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.

ID: nht73-6.10

DATE: 12/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Explorer Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your recent undated letter asking for Federal "safety specifications" that would apply to your three-wheeled motorcycle when it is licensed for use on the public roads.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycles and their effective dates are: No. 103, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (January 1, 1969); No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems (January 1, 1974); and No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays (September 1, 1974). These standards are found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. Under Part 567 a manufacturer of motor vehicles must affix a certification label to each product stating, among other things, that it meets all applicable Federal standards. This is the "sticker" to which you refer. As a manufacturer, Explorer is also subject to other regulations. I enclose an information sheet telling where you may obtain all these regulations.

I do not know the "Pace Setter III" that you refer to, but the Department does not "approve" vehicles for licensing. All that is legally required is that a manufacturer build and certify vehicles that conform to all applicable Federal safety standards. No Federal approval is necessary or given.

We have recently adopted a redefinition of "motorcycle" effective September 1, 1974. Three-wheeled motor vehicles that do not have both "a handlebar for steering and a seat that is straddled by

2 the driver" will no longer be classified as "motorcycles" effective September 1, 1974. Since the Explorer has both handlebars and a seat that is, in our view, straddled by the driver when his feet are on the foot rests, it remains a motorcycle under the new definition.

ENC.

EXPLORER, INC.

Gentlemen:

We are in the process of trying to get our three-wheel motorcycle licensed for the road. It seems that each state requires that they pass federal safety specifications. We would like to know how to find out what they are and have it tested at your convenience to prove that it does meet federal standards.

I understand that when a three-wheel motorcycle can be licensed, a sticker must be attached stating that it is designed for the road and meets all federal safety standards.

The EXPLORER 800R model recently has been licensed for the road in the state of Michigan. As you can see by the enclosed pictures, it has brakes on all three wheels, headlamp with high and low beam indicator light, turn signals, electric horn, brake and tail lamp, rear view mirror, and is powered by a 12 volt battery.

I understand that you recently approved the "PACE SETTER III" to be licensed for the road. We feel that the EXPLORER more than meets the safety requirements needed, and would like to prove this to you as soon as possible.

Any help you can give us to expedite this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Paul Marenda, Vice-President

P.S. Please send a copy of the federal requirements to EXPLORER ILLINOIS CORPORATION. 106 W. St. Paul St., Spring Valley, Illinois 61362

ID: nht73-6.11

DATE: 06/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Taylor Machine Works Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1973, to Michael Peskoe of this office, requesting clarification of the regulations regarding the certification of motor vehicles. You enclose an incomplete vehicle document concerning a particular tractor, a certification label you would affix to that tractor after its completion, a drawing of a trailer certification label, and a sample quarterly report of production figures for vehicles manufactured by your company.

Mr. Peskoe indicated to you over the phone that in meeting your certification responsibilities for these vehicles, they are certified independently of each other. It appears from your letter that this approach, which is the correct one, is the approach you are using.

With reference to your responsibilities for the certification of the tractor, if the truck does not have a certification label attached to it when you receive it, it is true that when you complete it by mounting a fifth wheel you must then attach a certification label. The label you enclose (exhibit 1) contains the necessary information in the appropriate order. You should obtain the information for the label primarily from the incomplete vehicle document, but may, as you state, rely on your own engineering judgment or contact the truck manufacturer. If, however, in relying on your own judgement you depart from the information contained in the incomplete vehicle document, you may be responsible for failures of the vehicle to conform to applicable standards and regulations.

The sample trailer certification label which you have submitted is not consistent with the certification regulations. We have taken the position that the information must be presented on the label in the form and in the order specified in the

2 regulations. With respect to your sample label, the regulations do not presently call for a Kingpin rating. Although we have just proposed to require a weight rating for the trailer coupling, this information should not now be included on the label. The regulations also do not permit ratings for tandem axles to be stated as tandem ratings. Each axle must be independently identified and a separate rating provided for it. Moreover, tire sizes are permitted to be specified only in conjunction with weight ratings. There are no provisions for the listing of plies, apart from their inclusion in a tire size designation, or for the listing of an inflation pressure. Again, information that is not specifically required cannot be inserted between items of required information, and your drawing of a trailer is not permitted unless it is placed after the required information. Finally, the regulations call for gross vehicle weight rating (the phrase "gross trailer weight rating" is inappropriate) to follow the gross axle weight ratings, and the order in which you present this information must be reversed. I believe you should reexamine the Certification regulations in order to obtain specific guidance on the order and form of the required information.

The sample quarterly production report you submit conforms to the requirements of section 573.5 (b) of the Defect Reports regulations. However, that section requires only the reporting of the number of vehicles, identified by make, model, and model year (if appropriate). While we are happy to receive the additional information you provide, you are not required to furnish it to us.

Yours truly,

TAYLOR MACHINE WORKS, INC.

May 25, 1973

Michael Peskoe U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Peskoe:

Reference is to our conversation of May 23, wherein we asked for clarification on the Department of Transportation's vehicle certification laws.

We discussed, Taylor Machine Works is a manufacturer of dump trailers with but 90% of them used in the construction industry and about 10% of them in the refuse industry. We normally manufacture the trailer complete and in about 80% of our cases, we mount them on some user's new truck. Also, we mount the fifth wheel and the hydraulics for actuating the dump cylinder on the trailer.

Normally when we receive a new truck, they have with the vehicle a vehicle Manufacturer Document. I have enclosed a copy of such a document of a specific truck which happens to be an International Harvester Company truck #75797CGB14608. As you can see from this document, IH has placed a gross vehicle weight rating of 44,860 pounds on the truck tractor. The truck's front axle has a 10,860 rating and each of the tandems have a 17,000 pound rating. Also, this truck has affixed to the facing of the door on the operator's side a serial plate tag which states a gross vehicle weight rating of 44,860 pounds.

In weighting the truck, we found the following to be approximately the weights of the truck with the fifth wheel installed and ready to connect a trailer. (See diagram). The two tandem drive axle total 8,300 pounds, the steer axle of the truck 7,120 pounds. Upon connecting our trailer to this truck, we found the weights to be as follows: steer axle of the truck 7,290 pounds, truck tandem 10,640 pounds, and trailer tandem 7,470 pounds. (See attached sheets).

This was a typical installation that we make on our trailers. Since the rear axle rating is a total of 34,000 pounds, we feel that the vehicle will accept approximately 24,000 pounds on the king pin from the trailer and our componentry in the tandem axle has a rating of 36,000 pounds. Therefore, we would mark on the

2 certification plate that trailer T-3272 has a 60,000 pound rating. We would attach the marked certification plate to the trailer which shows the approximate king pin load of 24,000 pounds and tandem rating of 36,000 pounds and gross trailer weight rating of 60,000 pounds.

We understand from our conversation that if this truck does not have truck vehicle rating tag on it or the tractor, when we mount the fifth wheel we must put a vehicle certification plate similar to our Exhibit No. 1 which rate this truck showing what its capacity would be to the best of our knowledge or by contacting its manufacturer. Also, we would enter on a quarterly basis a report similar to the attached sample copy. We have taken this IH truck and trailer T-3272 and entered it on this report and would like for you to review if and make your suggestions.

Mr. Peskoe, if any of the above is not in keeping with what your office desires, please advise and we will make the necessary corrections. Also, on any other items concerning the certification of our product, we would be very grateful if you would make recommendations.

(Illegible word) you very much.

Very truly yours,

J. T. Monk Director of Engineering

Attachments

VEHICLE CERTIFICATION

EXHIBIT NO. 1

COMPLETED VEHICLE MANUFACTURED BY: TAYLOR MACHINE WORKS, INC.

DATE OF COMPLETION: MAY, 1973

INCOMPLETE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED BY: INTERNATIONAL, HARVESTER COMPANY

DATE INC. VEHICLE MFG FEB., 1973

GROSS VEH. WEIGHT RATING 44,860 LBS

GROSS AXLE WEIGHT RATING FRONT, 10, 860 LBS.

1st INC. 17,000 LBS.

REAR 17,000 LBS.

THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOP VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT IN MAY, 1973

VEHICLE ID NUMBER: 75797CGB14608

TYPE VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION: (X) TRUCK () BUS () MPV

Title 49 - Code of Federal Regulations Part 568 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Section 6 - Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations

International Harvestor Company 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 U.S.A. Date of Manufacture: 2-73 VIN: 75797CGB14608 GVWR: 44860 GAWR: Front Axle 10860 1st Intermediate 17000 2nd Intermediate Rear Axle 17000

Vehicle Type: *[Truck or MPV (Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle)]

TRUCK TRACTOR

The following listing of PWVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) apply to this incomplete vehicle as of the date shown above. This vehicle fully conforms to those standards preceded by a double asterisk (**) as of the date shown above.

* It is the responsibility of the final-stage manufacturer to specify on the certification label the proper vehicle type for which this vehicle is completed.