ID: nht74-3.29

DATE: 09/17/74

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

TO: The Weatherland Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 14, 1974, pointing out a discrepancy in the constriction test requirements for hydraulic brake hose found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74.

We are considering a change in our next notice concerning Standard 106-74, so that S6.7.2(c) will conform with S5.3.1 as that paragraph was amended by Notice 11 (39 F.R. 24012).

Yours Truly,

The Weatherhead Company

August 15, 1974

Reference: MUE 486

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Subject: FMVSS 571.106-74 Reference Notice 11 Docket 1-5

Your timely personal response to our request for clarification of the labeling of 1/8 inch O.D. SAE J844c nylon air brake tubing is sincerely appreciated. The NHTSA's determination to exempt this small sized tubing is reasonable, without adverse effect on vehicle safety, and sustains the usage of an economic product.

While preparing our corporate documentation to support product compliance with 571.106-74 a troublesome inconsistency was noted. Perhaps NHTSA can incorporate a minor change in the wording of Para. S6.7.2(c) in the next publication released concerning The Brake Hose Standard.

Paragraph S6.7.2(c) retains the Constriction Test requirement for the complete brake hose assembly stating: "Drain the brake hose assembly, immediately determine that every inside diameter of any section of the hose assembly is not less than 64% of the nominal inside diameter of the hose, and conduct the test specified in S6.2."

As you may recall Notice 11 excluded end fittings, distribution blocks and residual valves by amending constriction requirements to be applicable to only ". . . that part of the fitting in which hose is inserted".

Realizing this inconsistency in Para. S6.7.2(c) is an oversight and that it would not cause an unnecessary compliance variance, a repetitive petition is withheld pending correction.

Thank you once again for responding so promptly to our requests for clarification concerning this Standard.

John H.Mueller

Manager, Engineering Standards

cc: D. Delve

W. Redler

ID: nht74-3.3

DATE: 03/26/74

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BRIAN GILL -- AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

COPYEE: SCHWARTZ

TITLE: N40-30 [FWS]

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gill:

This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1974, requesting an official interpretation concerning the proposed amendment to Standard 108 (Docket No. 69-19, Notice 3). You wish to know whether a steady burning lamp which is combined with a turn signal lamp shall be deactivated when the turn signal is flashing as part of the hazard warning system. It is our view that a steady burning lamp must always be deactivated when the turn signal lamp is flashing, whether in the turning phase or the hazard warning phase.

Sincerely,

ID: nht74-3.30

DATE: 08/15/74

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

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We confirm your interpretation of S5.3.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105-75, expressed in your letter of August 2, 1974, to Dr. Gregory, that the engine "start" position may be used as a check position for indicator lamp function.

The phrase in S5.3.2 "when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between 'on' ('run') and 'start'" is intended to include both "on" and "start" as well as any position between.

Application of the parking brake as an indicator check will no longer be permitted for vehicles manufactured after the effective date of Standard 105-75.

ID: nht74-3.31

DATE: 09/06/74

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

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 14, 1974, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (Docket 1-5, Notice 11, published on June 28, 1974), regarding its applicability to specific hydraulic brake booster hoses used on General Motors products.

As indicated in Notice 11, it is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) intention to exempt from the requirements of the standard hydraulic booster lines subject to a different working environment than brake hose, pending development of special performance requirements for such lines. General Motors' interpretation that the hydraulic booster hoses used in the systems described in your August 14 letter are exerpted from the standard requirements is correct. The system described in your Attachment A is considered to incorporate an accumulator integral with the brake booster assembly. Hence all of the hoses run between the power steering pump and the accumulator (either directly or via the power steering gear) and are accordingly exempted per the Notice 11 preamble. The hoses used in the system described in your Attachment B are exempted by virtue of the provision of redundant booster power by the independent electrohydraulic pump.

A future amendment to FMVSS 106 to eliminate ambiguity in respect to the standard's applicability to hydraulic booster hoses is currently under consideration. Any such amendment will be consistent with the present interpretation.

ID: nht74-3.32

DATE: 08/30/74

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

TO: Private Truck Council of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 25 and August 26, 1974, requesting information on NHTSA regulations applicable to regrooved tires.

You ask whether companies leasing trucks to other companies may equip the trucks with regrooved tires, and what tire standards apply.

The recent court decision regarding regrooved tires (NAMBO v. Volpe 483 F. 2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973), Cert. denied, -- U.S. -- (1974)) held that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act the NHTSA could permit only the sale of regrooved tires. Consequently, the leasing of regrooved tires is now prohibited, as is any other introduction of them into interstate commerce other than by a sale. The NHTSA recently amended its regrooved tire regulations to conform to this Court opinion.

We do not construe the opinion to prohibit the leasing of trucks equipped with regrooved tires. The regulation applies only to the manner in which the tires themselves are obtained.

The standards applicable to regrooved tires are found in the Regrooved Tire regulations (49 CFR Part 569). Regroovable tires manufactured after March 1, 1975, must also conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119.

ID: nht74-3.33

DATE: 09/04/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1974, asking whether a new model Bunny Bear child seat ("Sweetheart Seat II") must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when the seat is used as an infant carrier. We received from Mr. Samuel Linden of Bunny Bear the tentative instruction sheet which will be furnished with this device. According to these instructions, the device is to be installed laterally across the vehicle seat when used as an infant carrier ("for children weighing 15 lbs. or less and unable to sit up alone") and in the traditional forward-facing mode when used as a child seating system ("by children capable of sitting upright by themselves, and weighing between 15 lbs. and 40 lbs., and whose height is between 24 inches and 40 inches"). The vehicle lap belt is installed differently in each mode, and an adjustment must also be made to the frame when converting from one mode to another.

We would not consider the device, when used as an infant carrier, to be a child seating system under Standard No. 213. It would consequently not be required to meet the standard's requirements when installed in that mode. Although S4.11.1 of Standard No. 213 does require that a child seating system in which the attitude of the child is adjustable meet the standard's requirements at each designed adjustment position, we believe the differences in installation for this Bunny Bear device are sufficiently extensive that the modification to an infant carrier is bona fide, and not merely a different adjustment position.

We are concerned, however, about the possibility that users may attempt to recline the device (by loosening and adjusting the wing nuts in the base) when the device is attached to the vehicle in the forward-facing position. Although this adjustment position is not mentioned in the instruction sheet, it seems from the sheet that such an adjustment is possible. The instruction on page 1 of the sheet reading, "[a]lways loosen the lap belt attached to the child seat when changing from one position to another," adds some further ambiguity on this point. Consequently, we believe that the seat must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when reclined in the forward-facing position unless the instruction sheet is changed to clearly indicate that the device should not be reclined when attached in that position.

In addition, because the device has a dual use, we believe the proposed certification statement appears on the first page of the instruction sheet is misleading. It implies that the device meets applicable Federal standards in all configurations, although no standards exist for infant carriers. Accordingly, the statement should reflect the fact that no Federal standards exist for infant carriers.

Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.

July 25, 1974

Richard Dyson Acting Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

The purpose of this letter is to request clarification of the applicability of FMVSS 213.

For several years, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. has provided technical consulting and testing services to Bunny Bear, Inc. of Everett, Massachusetts, among other child seat manufacturers. Bunny Bear is now in the process of introducing to the market an unusual new child seat. In accordance with its customary practice, Bunny Bear has solicited BBN's opinion as to whether its new seat meets all requirements of FMVSS 213.

The new seat is convertible from a semirecumbent infant carrier to an upright child seat, and is designed to eliminate the need for purchasing two different restraint systems as a child grows. In its child seat mode, it is a conventional forward-facing child seat. In its infant carrier mode, however, it is installed so that the child sits in a semirecumbent position with its spine oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the automobile. The seat label and instructions state explicitly that it is to be used in the semirecumbent, sideways-facing mode only for infants weighing less than 15 lbs and unable to sit upright by themselves.

S2 of FMVSS 213 states that "This standard does not apply . . . to systems for use only by recumbent or semirecumbent children." S4.11.1(b) requires that "A child seating system in which the attitude of the child is adjustable pursuant to the instructions provided in accordance with paragraph S4.2 shall meet these requirements at each designed adjustment position."

The question that concerns us here is whether FMVSS 213 is applicable to this child seat when it is used in its semirecumbent, sideways-facing mode. The answer to this question appears to hinge upon whether the two modes of seat use are viewed as separate types of seating systems or merely as different adjustment positions.

We believe that the semirecumbent mode does not represent a different adjustment position as that term is used in S4.11.1(b), but rather represents a conversion of the seat for use exclusively by semirecumbent infants weighing less than 15 lbs. This conversion will occur only once, when the child's weight reaches 15 lbs; the seat will not be adjusted back and forth from one mode to the other.

On the basis of this reasoning, we have advised Bunny Bear that we do not believe that FMVSS 213 applies to the seat when used in its semi-recumbent sideways-facing mode. We would appreciate your comments regarding the correctness of our interpretation, since, if it is not correct, we must devise some method of conducting performance tests for the seat when used in its infant carrier mode.

Duncan C. Miller

Samuel Linden, Bunny Bear, Inc.

Bunny Bear, Inc.

August 14, 1974

Micheal Peskoe National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

As you know, Dr. Duncan Miller of Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. has contacted you on behalf of Bunny Bear, Inc. requesting clarification of the applicability of FMVSS 213 to our new car seat when used in the semirecumbent infant carrier position and placed laterally on the automobile seat.

Dr. Miller has asked me to send you a copy of our instructions to help you in your evaluation of the child seating system.

Enclosed you will find a copy of the instruction booklet which, of course, will not be printed until the final clarification has been made. This is merely a copy of the proof. The information will illustrate exactly how this item is used.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Samuel Linden Executive Vice President

cc: Duncan Miller

Bunny Bear

AMERICA'S OLDEST MANUFACTURER OF NURSERY NECESSITIES SINCE 1918

NURSERY LANE

EVERETT, MASS. 02149

INSTRUCTIONS

THE SWEETHEART SEAT II (trademark)

THIS SEAT IS DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Please read thoroughly and follow carefully all instructions so that all safety features designed and built into this seat will be effective.

The certification label attached to the back or bottom contains important information which must be followed for proper use of this child's seat. Please do not remove this label

Use only in passenger cars at seating positions having an adult seat belt which can be used as per instructions given inside.

NOT FOR USE AT SEATING POSITIONS WHERE AN AUTO SHOULDER BELT IS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE AUTO LAP BELT.

WE RECOMMEND THAT THIS CHILD SEAT BE USED IN THE CENTER OF THE REAR SEAT WHENEVER POSSIBLE. THIS WILL PROVIDE INCREASED PROTECTION FOR THE CHILD.

Always loosen the lap belt attached to the child seat when changing from one position to another.

Be sure shoulder straps go through bottom slot in seat back when used in infant carrier position and through the top slot when used in the full upright position. (See instructions inside).

The strap in back of the child seat connecting the top and bottom frames, should always be centered on the bottom frame. It spreads the distribution of impact forces when child seat is used in upright position.

FASTENING CHILD INTO INFANT CARRIER OR UPRIGHT POSITION

1. When used in infant carrier position, the shoulder harnesses should come through the bottom slot in the child seat back. (See Diagram C-1)

2. When used in the upright sitting position, the shoulder harnesses should come through the top slot in the child seat back. (Diagram C-1).

To change shoulder straps from one slot to another simply pull ends of shoulder straps through adjustment slides -- one on each shoulder strap -- releasing them from the harness system. Then pull straps back through the slot they are in and thread through other slot back to front. Rethread ends of web through slots of eye loops and then through adjustment slides - reconnecting the harness system. (Diagram C-2 & C-3).

(Graphics omitted)

3. With snap buckle released and 5 point harness system loose, place child in infant carrier or in upright position. (Diagram C-4).

4. Place the shoulder straps one over each shoulder of the child. (C-4).

5. Bring each end of lap belt together so that the eyes of the metal loops - one on each end of the lap belt -- overlap on top of each other, aligning the holes. (Diagram C-5).

6. Bring tongue of snap buckle through the eyes of the metal loops and snap together securely. (Diagram C-5).

7. All belts have adjustment slides (C2). Adjust lap belt and crotch strap to fit around child's hips and lap, not around child's waist. Adjust straps to fit as snugly as possible and still be comfortable Leave one inch of space between shoulder straps and child's chest. (C6).

8. Bring ends of all straps back through slides for added locking strength. (Diagram C-3).

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-3.34

DATE: 08/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Viola Back

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1974, inquiring as to penalties available for violation of the odometer requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

The Act requires, in part, that a written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer.

Violation of the disclosure requirement may subject the violator to civil liability where his actions were intended to defraud the purchaser. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy, section 409 of the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal Court.

There is no provision in the Act specifying that the transferee must obtain a disclosure statement from his transferor. The obligation to execute this disclosure document lies with the transferor alone.

For your information, I have enclosed relevant portions of the Act and the odometer disclosure requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let us know.

ENC.

JULY 15, 1974

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

IN REFERENCE TO OUR FEDERAL ODOMETER LAW, EFFECTIVE MARCH 1973, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, WHAT PENALTY, A LICENSED MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER FACES, FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF SUCH LAW, I.E., HE NEITHER GIVES A PURCHASER OF A VEHICLE SOLD BY HIS DEALERSHIP, A SIGNED ODOMETER FORM, OR, RECEIVES ONE, FROM ANY TRADE-IN, OR OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF VEHICLES, FROM OTHERS.

VIOLA BECK

ID: nht74-3.35

DATE: 05/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hawk Motor Homes, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1974, enclosing a sample certification label and requesting that we approve as an alternate location the inside wall left of the driver's seat beneath the driver's side window, to the left of the dash.

The labels you supply state in day, month, and year the dates of complete and incomplete vehicle manufacture, and the date by which applicable standards are determined. The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) call for these dates to be stated only by month and year. While we prefer that the regulation be followed specifically, and thus that month and year only be specified, we will accept the format you have submitted which includes the day. The other information on the labels conforms to the Certification requirement.

With respect to your request for an alternate location, we approve the alternate location you request.

SINCERELY,

Hawk Motor Homes, Inc.

March 27, 1974

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Attention: Frank Berndt

Re: N40-30 (JB)

CIR-954

In accordance with our telephone conversation on March 25th, we are enclosing herewith two sample labels for approval. Would you kindly affix your approval to one of the labels and return to us in the self-addressed stamped envelope also enclosed herewith.

It is our intention to have these labels attached to the wall immediately left of the driver's seat and directly underneath the window to the rear of the dash board. Kindly indicate whether or not this location is acceptable. Also note the diagram enclosed.

Very truly yours,

by Fred H. Hogan -- President

ID: nht74-3.36

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Heavy & Specialized Carriers Conference of American Trucking Associations

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 23, 1974, request for an explanation of the meaning and use of the term "Gross axle weight rating" (GAWR) in Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The concept of GAWR and "Gross vehicle weight rating" (GVWR) are interrelated, and the two terms are defined as follows:

"Gross axle weight rating" or "GAWR" means the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

"Gross vehicle weight rating" or "GVWR" means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

In both cases it is the manufacturer who specifies the values, and he is free to specify whatever values he himself decides are correct. Both the NHTSA in its compliance tests, and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety on the road, will judge the vehicle on the basis of the values assigned. Therefore it is in the interest of the manufacturer to assign values which accurately reflect the load-bearing ability of the vehicle and its suspension.

The sum of the GAWR's must at least equal the specified GVWR to avoid overloading the axle systems, and the GAWR sum may, of course, exceed the GVWR. Typically the manufacturer balances the commercial advantage of specifying a higher GVWR against the expense of higher GAWR's.

The GAWR is measured at the tire-ground interfaces which means that the tires, wheels, brakes and suspension components are included in the determination. Typically an axle assembly is rated by its manufacturer, who takes into account the braking ability of the axle to stop the load. Although this factor should always have been taken into consideration, the advent of Standard 121 may cause axle and brake manufacturers to reassess the values they have assigned to brake systems in the past.

YOURS TRULY,

Heavy & Specialized Carriers Conference Of American Trucking Associations

April 23, 1974

Thomas Herlihy Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Please accept our sincere thanks for the meeting held at your offices on April 9, 1974 in which we discussed the impact of MVSS No. 121 on the heavy and specialized carrier industry. To further "introduce" you and your staff to our industry, I am enclosing a copy of our current Membership Directory and a recent issue of our monthly magazine TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER.

At the meeting we discussed briefly the intended meaning of the "24,000 pound gross axle weight rating" appearing in your proposed amendment in the March 1, 1974 FEDERAL REGISTER and you indicated that the intent was to use the current axle rating system as opposed to the MVSS No. 121 axle rating system in which braking ability would play a major limiting role. As a quick review of the enclosed magazine will reveal, this technical factor is of the utmost importance to our members who are the nation's primary users of this type of equipment.

We would appreciate a reply indicating the correct usage and application of this "24,000 pound gross axle weight rating" as it appears in that FEDERAL REGISTER item. If there are any questions concerning this inquiry, please feel free to call on us.

And again, please accept our sincere appreciation for the meeting last week.

Douglas A. Hughes

Director of Transportation

Enclosures

ID: nht74-3.37

DATE: 05/07/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Gracey; Maddin; Cowan & Bird

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of April 2, 1974, to Mrs. Winifred Desmond has been referred to this office for reply. In your letter you discuss what you consider to be an omission in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, viz., requirements for manufacturers to provide sufficient parts for the repair of vehicles in the hands of purchasers when those vehicles are found to contain safety related defects.

You are correct in stating that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require manufacturers to provide sufficient parts for the repair of defective vehicles in the hands of purchasers. The statute limits manufacturers' responsibilities, as you point out, to notification of owners.

The NHTSA has, however, taken some regulatory steps which relate to the availability of repair parts. The "Defect Notification" regulations (49 CFR Part 577) require manufacturers to estimate and specify in the defect notification letter the day by which repair parts will be available (49 CFR @@ 577.4(e)(1)(ii), 577.4(e)(2)(iii), 577.4(e)(3)(iii)). While this does not require repair parts to be available, it at least prohibits manufacturers from keeping purchasers in the dark on the availability of repair parts. Knowingly incorrect statements in response to this requirement can subject a manufacturer to civil penalties and other sanctions.

There are pending in the Congress amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (S. 355, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973): H.R. 5529, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)) that would in general require manufacturers to repair vehicles found to contain safety related defects without charge to the vehicle purchaser. If such legislation is enacted it would eliminate the problem of the availability of repair parts where safety related defects are found to exist.

We are pleased to be of assistance.