ID: nht73-3.4

DATE: 11/26/73

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

TO: Paul R. Hodgson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 26, 1973, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Paragraph S3.2.1.2 (Mounting).

Paragraph S3.2.1.2 requires, in part, that the outside mirror on the driver's side be capable of adjustment from the driver's seated position. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that any necessary adjustment of the mirror can be readily accomplished without affecting the continued safe operation of the vehicle in motion. If for some reason the position of the outside mirror were altered so as to obstruct the clear view of the driver to the rear, he would be compelled to leave the highway and remove himself from the vehicle in order to make an adjustment. This possibility defeats one of the purposes of paragraph S3.2.1.2.

Paragraph S3.2.1.2 also provides that the mirror shall not be obscured by the unwiped portion of the windshield. As you stated in your letter, the curvature of the Traveco windshield will not afford an unobscured view of the mirror in that the mirror only retains about 80% of its visibility in the rain and snow. Visibility of 80% does not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 111.

In summary, the mounting you have suggested for rearview mirrors on the Traveco motor homes is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Paragraph S3.2.1.2 of Standard No. 111. However, pursuant to section 108 (b) (1) of the Vehicle Safety Act, the nonconforming mirrors you have described may be installed if the installation is accomplished after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. You should also be

2 aware that a revision of the standard is presently under consideration which may have an effect on the future compliance of the mirrors.

We appreciate your inquiry.

Yours Truly,

PAUL R. HODGSON

ATTORNEY AT LAW TULSA, OKLAHOMA

October 26, 1973

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We are writing for an interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Section S3.2.1.2 (Mounting, which states: "The mounting shall provide a staole support for the mirror and neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude further than the widest part of the vehicle body, except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S3.2.1.1. The mirror shall not be obscured by the unwiped portion of the windshield, and shall be adjustable from the driver's seated position. The mirror and mounting shall be free of sharp points or edges that could contribute to pedestrain injury. (32 F.R. 5495 -- April 4, 1967))".

Marion W. Loveless, 1150 South Joplin, Tulsa, Oklahoma, manufacturers rear view mirrors for mobile homes. Traveco Corp. manufacturers mobile homes with wrap around front windshields. Traveco likes Marion's mirrors and would like very much to have them installed on their mobile homes as standard equipment. Traveco wants to be assured that these mirrors are in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111.

Marion owns a Traveco mobile home and designed these mirrors for his own use. The most important feature of these mirrors, is: You can see both without taking your eyes off the road, even for an instant. The mirrors are mounted and adjusted in such a manner that a clear and full view to the rear is provided

2 regardless of the height of the individual driving or the place (forward or back) in which the seat is placed (to adjust for leg length. There are no blind spots since you can look over the top of the mirror rather than around it.

We have enclosed pictures for your assistance in visualizing the appearance, location, and effectiveness of these mirrors. Picture #1 gives you the location on the vehicle and the way it is mounted. Picture #2 gives you a view of the left mounted mirror from the driver's eye position. The doors are 10 x 12 feet and the mirror is approximately 100 feet from the doors. Please note that, looking directly at the mirror, one can still see the area in front of the vehicle. Picture #3 is a view from the driver's eye position looking straight down the road. Please note that one can, at the same time, see clearly the rear view from the mirror. Picture #4 shows a view from the driver's eye position. It clearly shows another mobile home in the rear view mirror (left). Picture #5 shows the view, from the driver's eye position, of the right rear view mirror. This clearly shows that the mirror is located in a position where the passenger cannot obstruct the view of the mirror. Picture #6 shows the mirror with the windshield wiper in its furthest left position in relation to the left mirror.

Although the mirror cannot be adjusted from the driver's position, it is mounted and adjusted, when installed, so that it is effective from all positions of the driver in the seat and his height. Marion has driven his for 2 years and never adjusted it since installation. Although the mirror is not within the windshield wiper area, experience has shown its location is such that, driving in the rain and with road dirt and oil, the mirror still retains better than 80% visibility. This is due to the fact the windshield curves and the wind coming around the curve blows the rain, dirt, snow, etc. off the glass through which you look to see the mirror. These mirrors were designed specifically for Traveco and those other mobile homes having a wrap around windshield and a small post. There is a defroster blower mounted inside the windshield which prevents

3 frost, ice, and snow from obstructing a view of the mirror.

We respectfully request an interpretation that the mirrors described above are in full and adequate compliance with Standard No. 111. Your prompt response will be appreciated.

Paul K. Hodgson Attorney for Marion W. Loveless

I have read the above and foregoing request for interpretation and the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Marion W. Loveless

cc: Bud K. Smith, Traveco Corp. Charles Kaehn

ID: nht73-3.40

DATE: 03/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Dow Corning Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1973, in which you inquired whether our brake fluid standard, No. 116, has preempted State regulation with respect to silicone-based brake fluids.

As you know, Standard No. 116 does not presently contain any performance requirements for silicone-based brake fluids. The recent amendment of January 31, 1973 (38 FR 2981) only establishes labeling requirements for these fluids.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), states that no State shall have a safety standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance" as a Federal standard that is not identical to the Federal standard. In this case, no "aspects of performance" at all, other than labeling, are covered by the Federal standard, so the State performance standards other than labeling cannot be said to cover the same aspects of performance. For these reasons the State performance requirements are not preempted by Standard No. 116. To hold otherwise would have the effect of voiding all State regulation of this product, leaving nothing in its place, until a Federal standard came into effect. No such results were intended by the issuance of the labeling amendment.

Work is in process to propose performance standards for silicone-based brake fluids and we plan to have requirements in effect before very much more time passes. At that time, of course, all State regulations will have to be identical to the Federal standard.

ID: nht73-3.41

DATE: 03/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Gussie Peer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your recent letter to the National Transportation Safety Board concerning bus window glass has been referred to me for reply.

Safety glazing in buses is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. In general, the windows in the vicinity of passengers may be either laminated safety glass or tempered safety glass, or rigid plastics, if the windows are readily removable. Hence, the Federal standard does not prohibit manufacturers from using glazing materials that perform as you suggest.

In the past few years, manufacturers have expressed interest in providing passengers with protection from missiles thrown at buses. I expect to see an increase in the use of materials that conform with your suggestion.

I am enclosing a summary of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for your information.

ID: nht73-3.42

DATE: 03/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wiggins & Christian

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 27, 1973, concerning the application of the new Federal Odometer Disclosure Requirements to transfers between dealers.

The Federal requirements apply, with certain exceptions, to each transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. Some types of vehicles, such as heavy trucks and antique vehicles, are exempt. Passenger cars and lighter vehicles, however, are exempted only in the case of transfers of new vehicles from a manufacturer or a distributor to a dealer or from one dealer to another. The transfer of a used car or light truck, whether from dealer to dealer, dealer to wholesaler, or dealer to customer, must be accompanied by a disclosure statement.

ENC.

ID: nht73-3.43

DATE: 03/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 9, 1973, concerning the application of Standard 209 to emergency locking mechanisms that Toyota intends to use in its 1974 models. Mr. Susuki of your staff presented Toyota's problem at greater length in a meeting with NHTSA on March 2, 1973, and the following response serves to confirm the opinion given him at that time.

Both the central G-sensing device (with its computer) and the individual(Illegible Word) on the retractors are considered to be seat belt assembly hardware for purposes of Standard 209. We do not find that the central position of the G-sensor is a sufficient reason to exclude it from the requirements of the standard applicable to hardware, including the corrosion requirements. However, any corrosion testing of the G-sensor would be performed with the sensor's(Illegible Word) in place. If the covering is imperious to water, as Mr. Susuki stated, there should be little difficult in passing the test.

A second question was raised by Mr. Susuki concerning the testing of the upper torso retractor. It is our opinion that the retractor should be subjected to the environmental tests in its installed condition, with its cover in place.

A final question presented by Mr. Suzuki concerns the allowable width for that portion of the upper torso belt that does not contact the occupant. As we informed him the August 1972 petition by JAMA on this subject is still open and we anticipate that the agency's action will be favorable.

ID: nht73-3.44

DATE: 03/22/73

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

TO: Monsanto Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to a question that has been raised in telephone conversations, by Monsanto, as to whether the NHTSA allows a manufacturer of newly developed tires to run them on the public roads before they are certified as conforming to Standard 109.

The answer is no. We have, to the best of our knowledge, allowed no exception to the requirement that all tires to which a motor vehicle safety standard is applicable must conform to the standard and be certified as such.

ID: nht73-3.45

DATE: 03/23/73

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

TO: Seminole Trailer Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973 to this agency asking whether it is permissible under Standard No. 108 to locate boat trailer identification lamps on the first crossmember forward of the rearmost crossmember. You believe that the identification lamps will have a longer life span in this location.

The general locational requirement that a lamp be "on the front" or "on the rear" was never intended to specify that it be at the extreme front or rear of a vehicle. Clearance and identification lamps required to be "on the front" are generally mounted on a truck cab or body, for instance. Therefore your proposed location is acceptable to meet the requirements of Table II of the Standard. However, identification lamps, wherever located, must meet the visibility requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1, and if they do not meet them in your proposed location the trailer will not comply with Standard No. 108.

ID: nht73-3.46

DATE: 03/12/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Harnischfeger Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1973, to Gordon Lindquist, Regional Administrator, NHTSA, asking whether Federal standards require the installation of seat belts on certain vehicles you manufacture. According to brochures you have submitted, these vehicles are your RH 25 3-cu. yd. heavy duty hydraulic shovel, R-150-1 15-ton hydraulic crane, W-350 35-ton hydraulic swinger crane, and T-150 15-ton fully hydraulic truck crane.

With reference to the first three vehicles, the RH 25, R-150-1, and W-350, the NHTSA does not consider these vehicles to be manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Therefore, they are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. We view them as construction equipment whose use of the public roads is incidental to their primary work-performing purpose.

The NHTSA believes, however, based on the information you have submitted, that the T-150 hydraulic truck crane is a motor vehicle under the Safety Act, and a "truck" under the motor vehicle safety standards. We base this determination on the vehicle's speed capability, that its manufacturer classifies it as a "truck crane", and that its overall appearance appears to be that of a vehicle designed to be used on the highway. As a truck, the vehicle is required to be equipped with seat belts as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208, copy enclosed). It is required also to conform to safety requirements specified in other safety standards and regulations. Copies of the standards can be obtained as described in the enclosed, "Where to obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations".

Our decision as to whether this vehicle is a motor vehicle is based only on that information which you have provided us. Other relevant factors which can be taken into consideration are set forth in the enclosed interpretation regarding mini-bikes. If you have further information which you believe we should also consider we will be glad to review it.

ENCLS.

ID: nht73-3.47

DATE: 03/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mike Pescoe, Attorney; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Goldberg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1973, forwarding to me a copy of the preface to your forthcoming paper on the development of Standard No. 213, and asking a few questions which we have already discussed over the phone.

With respect to the preface, it is essentially accurate, at least sufficiently so for the purpose for which it is intended.

The questions you've asked are repeated below, followed by our answers.

1. What gives credibility to and what reduces credibility of comments filed with Docket 2-15? Are the comments of some organizations given more credence than others?

Each comment to the docket is assumed to be of equal credibility, that is, we assume each is offered in good faith, and based upon the writer's legitimate beliefs and interests. The agency evaluates each submission on its own merits.

2. Do non-separating 3-point belts present a problem for usage of current child restraint systems?

Our understanding is that child seats can be used with 3-point belts. These belt systems do utilize one member that is essentially similar to the traditional lap belt. We understand the shoulder portions of these belts can be adjusted so as not to prevent installation of the child seat, by either placing that belt section in front of or behind the child seat. We have not received any information from the public that these belts are in fact difficult to use with child seats. If we do we will certainly look into the matter thoroughly.

3. Has NHTSA or will NHTSA be cooperating with JPMA on some kind of market survey?

The NHTSA has forwarded a list of suggested questions, which are also in the docket. We do not expect our contribution to include more than recommending that these questions be asked.

4. To what extent is rulemaking determined by comments and by internal direction?

This certainly depends on the issues involved. For the most part, initial decisions are made by the agency, with modifications resulting from comments received. However, comments may affect some issues more than others. In Standard No. 213, for example, much impetus for a dynamic test has been created by comments.

We've recently amended the standard, based on two outstanding notices (September 30, 1970; April 10, 1971). In case you haven't seen the amendments, I have enclosed a copy.

ENCLS.

ID: nht73-3.48

DATE: 04/03/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: The Flexible Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 1973, requesting that you be permitted to affix the Certification label for buses manufactured by your company on the right side of the dash panel, as illustrated in a picture (your serial #B72-4375-2) you have enclosed.

As pictured, the label in the location you have chosen is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except an outer door, as required by section 567.4(c) of the Certification regulations, and your request that you be permitted to affix the label for these vehicles in that location is hereby approved.