ID: nht75-4.41

DATE: 10/01/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1975, in which you asked whether Standard No. 217 requires a minimum retention or force in pushing out an emergency exit window after activation of the release mechanism.

You should note that the force applications specified in S5.3.2 for operation of the release mechanism and subsequent extension of the exit by an occupant are maximum requirements. Therefore, a push-out window which only requires enough force to lift the glass and subframe following operation of the release mechanism complies with the requirements of S5.3.2 and S5.4 as long as that force does not exceed the levels specified for the particular reach distance of the release mechanism.

The standard specifies no minimum force requirements for either the operation of the release mechanism or the extension of the exit following release.

SINCERELY,

September 11, 1975

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation

I am writing on behalf of one of our commercial clients, who has requested a legal interpretation of one point of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217).

The point in question pertains to paragraph S5.3.2 where a maximum force is quoted for window push out after the emergency release mechanism has been actuated. Our client has designed a side window system where, after the emergency release mechanism is activated, only hinges at the window top retain the window. Thus, no push-out force is required other than that to overcome the weight of the glass and sub-frame. The question of interpretation arises as to whether some form of retention is required at the bottom of the window after actuation or if a minimum push-out force at the proper access region applies.

I trust that the above information satisfactorily describes our problem and anxiously await your reply.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY, INC.

John Lomash Product Engineering Sales

ID: nht75-4.42

DATE: 05/14/75

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

TO: Massachusetts Department of Public Health

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your request of April 4, 1975, I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, several Federal Register notices which have modified the basic standard, and the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. Also enclosed is a circular explaining how all the safety standards and regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may be obtained.

Until October 29, 1974, section S4.1.2 of the standard required recognition interlock on 1974- and 1975-model passenger cars. As noted in the enclosed amendment (Docket 74-39, Notice 1), recent legislation mandated the deletion of this requirement, which was accomplished by NHTSA on October 29, 1974.

Manufacturers may now meet Standard No. 208 by providing (1) lap and shoulder belts at front outboard positions and lap belts at other positions, and (2) a continuous or flashing remainder light that operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated and a continuous or intermittent audible warning signal which operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated if the driver's lap belt is not in use. They may also provide certain types of "passive restraint" devices in place of the seat belt assemblies. Although the seat-belt interlock system is not prohibited, it is no longer a means of complying with the standard.

YOURS TRULY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Department of Public Health

April 4, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Please send to me a copy of your motor vehicle safety standard requiring ignition interlock for new cars. I would appreciate your sending, also, a copy of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974.

Thank you for your help.

Benjamin Sachs, M.D., M.P.H. Associate Director Division of Local Health Services

ID: nht75-4.43

DATE: 05/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1975, requesting several interpretations of 49 CFR Part 569, "Regrooved Tires." The present Regrooved Tire regulation results from a U.S. Court of Appeals decision (NAMBO v. Volpe 484 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied U.S. (1974) which invalidated certain aspects of the previous requirements. The confusion apparent in the existing requirements results from Section 204 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1424) which, when read literally, only authorizes the NHTSA to permit the sale of regrooved tires. That statutory section has since been revised (Sec. 110, Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470, October 27, 1974) and the NHTSA will revise Part 569 to provide a more realistic regulatory scheme than that contained in the present requirements. While we have answered as best we can the questions you raise, we believe any extensive enforcement program you plan for the requirements should be deferred until new regulations are issued.

Section 569.1 Purpose and scope, provides that the regulation specifies requirements under which regrooved tires may be sold. This should not be interpreted as precluding the enforcement of the regulation against other commercial transfers, such as offering for sale, the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, etc. Section 569.7(a) specifically prohibits those activities. Section 569.7(a) also prohibits an operator, including a public transit system, from regrooving his own tires under any circumstance; he may not, as you suggest, regroove them and sell them to others. Section 569.7(a)(1) specifically states that a person regrooving his own tires for use on motor vehicles is to be considered as delivering those tires for introduction into interstate commerce, which is a prohibited activity.

Section 569.7(b) prohibits any of the proscribed commercial activities with respect to tires siped in the manner set forth in that section. You are apparently again misinterpreting the Scope section.

With respect to your question regarding the labeling of retreaded regroovable tires, such tires must be labeled in accordance with section 569.9. There are numerous procedures by which labeling can be molded onto retreaded tires. Two with which we are familiar involve either a cutting or engraving of the matrix or the insertion of metal strips into the matrix during curing.

ID: nht75-4.44

DATE: 08/14/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wenger Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 10, 1975, question whether an air-braked trailer which was begun before the effective date of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, can be completed after the effective date of the Standard without complying with the requirements of the standard.

Section 571.7 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, establishes the point at which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to the manufacture of motor vehicles and states in part: ". . . each standard . . . applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard." Therefore, the trailer you describe must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121 if it is completed after January 1, 1975.

I have enclosed a copy of a Federal Register notice that concerns the manufacture of air-braked trailers, and which explains that a trailer may be certified as conforming as a completed vehicle when it is substantially completed. You should be able to determine if the trailer in question was substantially completed prior to January 1, 1975, for purposes of certification.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 10, 1975

National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration -- U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am writing in an effort to clarify a point I have regarding FMVSS 121 covering trailer air brake standards.

I am faced with the following situation. In February of 1972, we commenced work on manufacturing a 5th wheel mobile stage trailer which we sell to park and recreation systems across the country. Previous to that point in time, we manufactured these units utilizing a ball and hitch towing arrangement with electric brakes. However, this new design called for a 5th wheel towing arrangement with brakes. In November of that same year, we shelved the project indefinitely. At that point in time, we had completely assembled the frame, super-structure, axles, and brake system. We are presently thinking about re-opening this project and completing the unit.

Since the project was begun prior to the March 1, 1975, effective date for FMVSS 121 but will not be completed until well after that date, my question is, do I need to incorporate the new safety brake standards on this unit?

Your prompt reply to this inquiry will be greatly appreciated since your answer to this will have some bearing upon whether or not we decide to go ahead with this project.

Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Richard A. Fisher -- Traffic Manager, WENGER CORP.

cc: Erich Harfmann; Tom Springmeyer; Len Nordman; Vern Smith

ID: nht75-4.45

DATE: 07/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Michelle Bolton

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 12, 1975, concerning requirements for automobile air conditioning units, which was forwarded to this office by the Environmental Protection Agency.

We have established no requirements, general or specific, for automobile air conditioning units. As a result, we have no material to provide you.

If you have further questions, feel free to write again.

Yours Truly,

BOLTON & BOLTON

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

June 12, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency

Re: Requirements for Automobile Air Conditioning Units

Our firm is currently involved in a case regarding what we believe to be consumer fraud in reference to an automobile air conditioning unit. In order to assist in the prosecution of this matter we are in need of the following information. Your attention in furnishing us with the requested material will be of invaluable assistance.

Foremost, do you establish requirements for automobile air conditioning units? In particular have you formulated requirements for that air conditioning unit utilized in the 1974 Fiat X 1/9? Have the air conditioning units used in such automobiles passed the necessary requirements? Where would we be able to locate those requirements which have been passed? Our interest is in both the specific and general requirements for automobile air conditioning units. Further, would the results of tests made upon that air conditioning unit utilized in the 1974 Fiat X 1/9 be available; and if so where could these be found?

Your prompt attention in answering these questions and providing us with any material which you have available will be greatly appreciated.

Thanking you in advance, we are

Michelle Bolton

ID: nht75-4.46

DATE: 09/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 29, 1975, in which you ask whether the exemption provided by 49 CFR @ 571.7(c) applies to all commercial vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States.

All vehicles (including commercial vehicles) meeting the definition of "motor vehicle" in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(3)) that are manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity to contractual specifications are exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under 49 CFR @ 571.7(c).

We hope this information is of assistance.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

UNITED STATES ARMY TANK AUTOMOTIVE COMMAND

AUGUST 29, 1975

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The advice provided by your letter of 6 June 1975 (copy attached) was sincerely appreciated and resolved the specific matter of the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to Commercial Construction Equipment sold directly to the Armed Forces.

We would appreciate your further advice concerning applicability in the case of commercial vehicles (other than commercial construction) sold directly to the Army. These would include such items as commercial truck tractors.

More specifically our inquiry is with regard to the applicability of the exemption stated in Section 571.7(c) to all commercial vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ALBERT A. DAWES

Chief, Procurement Law Division

ID: nht75-4.47

DATE: 06/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for a confirmation of the verbal interpretation of 49 CFR @ 571.7(c) as it applies to commercial construction equipment purchased by the military.

Section 571.7(c) exempts from the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards "a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications." "Motor vehicle" is defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as:

"any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . ." (15 U.S.C. @ 102(3)).

Therefore, commercial construction equipment meeting this definition which is sold to the military is exempt from the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht75-4.48

DATE: 11/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Butler Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your September 22, 1975, letter concerning safety standards applicable to your 1975 Ford Custom Wagon. Your letter was referred to this agency by Senator Magnuson.

I am enclosing a brochure entitled Standards which briefly lists the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the vehicles to which they apply.

Most of the standards were initially applied to passenger cars because they accounted for the vast majority of traffic deaths and injuries. Your Custom Wagon is classified for the purposes of our standards as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV). Each particular type of vehicle, such as a car, small or large truck, van, bus, or motorcycle, has its own design characteristics and configuration, with widely different causes of crash injury and fatality. Since the original Federal standards were established in 1967, effective January 1, 1968, we have been in the process of extending the applicability of our current standards and of preparing new standards where appropriate to other vehicle types, including MPV's. For example, effective January 1, 1976, all trucks and MPV's with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less will be required to be equipped with combination lap and shoulder belts with inertial retractors, just as has been required of passenger cars since September 1973. With the constantly improving accident investigation information on how and why particular injuries occur in particular types of vehicles, we expect to be able to determine which safety items are necessary and will do the most good on all vehicles. We will then issue appropriate standards as rapidly as possible.

I appreciate your concern over the safety of our motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Enclosure: "Standards"

United States Senate -- COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

November 3, 1975

James B. Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Dr. Gregory:

I am enclosing for your information a letter that I received from Mr. Charles F. Butler who complains that his 1975 Ford Custom Wagon does not need to comply with many of the federal motor vehicle standards. He has asked that I look into this problem.

As you may know, the Commerce Committee has a long-standing record of concern about the exclusions for multi-purpose vehicles from the motor vehicle safety standards. I request that you provide Mr. Butler with the justification for these exclusions and send me a copy of your response to him.

Sincerely yours,

WARREN G. MAGNUSON -- Chairman

Enclosure

September 22, 1975

Honorable Warren Magnuson, Chairman -- Senate Commerce Committee, United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Recently, I had occasion to purchase a 1975 Ford Custom Wagon for personal use. It is a van type of vehicle with windows all around and seating for eight passengers. As you may know, this type of vehicle is growing in popularity for family transportation.

Since the vehicle is for personal use, it is registered as a passenger vehicle by the State of Maryland and my insurance rates reflect that status.

Unfortunately, under federal regulations it is classified as a Multi-purpose Vehicle (MVP) and, therefore, exempt from some of the safety requirements that must be on passenger cars. The most notable is the lack of any head restraint for front seat passengers. I consider this a most dangerous situation because the bucket seats they supply are below shoulder level thereby inviting severe injury if the vehicle is struck from the rear. I am still searching for headrests to correct the problem. The only other alternative will be new seats at a cost of $ 140.00 each.

Ford advertises and sells these vehicles for passenger use, not commercial. There seems to be a gap in the federal safety regulations that requires closing immediately. While other deficiencies also exist (no energy-absorbing steering column etc) the head restraint is the most serious. Any vehicle that can be registered as a passenger vehicle should be required to have these basic safety devices. While it would do me no good, I would urge that your Committee, through its oversight function, look into these problems.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Charles F. Butler -- President, BUTLER ASSOCIATES, INC.

ID: nht75-4.49

DATE: 03/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht75-4.5

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for a discussion of what constitutes the manufacture of a new trailer when used components from an existing trailer are utilized. As you are aware, a newly-manufactured air-braked trailer must, in all but a few cases, be equipped with an air brake system that conforms to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The use of new components in combination with used components to assemble a complete vehicle is a common practice in both truck and trailer operations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized this commercial practice by establishing that the use of a new body on a used "chassis" that has already been certified does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. In contrast, placing a used body on a new chassis that has never been certified as a vehicle has been determined to create a newly-manufactured vehicle that must be certified. This distinction did not present difficulty to trailer manufacturers in the past, when they were only required to meet the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Since implementation of Standard No. 121, however, manufacturers have had to determine whether the particular assembly they undertake contains a used "chassis" which would not be required to meet the air brake standard. As a general matter, the NHTSA has stated that, as a minimum, the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and main frame of the existing vehicle must be used to qualify as a used "chassis". However, the many different types of trailer construction make it difficult to determine what constitutes the main frame of some configurations. The NHTSA has concluded that the load-bearing structural member(s) which run the length of the vehicle and support the trailer will be considered to be the "main frame".

In the case of monocoque van construction, the trailer side walls which constitute the main load-bearing members through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

In the case of container chassis, the box frame that consitutes the main load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run the length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

In the case of a tank trailer in which the tank serves the purpose of and replaces frame rails, the tank must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. If a separate frame serves as the load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle, the tank could be replaced without the operation constituting the manufacture of a new vehicle. An inner tank may be replaced without certification as a new vehicle if the inner tank does not serve as a main load-bearing member.

Modifications of existing trailers to increase or decrease volumetric capacity or vehicle length are generally permitted without recertification. For example, the barrel of a tank trailer may be lengthened in response to the new weight limits without recertification of the vehicle.

In closing, it should be noted that Bureau of Motor Carrier regulations may differ on modification or rebuilding of vehicles in interstate commerce.