ID: nht75-3.14

DATE: 12/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht75-3.15

DATE: 05/04/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gerard Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht75-3.16

DATE: 12/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I would like to acknowledge receipt of the Truck Body and Equipment Association's (TBEA) December 2, 1975, request that the applicability of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to fire fighting vehicles be delayed until January 1, 1977.

The NHTSA has decided to grant the TBEA request, and has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a September 1, 1977, effective date for these and several other categories of vehicles. A copy of the proposal is enclosed for your information.

You should understand that our publication of a proposal in this area does not signify that a final rule will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

I would like to remind the TBEA that a recent amendment of NHTSA rulemaking procedures provides that a request for rulemaking will only be considered as a petition for rulemaking if, among other things, it includes a heading preceding the text, that includes the word "petition" (49 CFR @ 552.4(b)).

Yours truly,

Enclosure

December 2, 1975

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

On November 11, 1975 the NHTSA proposed to temporarily withdraw certain sections of FMVSS 121 as they apply to a bus manufactured before January 1, 1975. The reasoning cited to support this proposal centered on data collected at the NHTSA's FMVSS 121 Hearings of October 27-29, 1975. These hearings resulted in the following findings:

1. Manufacturers of both transit and intercity buses do not appear prepared at this time to utilize antilock systems other than those manufacturered by Rockwell International Corporation.

2. The Rockwell antilock system currently available for bus application is characterized by malfunction the warrants its deactivation on all vehicles on which it is installed while a correction is fully developed.

3. Information furnished by Rockwell does not provide a basis to conclude that a demonstrably satisfactory correction to its antilock system defects is at hand.

4. A situation wherein purchasers of new buses are required to pay for antilock systems which are to remain deactivated for an indefinite period is inappropriate.

The compliance problem seems to be focused on the bus manufacturers sole dependence on the unreliable Rockwell International axle and anti-wheel-lock system.

We at TBEA and especially the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Division (FAMD) have taken a keen interest in the final outcome of this proposal. The custom fire apparatus industry is also effected by a singular dependence to the Rockwell System.

Fire Apparatus are generally broken down into two different categories: "Commercial Apparatus" - Those built on a commercial truck chassis ie: Ford, Chevrolet, International, and "Custom Apparatus" - Those built from the ground up. The present industry split is 60% and 40% in favor of commercial over custom apparatus. Based on a projected five thousand (Illegible Word) per year this split equates to three thousand commercial and two thousand custom pieces of fire apparatus.

Just as in the bus manufacturing market, Rockwell International has the custom fire apparatus to itself. The manufacturers of fire apparatus are presently beginning to build full FMVSS 121 equipped vehicles even though the standards effective dates for fire apparatus and special permit vehicles are three and nine months off.

There is deep concern within this industry as to the reliability of this yet to be proven anti-wheel-lock system on emergency vehicles. The operating mode of a fire truck is drastically different from a conventional truck. Rather than normal stops and starts, a fire truck must rapidly accelerate and decelerate over a short response time. Any failure of the electronic monitoring anti-wheel-lock system when used in conjunction with FMVSS 121 high torque brakes could result in a dangerously unstable vehicle.

The poor quality of anti-wheel-lock hardware available to the bus manufacturing industry has lead the NHTSA to propose a temporary withdrawal of the existing anti-wheel-lock and stopping requirements of FMVSS 121 as they relate to buses. This delay will afford those manufacturers with the time to collect real world experience with the anti-wheel-lock equipment.

The fire apparatus industry is not presently required to comply with FMVSS 121. The effective dates required for compliance range from March 1, 1976 - fire apparatus, September 1, 1976 - special permit vehicles (24,000 pound GAWR) to never - special permit vehicles (29,000 pound GAWR).

The FAMD wishes to petition the NHTSA to allow this industry the same consideration given the bus manufacturers, by withdrawing the stopping distance and anti-wheel-lock requirements for fire apparatus until January 1, 1977.

The amendment would allow the fire apparatus industry to proceed with the following: 1. Commercial fire apparatus built on FMVSS 121 truck chassis would continue to provide real world data reflecting the interaction of the commercial anti-wheel-lock systems on fire apparatus.

2. Custom fire apparatus could be built with FMVSS 121 hardware based on the availability of components. Those units produced with the Rockwell System could be carefully monitored during this grace period.

This grace period would also provide the industry with the following:

1. Opportunity to phase-in and monitor the new anti-wheel-lock equipment.

2. Reduce existing surplus inventory of non FMVSS 121 axles and suspensions.

3. A uniform effective date (January 1, 1977) would be established for fire apparatus provided that the hardware was improved sufficiently to warrant it.

We at the FAMD urge the NHTSA to consider these facts prior to the current FMVSS 121 effective date of March 1, 1976 for fire apparatus.

Very truly yours, Byron A. Crampton -- Manager of Engineering Services,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

ID: nht75-3.17

DATE: 05/01/75

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

TO: University of Maryland School of Law

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1975, to Mr. Carter of this agency. You ask questions concerning publication of notices in the Federal Register concerning temporary exemptions from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For convenience I will number your questions, then answer them.

1. "Do you known why Congress has required this form of publication and what purpose it serves?"

The current exemption authority is the second provided the agency by Congress. Our initial authority (P.L. 90-283), in effect from April 10, 1968, to April 10, 1971, did not require publication of notices. There is no legislative history explaining why it was included in 1972. However, the new authority is broader in scope, containing additional bases for exemption, and is now a permanent rather than a temporary part of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In the last few years there has been a legislative trend towards affording the general public greater opportunity to participate in all rulemaking decisions that may affect their safety and welfare. It is my guess that this requirement is part of that trend. It also, in my view, has the beneficial and possibly intended effect of insuring greater accountability on the part of the decision makers.

2. "Does NHTSA give notice of receipt of petitions to businesses, or groups in any other fashion than through publication of notices in the Federal Register?"

NHTSA does not issue press releases or otherwise give notice of receipt of these petitions. Trade publications such as Automotive News and services such as Consumer Product Safety Guide (CCH) generally do reference them.

3. "Does NHTSA receive many comments on the petitions or requests for informal appearances under 49 CFR 555.7(c)?"

The petitions generally create little public interest, and we average one or two comments per petition. Many are not commented on at all. The petitions and comments are available for examination in Room 5108 of 400 Seventh Street, S.W., during business hours if you would like to see them. The NHTSA rarely receives a "written request" from a manufacturer pursuant to 555.7(c) to discuss a petition or action taken in response to one. If a manufacturer wishes to meet with us before or at the time of filing a petition, we are willing to do so. These meetings are limited to insuring that the procedural requirements of Part 555 are met and that the petitions contain the necessary information. Arrangements are made by telephone. I do not think we have ever had such a written request from a person other than a manufacturer.

4. "Are the comments or requests in response to some other notice-giving device?" No.

5. "Are the comments or requests generally from the same persons or groups?"

Generally no. Public interest groups commented on the initial petitions in 1973 but have not done so since then. Electric vehicle manufacturers usually support each other's petitions. In 1975 we have published to date 12 petitions by truck, bus and trailer manufacturers seeking exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and these have been opposed by one or more competitors who meet the standard.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

YOURS TRULY,

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW

March 18, 1975

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Program National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I have been retained as a consultant by the Administrative Conference of the United States to conduct a study on the use of the Federal Register to give notice to interested persons of governmental actions and proposals. I hope you will supply me with some information for assisting in my project.

The Motor Vehicle Safety Act Amendments of 1972, 15 U.S.C. 1410, requires NHTSA to publish in the Federal Register notices of decisions granting exemptions from safety standards and the reasons therefore. I note that in accordance with 49 C.F.R. 555.7 (a), NHTSA also publishes in the Federal Register notices of the receipt of petitions for exemptions and invites comments from interested persons. Do you know why Congress has required this form of publication and what purpose it serves? Does NHSTA give notice of the receipt of petitions to potentially interested persons, businesses or groups in any other fashion than through publication of notices in the Federal Register? Does NHTSA receive many comments on the petitions or requests for informal appearances under 49 C.F.R. 555.7(c)? Are the comments or requests in response to some other notice-giving device? Are the comments or requests received generally from the same persons or groups?

I would very much appreciate your assistance or that of your legal staff in this matter. If you would prefer to discuss these questions with me on the telephone, please feel free to call me at (301) 528-7969.

Edward A. Tomlinson Professor of Law

ID: nht75-3.18

DATE: 10/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Charter Arms Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 16, 1975, inquiring whether approval from the Federal Government is necessary before selling motorcycles manufactured by you.

No approval is necessary in order to market your motorcycles. However, you should be aware of the regulations governing manufacturer identification and vehicle certification. Each manufacturer who begins to manufacture motor vehicles must submit certain information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration describing the type of motor vehicle manufactured (49 CFR Part 566, copy enclosed). In addition, each vehicle must be certified as being in compliance with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect at the time of manufacture (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed).

If you have any further questions, please contact us.

ID: nht75-3.19

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Larry Winn Jr.; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of January 28 and May 14, 1975, inquiring about the effect of Federal motor vehicle safety standards on a constituent's problem in finding a mid-size American car with a sufficiently adjustable seat or a dealer willing to modify such a vehicle to accommodate your constituent's 6'8" frame.

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-492, amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 (et seq., to prohibit any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business" from "knowingly render (ing) inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." Because seat position is a variable which may affect compliance with several safety standards, dealers are understandably wary about relocating a vehicle's seat.

The obvious solution for this problem is for the manufacturer to determine how far its seats can be moved outside their normal adjustment ranges and still comply with applicable standards, and then to make this information available. I hope that Mr. Morton has found a dealer or manufacturer who is willing to make an effort to do this instead of relying on the excuse that Federal law precludes any solution. Mr. Morton also has two other alternatives: to buy and have installed a custom seat from a company willing to certify the altered vehicle under 49 CFR 567.7, or to move the original seat himself or with the assistance of people who are not in the motor vehicle repair business.

SINCERELY,

Congress

House of Representatives

May 14 1975

Congressional Affairs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

LARRY WINN, JR. Third Congressional District of Kansas

January 28, 1975

Director Congressional Liaison DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

LARRY WINN, JR. Third Congressional District of Kansas

ID: nht75-3.2

DATE: 09/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ideal Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1975. You ask for confirmation that "variable load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 of the Standard, where such devices shall operate in accordance with the appropriate Tables of the Standard." You noted that some suppliers were under the impression that variable load flashers, which do not provide a failure indication, were not permitted as after-market replacements for fixed-load flashers.

The confusion apparently arose when the agency amended S4.5.6 of Standard No. 108 (June 6, 1974; 39 FR 20063) to permit variable-load flashers to be used (i.e., to except from the failure indicator requirement) on trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers (as well as vehicles of 80 inches or more overall width and those equipped to tow trailers, as provided by S4.5.6 before the amendment). To specify its intent more definitely, the amendment added the words, "where a variable-load turn signal flasher is used," to the exception to the requirement for a failure indicator. Some persons evidently thought that the new, explicit reference to variable-load flashers meant that such flashers could not be used as replacement equipment where the vehicles originally had fixed-load flashers.

That was not the agency's intent. The language was only added to make it clear that where a fixed-load flasher is installed as original equipment, a failure indicator must be included. But a variable-load flasher may be used as replacement equipment for a fixed-load flasher on any of the vehicle classes specified in S2 as covered by the standard.

Incidentally, the statement in your letter that the June 1974 amendment "concerned itself only with original equipment applications" is incorrect. S2 of the standard states in pertinent part that it applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies." This means that equipment must comply with applicable requirements regardless of whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. For example, original and replacement variable load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers," October 1965.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

August 11, 1975

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Department of Transportation

Re: Confirmation of Earlier Interpretation Concerning S4.5.6, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108

Dear Mr. Berndt:

As a result of recent misinterpretations of S4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 by certain suppliers of turn signal flashers, Ideal Corporation requests a confirming interpretation of this regulatory provision reflecting the advice provided the company by NHTSA Chief Counsel in February 1971. A copy of the earlier letter from Chief Counsel, which was a response to a petition for rule making on the specific point at issue, is attached for your background information and reference.

As the Safety Administration is aware from submissions filed by Ideal Corporation in earlier actions involving Standard 108, the company is a manufacturer of turn signal flasher and vehicular hazard warning signal flasher units for both the original equipment and replacement markets, and is located in Brooklyn, New York.

In June of 1974, NHTSA, responding to a petition by Ford Motor Company, amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 to allow variable load turn signal flashers on trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers. This action resulted in an amendment of paragraph S4.5.6 of the standard, and concerned itself only with original equipment applications. 39 Fed. Reg. 20063 (June 6, 1974).

In the preamble to the June 1974 amendment of Standard 108, the agency noted at one point that the standard ". . . has the effect of mandating use of fixed-load flashers, since special circuitry would be necessary to sense and indicate a failure in a variable-load system." (39 Fed. Reg. 20063.) Certain suppliers have interpreted, out of context, this quoted passage as meaning that variable load flashers can no longer be marketed in the automotive aftermarket as replacement equipment for vehicles originally equipped with fixed load flashers.

In February of 1971, the Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, communicated its view to our attorneys that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 -- and more specifically paragraph S4.5.6 of that regulation -- ". . . [does not intend] that a variable load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by S4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher." Further, your office cautioned that Ideal ". . . should, in the interest of safety, either market variable load flashers only as replacement for like items or call prospective purchasers' attention to the fact that the flashers do not provide an outage indication." Ideal Corporation emphasizes at this time that its turn signal flasher products are clearly labeled in accordance with the foregoing recommendations of NHTSA.

Accordingly, the company seeks a confirming interpretation along the lines quoted above, or otherwise that "variable load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 of the Standard, where such devices shall operate in accordance with the appropriate Tables of the Standard." We would appreciate a written response to our request.

Sincerely,

Martin Rothfield -- General Manager, Flasher Division

Enclosure cc: Z. Taylor Vinson, Esquire (w/encl.)

ID: nht75-3.20

DATE: 07/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 11, 1975, requesting an interpretation of Part 567 with respect to whether or not Chrysler should affix a certification label to an incomplete vehicle prior to shipping the vehicle to an outside vendor for body work.

It appears from your letter that there is some misunderstanding regarding the certification requirements applicable to manufacturers of incomplete vehicles. Section 567.4, to which you refer in your letter, is not applicable to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. However, Section 567.5(c) provides that if an incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the Act, as provided for in Section 568.7(a), then the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must ensure that a certification label is affixed to the final vehicle with the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's name after the words "MANUFACTURED BY" or "MFD BY". The data to be included on this label must follow the words "INCOMPLETE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED" or "INC VEH MFD" and is the "[month] and year in which the original manufacturer of the incomplete vehicles performed his last manufacturing operation on the incomplete vehicle . . . ." (Section 567.5 (a)(4)). The date as of which the manufacturer certifies that the vehicle conforms to applicable safety standards is any date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle and no later than the date of completion of final-stage manufacture. (Section 567.5(a)(7).

The regulations do not specify a date on which the certification label must be affixed. However Section 114 of the Traffic Safety Act provides that the label must be on the vehicle at the time of its delivery by the manufacturer to the distributor or dealer.

We trust that the above explanation will provide you with the guidance that you need. If you have any further questions, please let us know.

ID: nht75-3.21

DATE: 07/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crown Coach Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reponse to your letter of June 26 in which you request a clarification of the definition of "date of manufacture" as that term is found in Section 567.4 of the certification regulations.

As your vehicles are not manufactured in two or more stages, you are subject to the requirements of Section 567.4 with respect to certification. Section 567.4(g) (2) specifies the month and year of manufacture as "the time during which work was completed at the place of main assembly of the vehicle." This is when the vehicle is finished by you. The vehicle should be certified as meeting all of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable as of that date.

We trust that the above information is of assistance. If you have any further inquiries, please let us know.

ID: nht75-3.22

DATE: 07/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Steer Safe Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1975, in which you request a ruling that a person who installs a "Steer Safe" steering stabilizer is not required to recertify the vehicle in which it is installed. You refer to a letter to Safety Products, Inc., dated August 24, 1972, in which it was stated that we would accept a determination that the installation of a steering stabilizer manufactured by Safety Products did not constitute remanufacturing, and that a person who installed such a device need not recertify the vehicle on which it is installed.

Since that letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued regulations covering the alteration of completed, certified motor vehicles before their sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. These regulations (49 CFR @@ 567.7 and 567.8; copy enclosed) supersede opinions such as the one we provided Safety Products, which was based solely on the more general provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the certification regulations in effect at that time. Under the new regulations, which were effective February 1, 1974, an alteration which either (1) invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings or (2) involves installation of other than "readily attachable" components gives rise to a responsibility for affixing an alterer label, which identifies the alterer and contains some additional information.

From the description of your device, with the enclosed (Illegible words) to require no special expertise or special (Illegible words). It would also seemingly not affect a vehicle's weight ratings. If this assessment is correct, we would accept as reasonable a manufacturer's determination that it is "readily attachable", and that an alterer label is not required when a "Steer Safe" steering stabilizer is installed.