ID: nht78-2.33

DATE: 05/31/78

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

TO: Ward Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 27, 1978, letter asking whether a sample certification label that you submitted complies with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Part 567, Certification.

Military vehicles are exempted from compliance with Federal safety standards. Therefore, the application of the safety standards to these vehicles is a matter of contract between a manufacturer and the military. Since the NHTSA does not mandate Federal safety standards for these vehicles, it is not necessary to put certification labels on them. If you choose to include a label with a vehicle, the label would not be required to comply with any Federal regulations.

ID: nht78-2.34

DATE: 04/07/78

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

TO: Ullman; Fowler & Jeffries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 6, 1978, letter asking about the compliance responsibilities of a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a body on a motor vehicle chassis. In the situation you describe, the chassis would have been tested for compliance with the standards by the chassis manufacturer and the body would have been tested by the body manufacturer. You ask whether the final assembler would be required to crash test the vehicle as assembled.

The chassis manufacturer has responsibilities for compliance with Federal safety standards that are outlined in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Motor Vehicles Manufactured In Two Or More Stages, of our regulations. The chassis manufacturer must include with its chassis an incomplete vehicle document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the compliance of the chassis with Federal safety standards. Although not required by our regulations, body manufacturers often provide documents addressing the compliance of their vehicle bodies with applicable safety standards. If a body that complies with Federal standards is mounted in accordance with the instructions of the incomplete vehicle document, the final-stage manufacturer can ordinarily assume that the completed vehicle complies with the safety standards. Based upon this assumption, it can certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards.

By following the instructions of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and relying upon the statements of the body manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer would be considered to have exercised due care in ensuring that the vehicle complies. However, if the final-stage manufacturer does not follow the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or in some way makes a major modification that would affect the compliance of the vehicle, it might become necessary for it to undertake some further testing to ensure continued compliance. The amount of further testing, in these instances, would depend upon the extent of modification of the vehicle body or chassis.

For your information, our safety standards and regulations are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 501 et seq. I am enclosing a sheet which details the applicability of Federal Standards to various vehicles.

If after reading this letter, you still have questions that require a meeting, contact Roger Tilton of my staff.

ID: nht78-2.35

DATE: 07/11/78

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

TO: North Central Tank Repair

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 30, 1978, letter asking whether you are permitted to mount temporarily a body on a vehicle when you know that the body is of a greater load carrying capacity than is appropriate for the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You indicate that some other manufacturer would finish the mounting process and certify the vehicle for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has indicated on many occasions that vehicle overloading poses a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle, in particular, and the motoring public in general. Accordingly, the agency has stated its determination to hold manufacturers responsible for vehicles that they manufacture which will exceed their GVWR's when fully loaded with their intended cargo. The NHTSA considers such overloading to constitute a safety-related defect.

In the operation that you are considering, you would be considered an intermediate vehicle manufacturer. As such, you would be required to comply with all of the requirements in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, that apply to intermediate manufacturers. The NHTSA would consider you to be partially responsible for the construction of a vehicle that when loaded with its intended cargo will exceed its GVWR. Possible agency action might include a mandatory recall and remedy and civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per vehicle.

ID: nht78-2.36

DATE: 05/26/78

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

TO: Mr. Doug Mills

COPYEE: CHARLES H. BRADLEY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking additional questions concerning the responsibilities of a person converting a pick-up truck into a dump truck, under Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. This office explained the general responsibilities of a person who alters a certified vehicle in a letter to your associate, Mr. Henry Brown, dated February 1, 1978. You now ask questions regarding specific aspects of the conversion operation and whether they can be accomplished without destroying a vehicle's compliance with safety regulations.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to answer your specific questions. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer or vehicle alterer to determine whether his vehicle is in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that vehicle. The NHTSA cannot review an alteration procedure such as the one with which you are concerned and state that it can or cannot be done in compliance with Federal regulations. There are no safety regulations which require a specific number of bolts or specific bolt locations, for instance. Likewise, Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is specified only in terms of performance requirements, so the NHTSA cannot tell you whether a modified fuel filler neck will destroy a vehicle's compliance with the standard.

As stated in our previous letter, a person who alters a pick-up truck to convert it to a dump truck must certify that the truck remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Further, the person who makes the conversion must assure that the alterations do not result in any "safety related defects" whether or not there is a specific safety standard that is applicable. Therefore, you must determine for yourself whether the number of bolts you use, the bolt strengths and the bolt locations will result in safety hazards.

I can answer your question number 8 regarding possible liability for removal and alteration of the truck bumper. The Federal safety standard for bumpers is only applicable to passenger cars, so you may alter a truck bumper with impunity provided the action does not result in a safety related defect.

ID: nht78-2.37

DATE: 06/20/78

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

TO: Minnesota Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Administrator Claybrook has asked me to respond to your recent letter concerning the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van vehicle for the purpose of securing wheelchair patients. Apparently, your legal counsel has advised you that such installation might be prohibited by Federal law or might give rise to private litigation problems in the future.

In answer to your questions, there is nothing under Federal law or the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would prevent the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van to secure wheelchairs. In fact, Administrator Claybrook and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration encourage you to make the installation requested by the senior citizens home. The safe transportation of disabled persons is currently a serious problem and every effort should be made to ameliorate the situation.

The only instance in which you would have any responsibilities under Federal law would be an installation of additional safety belts prior to first purchase of the van by a consumer. In that case you would be a vehicle alteror, and under our certification regulations you would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle is still in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7, copy enclosed). For example, you could not destroy the vehicle's compliance with our Fuel System Integrity standard by penetrating the gas tank with the safety belt anchorage bolts.

Concerning your liability in private litigation, the general provisions of negligence law would be applicable, as with any maintenance, repair or alteration done by a motor vehicle repair business. I must defer to the advice of your own counsel on that matter, however.

Once again, the agency does encourage the installation of safety belts for the securement of wheelchairs, since the disabled are seriously endangered without some type of restraint to protect them in a crash. Further, I believe that your fears of liability should be minimal as long as the installation is accomplished with normal consideration and due care.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

MINNESOTA MOTOR COMPANY

May 19, 1978

Joan Claybrooke National Hwy Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Ms. Claybrooke:

We have been approached by a local senior citizens home to install safety seat belts in the rear cargo area (of a 1978 Chevrolet Sport Van) to protect patients confined to wheelchairs when being transported.

We have discussed this matter with our state auto dealer legal counsel and they are reluctant to give an affirmative opinion in view of possible litigation in the future. In your recent talk to the Economic Club of Detroit, one of your suggestions concerning safety belts was to "look for ways to increase usage." The administrator of the home is asking us to put them in, but our concern centers around recent court decisions regarding liability, which apparently lasts forever. We would be willing to do the installation, we have found a local supplies of webbing to be used, and the people want it done. However, where do we go.

Possibly, some of the answer could lie in lesser degree of governmental intervention in all phases of business, and getting away from the idea that because some individual has a disagreement with a small business firm or a large manufacturer, the individual is always the one who has been wronged. As a general rule, anyone in business knows full well that he has to satisfy the customer to stay in business and make a profit. Certainly, there are the marginal and downright crooked businessman, as there are in many other portions of our working population. But, the majority of businessmen are conscientious enough to outweigh the bad apples.

Getting back to the problem at hand - what would be your suggestions in the matter of the seat belt installation. Are we asking for problems in case of a failure, or should we try to protect our senior citizens by offering them some safety?

Please advise at your earliest opportunity.

Warren L. VanderLinden Sales Manager

ID: nht78-2.38

DATE: 09/21/78

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

TO: The B. F. Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to B. F. Goodrich's August 2, 1978, question whether the specified temperature for brake burnish in S6.1.8.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, should be maintained by reducing maximum vehicle speed during snubs even if the reduced maximum speed does not appear among the snub conditions listed in Table IV of S6.1.8.1.

The answer to your question is yes. The snub conditions listed in Table IV represented the agency's best estimate of appropriate speeds for obtaining the specified burnish temperature, given the state-of-the-art of brake technology when the standard was issued. If you have under development a brake design that achieves the specified burnish temperature at a lower speed, it would be correct to reduce vehicle speed below the 40-mph level specified in Table IV to achieve and maintain that temperature.

ID: nht78-2.39

ID: nht78-2.4

DATE: 11/28/78

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

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. D. P. Weiher Office of Corporate Safety Emissions and Noise Control AM General Corporation 32500 Van Born Road Wayne, Michigan 48184

Dear Mr. Weiher:

This responds to your August 2, 1978, letter asking whether it is permissible to perform the tests of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, with only part of the vehicle mechanism at the designated temperatures. You state further that there is not sufficient time to find an environmental chamber large enough to accommodate the size vehicle that you are testing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue approvals of manufacturer's plans for compliance with agency standards. Standard No. 124 mandates that a vehicle shall meet the requirements of the standard at any temperature between -40o F. and 125o F. When the agency tests for compliance with the standard, it finds a chamber sufficiently large to accommodate the entire vehicle and tests according to the standard. Any manufacturer deviation from this accepted test procedure carries with it certain risks that a vehicle may not conform to the requirements.

With respect to the vehicles that you are constructing, you state in your letter that they are being manufactured for use by the army. As such, these vehicles are not required to comply with the agency's safety standards, and the NHTSA would not test these vehicles for compliance.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 2, 1978

Mr. Joseph Levin Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NASSIF Building 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Levin:

We urgently request legal interpretation as to whether our plan for compliance testing meets the intent of FMVSS 124, Accelerator Control Systems, Paragraph S5, requirements which state, "The vehicle shall meet the following requirements when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40o F and +125o F after twelve hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range."

AM General Corporation is in the process of mass producing heavy truck tractors in the 55,000 pound to 75,000 pound GVWR range for the U.S. Army. These diesel engined tractors are of sucn physical size that the number of environmental chambers capable of accommodating them, as well as their availability, is extremely limited. Those capable of accepting this size vehicle are not available within the time frame remaining until the start of our production in November of this year. In consideration of these circumstances, and with the purpose in mind of complying with the intent of the cited Federal standard, we are planning to conduct compliance testing using an actual accelerator control system mounted to a production floor pan and dash panel assembly to which will be oriented the diesel fuel pump with all linkages connected. This assembly will be environmentally soaked to -40oF and then, again, to +125oF, and the linkage connections individually disconnected to measure the return capabilities of the energy sources (springs). Our logic for not testing an entire vehicle (with engine) is based on the contention that engine rock or motion would have an insignificant effect on our accelerator system and, in fact, the heat produced by the running engine would cause the accelerator linkage at the engine-mounted fuel pump to be less than the worse condition under extreme cold, and the temperature increase at this linkage during extreme high ambient would be inconsequential.

Your immediate telephone response with follow-up official written reply would be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

D. P. Weiher

Office of Corporate Safety, Emissions and Noise Control Phone No. 1-313-722-4900

DPW/emr

entir

ID: nht78-2.40

DATE: 10/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood For J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Research Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Oct 17, 1978

Mr. Ken Yoneyama Chief Engineer Bridgestone Research Inc. 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4202 New York, New York 10001

Dear Mr. Yoneyama:

This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1978, asking whether tires listed in Table 1-A of Appendix A, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, must comply with Part 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standars, (UTQGS), if the tires are installed as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. You also inquire as to the effective dates for the provision of UTQGS information to first purchasers of new motor vehicles under Part 575.104 (d) (1) (iii).

UTQGS applies to a tire type whose predominant contemplated use is on passenger cars, even if the manufacturer knows the tire type is also used as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A manufacturer's determination to certify a tire as conforming to Standard No. 109, will also determine the tire's classification for purposes of UTQGS. Thus, UTQGS would apply to any tire labeled with a size designation listed in Aappendix A of Standard No. 109, other than a deep tread, winter-type snow tire or space-saver or temporary use spare tire, regardless of the tire's actual use.

On October 23, 1978 NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) granting the petition of American Motors Corporation to revise the effective dates for Part 575.104 (d) (1) (iii) to September 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 1, 1980 for bias-belted tires. On the basis of this change, your statement regarding effective dates is correct.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 22, 1978 Ref. No. KY/107

Mr. Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

This letter is with reference to rule S575.104, Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (Docket No. 25; Notice 24), as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 43, 90. 137, July 17, 1978.

We would like to know whether the rule on the "Application" and the "Effective date of the requirements for original equipment tires" can be read as follows:

1. Application

Paragraph (c) on the "Application" states that, "This section applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars... ."

On the basis of this statement, we understand that the rule is not applied to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, even if the tires are listed on the Table of Standards No. 109.

For instance, a 6.00-16 tire is listed on the Table 1-A of Appendix A in the Standard No. 109, as a tire that is used for passenger cars. However, when the 6.00-16 tires are originally equipped on multipurpose passenger cars, we understand that it is not necessary for the tires to comply with the rule.

Is this correct, or not?

2. Effective Date

For the information requirements to be furnished to the first purchaser of a new motor vehicle, the paragraph (d) (1) (iii) states that, "The information ..... it must contain a statement referring the reader to the tire sidewall for the specific tire grades for the tires... ."

We understand that the information requirements to the first purchaser of a new moter vehicle will become effective on September 1, 1979 for bias ply tires and on March 1, 1980 for bias belted tires on the basis of the molding requirements.

Is this correct, or not?

We would appreciate it if you would inform us as to your opinion and judgement on the above interpretations, as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours truly,

KEN YONEYAMA Chief Engineer

KY/sff

ID: nht78-2.41

DATE: 03/22/78

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

TO: Industrial Airport

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 16, 1978, request for confirmation that Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, does not apply to an air-braked trailer that carries no cargo and consists entirely of a mobile auto-crushing device.

Section S3 of Standard No. 121 contains an exclusion for any trailer whose unloaded vehicle weight is not less than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). "Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants. Thus, if your mobile auto-crushing trailer carries no cargo or cargo that is less than 5 percent of the vehicles GVWR, it would be excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121.

I would note that Standard No. 108, Lamps, Relective Devices and Associated Equipment, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, may apply to the trailer you describe. I enclose an information sheet that describes where copies of these standards can be obtained.