ID: 77-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 28, 1977, letter asking whether it is legal to certify a school bus manufactured after April 1, 1977, if the bus is painted a color other than National School Bus Glossy Yellow.

The certification requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are found in Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567). This part requires that a manufacturer certify that the vehicle he manufactures complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381). No safety standard promulgated under the Act requires that school buses be painted school bus yellow. Therefore, failure of a manufacturer to produce a school bus of that color would not be a violation of the Act, and his certification of the bus compliance with motor vehicle safety standards would not be affected.

Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17, promulgated under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), controls the color of school buses. This standard requires that all vehicles operating as school buses be painted National School Bus Glossy Yellow. Since this standard applies to the operation of school buses and not their construction, compliance with its requirements is not a prerequisite to motor vehicle safety standard certification.

ID: 77-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bandag of Nassau, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 10, 1977, letter asking whether it is permissible for you to use a DOT number assigned to another tire retreader when you perform special retread work in your plant for the other retreader who lacks facilities to do the work himself.

Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, requires that the retreader apply a DOT symbol and identification number to the tire. The DOT symbol indicates conformance with Federal regulations. The number enables the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to identify the retreader that manufactures the tire. To permit one manufacturer to use the identification number of another would impair the NHTSA enforcement actions. Accordingly, you would not be permitted to use any DOT number other than your own on tires you retread.

SINCERELY,

BANDAG OF NASSAU, INC.

March 10, 1977

U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: DOT Regulations

If two individuals are both financially interested in two distinct corporate tire entities -- one party operating the one retread plant and the other party operating the second retread plant -- each plant having its own DOT identification marker, is it permissable to use both DOT markers in the first plant to enable them to process special work that cannot be done in the second plant.

We shall appreciate your advising us on this matter.

L. Wenderoth

ID: 77-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Bendix Corporation's March 29, 1977, request for confirmation that the manual adjustment of automatic adjusters is acceptable following the burnish procedures of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, at the option of the manufacturer.

The procedure that you recommend is not permitted by any provision of Standard No. 121. The NHTSA would consider some provision to deal with the overadjustment of automatic adjusters upon receipt of technical data showing justification for such action. Based on consideration of the data received and a petition for amendment, the agency could commence a rulemaking proceeding in accordance with established procedures.

I have enclosed a copy of a similar interpretation made to Rockwell International.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Bendix

Heavy Vehicle Systems Group

John Snow -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 29, 1977

Subject: Request for Interpretation: FMVSS '121'

Ref.: Brake Burnish Procedures S6.1.8.1 and S6.1.8.2

Dear Mr. Snow:

The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group (HVSG) respectfully requests clarification of the portions of S6.1.8.1 and S6.1.8.2, which permit adjustment of the brakes as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer after the burnish procedure. Specifically, clarification is requested that either S-Cam or wedge brakes equipped with automatic adjusters can be adjusted as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer, as well as those equipped with manual brake adjusters.

As permitted by the subject paragraphs, vehicle manufacturers have, in the past, manually adjusted the brakes; especially S-Cam brakes, after the burnish procedure. The affect of this has been to generate a large amount of background data and vehicle compliance testing starting with given brake chamber strokes.

In an effort to promote safety by maintaining a predictable level of good braking, assuring good brake balance and eliminating the possibility of vehicles being operated with S-Cam brakes badly out of adjustment, Bendix has introduced an automatic slack adjuster. Since the adjustment maintained by an automatic slack adjuster is influenced by several factors, including brake and drum temperature, and lining and drum design and conditions, the stroke maintained by an automatic slack adjuster after the burnish procedure will likely be different than that which has been used by the vehicle manufacturers for compliance testing.

It is the opinion of the Bendix Corporation (HVSG) that the use of automatic slack adjusters does not prohibit the vehicle manufacturer from adjusting the brakes, if desired, after the burnish procedure. A vehicle manufacturer advised us that it is reluctant to introduce this device, unless assurance can be given that requalification testing will not be required with the strokes that exist after the burnish test procedure.

We would be pleased to discuss the details of this matter if any additional information is necessary.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt -- Group Director of Engineering

ID: 77-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Weber Aircraft

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/16//88, TO GLENN L. DUNCAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 207; LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBER J. WAHLS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 02/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNCAN RE UNITED TOOL AND STAMPING INC FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM; LETTER DATED 11/16/87 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNN RE FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM OCC-1278

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 25, 1977, requesting an interpretation concerning the force requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You ask whether the specified forces are intended to be "limit loads" (those loads under which no permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation is allowed) or "ultimate loads" (those loads under which structural integrity must be maintained even though permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation takes place) (your terms and definitions).

Under the requirements of Standard No. 210, the anchorage of a seat belt assembly must be able to withstand certain designated forces when tested in accordance with the procedures of the standard. Paragraph S4.2.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for a specified period of time. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 210 could be considered "ultimate loads," as you define that term.

The agency interprets the force requirements of Standard No. 207 to allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided structural integrity is maintained. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 207 could also be considered "ultimate loads," as you define that term.

Please note, however, that if seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened, a determination could be made under provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq.) that the vehicle contains a safety related defect and sanctions could be imposed on the manufacturer.

Please contact our office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Feb. 25, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attention: Chief Counsel's Office

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 & 210

Ref: Telecon G. Cress and R. Nelson, 2-25-77

Our test facility has been approached by several manufacturers of vehicle seating systems. These manufacturers have requested that we test (and provide a report) to the requirements of MVSS Nos. 207 and 210. In reviewing the MVSS requirements, a question has arisen. It is on the definition or interpretation of the phrase, "shall withstand the following forces" as used in MVSS 207, Paragraph S4.2. In the aircraft industry, load or force requirements are usually designated as limit loads (those loads under which no permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation is allowed) or ultimate loads (those loads under which structural integrity must be maintained even though permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation takes place).

As an example, if the structure in Figure 1 (attached) were subjected to a limit load of 20 times the weight of the seat, the seat would retain its full capabilities to function. There would be no permanent deflection or degradation of the structure due to the limit load application. If the structure in Figure 1 were subjected to an ultimate load of 20 times the seat weight, the seat could assume the posture shown in Figure 2 as long as it supported the test load for from 3 to 10 seconds. The question is, "May we consider the forces specified in MVSS 207 (and also MVSS 210) as ultimate loads?"

Thank you for your assistance.

WEBER AIRCRAFT, Division of Walter Kidde & Company, Inc.

Gordon P. Cress Chief, Structures & Test

ATTACH.

DIRECTION OF TEST LOAD

PRE & POST TEST (LIMIT LOAD)

FIGURE 1

DIRECTION OF TEST LOAD

POST TEST (ULTIMATE LOAD APPLICATION)

FIGURE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEMA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking about the applicability of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, to aftermarket rims.

Your first assumption that vans and light truck models are classified as vehicles other than passenger cars is correct. Accordingly, rims manufactured for use on these vehicles must comply with the requirements of the standard. Where the rims may be used in the aftermarket either on passenger cars or vehicles other than passenger cars, they must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120.

On a related matter concerning the aftermarket, you question whether Standard No. 120 has applicability to rims sold for use on used vehicles. Section S3 of the standard states that the requirements apply to motor vehicles other than passenger cars and to rims for use on those vehicles. This indicates that the standard is both a motor vehicle and an equipment standard. Since it is an equipment standard, the requirements apply to all rims manufactured for use on the specified vehicles regardless of whether the rim will be original equipment or sold in the aftermarket.

SINCERELY,

March 24, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Since I have not heard from you in the past few days, I will assume that the enclosed report from the "Consumer Product Safety Guide" is completely fallacious. As I mentioned during our phone conversation, our association is attempting to provide the aftermarket wheel manufacturers in our membership with timely information concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 120, rim marking requirements, and I do have several questions that pertain to the standard.

We have made the assumption that the van and light truck models in the domestic fleet fall under the category of vehicles other than passenger cars, and would like to know if our assumption is correct. Also, in the February 7, 1977 Federal Register, Page 7142, the discussion of rim marking requirements states that "these marking requirements have no bearing on the use of the rim on passenger cars, except as future labeling requirements in Standard No. 110 might prohibit one or more of the items required by S5.2. This eventuality is considered to be extremely unlikely." We find that the most common bolt circle patterns for wheels are common to both passenger cars and light trucks and vans, and the aftermarket generally does not market separate wheels for trucks and passenger cars. We would like to know if the statement quoted above means that a wheel that has a common application for light trucks and passenger cars can, or must, have the rim markings required by FMVSS 120 by August 1, 1977.

We have also noted that the standard is promulgated to fulfill Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which pertains to equipment requirements for new vehicles or vehicles before the first purchase thereof. We, therefore, request a legal opinion on whether the FMVSS 120 can be construed to apply to a true aftermarket wheel which is purchased by the vehicle owner, usually some time after the first purchase.

This may be a moot point, for in fact, the aftermarket manufacturers market the same wheel models for light truck applications, passenger car applications, new vehicle applications (dealership changeover), and aftermarket. But a legal opinion on the questions that I have raised would be most helpful at this time.

Your assistance would be very much appreciated, and I trust that if you have any questions on this matter, you won't hesitate to call on me.

Paul J. Ryan Staff Engineer

Consumer Product Safety Guide

Rim Requirement Repeated, Mobile Homes De-regulated by NHTSA

A requirement that wheel rims of motor vehicles other than passenger cars be labeled as to their normal dimensions manufacturer, and date of manufacture has been withdrawn by the National Highway Safety Administration. The requirement had been previously issued with a delayed effective date. The NHTSA stated that the (Illegible Word) of the requirement had not interfered with certification and defect actions, and because enforcement might lead to economic waste, the agency has decided it is unnecessary. In responding

ID: 77-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/77 EST

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

TO: Department of Education - New Jersey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 77-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Coach & Equipment

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 15, 1977, letter asking whether the head and knee form impact requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, apply to the stanchion post and cross bars installed in your buses.

School buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less are not required to have restraining barriers as mandated in S5.2 of the standard for larger buses. Therefore, there is no requirement that you install stanchions, cross bars, or panels in the buses you manufacture. Should you choose to install these devices, they would not be required to be as wide as the seat. Similarly, there would be no requirement pertaining to forward or rearward movement of these devices.

The leg protection zone as defined in S5.3.2 of the standard is measured with reference to seat backs and restraining barriers. Since the devices you mention are not considered as either seat backs or restraining barriers, the leg protection zone requirements do not apply.

The head protection zone requirements, on the other hand, apply to any contactable surface located within the zone defined in S5.3.1 of the standard. Since part of the stanchion to which you refer creates a contactable surface within the head protection zone, it must meet the requirements of the standard specified in S5.3.1.

SINCERELY,

Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

March 15, 1977

Roger Tilton Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Enclosed is a colored print which depicts the head and knee impact zone as we presently understand the standard.

The questions which we feel are pertinent to our problems are as follows:

1. Utilizing a 1" O.D. steel tube section located as shown will both the head and knee impact zone areas require padding to meet the individual pad requirements?

2. Must the stanchion and cross bar be as wide as the seat on each side?

3. For compliance with the standard would a steel (padded) panel be required on each, or either side?

4. Would the stanchion post and cross bar section require any restrictions relating to movement fore and aft?

Perhaps with the mails crossing paths we both will have a better understanding late this week.

I have also enclosed, for your information, our 1976 brochure showing our pre April 1, 1977 production unit.

If we have any further questions we will contact you directly and would much appreciate your doing likewise.

Richard L. Kreutziger Executive Vice President

ID: 77-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Allen & Korkowski & Associates

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1977, to Mr. Oates of this office asking whether your client, a manufacturer of motorcycle accessories, is subject to requirements imposed by 49 CFR Parts 573, 576, and 577 and 15 U.S.C. 1402.

For your reference I am enclosing a copy of a new Part 577 which becomes effective June 28, 1977, that implements Part B of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) effective December 27, 1974. These new sections have superseded Section 1402, to which you referred. Since you apparently are unaware of these changes I am also enclosing a copy of the amended Act.

Because your client manufactures motor vehicle equipment other than original equipment (i.e. accessories) its products appear to be "replacement equipment" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1419(2)(B). Since Parts 573 and 576 apply only to motor vehicle manufacturers and not to equipment manufacturers you are correct in your conclusion that these regulations are inapplicable to your client. We have proposed, however, that Part 573 be amended to apply to manufacturers of replacement equipment although no action has yet been taken on the proposal. I include a copy of that proposal.

You also asked about the applicability of Section 577.4 which you found to be "silent about the duty of manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment". The Part 577 that you referenced reflects the statutory scheme that was in effect until December 27, 1974, under which a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment (as contrasted with a vehicle manufacturer who also produced equipment) was not required to notify purchasers of safety-related defects or noncompliances which it, the manufacturer, had discovered. The equipment manufacturer's obligation to notify arose only upon determination of the existence of a safety-related defect or noncompliance by the NHTSA Administrator and in that event Section 577.5 requires the equipment manufacturer to follow the provisions of Section 577.4. The new statutory scheme of 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq., as reflected in revised Section 577.5, now extends the notification and remedy obligation to safety-related defects and noncompliances discovered by manufacturers of replacement equipment.

Finally, you have asked if there is no duty to retain records how can an equipment manufacturer "observe the requirements of Part 577.4." I assume what you mean is how can it notify "the first purchaser (where known) . . . and any subsequent purchaser to whom a warranty on such . . . item of equipment has been transferred". The actual obligation of a manufacturer of replacement equipment today, however, is that established by 15 U.S.C. 1413(c)(3)(A), in effect since December 27, 1974, and it is to notify "the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer" (See also new Section 577.7(a)(2)(ii)(A). Congress appears to have recognized that manufacturers of small and less expensive items of motor vehicle equipment generally may not keep records of ultimate purchasers when it authorized our agency to issue a public notice when the public interest requires it (15 U.S.C. 1413(c)(3)(B)). Since there is no obligation for a manufacturer to know the names of its purchasers, NHTSA will accept in good faith an equipment manufacturer's statement as to the extent of its knowledge of its most recent purchasers. Under proposed Section 573.7(c) your client, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be required to maintain certain records including a list of the names and addresses of the "most recent purchasers known to the manufacturer". Such a list would probably at a minimum comprise distributors of the product, might also include the dealers of the distributors, and possibly in some instances the ultimate purchaser. But it is not a requirement that steps be taken to know and list the names and addresses of all ultimate purchasers. If you have further questions after reviewing this letter and its enclosures I will be happy to answer them for you.

ID: 77-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/77

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

TO: Hon. J. W. Wydler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 21, 1977, requesting information concerning Federal regulations regarding school bus safety on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Peter Peugeot of Rockville Centre, New York.

I have enclosed a document, "Summary Description of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Applicable to Buses," which should be helpful to Mrs. Peugeot. I have also enclosed an information summary, "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations," along with a set of forms from our Technical Reference Branch indicating how specific information may be retrieved through computer assisted literature searches along with an outline of fees for this service.

In addition to the above material, I have enclosed an order form for the entire set of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, in case Mrs. Peugeot desires this specific volume. I would call her attention to the fact that although this document is relatively expensive, it is furnished in loose-leaf form and is updated periodically for an indefinite period with the latest amendments and changes at no additional cost.

I trust this information and material will be of value to Mrs. Peugeot. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

April 21, 1977

Office of Congressional Liaison National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

I have received a request from one of my constituents, Mrs. Peter Peugeot of Rockville Centre, New York, for a copy of the federal regulations regarding safety for school buses.

I would appreciate receiving the relevant regulations, and would also appreciate receiving any additional comments on this subject that you feel might be helpful or informative to Mrs. Peugeot.

Thanking you for your cooperation, and with every good wish, I am.

John W. Wydler Member of Congress

ID: 77-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/05/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: D. G. Moore - Dry Launch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 7, 1977, asking for a clarification of S4.3.1.1.1 of Standard No. 108. Your initial question of December 27, 1976, was not clear to us hence the reason my answer of March 4, 1977, caused you some confusion.

The diagram in your letter of April 7 clearly depicts the exemption provided by S4.3.1.1.1 for the specific reasons therein, that when a clearance lamp indicating overall width is not located on the rear of a vehicle it need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard. As the only required points of photometric measurement of a clearance lamp so located are to the rear and at 45 degrees outboard, the lamp need not be visible at any point in the 45 degree arc depicted in your letter.

SINCERELY,

DRY LAUNCH

April 7, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Refering to your letter of March 4, 1977, #N40-30 (ZTV) the last two paragraphs dealt with my question - if it were permissible to eliminate photometric requirements in the "shaded" area provided for in the November 1975 amendment (S4.3.1.1.1). I'm afraid your answer was not clear to me and I can't say if you said it was permissible or not. Would you please clarify.

Dennis G. Moore

Does this area have photometric requirements when applied to the O.E.M. level?

(Graphics omitted)