ID: nht71-5.15

DATE: 12/07/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Holmes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1971, to Mr. George Shifflett of my staff, in which you ask questions relating to clearance lamp locations on your wrecker bodies.

I am concerned with your statement that "there is no record of your department's approval on the clearance lamp corner mounting on the 750 and 850 bodies." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not "approve" vehicles or equipment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Conformance, and certification of that fact, are the manufacturer's responsibility under section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. We are glad, however, to provide informal interpretations of the standards when requested to do so by manufacturers such as yourself.

Your first question is, "Does the (low) location of the rear clearance lamp meet the position requirements?". Paragraph S4.3.1.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (effective January 1, 1972), permits a deviation in mounting height: "When the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." Thus, if the identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, Standard No. 108 permits a location of clearance lamps at any height less than the extreme height of the vehicle. This does not change the requirement currently in effect (Table II).

Your second question is, "Does the front clearance lamp location (on the body corner radius) on our 750 and 850 model bodies meet position requirements?". Standard No. 108 currently requires front clearance lamps to be located "as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle." The requirement

effective January 1, 1972, is that these lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . as near the top thereof as practicable." It appears from the photographs you enclosed that the front clearance lamps should be mounted higher on the body front, unless you have a good reason for determining that it is not "practicable" to do so.

I trust this will answer your questions.

ID: nht71-5.16

DATE: 12/08/71

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

TO: Holophane Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 27, 1971, to David H. Soule of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for school bus lighting.

You are concerned with paragraph S4.3.4(b)(ii) which roads:

"The system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened."

You have commented that "the use of the automatic system would make it mandatory that the red lights go on when the door is open and stop traffic where unnecessary -- such as railroad crossings." That is not correct. You will see from S4.1.4(b)(ii) that the red lamps are not automatically activated when the bus entrance door opens unless there has been prior manual or foot activation of the amber signal lamps.

You are also concerned with the fact "that this automatic system is patented and only one manufacturer has the right to make it." Since you have not enclosed the copy of the patent enclosed in attorney Smith's letter to you dated June 4, 1970, I am unable to comment on your statement. I would like to point out that Standard No. 108 does

not mandate the use of an amber-red lamp system; a system of red lamps only is also permissible. If the amber-red lamp system is used, paragraph S4.1.4(b)(ii) does not specify system design but only that the system be wired so that the driver can activate the amber lamp system at his option, and if he does activate it, that it automatically be deactivated and the red system automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened.

ID: nht71-5.17

DATE: 12/09/71

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

TO: Import-Export

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 20, 1971, to Mr. Franklyn Bergsman, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning your "Flash Mirrors."

As described in the documents you furnished to us, your "Flash Mirror" does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. If this is indeed the case, the use of your "Flash Mirrors" as original vehicle equipment is not prohibited by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Nor is there a Federal prohibition against sale of your device in the aftermarket; Standard No. 108 covers only specified replacement lighting equipment for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972.

Since your product is not regulated by Standard 108, the sale and use of it is, however, subject to the regulations of the individual States.

ID: nht71-5.18

DATE: 12/09/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 26, 1971, in which you asked our opinion on how to position a 50th percentile 6-year-old child in determine the conformity of a seat belt warning system to S7.3.1(c) of Standard No. 208. Our opinion is that the child should be positioned with his back against the back of the seat and his head upright, in the posture in which he would be held by the seat belt if it were buckled around him as specified in S7.1. This is the position that will be used in our tests for conformity to S7.3.1(c).

The language that you cite from S8.1.11(b) of the standard ("normal upright(Illegible Words) to the positioning of test devices during the dynamic tests specified in S4 and S5, but is not applicable to the belt adjustment and warning system requirements of S7. The position that we intend to use under S7.3.1(c) is therefore not based on any definition of normal upright sitting posture."

ID: nht71-5.19

DATE: 12/10/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1971, enclosing a diagram of a revised "Vehicle Identification Plate," and requesting our approval, based on the Certification regulations. Your submission of this revised diagram is in response to our letter to you dated November 10, 1971, wherein we disapproved of an earlier version of the identification plate due to the manner in which the axle manufacturer's ratings of the axles were presented.

In your revised diagram, you refer to the ratings in question as the axle manufacturers "gross weight ratings." We believe that this language is still subject to being easily confused with the GAWR required on the Certification label, and we cannot conclude that wording the label in this fashion is consistent with the Certification regulations.

In our letter of November 10 we stated, "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 manufacturers rating of the axles." Thus, in our opinion elimination of the words "gross weight" from your revised label will eliminate the conflict between your vehicle identification plate and the Certification requirements.

ID: nht71-5.2

DATE: 11/17/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. W. Carson for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1971, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this Office, concerning the maximum candlepower for taillamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 108 (35 FR, 16840, October 31, 1970) is quoted as follows:

"S5.1 SAE Standards and Recommended Practices subreferenced by the SAE Standards and Recommended Practices included in Tables I and III and paragraphs S4.1.4 and S4.5.1 are those published in the 1970 edition of the SAE Handbook."

Subreferenced SAE Standard J575, as published in the 1970 edition of the SAE Handbook, is the "d" revision (SAE J575d, August 1967). SAE Standard J575d specifies a maximum of 15 candlepower for a single compartment taillamp, 20 candlepower for a 2-compartment taillamp, and 25 candlepower for a 3-compartment taillamp. These maximum candlepower values are, therefore, applicable requirements under Standard No. 108 (35 FR, 16840, October 31, 1970).

ID: nht71-5.20

DATE: 12/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 22, 1971, I have enclosed a copy of our letter of May 21, 1971, to Mr. George Jones of the Louisiana Tire Dealer and Retreader Association. Department of Transportation regulations require that we charge a duplicating fee of $ .50 per page for this service. Please, therefore, remit the sum of $ 1.50 to the undersigned, payable to the Treasurer of the United States.

In your letter you also enclosed a copy of an article that appeared in the September 1971 edition of the Modern Tire Dealer Magazine concerning the letter to Mr. Jones, and ask whether the article's conclusion that wheel testing is not a must," is accurate. This conclusion is correct. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.), manufacturers are not required to test the compliance of their products to applicable standards in any particular manner. The test procedures specified in any particular standard indicate only the manner by which the agency will test for compliance, and manufacturers are free to utilize any test procedure they wish as long as they can show that they exercised "due care to comply with the standard. The use of wheel tests, however, as our letter to Mr. Jones indicates, may have an effect on a manufacturer's ability to show he used "due care" should he be called on to make that showing.

ENC.

ID: nht71-5.21

DATE: 12/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 5, 1971 regarding the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. 574). The questions raised in your letter are repeated below with our answers immediately following each question.

1. Section 574.9 of the above states that anyone who leases a vehicle equipped with new tires for more than 60 days is classified as a tire dealer, and shall meet the requirements specified in Section 574.8. Under the above, what would be the "tire dealer's" responsibility if the customer exchanged these tires, without the knowledge of the leasor, and what should the leasor do re: compliance if the vehicle is returned and he notices that a substitution had been made?

Under these circumstances the leasor would only be responsible for the new tires that were on the vehicle when leased to his customer. It would be the responsibility of the tire dealer selling the replacement tires to the leasee of your vehicle to record the pertinent tire information and forward it to the manufacturer of the tires.

2. A company buys a truck as a "demonstrator" for its own use, but prior to the actual "use" of the vehicle, it is sold under a new title. If the seller of the demonstrator advises the local truck dealer of this sale (to include the customer data), has he satisfied all of his responsibilities under Part 574?

Under these circumstances the person who buys a truck and does not use it, but instead sells it, is considered a vehicle dealer selling a new truck. It would be your responsibility to assure that the dealer who originally sold you the truck notifies the vehicle manufacturer that the vehicle changed hands.

3. A leasor takes a vehicle back after a 12-month lease. After reconditioning it, he leases it to a different customer. The tires were still in good condition and were not removed. Under these circumstances, does the leasor have any responsibility to notify the vehicle manufacturer that the vehicle is now in different hands?

Under these conditions the leasor would be in the same position as a vehicle dealer selling a used vehicle with used tires and the reporting requirements would not apply.

4. It is our interpretation that under the provision of Part 574, the only time that a final stage manufacturer would be required to maintain tire records would be if he becomes the vehicle manufacturer and places new tires onto a vehicle for the first time. (This would be in the case of adding a tandem axle requiring additional tires, or the actual manufacture of a trailer to which he installed the tires.) Is this correct?

Your understanding is not correct. The final stage manufacturer is required to maintain or have maintained for him a record of tires on or in each vehicle he ships to a motor vehicle distributor or dealer, and maintain or have maintained for him a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires.

For your information, attached is a letter sent to major chassis manufacturers dealing with this subject for cases where the final stage manufacturer does not deal with the purchaser of the completed vehicle. The replies received from the chassis manufacturers have been, for the most part, cooperative.

a. In the case of a manufactured vehicle, we interpret Section 574.9 to mean that the records kept for three years need not conform with any special format, so long as the customer name and address is evident, and the customer can be contacted by the manufacturer in the event that the tire manufacturer initiated a recall campaign which included the group of tires placed on that vehicle. Is this a correct assumption?

Your understanding is correct, however the requirements for vehicle manufacturers are found in 574.10, not 574.9.

Enclosure

ID: nht71-5.22

DATE: 12/14/71

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

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to a request made on behalf of Phillips Petroleum Company by Veigh J. Nielson for an assigned identification mark for two of Phillips' plants which manufacture tires for research purposes.

As I informed you in my letter of September 20, 1971, if Phillips purchases a new tire, removes the tread material and then applies its own experimental trend containing various rubber compounds, Phillips is considered to be a new tire manufacturer. If Phillips applies its experimental tread to a used tire, it is considered a retreader of tires.

As a new tire manufacturer you are required to certify the tire as conforming to the new passenger car tire standard (No. 109) and comply with Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR 574). Accordingly, you are assigned the identification mark of "J1" for tires made in your Bartlesville, Oklahoma plant and "K1" for tires manufactured in your Stow, Ohio plant.

If you act as a retreader then Part 574 would not be applicable for the tires you retread because they are retreaded for your own use. (Enclosed is a copy of Docket No. 70-12, Notice No. 8 which makes the regulation inapplicable to retreaders who retread for their own use). As explained in my letter of September 20, you are, of course, required to certify that your new tires and your retreaded tires comply with the respective standards for new and retreaded tires if they are to be used on the public highways, by placing the symbol DOT on the tires in the prescribed location.

ENC.

ID: nht71-5.23

DATE: 12/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 15, 1971, requesting our interpretation of certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations:

1. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Occupant Crash Protection," as amended at 36 F.R. 4600 (March 10, 1971). If trucks over 10,000 pounds(Illegible Word) are equipped with a seat belt system(Illegible Word) in paragraph S4.3.2, the vehicles need not meet the requirements of paragraphs S5 and S6, which apply only when the complete passive protection system option of paragraph S4.3.1 is adopted. Of course, the seat belt system must conform to the seat belt assembly requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies."

2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components." Your interpretation of the standard's coverage is correct: there are no requirements in the standard for the installation of the latches and hinges.

3. Part 573, "Defect Reports," 36 F.R. 3064 (February 17, 1971). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations do not require manufacturers to repair defective motor vehicles. Manufacturers are therefore free to make whatever arrangements for repair of defects they wish. Of course, we hope that in making such arrangements the manufacturers will assume the responsibility of assuring that the repairs are made properly.