ID: nht80-1.37

DATE: 03/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Aeroquip Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 17, 1980, letter asking whether the performance requirements of the parking brake sections of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, permit the use of a common piston for both the service and parking brakes.

In our August 9, 1979, Federal Register notice (44 FR 46850), we stated that the performance requirements of the parking brake system must be achieved with any single leakage-type failure in the service brake system, including a ruptured diaphragm. The use of the diaphragm example was intended only to clarify a question that had been raised by a commenter to the notice proposing the parking brake amendment. The diaphragm example does not limit the requirement that any single leakage-type failure of a component of the service brake system must not affect the performance of the parking brake system.

With respect to your question, you state that a piston does not fail in the sudden manner of a diaphragm. Although this may be accurate, it is not the correct approach for interpretation of the performance requirements of the parking brake sections of the standard. If your parking brake system would comply with the requirements of the standard once the piston in the service brake system has failed, then you would be permitted to use a common piston. If, on the other hand, a failure of the service brake piston would cause the parking brake system to fail the requirements, a common piston would not be allowed.

SINCERELY,

AEROQUIP CORPORATION JACKSON, MICHIGAN 49203

January 17, 1980

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: (Docket No. 75-16; Notice 26) FR Vol. 44, No. 155, page 46850 Thursday, August 9, 1979

Dear Mr. Tilton:

The following statement in regard to the performance of emergency-parking brakes applied by air pressure rather than by spring force appears in the subject Federal Register:

"Thus, the prescribed performance must be achieved with any type of failure in the service brake system, including a ruptured diaphragm".

This statement makes it plain that the service and emergency-parking brake systems may not share a common diaphragm.

Since it is not dealt with in the ruling and because a piston brake does not fail in the complete and usually sudden manner of a diaphragm, we are interpreting the ruling to allow the use of a common piston, assuming all requirements of the ruling are met.

Would you please confirm our assumption at your earliest convenience. You may contact me at (517) 787-8121. Thank you for your cooperation.

C. Crissy Manager, Mechanical Products

ID: nht74-3.38

DATE: 05/09/74

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

TO: Alfa Romeo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 5, 1974 to Mr. Schneider. You state that you are unable to obtain the ASTM E-249 test tire (4 ply rayon) referenced in the ASTM Method used to determine skid numbers, and you ask whether you may use the ASTM E-501 test tire (belted bias).

Your obligation as a manufacturer is to insure that your certification of compliance is not false and misleading in a material respect, and that you exercise due care in manufacturing to conform to the federal motor vehicle safety standards. A manufacturer is not required to follow specifically the test procedures of the standards, but to ascertain that his product will conform to the standard's requirements when it is tested by these procedures. In determining (Illegible Word) number, therefore, you are not required as a matter of (Illegible Word) to use the ASTM E-249 tire if you can reach the required result with equivalent procedures.

We understand that the original E-501 tire provided a slightly higher reading on dry pavement than the E-249 tire and that it is being redesigned so that the two tires give equivalent readings. We anticipate that, when the tire has been approved by ASTM for use in determining and number pursuant to ASTM Method E-274, we will propose a corresponding amendment to our definition of skid number, presently used in 49 CFR @@ 571.105-75, 571.121, 571.122, and 575.2.

ID: nht74-3.39

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rozner and Yorty

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on seat belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempts state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)).

The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of seat belts and reclining seats.

Yours truly,

ROZNER AND YORTY

March 26, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Re: Three point restraint on reclining passenger seat

Gentlemen:

I represent a passenger who was injured while she was sleeping in a bed-like reclining passenger seat. She slid out the back. She had a conventional seat belt on, but it did not help.

Are there any regulations either in the past or the future that would apply to this situation, either State or Federal? Have there been any studies on this subject or any interest in this subject. I shall appreciate whatever help you can give me.

Very truly yours,

William A. Goichman

ID: nht74-3.4

DATE: 08/05/74

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JACK R. GILSTRAP -- GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

TITLE: N40-30 [ZTV]

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/17/74 FROM JACK R. GILSTRAP TO RICHARD B. DYSON-NHTSA, RE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 12/26/73 FROM WARREN M. HEATH TO JACK R. GILSTRAP

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gilstrap:

This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1974, asking whether S4.6 of Standard No. 108 prohibits a bus manufacturer from installing wining that could later be connected by the purchaser to normally steady-burning clearance lamps, enabling them to be flashed to signal a crime in progress. The vehicle modifications here concerned are the installation both of certain wiring by General Motors and dual filament bulbs in each clearance lamp by the Southern California Rapid Transit District.

Paragraph S4.6 requires that signalling lamps specified in Standard No. 108 shall flash when activated, and that "all other lamps" shall be steady-burning. Paragraph S4.1.3 in part prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

We construe the phrase" all other lamps" in S4.6(b) to mean lamps that are required by Standard No. 108. Supplemental lamps on ambulances and police cars, for example, that flash in normal use are not included in the standard. Similarly , it would appear that when the clearance lamp you discuss is operated as a warning lamp it becomes an item of lighting equipment outside the coverage of Standard No. 108. Therefore the fact that it flashes when activated would not violate the intent

2 of S4.6(b). Similarly, the wiring that is installed by GM is not considered additional equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment.

The modifications you described, therefore, are not prohibited by Standard 108.

Yours truly,

ID: nht74-3.40

DATE: 05/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Open Road Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 21, 1974, regarding Open Road's defect notification letter in NHTSA campaign #73-0043. We indicated to you by letter of March 21, 1974, that notification letters in future campaigns must be modified to conform to @ 577.4(e)(3) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577) if you continue to make repairs contingent upon the purchaser's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision found in Open Road's "Authorization for Repair and Alteration" form. You state in your letter that the sole purpose of the indemnity and hold-harmless provision is to protect your company from claims from third parties for unauthorized repairs.

While it is true, as you point out, that the indemnity and hold-harmless provision is not part of the notification letter, that fact is not germane to our conclusion that your letter must conform to @ 577.4(e)(3) if you continue only to make repairs contingent upon the owner's agreement to the provision in question. We are pleased to know that the provision's sole purpose is to protect the company against claims from unknown owners for unauthorized repairs, and we do not object to repairs being contingent upon the owner's agreement to such a provision. But if that is the case we would insist that the provision be more narrowly drafted so that its intent is clear. If that is done Open Road may continue to send notification letters that conform to @ 577.4(e)(1). The responses we have had from owners of Open Road vehicles subject to defect notification and our own review of the provision are persuasive in our view that at present this limited intent is not clear.

Notwithstanding your reference to the meeting Open Road officials had with Robert Carter and Andrew Detrick of NHTSA, at no time was approval given to Open Road's notification letter with knowledge that repair would be made only following the owner's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision.

ID: nht74-3.41

DATE: 05/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Andrew T. Hosoodor

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1974, concerning the defect notification campaign involving your 1972 Open Road motor home. You object to Open Road's insistence that you sign an authorization for repair and alteration form which contains a rather comprehensive indemnity and hold-harmless provision.

The NHTSA is without authority to compel the making of any repairs to potentially defective vehicles in the hands of purchasers. Manufacturers are free to make repairs subject to conditions, or to not make them at all. The NHTSA has issued regulations regarding the content of defect notification letters (49 CFR Part 577) but does not consider these regulations to apply to the campaign in question as the campaign was initiated before the regulations become effective.

We have corresponded with Open Road regarding this matter, which was first brought to our attention by another purchaser whose objections were similar to your own. That purchaser signed a modified authorization form with Open Road, who has provided us with a copy which we enclose for your information. Open Road has informed us that the sole purpose of the indemnity and hold-harmless clause to which you object is to protect Open Road from third party claims for unauthorized repairs. A copy of Open Road's letter to use with that representation is enclosed should you wish to undertake further negotiations with the company.

We have notified Open Road that future campaign notification letters must be revised if the company insists on the continued use of the indemnity and hold-harmless provision in its present form. Copies of this correspondence with Open Road are also enclosed.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

ENC.

ID: nht74-3.42

DATE: 05/14/74

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

TO: Dave's Tire & Fuel Oil Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of March 21 and April 22, 1974, in which you ask whether a tire sold as a "blemish" must be guaranteed for workmanship, material, and road hazards.

There are no Federal requirements that manufacturers guarantee blemish (or non-blemish) tires. Such guarantees are within the discretion of each manufacturer. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) requires all new passenger car tires to meet minimum safety performance levels for high speed performance, endurance, strength, bead unseating, physical dimensions and tradewear indicators. These requirements apply similarly to both blemish and non-blemish tires.

We have enclosed for your information a copy of the Federal Trade Commission's Tire Advertising and Labeling Guides which contain in Guide 11 requirements for the labeling of blemish tires.

ENC.

ID: nht74-3.43

DATE: 05/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: City of Philadelphia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1974, inquiring whether manufacturers of 4-door sedans to be sold to the City of Philadelphia at police vehicles may, consistently with Federal requirements, remove the window and door handles from the rear doors. You state that the vehicle manufacturers claim that Federal requirements prohibit them from modifying the vehicle in this fashion.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 571.206) requires each passenger car rear door to have a locking mechanism that is operable from within the vehicle and that, when engaged, renders the outside an inside door handles inoperative. This requirement applies to the locking mechanism. We do not interpret it to require an inside door handle. There are no Federal standards which require the installation of passenger car window handles.

The fact that in this case the vehicles are intended for government use is immaterial. To clarify the phone conversation which preceded your letter, Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) allows a State or its political Subdivision to require that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use meet a higher standard of preformance than the Federal safety standard, but all vehicles must meet the Federal safety standards.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

SINCERELY,

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

March 5, 1974

Lawrence Scheider Chief, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The City of Philadelphia is in the process of purchasing 1,000 four-door passenger Sedans to be used as police vehicles. We have requested the bidding manufacturers to remove the window and door handles from the rear doors of the vehicles. We have been told by the manufacturers that there is a federal regulation which prohibits this modification.

On March 1, 1974, I spoke via telephone with Mr. Stanley Feldman, Esquire, from your office regarding this matter. It was Mr. Feldman's opinion that modifications which are normally adhered to by federal regulations may be changed to suit our particular needs since the City of Philadelphia is a political sub-division of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I would appreciate receiving your written verification on Mr. Feldman's opinion prior to any further negotiations with the vehicle manufacturers.

Please send your response to the undersigned, City of Philadelphia, 1600 Municipal Services Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

CHARLES W. MURPHY

Safety Director

ID: nht74-3.44

DATE: 05/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1974, in which you ask whether a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a used body on a new chassis is required to certify the conformity of the completed vehicle in accordance with 49 CFR Parts 567, 568.

The answer is yes. A person who mounts a used body on a new chassis is a final-stage manufacturer and is required to certify the conformity of the completed vehicle. The NHTSA has interpreted the Certification requirement as applying to any complete vehicle manufactured using a new incomplete vehicle (chassis) whether or not the body to be installed is new or used.

ID: nht74-3.45

DATE: 05/21/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Peter Dakin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 4, 1974, requesting information concerning Federal safety standards applicable to the assembly of kit cars.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits the manufacture for sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, if the vehicle you are building is going to be used as a means of transportation on the road, it must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. The mere use of a vehicle on public highways constitutes an introduction into interstate commerce and is prohibited unless compliance with the safety standards has been achieved.

Part 56/.4(g) (1)(ii) of the certification regulations provides the producer of the kit with an option as to whether or not he certifies that the vehicle will comply with all applicable safety standards if completed according to his instructions. We would urge you to avoid undertaking the assembly of a kit that does not give assurance as to its ultimate ability to comply. If the producer of the kit takes the responsibility of certifying the completed vehicle, you as the assembler of the vehicle must exercise reasonable care in following the instructions he provides.

For your information I have enclosed a sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" which will direct you to the proper source for obtaining a copy of the safety standards and regulations.

ENC.

May 4, 1977

Peter Dakin

733 Spartan Drive

Rochester

Michigan 48063

Department of Transportation Washington DC

Dear Sir or Madam

please advise me what regulations I must obey in building a kit car for legal street use and registration?

Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Peter Dakin