ID: nht73-5.47

DATE: 10/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

COPYEE: D. FAY; M. P. PESKOE

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1973, forwarding to us correspondence from Mr. G. H. Nichols, President, Midwestern Products, Incorporated, Tulsa, concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to an air suspension auxiliary axle manufactured by Midwestern Products. According to the manufacturer's advertising brochure, this axle, the "Micro-Air Retractable Safety Axle, is intended to be used on pick-up and bobtail trucks, particularly in the recreational vehicle and related fields.

There are presently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations that apply to the manufacture of these axles. However, persons who install them on new pick-up trucks or other vehicle types (a "new" vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is one that has not yet been sold to a user) may be considered as vehicle alterers under provisions of NHTSA Certification regulations which are to become effective February 1, 1974 (Docket No. 72-27; copy enclosed), and would be required to affix to the vehicle the label described in section 567.7 of those regulations.

Midwestern Products should be aware of these requirements whether it installs the Micro-Air axle or whether the installation is done by other parties. In the former case Midwestern would be responsible for affixing the required label, and in the latter it should provide the relevant information for the label regarding weight ratings to the party making the installation.

The NHTSA does not maintain a mailing list to provide copies of NHTSA notices and regulations. Copies are

available as indicated on the enclosed sheet, "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

We are pleased to be of assistance.

2 ENCLS.

ID: nht73-5.48

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

COPYEE: PHILIP A. HUTCHINSON; MR. PESKOE; MRS. MURRAY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to the letter you propose to send to owners of vehicles involved in Defect Notification Campaign 73-0196. (Audi 80, 1973 Model, Backing Plate on Rear Axle.)

In our opinion this letter does not comply with the Defect Notification Regulation (49 CFR Part 577). Our reasons are as follows. While the letter refers to components involved in the defect (section 577.4(c) (1)), it does not describe the malfunction of which the owner must be informed pursuant to section 577.4(c)(2). Nor does the letter include a statement of conditions (operating or otherwise) that may cause the malfunction to occur, as required by section 577.4(c)(3). While the letter refers to a "shimmy," we cannot reasonably construe this to describe any more than the warning which the owner may experience (section 577.4(d)(1)(ii)). Moreover, we find your instruction to operate the vehicle at "substantially reduced speed," if intended to be the precautionary statement required by section 577.4(c)(4), to be so broad as to be meaningless. We believe a statement of the maximum speed at which the vehicle should be operated would be more appropriate.

The letter fails to evaluate completely the risk to traffic safety in the manner specified in section 577.4(d). In our view, when this failure is combined with the failure to describe the malfunction, the recipient of your notification is left with almost no idea of the nature

of the problem with his vehicle. We find further your statement that repair parts will be at the dealers "shortly" to be too general to conform to section 577.4(e)(1)(iii). That section clearly requires an estimate of the day on which parts will be available. Its purpose is to prevent the making of general statements such as that in your letter.

Finally, your letter urges the owner to take the vehicle to his dealer "immediately" only if he experiences "rear-end shimmy." In our view, this statement implies that without shimmy there does not exist a serious safety problem with the vehicle. Such an implication contravenes section 577.6, "Disclaimers," and must be deleted.

In order to conform to Part 577, your notification letter must be revised as indicated in this letter.

ID: nht73-5.49

DATE: 04/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ralph L. Finley

COPYEE: WYSZPOLSKI

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 8, 1973, in which you request information regarding safety standards or restrictions pertaining to rumble seat installation. The installation you have made and contemplate merchandising falls into the aftermarket category.

Aftermarket seat assemblies installed in vehicles, after the sale of such vehicles is consummated, are not required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. However, it is reasonable to expect that those who manufacture, sell, and install aftermarket seats will make them at least as strong as required by the standard, and will install seat belt systems to help prevent ejection and other injuries.

I am enclosing a copy of our Summary Description of Standards and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 for your information and retention. I appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

2 ENCLS.

March 8, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Motor Vehicle Programs

Gentlemen:

I have a 1957 Thunderbird with a rumble seat in it. I am thinking of reproducing this rumble seat and merchandising it to T-Bird members in the United States. I have enclosed a picture for your review.

Are there any safety standards or vehicle restrictions that I would have to comply with? Please let me know.

Sincerely,

Ralph L. Finley 12476 Dover Court Saratoga, California 95070

enc:

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-5.5

DATE: 09/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dr. Gregory has asked me to reply to your letter of August 28, 1973, in which you request our endorsement of new labels General Motors intends to use to fulfill its responsibilities under part 567 of Title 49 of the Gode of Federal Regulations.

The wording on the label meets the requirements of paragraph 567.4(g). The color of the paint under the label "window" would determine conformity with the contrasting color requirements in paragraph 567.4(f)

It would appear that the material would ". . . be permanently affixed . . ." if it ". . . is tightly bonded to the surface of the vehicle panel . . . ." However, it has not been the practice of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to endorse label materials.

Thank you for your continuing cooperation.

ID: nht73-5.50

DATE: 12/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Jerry Van Dyke

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to confirm the telephone conversation between you and Mr. Douglas Pritchard of my office concerning cruise control devices for mobile homes. As Mr. Pritchard advised you, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, does not preclude the use of cruise control units. While Standard No. 124 requires that the accelerator control device return to "idle" when the operator removes his foot from the accelerator or when the system itself fails, the term "idle position" is defined in Section 4.1 of the Standard to include the position set by a throttle setting device. As is stated in the Preamble to the Standard:

"The rule does not contain requirements for automatic speed control devices. It was found that although nine recall campaigns involving 61,176 vehicles have concerned these devices, no relationship to accelerator overspeed accidents could be established from automatic speed controls. Of the 540 multidisiplinary accident reports that were studied in formulating the final rule, none mentioned the automatic system."

I trust this information will be useful to you.

ID: nht73-5.6

DATE: 07/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Transportation Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, requesting clarification of provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 dealing with the identification of emergency exits (S5.1.1). You ask whether this paragraph requires in the case of a 66-passenger school bus having a rear emergency exit which is not located in an occupant space, 66 separate labels, assumedly one for each designated seating position. You ask clarification as well for the identification requirements for emergency exits in a 44-passenger bus with one emergency exit in the rear, three push-out windows on one side of the bus, and two on the other, and with each of the five windows contained wholly in one occupant space. You appear to construe S5.5.1 to require a label for the occupant space of each designated seating position in the bus where a release mechanism is not present.

Your interpretation of the standard is not correct, and the requirements do not call for the extensive labeling you suggest. Paragraph S5.5.1 (second sentence) calls only for the placement of a label in occupant space of an adjacent seat, when that occupant space does not contain a release mechanism. Adjacent seats are defined in paragraph S4. of the standard as only those designated seating positions within a specified distance from an emergency exit. Thus, a label is required only when the occupant space of a passenger seat does not contain an emergency exit release mechanism and that seat is an adjacent seat as defined in the standard.

In the case of the school bus you describe, there do not appear to be any adjacent seats, and accordingly no emergency exit identification labeling is required in any occupant space. The only labeling required by S5.5.1 would be that required to appear at the exit itself. The same result would appear to be

true with respect to the side push-out windows of the 44-passenger bus you describe if the release mechanism for each push-out window is within the occupant space of the adjacent seat. As you did not indicate the configuration of the seating positions at the rear of this bus we cannot provide you an opinion on the identification requirements at that location.

June 21, 1973

Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

Regarding MVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, please provide clarification of certain aspects as described below:

Paragraph S5.2.3 states that if a school bus contains any push-out windows or other emergency exits, these exists shall conform to S5.3 through S5.5. Most school buses are provided with a rear door which would be classified as an emergency exit and, therefore, under the terms of the standard, must comply with S5.3 through S5.5. If this is the intent of the standard, please supply clarification of S5.5.1.

The second sentence of S5.5.1 deals specifically with the release mechanism and was possibly intended to apply to an emergency exit which encompasses several occupant spaces - a configuration common to many intercity buses. However, if this standard is literally followed, at least two requirements develop which we feel were probably not intended.

First, paragraph S5.5.1 states, 'when a release mechanism is not located within an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label meeting the requirements of S5.5.2 that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within the occupant space." On a school bus with 3-3 seating, the release mechanism for the rear emergency exit is not located in an occupant space, and as a result of this, on a 66 passenger bus, 66 individual labels or decals indicating that the release mechanism is located in the rear of the bus would be required. In view of the controlled conditions under which children are transported, plus the fact that they are drilled and instructed in the use of such emergency exits, we feel this requirement would be unnecessary.

Another situation would be a bus with a capacity of 44 adults. The required emergency escape openings could be provided by the use of one emergency exit in the rear of the bus plus three push-out windows on one side of the bus and two push-out windows on the other side. Each of the five windows can be contained in one occupant space and would require, if S5.5.1 is followed to the letter, a whole range of labels to indicate the nearest release mechanism, such as:

Emergency exit instructions located next to:

Next seat behind;

Next seat ahead;

Second seat behind;

Second seat ahead;

Third seat behind; or

Third seat ahead; etc.

If the intent of the standard is as described above, we must make arrangements to procure materials for compliance with these requirements and in view of the imminent effectivity date, any clarification you can give would be appreciated.

WAYNE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION WAYNE CORPORATION

Ken J. Brown Director of Engineering

ID: nht73-5.7

DATE: 12/05/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: University Club Tower

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am enclosing a copy of Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, 49 CFR 580, issued under the authority of D 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, which like all regulations of this and other Federal agencies is published in the Federal Register. This daily publication can be obtained at a price of $ 45.00 per year from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Interpretation of the regulation to date has established that the odometer disclosure statement can be made in any format which includes the required information. Commercially printed forms, handwritten forms, and forms included in the "buyer's order form" used by dealers have all been approved. The government does not print forms but the regulation includes an example of an acceptable format.

If you have further questions, please write again.

ENC.

ID: nht73-5.8

DATE: 10/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: David Busby

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 29, 1973, concerning the importation of vehicles with their seat belt warning systems and interlocks deactivated. Your question is whether these systems, and the antitheft warning buzzer as well, could be considered "readily attachable equipment items" under the import regulations, 19 CFR 5 12.80(b)(iv), and therefore allowed to be imported in a deactivated condition.

We have concluded that the systems in question are "readily detachable" in a manner analogous to that of components such as the outside rearview mirror, even though they are not physically removed from their usual location in the vehicle. Their deactivation is therefore permitted by 19 CFR @ 12.80(b)(iv).

We would emphasize, however, that manufacturers importing vehicles in this fashion must take precautions to insure themselves that their dealers bring the vehicles into conformity with the standards. Otherwise, the manufacturers risk exposure to civil penalties pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 1398(a), since they are relying on the dealers to act as their agents in fulfilling their statutory responsibilities.

ID: nht73-5.9

DATE: 10/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lear Siegler Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition for reconsideration of September 16, 1973, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets."

One of your requests was to extend the 30-day "comment period". This 30-day period for petitions for reconsideration is not a comment period, but is specified under NHTSA regulations at 49 CFR Part 553.35. Because of the relationship of these petitions to judicial review of a standard, the NHTSA generally does not extend this petition period.

The NHTSA is considering your petition on this subject, and a substantive response will be published in the Federal Register.

ID: nht73-6.1

DATE: 10/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Twin Coach Highway Products Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 22, 1973, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Following are answers to your four questions:

1. In a phone conversation with Richard Dyson on September 26 you explained that the window mechanism in question (which you mentioned you are no longer using) requires the release of both mechanisms before the window releases -- that is, before the window will no longer conform to the retention requirements in paragraph s5.1, s5.1.1, and s5.1.2 of the standard. In this case, only one of the force applications necessary to operate both mechanisms need differ by 90 degrees to 180 degrees from the direction of the original push-out motion of the emergency exit.

2. You are correct that the post in front of the window is not an obstruction so long as it permits passage of the ellipscid. However, when a post cuts a window opening into two segments as shown in your enclosed sketch, only the segment that passes the ellipscid, not the entire window opening, may count toward the measurement of total area specified in paragraph s5.2.

3. Although Figure 30 shows only the boundaries for high and low force access regions when the bus is upright (and when an obstacle is between the occupant and the unit), these same dimensions are these that are to be applied when the bus is overturned on either side, with the side on which the

bus is resting being considered as the floor. The transposition of these dimensions is illustrated to some extent in Figure 3D.

Whether or not both rear windows must be made into emergency exits rests solely on whether both windows are necessary for the bus to meet the unobstructed opening requirements, and the emergency exit release requirements of s5.3 and s5.5 when the bus is upright and overturned on either side.

4. The cut-off date for windows which do not comply with the standard is that of the date of manufacture of the bus in which the window is installed. All buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1973, must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.