheet forward end cap joint to side sheet and doorway trim panel.

Reason: As seen in the photo, this is a small piece which provides the transition from the formed body fairing to the flat doorway area and plays no significant role in "enclosing occupant space."

45. Interior "brite-kote" aluminum panel joint to side sheet (no photo available).

Reason: This is an optional decorative item which is furnished on only a limited number of buses.

46. Interior bow cap joint to bow.

Reason: This panel must be removed in order to replace the window, thus it is considered a maintenance access panel.

47. Rear header joints to bow.

Reason: The rear header is a structural member with only a small amount of surface area exposed to the inside of the bus occupant space.

48. Front header joint to upper front cowl and posts.

Reason: The front header is a structural member with only a small amount of surface area exposed to the inside of the bus occupant space.

49. Rub rail joint to side panel.

Reason: These exterior rails do not serve to "enclose occupant space."

50. Plywood floor on standard metal floor.

Reason: This is an optional insulating material.

51. License plate inset panel joint to exterior rear sheet.

Reason: The license plate inset panel is welded into a hole which is cut in the rear body panel, thus the edge of the rear body panel is not included in the joint.

52. Several items located primarily in the forward section of the bus are designed for functional purposes and are thus excluded from the standard. These items include the following (see photographs):

A) Left hand control console;

B) Left hand heater;

C) Heater duct;

D) Right hand heater;

E) Instrument panel;

F) Transmission cover plate.

We believe that these categorized lists illustrate the fact that we have tried to objectively interpret FMVSS 221. Your review of those items and subsequent reply will serve to indicate the accuracy of our interpretation.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Raymond Titsworth, Project Engineer

ID: 77-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harley Murray, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 25, 1977, question whether a row of eight wheels arranged in a line that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of a vehicle constitute an "axle" as that word is used in S3(b) of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You note that the wheels are not mounted on a single solid axle but rather are mounted on two walking beam assemblies that also constitute the suspensions for a separate set of eight wheels across the vehicle.

The answer to your question is yes. When asked for a definition of "axle system" in connection with Standard No. 121, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated:

In answer to Wagner's request for a definition of "axle system," the term is used in the same sense as it is used in the definition of GAWR found at 49 CFR 571.3. "Axle system" is used instead of "axle" to avoid confusion in situations where a suspension system does not employ an axle. The term has not created difficulty in the GAWR definition (39 FR 17553, May 17, 1974).

The agency's use of "axle" in S3 is intended to be identical to its use of the phrase "axle system." Thus, "axle" means the arrangement of wheels that lie across the vehicle in a line that is perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. This understanding of "axle" and "axle system" is used regularly in the assignment of gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) on vehicles that employ independent suspensions in place of solid axles.

From your description, it appears that each row of eight wheels on your trailer constitutes an "axle" or "axle system" that could be rated at a GAWR in excess of 29,000 pounds, qualifying the vehicle for exclusion from Standard No. 121.

SINCERELY,

HARLEY MURRAY, INC.

January 25, 1977

Duane A. Perrin, P.P. Handling & Stability Division

SUBJECT: Application of exemption 121 S3 (b) to Murray 16 tire trailer

Thanks for the copy of "Standard 121" which we discussed over the phone on December 29th.

I am requesting your confirmation that our 16 tire expandable trailer comes under the exemption provided for any vehicle with "(b) An axle that has a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 29,000 pounds or more."

Our 16 tire trailer has two rows of eight wheels each. For purposes of permit loading these rows of wheels are designated as axle number 4 and 5 on the State of California Department of Transportation permit form (copy enclosed). My question is this: Do the rows of eight wheels constitute an "axle", as provided for in exemption (b) quoted above? They are not mounted on one solid axle, but are mounted in a walking beam assembly (see picture marked exhibit B).

In California, the allowable permit load on this trailer axle grouping is 58,400 pounds when the trailer is expanded to 10 feet. That is a maximum of 29,200 pounds for axle number 4 and 29,200 for axle 5 using the California permit definition of axle.

We are using Rockwell-Standard axles with a capacity rating of 20,000 pounds for four wheels or 40,000 pounds for each row (axle?) of eight wheels. That's a total rated capacity of 20,000 pounds for the 16 wheel axle grouping.(two rows).

I hope you will agree that the exemption (b) does indeed apply to our 16 tire trailer and that each row of eight wheels constitutes an axle in the federal law 121, as it does in the State of California permit form. If this is the case, we do not need to persue a petition for exemption. If, on the otherhand, wording of the Standard 121 does not exempt our 16 tire trailer we will petition for a modification due to the very tight fit of the brake/ axle/ walking beam assembly on this trailer, which is required to meet height limitations when loaded with heavy oversized equipment as shown in some of the enclosed photos.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If I can clarify this situation or answer any questions please give me a call at (209) 466-6639.

Dave Murray

ID: 77-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/77 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Calvin Burkhart; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 1, 1977, requesting that the period for submission of comments to the Federal Register notice proposing rules for determining the manufacturer of multistage automobiles (42 FR 9040; February 14, 1977) be extended for at least forty-five days. The comment closing date established in the notice is March 9, 1977.

According to 49 CFR Part 553.19, petitions to extend the period for comments must be received by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration not later than 10 days before the expiration of the comment period specified in the notice. Since Chrysler's petition was received on March 2, only 7 days before the comment closing date specified in the notice, it was not a timely submission.

The agency wishes to emphasize the importance of issuing without delay the rules governing the identity of the manufacturer of multistage automobiles for purposes of Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). The final rule establishing fuel economy standards applicable to nonpassenger automobiles manufactured in model year 1979 should be issued in the immediate future. It is essential that the individual responsible for complying with those standards be clearly specified.

A meeting with Chrysler representatives has been scheduled for Friday, March 11, 1977, at Chrylser's request. The agency will be pleased to discuss any issues involved in the NPRM. However, it must be pointed out that analysis of comments and action on the NPRM will continue without delay after the comment closing date. As stated in the notice, comments field after the closing date will, to the extent possible, be considered.

SINCERELY,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

March 1, 1977

The Honorable John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Docket FE 77-02; Notice 1

This letter is in regards to your NPRM of February 14, 1977 concerning Multistage Automobile Fuel Economy Regulations published in the Federal Register as Notice 1 of Docket FE 77-02.

Upon reviewing this notice, we have determined that this regulation could have broad implications regarding our ability to manufacture and market our future incomplete vehicles. It also would have an impact on the manner by which we certify and label incomplete light-duty trucks for emissions and fuel economy purposes and possibly presents some timing requirements that cannot be achieved by Chrysler.

We, therefore, request that a meeting be held at NHTSA to discuss this NPRM further and that the comment closing date be extended for at least forty-five days.

Michael W. Grike Office of the General Attorney

CC: KAREN DYSON -- OFC. OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ID: 77-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/77 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1977, asking whether 49 CFR Part 577 conflicts with Section 153(c)(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Pursuant to Section 153(c)(4) notification by a manufacturer to a dealer must be "by certified mail or other more expeditious means." On the other hand, Part 577 require notification to be given by first class mail to the first or most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer, in your view, which could mean a dealer. You stated that the "apparently conflicting" requirements affect the mailing of notices to dealers when they are the last known purchasers.

There is no conflict. Part 577 is a regulation for the notification of owners of vehicles, not dealers. The regulation sets forth -- "requirements for notification to owners of motor vehicles" (577.1) and its purpose "is to insure that notifications of defects or noncompliances adequately inform and effectively motivate owners . . . to have such vehicles . . . inspected and, when necessary, remedied as quickly as possible" (577.2). A dealer is not an "owner" within the intent of Part 577 and a manufacturer's notification obligation to its dealers is that set out in Section 153(c)(4).

Therefore, we cannot confirm that first class mailings from a manufacturer to a dealer conform to Part 577, and your letter offers no facts upon which to base a finding that first class mail is a "more expeditious means" of dealer notification than certified mail.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 18, 1977

Frank Bendt, Acting Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Interpretation Part 577 Defect and Noncompliance Notification

Dear Mr. Bendt:

White Motor Corporation requests an interpretation of Part 577 as it applies to the Act @ 153 (c)(4).

Part 577 as published in 41FR56813 (December 30, 1976) requires defect notification to be sent by first class mail to the first or most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. In the case of vehicles and equipment, the purchaser may be a dealer. The Act, however, states:

"@ 153(c)(4) by certified mail or other more expeditious means to the dealer or dealers of such manufacturer to whom such motor vehicle or replacement equipment was delivered." (emphasis added)

These apparently conflicting statements affect the mailing of notices to dealers when they were the last known purchaser. This condition is expected to occur for motor vehicles when the defect was discovered shortly after the vehicle was shipped from the factory and for replacement equipment.

White Motor Corporation sends defect notification to all its dealers for each recall campaign regardless of the expected geographical location of the suspect vehicles. These are presently sent by certified mail. In view of both the time and expense involved in preparing the hundreds of certification documents and the additional postage, we would like to send these by first class mail.

We request confirmation that such first class mailings conform to Part 577 and the Act, either as "other more expeditious means" (Act @ 153(c)(4)) or by some other clause.

Sincerely,

J. W. Lawrence, Manager -- Safety Safety & Environmental Engineering, WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

ID: 77-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harman International Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 77-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack Gromer -- Vice President, Timpte

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTSA regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, Certification and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As you are aware, Part 567 of regulations requires a statement by the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (@ 567.4(g)(4)). The term "GAWR" is defined in @ 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire-ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.

Standard No. 120 specifies that "each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements]" (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.

In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.

With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty new trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and @ 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.

SINCERELY, TIMPTE, INC.

JANUARY 11, 1977

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

AS MANUFACTURERS OF SEMI-TRAILERS, WE ARE CERTIFYING VIRTUALLY 100% OF OUR PRODUCTION TO ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. ONE PROBLEM DEVELOPS OCCASIONALLY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN INTERPRETATION ON THIS MATTER.

THE CONDITION IS ONE WHERE WE HAVE BUILT A SEMI-TRAILER FOR A PARTICULAR CUSTOMER AND THAT CUSTOMER CHOOSES TO FURNISH THE TIRES. IN OUR MANUFACTURE, WE WILL SPECIFY THE AXLE SUSPENSION AND OTHER COMPONENTS AS WELL AS INDICATING THE TIRE SIZE WHICH THE CUSTOMER WILL FURNISH. OCCASIONALLY, THE NEW TIRES ARE NOT SENT TO OUR MANUFACTURING FACILITY HERE, BUT RATHER, TIRES ARE INSTALLED BY THE CUSTOMER AT THE TIME HE TAKES THE TRAILER TO HIS OWN FACILITY. PICK UP OF THE TRAILER IS ACCOMPLISHED BY A DRIVER WITH A TRUCK TRACTOR BELONGING TO THE CUSTOMER AND HE MAY BRING WITH HIM ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES WHICH ARE ON THE "RUN OUT" VARIETY. THEY REQUEST US TO INSTALL THESE ON THE VEHICLE AND CHAIN UP THE REAR AXLE OF THE TANDEM SO THAT THE DRIVER CAN THEN TAKE THE NEW TRAILER EQUIPPED WITH ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES IN LIEU OF EIGHT BACK TO HIS FACILITY. NOW, OUR CERTIFICATION WOULD NORMALLY BE FOR THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF TIRES AND THE GAWR RATINGS AS WELL AS THE GVWR RATINGS WOULD BE STAMPED ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL AS IF THE TRAILER WERE EQUIPPED WITH THE INTENDED RUBBER.

BY COMPLYING WITH THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST AND INSTALLING OLD TIRES AID FEWER TIRES THAN INTENDED FOR THE TRAILER AND ALLOWING HIM TO TAKE DELIVERY FROM OUR PREMISES, ARE WE MAKING OURSELVES LIBEL IN ANY WAY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CERTIFICATION REGULATIONS OR WHATEVER? UNDERSTAND PLEASE, THAT THIS WOULD BE DONE AT CUSTOMER REQUEST AND INSTRUCTION WITH HIS FULL INTENTION BEING TO EQUIP THE TRAILER WITH A FULL SET OF GOOD TIRES, POSSIBLY RECAPS, AT THE TIME THAT HE GETS IT TO HIS FACILITY.

CERTAINLY, WE DON'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN A COMPROMISING POSITION AND IT WOULD NOT BE OUR INTENT TO DEVIATE OR BE IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE NHTSA REGULATIONS; AT THE SAME TIME WE WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMODATE OUR CUSTOMERS SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE AN OPINION FROM YOU REGARDING THIS TYPE OF CONDITION. IT IS AN INFREQUENT ONE; HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS TYPE OF REQUEST.

JACK GROMER VICE PRESIDENT - ENGINEERING

ID: 77-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your frank letter of January 13, 1977, commenting upon the lack of clarity you feel exists in my letter to you of December 6, 1976, interpreting Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As a lawyer it is obvious to me that the best regulatory practice is to be as specific as possible in establishing requirements and prohibitions. When a regulation itself is unclear, however, its interpretation may necessarily be imprecise. Because the term "optical combination" in S4.4.1 is not defined, my answers were necessarily worded in general terms though with the thought of establishing a general framework of guidance for you. They were not intended to be "a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words." My letter meant, in plain English, that where tail lamps and clearance lamps are in a single compartment we don't want one lamp to perform, or to be perceived as performing, the function of the other. It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

SINCERELY,

January 13, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: N40-30 Your letter of December 6, 1976

A combination of a Christmas holiday with the family in Arizona and year end activity here in our plant has prevented our sending you a reply to the referenced letter at an earlier date.

As far as we are concerned, your response to our October 28 letter is a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words and one which avoids positive answers or defensible positions on the specific questions we submitted.

Discussing first your lengthy second paragraph; from line 6 we quote: ". . . . Standard 108 does not require separate compartments (i.e. and opaque barrier) for tail lamps and clearance lamps . . . " Perhaps you can give some scientific explanation how two lamps can be in the same compartment and not interfere optically with one another. The degree of candlepower emanating from each bulb is dependent on their respective candlepowers and in the case of tail and clearance lamp bulbs, the lumens generated are not very far apart since clearance lamp bulbs deliver 2 c.p. and tail lamp bulbs 3 c.p. If tail lamp and clearance lamp bulbs were positioned relatively close together in the single compartment (a condition you state is permissible) I submit that a "driver in a following vehicle" could not possibly interpret one lamp from the other.

May we refer you to line 15 of the second paragraph of your letter and we quote: "there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp . . . " To any engineer or attorney involved with compliance regulations, the words "appreciable amount" are incongruous when applied to a standard such as 108, the purpose of which is to spell out specific optical values, tests, and locations for lights. DOT 108 standard permits no deviation from the SAE standards referenced, which standards positively indicate optical values for lamps. Nor does DOT 108 permit any option on the number and types of lamps required on a trailer or where these lamps shall be located. "Appreciable" has no measureable value, therefore, we ask, whose judgement will prevail when evaluating the design and testing of a lamp, the manufacturer or your compliance people. How would you legally defend your position that a light has an "appreciable" amount of spill, hence is illegal, in the absence of an applicable photometric standard.

We also object to the language: "The amount of light spill appears to be so small . . ." (sce para. 2 line 17). What numerical candlepower value do you assign to the words "appears to" as a measure of whether or not a lamp conforms to the published standard? Would we receive approval from your compliance group on a lamp we have marked "DOT" on the basis of our contention that to us the lamp "appears to" meet the photometric standards?

How evasive can a response to our specific question be than your blanket reply of: "If you apply this general principle to the questions you asked, then I think you will have the answers."

We refer you to page 2, lines 2, 3, and 4 of your letter, which we quote: "The principle is necessarily dependent upon the candlepower output of any lamp to which it is applied, a value not given in your questions." Of course we didn't specify "candlepower output". Those values are specified in DOT 108. Or perhaps you were unaware that clearance lamp bulbs and tail lamp bulbs are manufactured to *SAE J573f which specified: Typical Service Trade No. Mean Spherical Candela M ** 57 2 candlepower at 14 volts T *** 1157 3 candlepower at 14 volts

* Photometric tests performed under SAE J592e and SAE J585d are always made using 2 c.p. and 3 c.p. bulb respectively.

** M - Marker, Clearance, Identification

*** T - Tail

These are the lamps and respective candlepowers you will find in all tail lamps and clearance lamps.

Therefore, with such a small candlepower difference between clearance and tail lamp output, the "spill" (to quote your letter) from one to the other, with bulbs exposed in the same compartment, equate one another.

We read with surprise in your letter that "certification is dependent upon a manufacturer's good faith in attempting to achieve compliance." We would like to believe that statement, but the actual experiences of many trailer manufacturers with your compliance people, doesn't bear out what you say. The compliance man recognizes but one criteria: does it or does it not meet the specific requirements of the published standard.

At this moment in time the DOT is quibbling over a specific interpretation of S 4.4.1 with such indecisive language as: "appears to be", "appreciable amount", "good faith". It could be that your indefinite position merely covers a too hasty interpretation by one of your staff, but whatever the reason, please either resolve this problem in terms of specific numbers, or rewrite S 4.4.1 so that there can be no possible misinterpretation of your requirements.

You asked the writer to comment on combining tail and clearance lamp. This combination for boat trailers and some camping trailers is an extremely sensible approach. The 108 standard blankets big semi trailers and small duck boat trailers with the same sets of rules, which rules for a semi trailer are as totally practical as they are totally impractical for a small boat trailer.

In the matter of boat trailers, the over 80" lighting requirements are almost impossible to meet. For example, consider a boat trailer carrying a sail boat. It is virtually impossible to locate an identification light bar that won't be swept off or severely bent when the boat is launched. Use of an identification light bar on a trailer should be eliminated. Very few are operable after a launching.

The trailer manufacturer certifies his trailer as meeting the DOT standards, when it leaves his plant. The dimensions of the boats that trailer may carry vary wiedely and many a trailer's actual width is exceeded by the hull it carries. This is knowledge the trailer manufacturer would not have when he produced the trailer.

It would be economical as well as practical to permit a boat trailer manufacturer to mount his tail lamp in such a position that it would serve the dual purpose of clearance and tail lamp, with no detriment to safety. If anything, we would consider such an arrangement a safer condition than the use of seperate lights.

In conclusion, would you please give us specific answers to the questions posed in paragraph 6 of letter of October 28, 1976, at your earliest convenience. For your convenience a copy of same is attached.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

cc: SEN. WILLIAM PROXMIRE; SEN. GAYLOR NELSON