ID: nht71-4.41

DATE: 11/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1971, in which you asked whether the second and third options of Standard 208 require anthropomorphic test devices to be placed for the frontal crash tests only in the front designated seating positions, and not in the rear positions.

The answer is yes. The second and third options pose no requirements for testing that require dummies in the rear positions, hence dummies should be placed only in front positions. In the period from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1973, they should in fact be placed only in the front outboard positions.

You also suggested that "if Option 1 is used, a test device must be at each designated seating position." This statement is true, in a strict sense. But the general requirements for the periods before August 15, 1975 (S4.1.1 and S4.1.2) explicitly allow the "mixing" of options, so that if belts are provided for the rear seating positions they may be considered as fulfilling option two or three, without dummies positioned there for the crash tests. In other words, dummies must be positioned in the rear seating positions only if and when the manufacturer elects to fulfill option one for the rear positions.

ID: nht71-4.42

DATE: 11/06/71

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

TO: Truck-Lite Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1971, to Mr. Lewis Owen of this Office concerning the coating of Lexan lenses.

Plastic lenses used in the required lamps are required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to meet SAE J576, which specifies no loss of surface luster and no surface deterioration. This Agency does not have the authority to "waive" any requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If you believe that motor vehicle safety does not demand requirements of this severity, you may submit a petition asking for an appropriate amendment of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht71-4.43

DATE: 11/08/71

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

TO: Commercial Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1971, in which you ask whether matrices (or molds) must be relettered to a new identification code mark when the ownership of a company is transferred from father to son. The son may continue to use the existing number if he will write a letter to us stating that he is the new owner, the date on which he became the new owner, that he wishes to continue to use the same identification code mark, and that he assume all responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1381 et. seq) for tires manufactured with the identification mark on or after the date he assumes ownership of the company. This letter should also refer to the name of the old company and should include any changes being made in company name, address and types of tires being retreaded.

With the above procedure the matrices would not have to be relettered. We will change our records to conform to the information contained in the letter.

ID: nht71-4.44

DATE: 11/10/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: As indicated to you in the November 1 meeting in Mr. Laskin's office, the seat belt retractor demonstrated by Toyota and shown on page 9 of the attachment to your letter is considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to be an automatic locking retractor. The classification of a retractor is determined by its operation, not by its design, and the Toyota retractor, however unconventional in design, operates in the manner prescribed for automatic locking retractors.

With respect to the test procedure of S5.3(a)(6), it is the intent of the test to load the seat belt assembly in a manner that represents the type of tension encountered in use. It is our opinion that the test set up shown on page 9 of the attachment to your letter is a correct application of the procedure to the Toyota retractor.

Please advise us if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht71-4.45

DATE: 11/10/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1971, concerning steps you plan to take to comply with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), which were amended on October 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 19593). You indicate that you plan to affix, in addition to the required Certification label containing the vehicle's gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings, an additional "vehicle identification data plate" which would be attached to the driver's door panel inside the cab. This plate will specify an axle capacity for each axle and an additional gross vehicle weight rating, but here the figures will reflect the vehicle's maximum potential capability. The axle capacities on the vehicle identification plate will be the axle manufacturer's ratings, and added together will be the maximum allowable gross vehicle weight rating. It appears from your letter that you intend using the maximum potential capability of the vehicle as a substitute for listing gross axle and vehicle weight ratings for all available tire and wheel combinations, which was proposed as an option for manufacturers in a notice published on October 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 19617). Your question is whether, under the Certification regulations, you may affix the vehicle identification plate in addition to the required Certification label.

While we agree that a legitimate purpose may be served by the information you wish to provide on the vehicle identification plate, we consider that the manner in which you have chosen to furnish this information is inconsistent with the Certification regulations. Specifically, the inclusion of two different figures under the heading "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" conflicts with the requirement that a single figure be provided. The figure on the vehicle identification plate may be frequently higher than that on the Certification label, and if followed might result in vehicle overload. Also, the summing of the axle manufacturer's ratings to arrive at a "gross vehicle weight rating" is not

wholly consistent with the definition of that term in 49 CFR @ 568.3, which calls for a manufacturer's figure based on the capacity limitations of the vehicle's tires, rims, suspension system and other components, as well as its axles.

If you wish to provide information based on the vehicle's axle capability, we prefer that it not be represented as a vehicle or axle weight rating, but that it be described as the axle manufacturer's rating of the axles.

ID: nht71-4.46

DATE: 11/12/71

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

TO: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 28.

We understand your apparent problem in mounting the middle identification lamp on the vertical centerline, near the extreme height of the vehicle. Since it is apparently impracticable to mount the lamps at this height, their relocation to a position under the door opening would appear to meet the requirement that identification lamps be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" (Table II, Standard No. 108).

ID: nht71-4.47

DATE: 11/13/71

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

TO: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1971, asking if present Federal regulations would preempt the Massachusetts requirement that certain outside rearview mirrors be provided with reflective material over the rear surface.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), states in pertinent part:

"Whenever A Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State . . . shall have any authority . . . to establish . . . with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable tot he same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, establishes requirements for reflective materials used on motor vehicles. The NHTSA considers this standard to include within its scope all reflective materials required to be used on motor vehicles to which it applies. Any State requirements that have the effect of regulating such reflective materials must therefore be identical to the relevant provisions of Standard No. 108. The Massachusetts statute that you have brought to our attention is not identical to the Federal standards relating

to that aspect of performance, and must therefore be considered to be invalidated by the operation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

ID: nht71-4.48

DATE: 11/16/71

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

TO: Barber-Greene Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive our delay in responding to your letter of August 27, 1971, asking if Department of Transportation safety equipment applicable to trailers is required for portable asphalt mixing machinery.

It is our current position that portable asphalt mixing machinery is a "trailer" and must be equipped with the lamps and reflectors required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I am enclosing a copy for your information. A temporary lighting harness is an acceptable means of conformance. Mud flaps, incidentally, are not required under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht71-4.49

DATE: 11/16/71

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

TO: The Flxible Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 22 asking whether the "hoodlum warning system" requested by the city of Boston (MBTA) would conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S3.5 of Standard No. 108 permits "normally steadily-burning lights [to] be capable of being individually flashed for signalling purposes" on motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972. Therefore the hoodlum warning system is currently permissible under Standard No. 108.

However, a new requirement effective January 1, 1972, would prohibit the installation of this system on vehicles manufactured on or after this date. Paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108 states:

"Where activated

(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall flash;

(b) All other lamps shall be steady-burning except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes." (emphasis added)

ID: nht71-4.5

DATE: 08/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1971, petitioning for reconsideration of the "Defect Reports" regulations (Docket No. 69-31; Notice 2). Your letter was received on March 22, 1971, which is more than 30 days after publication of the regulation. Accordingly, pursuant to NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR @ 553.35), it has been treated as a petition for rulemaking.

You request that the requirements specified in @ 573.4(b), that defect information reports be submitted not more than 5 working days after a defect in a vehicle has been determined to be safety related, be changed to require the report to be submitted not later than 15 days after the determination has been made. You state as the basis for this requested change that the information required pursuant to @ 573.4(c)(3) and @ 573.4(c)(7) cannot be provided by International Harvester within 5 days due to computer run-out times, but can be provided within 15 days. Section 573.4(b) of the regulation provides, as you point out, that information required pursuant to @ 573.4 that is not available within 5 days may be submitted as it becomes available. This provision deals with the issue you raise, and no amendment to the regulation is called for.

With reference to your statement that the figures you intend to report pursuant to @ 573.5(c)(6) and (c)(7) will be identical, the regulation requires different kinds of information to be reported. Only if the information required by @@ 573.5(c)(6) and (c)(7) is in fact identical may it be reported as such.

The requirements are not intended necessarily to fit within the framework of manufacturers' presently existing data gathering procedures, and may require some manufacturers to change these procedures to provide the specific information.