ID: 77-4.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Bedell Trailer Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 18, 1977, letter asking who is responsible for compliance with the standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Compliance with Federal safety standards is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . ." Therefore, in the cases to which you refer, the assembler of the vehicle would be responsible for ensuring the compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal safety standards. The purchaser is not responsible for compliance with the requirements unless he assembles the vehicles, thereby becoming the manufacturer.

Dealers are prohibited by section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act from selling any completed motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the standards. A dealer is permitted, however, to rely upon the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle conforms to the standards' requirements. Therefore, prior to sale of a vehicle a dealer should make sure that the manufacturer has complied with the certification requirements of Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, of our regulations which are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

A dealer is not prohibited from selling an "incomplete vehicle" as that term is defined in Part 568 of our regulations. Such an incomplete vehicle would require further manufacturing before its final certification for compliance with the standards. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer would need to fulfill it's responsibilities as outlined in Part 568. The person who completes the vehicle would then be responsible for the vehicle complying with standards. You should note that vehicles that lack merely readily attachable components are not "incomplete vehicles." They are completed vehicles. The sale of any such vehicle that was not certified for compliance with all applicable standards would be a violation of the Act.

ID: 77-4.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Armstrong for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: FILE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On Sept 30, I called Mr. Premo of Sheller Globe Corp.

Discussion Mr. Premo had called the day before and asked for information about attendant seats in an ambulance. On Sept 30 we discussed the requirements of Stds 207,208, and 210 as they applied to ambulances. I told Mr. Premo that, since the attendant seats were designated seating positions, his company had to comply with the requirements of all three standards

W. SMITH

ID: 77-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/77

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

TO: Messrs. Eckert; Seamans; Cherin & Mellott

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 13, 1977, to Robert Aubuchon of this agency on behalf of your client Charles J. Sechan. Mr. Sechan has imported a 1976 Ferrari that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and you have inquired whether, as a statutory manufacturer, he may apply for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection on the basis that compliance would cause him substantial economic hardship.

In our view he may not do so. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act includes in its definition of "manufacturer" any person "importing motor vehicles . . . for resale." Your client does not appear to be a manufacturer since he has imported only a single motor vehicle personally for his own use. There is nothing in your letter that indicates he is importing motor vehicles for resale.

Section 123 of the Act was not intended to apply to the occasional importer of a motor vehicle but to business entities engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. Thus the exemptions provided are "temporary," meaning that after the date of expiration motor vehicles produced by the manufacturer must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards from which they were previously exempted. Exemptions do not provide retroactive coverage and apply only to vehicles manufactured after the effective date of the exemption's grant (See 49 CFR 555.7(f)).

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT

September 13, 1977

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Attention Robert Abuschon:

Re: N41-22CUS

In a telephone conversation with you on September 2, 1977, you agreed to provide me with an updated listing of the various exemptions from the FMVSS which have been granted to various manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles. To date, I have not received this information.

As you may recall, I represent Sechan Coal Company, Inc. which, on July 21, 1977, imported a 1976 Ferrari, BB, Serial No. 18587. Mr. Charles J. Sechan, the President of Sechan Coal Company, is presently endeavoring to bring his automobile into compliance with the applicable FMVSS. In order to do so, Mr. Sechan wanted to know whether there were any exemptions granted from the FMVSS with respect to his vehicle.

Section 123(d)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:

"No manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production exceeds 10,000, as determined by the Secretary, shall be eligible to apply for an exemption under paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section".

Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of Section 123 of the Act provides that an exemption may be granted upon an application by a "manufacturer" on the ground:

"(1)(A) that compliance would cause such manufacturer substantial economic hardship and that the manufacturer has, in good faith, attempted to comply with each standard from which it requests to be exempted".

Section 102(5) of the Act defines a "manufacturer" as follows:

"'Manufacturer' means any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale". (Emphasis added)

As you know, the Ferrari Boxer is an extremely limited production vehicle which is assembled by hand at the Ferrari plant in Italy. Moreover, it appears from the sections of the Act quoted above that "any person importing motor vehicles . . . for resale" (Section 102(5)) would be considered a "manufacturer". Accordingly, if that "manufacturer" were to import an insubstantial number of vehicles, he would be eligible to apply for an exemption from the FMVSS pursuant to Section 123(a)(1)(A) of the Act, i.e., on the ground of substantial economic hardship.

According to an itemized list of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards provided as an enclosure to Form FL-80, which was sent to my client on August 12, 1977, the 1976 Ferrari Boxer may not comply with FMVSS, Section 215, relating to exterior protection. Preliminary inquiries made by my client reveal that FMVSS Section 215, requiring the replacement of original "bumpers" with those which will comply with that standard, is incredibly expensive.

Accordingly, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to provide me with an interpretation of Section 123 of the Act relating to exemptions. Specifically, I would like to know whether my client is eligible to apply for an exemption from Section 215 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards pertaining to bumpers on the 1976 Ferrari Boxer he has imported into this country on the ground of substantial economic hardship.

Please regard this request as merely an inquiry. My client fully intends to use his best efforts to bring his vehicle into compliance with all applied standards from which his vehicle is not exempted. However, before expending the sums of money necessary to do so, he requested that this inquiry be made.

Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated.

Mark A. Willard

ID: 77-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/77

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

TO: Wisconsin School Bus Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 29, 1977, letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, that would permit the measurement of seat spacing at any point along the width of the seat back.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has previously responded to a similar request for an interpretation of the measurement of seat spacing. I am enclosing a copy of that letter for your information. In that letter, the NHTSA stated that measurement of seat spacing must be made from the seating reference point to the surface of the seat back or restraining barrier, exclusive of portions which protrude from the basic contour of the surface. This interpretation prohibits the measurement of seat spacing from the seating reference point to the side tubing which protrudes from the basic contour of the seat.

The NHTSA has received your second letter requesting rulemaking on the issue of seat spacing. That letter is being treated as a petition for rulemaking and will be processed according to agency rulemaking procedures.

ID: 77-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/77

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

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge receipt of the petition by Motor Coach Industries, dated July 22, 1977, for a determination that an apparent noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

We are preparing a notice for publication in the Federal Register requesting public comment on your petition and you will be notified in due course as to its disposition. The notice will not include reference to the fact that the "continuous warning" signal required by S5.1.5 of Standard No. 121 is an automatic flashing light on MCI vehicles. It is the opinion of this office that either an automatic flashing light or a continuous light will provide a "continuous warning" within the intent of the Standard.

ID: 77-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. A. Ambro - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 77-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

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

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Midland-Ross' July 8, 1977, request for confirmation that the requirement that "[each] service reservoir system shall be protected against loss of air pressure. . .by check valves or equivalent devices" in S5.1.2.3 and S5.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, permits small losses of air pressure through the check valve of up to 2 psi per minute without constituting noncompliance.

The requirement for protection against "loss of air pressure" does permit a small amount of leakage, in recognition of the fact that no fitting can be perfectly air tight. While the standard does not presently specify a rate of permissible air loss in S5.1.2.3 or S5.2.1.5, the agency has adopted a maximum loss of 10 psi in 10 minutes as meeting the requirement for protection against loss of air pressure. The agency is considering adding such a specification to the standard in the future by interpretive amendment.

SINCERELY,

MIDLANDROSS CORPORATION

July 8, 1977

Thomas W. Herlihy Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Subject: FMVSS #571.121, Section S5.1.2.3.

Midland-Ross Corporation is a manufacturer of air brake actuation equipment for heavy duty trucks. We therefore manufacture components which are used by truck manufacturers for compliance with FMVSS #571.121. We are asking for interpretation of the requirement for check valves, specifically as it relates to section S.5.1.2.3.

Section S.5.1.2.3 states: "Each service reservoir system shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and the source of air pressure, by check valves or equivalent devices whose proper functioning can be checked without disconnecting any air line or fitting".

The statement "loss of air pressure" has not been qualified and can be interpretated to mean zero leakage. It is common knowledge that check valves being produced today have a leakage tolerance. For example, Midland-Ross 100% inspects check valves and allows a maximum leakage of 330 ccm (cubic centimeters/minute) leakage at 20 psi. It is also common knowledge that some leakage will exist in connections upstream to the check valve through air lines, fittings and valves. In fact the accepted industry standards have been to allow a maximum leakage of 2 psi pressure drop in one minute (reference: SAE J-890, California Highway Patrol; DOT part 570, Inspection Standard for Motor Vehicles).

ID: 77-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

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

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Crane Carrier Corporation's June 8, 1977, question whether the maximum time limits specified by S5.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, for build-up of brake system air pressure from 85 to 100 psi includes the time taken to build up air pressure in an accessory reservoir (for an air starter) that is replenished only when the truck is started.

The answer to your question is no. Section S5.1.1 is a performance requirement that assures that repeated use of the brakes during vehicle operation will not deplete the available air supply because of insufficient air compressor capacity. The purpose of this requirement only indirectly relates to the initial air pressure build-up that occurs when the vehicle is first started.

The agency's existing laboratory procedure for compliance testing provides for fully charging the air brake system (and any accessory reservoirs which charge automatically in the process) before the test is begun. The engine is shut off while brake system air pressure is reduced to a level that permits a subsequent build-up for measurement purposes. In order to properly test vehicles with air starters, the agency is modifying its procedure to keep the engine running throughout the test, so that the air starter reservoir remains fully charged throughout the measurement period.

SINCERELY,

HEAVY DUTY TRUCK MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

June 20, 1977 Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to our telephone conversation last Friday, I am pleased to enclose the inquiry we discussed. You suggested that interpretive rulings should be in writing, and I am pleased to respond.

F. MURRAY CALLAHAN General Counsel

CRANE CARRIER COMPANY

June 8, 1977

Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturers Assoc.

Attention: F. Murray Callahan, General Counsel Subject: Compliance with Section S5.1.1 of MVSS 121, when vehicles are equipped with air starters.

We are seeking an interpretation of Section S5.1.1 due to the following condition occurring on vehicles equipped with air starters. These vehicles require a separate large volume (17,787 C.I.) starter reservoir isolated from the trucks air brake system by means of a pressure protection and check valve which maintains a minimum of 75 psi air pressure in the service brake system. However, after initial start up of truck, which could use up to approximately 50% of starter reservoir capacity, and the truck brake system is built up to 75 psi, the protection valve between the two systems opens, and at this point the total system capacity is equal to the brake reservoir volume plus that of the air start reservoir. When this occurs, it is impossible for us to comply with the time limit specified in Section S5.1.1 due to the extremely large combined volume of the two systems.

What we seek interpretation of is if the standard will allow: (1) air start reservoir to be completely refilled as soon as engine is started, (2) draining of air in the service brake reservoirs and then, (3) replenishing the air in the brake reservoir in the time limit specified. This seems to us to satisfy the standard since the standard is only trying to insure of a large enough air compressor to replenish the service brake reservoirs and once the air start system is filled it will have no effect on the brake system operation.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Ray Sizemore Engineer

cc: KEN LAWRENCE

ID: 77-4.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

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

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to AM General Corporation's July 18, 1977, request for confirmation that certain aspects of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. In an October 3, 1977, telephone call with Mr. Herlihy of this office, it was determined that the request for interpretation is now limited to confirmation that the four-way pressure protection valve described in M.A.N.'s June 22, 1977, letter would meet the location and functional requirements of S5.1.2.3 of Standard No. 121. Section S5.1.2.3 specifies --

S5.1.2.3 Each service reservoir shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.

I am enclosing prior interpretations of the location requirement of S5.1.2.3. While the agency cannot "approve" systems based on schematic drawings, it appears that the location of the four-way protection valve in the M.A.N. drawings does not violate the provisions contained in S5.1.2.3.

As we understand the description and capabilities of the four-way valve, it appears to be a pressure protection device that is "equivalent" to the check valve otherwise required by S5.1.2.3.

SINCERELY,

AM General Corporation

July 18, 1977

Duane E. Perrin NHTSA Handling & Stability Division

As you may be aware, AM General has entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nuernberg (M.A.N.) of West Germany for the purpose of importing roughly 400 articulated buses into the United States which, after completion in our Marshall, Texas facility, will be delivered to eleven domestic transit properties. Contractually, the responsibility for compliance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is divided between AM General and M.A.N. relative to areas of design and manufacturing responsibility. As M.A.N. is primarily responsible for the major mechanical components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension, braking systems, etc., compliance with Federal and State Safety Standards in these specific areas rests with them.

During design of the braking system, it has been determined that clarification relative to Paragraph S5.1.2.3 of FMVSS 121 is required. More specifically, approval is requested for utilization of a 4-way air pressure protection valve in lieu of the simple service reservoir check valves described in the standard.

The functioning configuration of this 4-way protection valve is completely outlined in the attached material from M.A.N.

Additionally, consideration and approval is requested relative to the outlined testing procedure which will be utilized to demonstrate proof of compliance to FMVSS 124.

I believe the attached material is fairly self-explanatory; however, should you have any questions or require additional information, do not hesitate to call me at area code (313) 722-4900.

Your prompt consideration and approval will be greatly appreciated.

M. J. Shillinger Project Engineer

ATTACH.

To the Department of Transportation

June 22, 1977

Re: Clarification for compliance with FMVSS 121 and 124:

Dear Sirs:

M.A.N. is supplier of articulated buses to AM General, Wayne, Mich., importing these vehicles for the first time to the US, and therefore is confronted to proof compliance with all FMVSS standards applicable.

Due to the fact, that this is the first time we have some specific problems with the interpretation of certain paragraphs, which could not even be clarified absolutely by the friendly assistance of our partner AMG, we are relaying our requests now to you.

Enclosed please find two write-ups of our interpretation of certain details of FMVSS 124 and 121.

The problem area regarding FMVSS 124 concerns the test conditions where we would like to ask you either to approve our interpretation or to inform us of an acceptable solution.

Regarding FMVSS 121 we are quite aware of the tests we have to perform to verify compliance, but we would like you to check the basic schematics of our brake system. Please give special attention to the fact, that this schematic does not allow the incorporation of additional check valves on the inlets of the individual air tanks as air flow in both directions occurs. We assume, however, that these tanks are to be regarded as one system and are sufficiently protected by the four circuit protection valve.

To our knowledge the system as described incorporates safety features superior to the systems presently operating in the US. We would like to thank you for your efforts and to point out the urgency the matter has for us.

MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NURNBERG Aktiengesellschaft Werk Munchen

ppa.

(Dr. Hagen)

(i.A.)

(Dr. Domandl)

[ENCLOSURES OMITTED.]

ID: 77-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Lamar Gudger - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please excuse the delay in my response to your letter of June 15, 1977, addressed to Mr. Norman Sultan, with a copy to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Federal requirement for registration of tires.

Mr. Sultan has reported a tire registration of 10 percent in his area of operation which is considerably less than the national figures of 30 percent for retreads and 70 percent for new tire replacements developed in our studies. Mr. Sultan is urging a change in the law to permit voluntary registration of all tires.

Mr. John Snow, my predecessor, reported to the Honorable Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, that consideration would be given to changing Regulation Part 574 allowing voluntary registration of retreaded tires in lieu of mandatory registration. Since taking office, I have devoted considerable attention to reviewing and analyzing the pertinent factors related to tire registration. I am convinced of the safety benefits of registering new tires and I consider the mandatory recordkeeping provision essential to the purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act. However, because retreaded tires are individually manufactured and therefore could not be recalled as are mass produced items, I am considering proposing revocation of the mandatory recordkeeping requirement for retreaded tires.

For your information I am enclosing a copy of my recent letter to Senator Magnuson in response to his questions on this subject. You may be interested to know that a recent meeting with representatives of the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association (NTDRA) provided an opportunity to discuss basic clerical problems associated with registration. As a result, an interpretation of the regulation was reached which would permit the tire purchaser personally to complete the registration form. Although dealer responsibility remains, the interpretation is considered by NTDRA to provide considerable relief to dealers in time and cost. Hopefully this action will offset much of the objections to the current tire registration process.

SINCERELY,

Encls. Constituent's LTR. To Sen. MAGNUSON DATED AUG. 3, 1977

Congress of The United States House of Representatives

June 15, 1977

Norman Sultan

First, let me apologize for my delay in responding to your letter of May 27, 1977. I have noted your concern over the provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 requiring tire registration and the fact that the rate of response is now less than ten percent and that the added expense for such return "is simply just not worth it".

We were in contact with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the study which you cited which is to be conducted on the advisability of making such program voluntary and were informed that this has been under consideration for some time. In an effort to be of assistance in this matter, I am today taking the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the appropriate officials at this Administration in order that they might have the benefit of your views and an opportunity to supply up-to-date infromation on the study. Upon receipt of a response I will forward you a copy. I also appreciate having your views in regard to an Agency for Consumer Advocacy. Fortunately in Western North Carolina and in many other areas, the Better Business Bureau and private agencies are working effectively to protect the consumer from fraud and oppression. Moreover, the North Carolina Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General each maintain an assistant or a division to prosecute persons who defraud the public by false and fradulent sales practices. For these reasons and because I generally oppose creating new federal agencies and imposing more bureaucratic regulations, I expect to vote against the Agency for Consumer Advocacy.

The House Government Committee reported H. R. 6805 May 10th and it could reach the House Floor soon. I will certainly keep your observations about the bill in mind when it comes up for a vote.

With best wishes and kind personal regards.

Lamar Gudger Member of Congress

bcc: NHTSA CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON

May 27, 1977

The Honorable Lamar Gudger House of Representatives House Office Building

In 1966 the Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains a provision on tire registration. The law went into effect six years ago and has caused tire dealers a lot of expense and very little satisfaction. Our rate of response from small dealers in this registration card mailing is now probably running less than 10% and, in my opinion, during the six years, we feel that the added expense for the return is simply just not worth it.

I have just recently learned that the National Highway Traffic Administration will conduct a study on the advisability of making this program voluntary. We hope that the law can be changed to make the registration voluntary because as we said before, the expense is unnecessary and the customer does not want it.

While I am at it, I might as well tell you that I think the passage of the Consumer Agency Billing which creates an independent agency for consumer advocacy. I am against the creation of this agency because I firmly believe that communications between consumers and retailers, particularly in my industry, can be improved by the establishment of a consumer council "which can be adapted and run by local and area tire dealer groups". You fellows must not have thought too much about this agency yourselves since it only passed by one vote.

I am sure you have gotten acclamated to the ways of Washington by now so with best regards to you and yours.

Norman Sultan