ID: nht73-6.22

DATE: October 26, 1973

FROM: Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities, American Honda Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 to Stanley S. Zinner from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 123); Also attached to letter dated 12-4-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from Stanley S. Zinner (OCC 5479); Also attached to letter dated 2-16-82 to Brian Gill from Frank Berndt (Std. 123)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of 0ctober 9, 1973, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking whether S5.2.5 of Standard No. 123 requires footrests to fold automatically when not in use.

The standard does not require automatic folding. S5.2.5 states only the direction in which footrests shall retract, so that if they are inadvertently left down when not in use they will fold rearward and upward should they hit an obstacle while the motorcycle is travelling forward.

ID: nht73-6.23

DATE: December 10, 1973

FROM: Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Aronson -- President, Electric Fuel Propulsion Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-26-73 from Robert R. Aronson to Lawrence Schneider (Chief Counsel, NHTSA)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1973, inquiring about the applicability of Standard No. 301 to your vehicles' gasoline-powered water heaters.

Standard No. 301 was promulgated in order to reduce the incidence of deaths and injuries resulting from fuel-related fires. The standard seeks to accomplish this end by specifying performance requirements which must be met by a motor vehicle's fuel system. Although the fuel systems primarily regulated by the standard are those which propel the vehicle, nothing in the standard limits its application to those systems. A fuel system which powers another aspect of the vehicle's operation, such as the gasoline- powered Stewart Warner Water Heater, is susceptible to the same hazards as the more commonly encountered fuel system, and thus they must be regulated in the same manner in order to fulfill the purposes of Standard No. 301.

In summary, the 2-quart fuel tank to which you refer is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 301.

ID: nht73-6.24

DATE: November 26, 1973

FROM: Robert R. Aronson -- President, Electric Fuel Propulsion Corp.

TO: Lawrence Schneider -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/10/73 from Richard B. Dyson to Robert R. Aronson

TEXT:

In reference to FMVSS 301, our electric cars are equipped with a 2-quart gasoline tank which powers a Stewart Warner Water Heater for heating and defrosting cars. The location of the gas tank and heater is in the rear of the car.

Please let us know if Standard 301 applies to this gas tank.

ID: nht73-6.3

DATE: 11/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1973, requesting a clarification of S7.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 (9-1-75) (Docket No. 70-20; Notice 2).

As you are aware, a proposed amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 (9-1-75) was published on August 20, 1973 with an anticipated September 1975 effective date (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 1). In the event that the proposed amendment of loading conditions is adopted, the present passenger car requirement, that the vehicle be at its GVWR during testing, will be superseded by the requirement that the passenger car be loaded "to its unloaded vehicle weight plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary dummies." Under these specifications, rear seat occupant weight will not be a factor of the test load condition unless a specific test requirement calls for dummies to be placed in designated rear seating positions. The proposed amendment would also make it unnecessary to firmly fix the dummies to the vehicle as is presently the case under S7.2.

We have also noted your views on luggage capacity weight and are placing your letter in Docket No. 73-20 as a comment to be considered.

If you require any further clarification, please do not hesitate to let us know.

OCTOBER 16, 1973

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Sir,

49 CFR, PART 571 Docket No. 70-20; Notice 2 Standard No. 301 - Fuel System Integrity

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited seeks clarification on the meaning of S 7.2 as published in the Federal Register 38 FR 22397, dated August 20, 1973.

S 7.1 requires the vehicle under test to be loaded to its GVWR and S 7.2 requires weight in excess of the unloaded vehicle weight to be firmly fixed to the vehicle so that it absorbs no significant portion of the vehicle's Kinetic energy.

It seems to us that the only way in which the added weight can absorb the vehicle's Kinetic energy is by actual deformation of the weight itself. Thus, it would be unacceptable to apply added weight which would reinforce the front structure of the vehicle. This would be entirely logical with a front engined vehicle, but would pose serious problems with a rear engined vehicle in which the luggage compartment was at the front of the vehicle. Would there not be practical difficulties in achieving the correct weight distribution, and is it not reasonable for the designer to intend the luggage in these circumstances to absorb some of the vehicle's Kinetic energy, particularly that due to its share of the total mass, when the vehicle is loaded to its GVWR?

2

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited does not make vehicles with luggage stowage capacity at the front, so that particular problem is of no immediate concern to us at this moment. We would, however, be very concerned if the conditions of S 7.2 were to be applied to any future rear barrier crash test, and hence our interest in seeking clarification. Our own suggestion would be to omit the luggage weight from the vehicle test weight, while a specification is drawn up for inexpensive test pieces representing more closely the density and crush characteristics of real life passenger luggage. Such test pieces would be stowed in the luggage compartment but not secured to the vehicle structure, again representing more closely real life conditions.

Docket No. 73-20, Notice 1. proposes an amendment to Standard No. 301, effective September 1975, which would permit the installation of dummies in the front outboard seating positions. It is not clear to us how the weight of the rear seat occupants is to be provided when ballasting the vehicle up to its GVWR. We sincerely hope that S 7.2 of Docket No. 70-20, Notice 2, will not be interpreted to mean that the added weight due to rear seat passengers must be rigidly attached to the vehicle. For obvious economic reasons, which are of vital importance to the low volume manufacturer, we would want to combine testing against Standard No. 301 with testing against other Standards, such as No. 208, and S 5.1 of Standard No. 208 requires anthropomorphic test devices to be installed at each designated seating position. The restraint systems used for these dummies to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 208 could not be described as rigid.

We should, therefore, be most grateful if you could clarify the requirements of S 7.2 of Standard No. 301 regarding the means to be used for installing additional weight to bring the test vehicle up to its GVWR.

Yours faithfully,

J. B. H. Knight Chief Development and Car Safety Engineer

Copies to: Trevor Williams Rolls-Royce Motors Inc. New Jersey.

K. B. Barnes The Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders Ltd. London.

ID: nht73-6.4

DATE: 11/12/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Honorable John B. Conlan, U.S. House of Representatives

COPYEE: SEC. REP. DUNN; DR. KAYE; J. L. LEYSATH; MR. VINSON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will supplement the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety's reply of October 30, 1973, to your letter of September 21, 1973, to the Interstate Commerce Commission, concerning Mr. William H. Arendell's automatic light-blinking device for truck signaling. The Bureau has referred your letter to us for further reply.

Enclosed for your constituent's information is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, entitled, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment." The effect of paragraph S4.6 of the standard is to prohibit the use of automatic flashing clearance lamps for signaling purposes on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. The term "flash" is defined (paragraph S3) as "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means continuing until stopped either automatically or manually."

It appears that the device described in your constituent's letter falls within the prohibition of Standard No. 108, and could not be used as original equipment on vehicles. Its use as an aftermarket device would be subject to regulation by the individual States.

I trust the above information will be of interest to Mr. Arendell.

2 ENCLS. CONSTITUENT'S LETTER STD. NO. 108

ID: nht73-6.5

DATE: 11/14/73

FROM: E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 26 to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this office concerning marker and signal lights on your Mack trucks.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that front clearance and identification lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. Mounting these lamps on the top of the vehicles described in your letter does not appear to be practicable because of possible damage to the lamps. If mounting the lamps on the front vertical surface near the top is, in your determination, "as close to the top as practicable," then you have met the requirements of Standard No. 108. Mounting an additional side marker lamp (which you have identified as a corner clearance lamp) on each side of the cab, near the front and top of the cab, would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108.

Turn signal lamps and hazard warning signal lamps mounted on the rear of the vehicle may be either red or amber. The color of these lamps was addressed in a Notice of Proposed Rule Making published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1972, (Docket 69-19; Notice 3). It was proposed that amber be eliminated as an optional color for these lamps, but no final decision has been made.

ID: nht73-6.6

DATE: 04/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas B. Mitchell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: (Illegible Text)

DIRECTOR DIVISION OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

2 (Illegible Text)

MRCH 27, 1973

The Officer in Charge, Federal Highway Administration,

Dear Sir,

I have been advised by the American Embassy in New Zealand to write to you so that(Illegible Word) may be furnished with certain information concerning the American Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which I believe have been in force in your Country since 1968 to which Motor Vehicle Manufacturers must conform in respect to vehicles for sale or use in the United States.

Whilst I am very much interested in all the Safety Standards and Regulations which are in force in your Country the one which I am most interested in at the moment is the one which I believe specifies certain requirements for the safety of Fuel Tanks etc..

I particularly wish to know if the relevant Safety Standard in force in American requires the fuel tanks to be located outside the main body shell of the vehicles or if it is permissible under this Safety Standard for fuel tanks to be situated in the interior of the vehicles.

Trusting that the amount enclosed will be sufficient to cover the costs of postage etc and thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully,

T. B. MITCHELL 707 EAST QUEEN ST. HASTINGS, NEW ZEALAND

ID: nht73-6.7

DATE: 05/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hayden; Smith; Ford & Hays

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1973, requesting our opinion as to the conformity with 49 CFR Part 577, "Defect Notification", of a defect notification letter to be mailed by your client, V/M Custom Boat Trailers. The notification fails to conform with Part 577 in the following ways:

1. In the second paragraph, the phrase "trailer vehicle safety" must be changed to "motor vehicle safety". A trailer is a motor vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

2. The letter is silent as to precautions the owner should take to reduce the chance that the malfunction will occur before the vehicle is repaired (@ 577.4(c) (4)). One obvious precaution where vehicle lighting is defective is to refrain from night operation.

3. The letter is silent as to an evaluation of the risk to traffic safety reasonably related to the defect (@ 577.4(d)).

4. We would consider the last paragraph on page 1 of your letter, reading, "The defect on those trailers . . . does not affect the mechanical operation of said trailer except insofar as the lighting is inefficient as installed according to the U.S. Department of Transportation," to be a disclaimer and prohibited by section 577.6.

ID: nht73-6.8

DATE: 04/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: R. W. Lillie & Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: 99:(ILLEGIBLE TEXT)

Director

DIVISION OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

ENC.

R. W. LILLIE & CO.

April 3, 1973

Robert L. Carter United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Carter:

Thank you very much for your letter of March 29, 1973 on Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the very useful information it included. Even though you said that Standard NO. 116 includes silicone brake fluids, the standard itself on the first page under section S-3 says that it does not apply to petroleum based and silicone based brake fluids. Perhaps you can further enlighten me.

Regarding Plastic Fuel Tanks, the proposed rule making notice Docket No. MC-34 - Notice 71-26 must have been followed by some further action. Any ideas on this?

Very truly yours,

R. W. Lillie

ID: nht73-6.9

DATE: 12/21/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your petition, dated May 18, 1973, for amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574). You request that the standard be amended to except tires having an "unusual configuration and construction," from that part of S4.3 which requires safety information to be labeled between each tire's safety information to be labeled between each tire's maximum section width and bead. You request a similar exception in Part 574 for the tire identification number. Goodrich has experienced difficulties in placing this information in the proper location in tire molds used to manufacture Goodrich's Space Saver Spare tire. You indicate this is caused by the thinness of the mold, which is apparently necessitated by the folding sidewall characteristics of the tire.

In the case of the Space Saver Spare, Goodrich wants to be able to place the labeling information and the identification number in the shoulder area of the tire. Your request is supported with pictures of a Space Saver Spare that has been run to wear-out yet still retains legible labeling in this area. In your view it is unlikely that this tire will be retreaded. You argue that the location you desire to use, while not between the maximum section width and bead, has the advantage of making the information and identification number visible both when the tire is inflated and deflated. The latter condition is important in this case in that this tire is generally carried in a deflated, folded condition when it is not in use.

We do not believe the facts you present justify an amendment to the standard, and have therefore determined that your petition should be denied. The purposes of requiring safety information and the tire identification number to be placed between each tire's maximum section width and the bead is to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that the information will remain or the tire throughout its useful life, including a retreading process if the tire is retreaded. In our view, it is not all clear that the alternative location you suggest will still meet this objective. The justification which you provide does not show that labeled information cannot be removed in service or that these tires will not, in fact, be retreaded. We certainly would not object if Goodrich were to place identifying information in separate location in addition to that required by the standard.

With respect to the difficulty you have encountered in placing the information in the specified area, we do not find on the basis of the information you have supplied that the alternative possibilities are impracticable. For example, your letter does not mention whether you have attempted to engrave the safety information and that part of the identification number that is constant into the tire molds. While we understand engraving is generally more expensive and somewhat more inconvenient than branding the mold or using metal plates, we do not believe the added expense and inconvenience, particularly as it is amortized over the life of the mold, to be unreasonable in terms of the safety benefit achieved. It also appears that this labeling, in letters 0.078 inches in height, can be placed just above the rim centering rib, which from the sample submitted with your petition, does not appear to have been damaged upon removal. This location would allow removal of the tire from the mold without deformation of the lettering and would place the required information between the tire's maximum section width and bead. With respect to date codes, for which engraving is unsuited, it appears that the code stamp could be recessed so as to be flush with the mold surface, thus eliminating or substantially reducing the destruction of the lettering during removal.

SINCERELY,

July 10, 1973 . Wallace Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A little slow perhaps, but here is a section of the B.F. Goodrich "Space Saver Spare" tire you asked me for. v.e are trying spring plates in the molds to get the prescribed branding below the curb rib as now required. As you can see it will not be visible for(Illegible Word) to see it when it is in the trunk and folded as is normally the case, this we must also put it below the tread edge as you can see it on the section. This means a "double" branding job on these tires.

I gathered from Mike Peskos concluding remarks after our meeting on our petition that he felt there was a good chance of us getting some relief from this multiple and unnecessary branding.

Any suggestions or ideas your office may have which can be accomplished by rewording and/or rewriting the petition to make acceptance more likely will be appreciated.

Please call any time you feel further discussion on the petition is necessary or might help solution of our problems in this area.

Yours very truly,

F. S. Vukan

May 18, 1973

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Administration

Dear Sir:

Ref: N40-30 (MPP)

With our letter of 7-30-71 which was in reply to your letter Ref. 40-30, Cir. 169 we submitted a petition for certain considerations and changes in FMVSS #109 and Part 574 "Tire Identification and Record Keeping". These were denied in your letter of 8-29-72, N40-30 (MPP), copies of our petition and your reply are attached as Attachments A and B respectively.

We have considered the recommendations contained in the last paragraph of your letter (Attachment B). We do not feel that a new size designation for the Space Saver Spare tire is desirable as it is used in conjunction with standard nomenclature tires and a different size designation would serve to confuse the tire users.

We are however still faced with a number of problems relating to location of branding and tire identification information as required by FMVSS #109 and Part 574. We investigated and tried many ways to meet these requirements but due to the mold design necessary to provide the unique folding capability of these tires we are unable to have the branding visible on both the inflated tire and the deflated tire in the area prescribed by FMVSS #109 and Part 574.

Although neither FMVSS #109 or Part 574 specifies the inflation conditions under which the required information must be visible we have strived to meet what we believe to be the intent of the regulations and the verbal guidance offered by the Office of the Counsel, NHTSA at our previous meetings which is to have the required branding visible to the user in event of a recall situation.

2

We can meet the intent of the regulations but not the letter of the regulations as written at present. We therefore petition that the regulations be changed as indicated for the reasons indicated:

Changes Necessary to FMVSS #109

NOTE: Underlining indicates wording added, wording to be omitted is stricken out (dashes).

A. 1. Change S4.3 "Labeling Requirements" as follows:

S4.3 Labeling Requirements. Except as provided for in S4.3.1, and S4.3.2 and S4.3.3 each tire etc. . . .

2. Change present S4.3.3 to S4.3.4

3. Add new S4.3.3 as follows:

S4.3.3 Tires of (i) unusual configuration or construction or (ii) which are used in a special or unusual service need not be labeled as specified in S4.3 (a) through (g) between the maximum section width and the bead provided the branding is so located as to remain on the tire and be visible throughout its normal service life. The selection of alternate locations is to be at the discretion of and the responsibility of the tire manufacturer.

4. The above changes are necessary and will adequately protect the public for the following reasons:

a. Our Space Saver Spare tire and possibly other such tires meeting performance requirements of FMVSS #109 are in a service such that the branding will stay on the tires for their entire service life when located above the widest part of the tire.

b. If branding can be positioned above the maximum section width and remain there for the service life of the tire, major requirements have been met.

c. We are at present putting our branding in the area designated as "A" on the attached Figure 1. Attached are photographs from worn out tires showing that the branding is not removed at the point of tire wear out Tire sections are available and will be furnished if desired. With the wording as proposed it would be the manufacturers' responsibility to see that branding remains on the tire and is visible throughout its normal service life.

3

d. We believe the need to position the branding for retreadability may not be applicable in the case of special tires for which we are asking the above variation (tires of unusual configuration or construction or which are used in a special or unusual service). In the case of our "Space Saver Spare" tire we believe retreading is unlikely.

B. 1. Change Part 574 Title 49 as follows:

S574.5 Tire Identification Requirements.

Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire he manufactures, except tires manufactured exclusively for mileage-contract purchasers, by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. Tires of (i) unusual configuration or construction or (ii) made for a special service condition need not have the tire identification number in the location specified in Figure 1 provided the number is located so that it remains visible on the tire throughout its normal service life. Each tire retreader, except tire retreaders who retread tires for their own use, shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 2, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. In addition, the DOT symbol required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards shall be located as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

The DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard is applicable. The symbols to be used in the tire identification number for tire manufacturers and retreaders are "A, B, C, D, E, F, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, R, T, U, V, W, X, Y, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0". Tires manufactured or retreaded exclusively for mileage contract purchasers are not required to contain the tire identification number if the tire contains the phrase "for mileage contract use only" permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall in lettering at least one quarter inch high. 2. The above change will protect the public for the following reasons:

4

a. A provision for unique and special tires should be included in the regulation to cover tires which otherwise meet FMVSS #109 and are subject to recall but which due to their unusual configuration, or construction, or special service cannot or, need not, have the serial in the lower sidewall region provided the serial can be located so that it is visible and not obliterated during its full service life. It would be the responsibility of a manufacturer marketing such tires to determine that the identification number remains on the tire throughout its service life and is visible in event recall or examination is necessary.

b. In the case of the "Space Saver Spare" tire, based on our road tests and on examination of tires returned from service, a serial number located in the Area "B" of Figure 1 remains legible, and is visible on both the inflated and the deflated tire throughout its service life.

SUMMARY

Figure 2 is a representation of a mold used for Space Saver Spare tires. The line around the Fin "F" from (1) to (3) through (2) designates the area normally called the tire sidewall. With (2) as the mid-sidewall, the portion from (1) to (2) is below the maximum section width and that from (2) to (3) is the maximum section width.

Because that portion of the mold shown as Fin "F" is very thin and unsupported it is virtually impossible to stamp any branding into the Fin without bending and/or breaking it during the stamping operation. We have tried putting both thin metal branding plates as well as the serial number in this area but due to the violent stripping action in disengaging the tire from the mold (Fin) all such "add on" plates are susceptible to bending and of being torn from their fastening screws.

Our previous practice of placing the serial number in the Area "C" as shown on Figure 1 makes it unreadable when the tire is inflated due to the normal rotation of the tire bead in the rim flange area as the tire is inflated and prepared for service. The serial location at "B" of Figure 1 is possible and would be permissible with the language changes and additions as outlined in our petition.

5

The consideration of unusual configuration or construction or service is also desirable to cover tires which may have a service life or configuration or construction which makes it possible to conform to the intent of the regulation with the serial and/or branding in areas of the tire excluded by the present regulations.

Your consideration and approval of this petition is respectfully requested to enable us to produce a product which is filling a growing need but which because of its unusual configuration cannot meet the wording of the current regulations. If the regulations are amended as requested we can meet the wording as well as the intent of the law.

We would like very much to discuss our petition with you and your staff in greater detail or to revise it, as you may consider necessary, to achieve our mutual goals of providing tires to the tire users within the scope and the intent of the NHTSA regulations.

Very truly yours,

Patrick C. Ross

Text Omitted