ID: nht67-1.20

DATE: 10/02/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Neild; NHTSA

TO: Patton, Blew, Verrill, Krand and Boggs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of August 10, 1967, you requested clarification of the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.(Illegible Word) to boat trailers.

Although a boat trailer does in some respect resemble a "pole trailer," it does not completely conform to the definition of a "pole trailer," as stated in Section 235.3 of the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This section states in part that a "pole trailer" is for transporting long or irregularly shaped loads such as poles, pipes, or structural members capable generally of sustaining themselves as(Illegible Word) between the supporting connections. The single load (a boat) on the boat trailer does not appear to meet these stated provisions of the definition.

The primary purpose of clearance and identification lights is to identify a vehicle that is 80 or more inches in overall width, regardless of the height of the vehicle. It should be noted, in this respect, that a "height-above-road-surface"(Illegible Word) for location of the lights is not specified in Standard No.(Illegible Word). Nevertheless, we have initiated a study to further determine the applicability of identification lights to best trailers.

With regard to your several questions on the use and location of side marker lights, it appears that each trailer model must be considered individually, particularly with respect to the front side marker lights. As you suggested, the extreme rear of the transverse marker provides a possible location for the rear side marker light. On those trailer models having a long transverse marker, it appears possible to locate the front side marker light on the extreme front side of the transverse marker. For those models having an extremely short transverse marker, it appears that a location as far forward as possible, exclusive of the trailer tongue, would meet the requirements of the standard.

Thank you for your interest in the motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht67-1.21

DATE: 05/15/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your March 7, 1967, letter to Dr. William Haddon, Jr., requested that you be advised regarding the applicability of lighting requirements, as spacified in the Initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to fire apparatus.

With exception as noted in Section 255.7, page 2409 of the Federal Register, Volume 32, Number 23, dated February 3, 1967 (copy enclosed), the lighting requirements will be applicable to fire apparatus. Initial Standard No. 108 covers lighting requirements for vehicles (as specified therein) that are 80 or more inches wide overall and becomes effective January 1, 1968. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (see page 2418) of enclosed Federal Register includes a Proposed Amendment to Standard No. 108 and a Proposed Initial Standard No. 112, covering vehicles (as specified therein) that are less than 80 inches wide overall. It is anticipated that the proposed Amendment and Initial Standard No. 112 will also become effective on January 1, 1968.

Thank you for your interest in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

March 7, 1967

Dr. WILLIAM HADDON, JR. -- NHTSA

We have an inquiry from one of our members as to whether or not all of the lighting standards under the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as published in the Federal Register Volume 32, Number 23, Part II dated Friday, February 3, 1967 will apply to fire apparatus.

Will you please advise us on this matter so that we may inform our members.

Thank you for your prompt attention.

C. L. Koepenick Secretary-Treasurer

ID: nht67-1.22

DATE: 11/27/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Andrew K. Ness; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 10, 1967, in which you requested a clarification of the use of the term "combined optically" as used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 188, Sections S8.3(c) and S3.4.4.3.

S3.3(c) Lamp Combinations and Equipment Combinations. Two or more lamps, reflective devices, and items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are Met, except that --

(c) No clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp or identification lamp.

This means that no clearance lamp may be combined to use a lense that is common to any other lamp such as a taillamp or identification lamp. The clearance lamp shall have a unique lense.

S3.4.4.3 Stoplamps that are combined optically with turn signal lamps need not be operable when the combination is in use as a turn signal or as a vehicular hazard warning signal.

This means that stoplamps that have a lense that is common with the turn signal lamps do not have to be operable when the combined stoplamp and turn signal lamp is used primarily as a turn signal or as a hazard warning signal. Stoplamps need not be operable when the combined stoplamp and turn signal lamp unit is used as a hazard warning or turn signal indicator.

We trust these comments will be of assistance in clarifying your problems.

ID: nht67-1.23

DATE: 08/10/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Thermo King Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1967, regarding the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to accessories which are purchased for installation after procurement of the car and, in particular, Safety Standard No. 201.

Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact -- Passenger Cars," applies only to vehicles as originally equipped and does not apply to accessories such as "after market" auto air conditioners. However, the public would certainly benefit from the maximum degree of conformance that may be feasible on after market installations.

It is sincerely regretted that a written response to your first request was not received by you and trust that you were not inconvenienced.

March 14, 1967

Dr. William Haddon Department of Commerce

As manufacturers of "after market" auto air conditioners, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as passed on January 23, 1967, is of concern to us. Does this Safety Act apply to manufacturers of accessories which are purchased by the car owner after he receives the car? The case in point is a car owner which purchases an "add-on" auto air conditioner; must this accessory comply with Standard 201?

Recently one of our Engineers (Mr. D. Gregerson) contacted your office (Clayboure) and received verbal "no" answers to the above questions. Your aides mentioned that this could be confirmed by requesting it by letter. We would appreciate this confirmation when convenient for you.

Very truly yours,

L. L. Willis Vice President - Engineering

ID: nht67-1.24

DATE: 08/18/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lowell K. Bridwell; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request to Dr. Haddon for an interpretation of the term "rigid material" as it appears in paragraph S3.4.1(b) in the National Highway Safety Bureau's "talking paper" of July 6, 1967. This term is identical to that used in paragraph S.3.4.1(b) of Standard 201, issued August 11, 1967. Therefore, the following interpretation applies to Standard 201 as issued August 11, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed.

"Rigid material" does not include a supporting structure of an armrest that is made of flexible spring steel if the supporting structure is designed to flex in the direction of transverse impact upon the pelvic impact area.

MERCEDES-BENZ OR NORTH AMERICA INC.

July 11, 1967

Dr. William Haddon, Jr. Director National Highway Safety Bureau

Re.: Application for Binding Ruling Standard 201, provisional July 6, 1967, Armrests S 3.4.1 (b).

As indicated in the discussion of the proposed language on July 9, 1967, we are applying for a ruling that the definition of "rigid material" in line 4 shall be understood not to include such supporting structures of armrests which are made of flexible spring steel when such supporting structure designed to flex in the direction of transverse impact upon the pelvic impact area, and shall therefore not be subject to the requirement of "minimum vertical height of not less than 1"."

Argument: There are numerous armrest designs which may not qualify under the requirements of S 3.4.1(a) since they are at some part less than 2" wide laterally, and therefore must qualify under Para. (b). If such armrests are designed to combine the function of a door opener, i.e. with a fingerhole, a flexible spring core is ideally suited and has many times been used as a demonstrably safe design in the past. The spring material, which need not necessarily be steel but may also take the form of various plastics, provides the necessary strength for vertical support required for an armrest but gives upon transverse impact to avoid injury.

We should be grateful to receive your ruling at the earliest possible date in view of current production schedules for the 1968 models, and in view of the fact that with this indication we agreed to wave further amending language of the standard Para. S 3.4.1 (b), so as to provide for the possibility of clear definitions in some future revisions.

Respectfully,

H. C. Hoppe

ID: nht67-1.25

DATE: 12/13/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter to me dated November 25, you have raised several questions relating to the status of Japanese motorcycles manufactured after December 31, 1967, and shipped to the United States without windshields.

Specifically you have stated:

"1. Is the . . . understanding (correct) that the importation of motorcycles not equipped with windowshields and/or any glazing material will not violate the . . . National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966."

Answer: Your understanding is correct. Motorcycles are not required to be equipped with windshields, and conformity to Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 is required only if motorcycles are equipped with windshields.

"2. In case motor cycles without glazing material are imported, what shall motorcycle manufacturers do in respect to certificate requirements according to Paragraph 114 of the Act and the Notice of October 31, 1967."

Answer: No certification is required for motorcycles which are imported without glazing materials.

"3. If certification is not required for motorcycles not equipped with glazing material, would there be any problem at the time of importation at U.S. Customs offices that may naturally seek safety certification on all motor vehicles covered by the Federal Standards."

Answer: Under the proposed joint regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department (Bureau of Customs) and the Department of Transportation covering importation of motor vehicles manufactured after December 31, 1967, vehicles not bearing certification will be admitted upon a declaration by the importer or(Illegible Word) that such vehicle was manufactured on a date when no standards applicable to the vehicle were in effect. To insure that there is no difficulty at the port of entry, it is contemplated that Customs officials will be notified that motorcycles without windshields may be admitted without certification. The proposed joint regulations were published in the Federal Register for November 30, 1967, and I enclose a copy for your consideration.

You have further asked: "Would there be any particular procedures that could be taken by Japanese motorcycle manufacturers in advance to avoid such a possibility."

Answer: If the motorcycles are shipped in a manner in which they are not readily visible, it might be advisable to atencil the shipping containers with a legend to the effect that the motor vehicle therein is not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., a motorcycle not equipped with a windshield).

Of course, any glazing material shipped for subsequent installation on a motorcycle must bear appropriate certification.

I hope this sufficiently answers your questions.

ID: nht67-1.26

DATE: 12/22/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 13, 1967, in which approval of a dynamic inertia load test procedure, as set forth in paragraph s4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 206, was requested.

This is to advise that the proposed procedure, as outlined in the enclosure to the referenced letter, is approved for the transverse inertia load portion of the standard test requirements.

Thank you for your continued cooperation in achievement of our mutual goals in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht67-1.27

DATE: 06/13/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Texas Department of Public Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Arnold Wise has asked that I answer your letter of April 14, 1967, concerning a clarification of several requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207, 208, and 209.

I am enclosing copies of the Federal Register of August 31, 1966, and February 3, 1967, which provide all of the information which you require. You will note that Standard No. 207 is concerned with the anchorage of the seats - not seat belts. Standard No. 208 requires seat belts in all passenger cars manufactured after January 1, 1968. In a regular size, four door, sedan-type vehicle with regular undivided seats, six lap belts would be required and, in addition, upper torso restraints would be required in the front outboard seats if the windshield header is in the head impact area.

The installation of seat belts in other than passenger cars is not required by the initial standards. However, any seat belts that are manufactured after March 1, 1967, must conform to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

Your interest in the traffic safety program of this Bureau is appreciated.

ID: nht67-1.28

DATE: 10/04/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 16 in which you attached a letter from your constituent, Mrs. Beverly Hoffman of San Diego. Mrs. Hoffman asked if there is any Federal or state regulation, or city ordinance, which forbids the removal or concealment of passenger seat belts in taxicabs. Mrs. Hoffman has raised an important question and one which is of vital concern to the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966: the retention of a safety equipment in a vehicle after its original purchase.

Since I expect that California law is of most interest to both Mrs. Hoffman and you, I will answer her question on the basis of the California Vehicle Code. Since January 1, 1964, Section 27309 has made it an offense to sell in California any new passenger vehicle which does not have at least two state approved restraint belts or harnesses in its front seat. Retention of the front seat belts by the vehicle owner is indirectly required by Section 40001(b) (2) which makes it unlawful for "an owner to request, cause, or permit the operation of any vehicle which is not equipped as required in this Code." (emphasis supplied) Since California has no annual motor vehicle inspection, enforcement of this law has presumably been by spot inspection. Members of the California Highway Patrol (Section 2804) and city traffic officers (Section 2806) have the authority to inspect a vehicle to determine whether its equipment is in compliance with the code.

With respect to rear seat-belts which most directly concern Mrs. Hoffman as a passenger, their installation has not been required by the Code. Such belts as she may have seen in the rear of California taxis have been provided as a courtesy of the owner rather than as a requirement of the law. But, as she directly notes, all passenger cars including taxicabs manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these, Standard No. 208, will require taxis to be manufactured with lap restraint belts installed in each rear seating position. But if the California legislature has not amended the Vehicle Code itself to require their installation it would appear that there is no legal reason why a cab owner may not remove rear seat belts should he wish to go to the trouble.

Under the Act, the Secretary of Transportation does not have the authority to directly regulate motor vehicles "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." Instead, Congress intended that used vehicles be regulated by periodic state inspection. To implement this intent the Secretary has been directed to study state inspection systems and, in due course, to establish uniform standards applicable to all used motor vehicles. A hypothetical standard and one which we shall consider -- requiring the presence of original equipment safety items at time of each inspection would be sufficient to cover retention of rear seat safety belts. But the Act establishes no requirement that the states or any individual follow any used vehicle standard. For the probable enforcement mechanism of used car standards it is necessary to turn to the companion Highway Safety Act of 1966. Under this Act each state is required to have a highway safety program in accordance with standards promulgated by the Secretary. One such standard, already issued, establishes minimum requirements for periodic motor vehicle inspection. Eventually it is possible that used car standards will be suggested to the states through this motor vehicle inspection standard, but enforcement of the used car standards will be left to the states.

Concerning concealment of the belts, I am aware of no legislation, Federal, state, or municipal, which requires that a safety item not only be retained but also available for use. But I believe that sufficient authority may exist in the Highway Safety Act's mandate to the Bureau to include "vehicle operation" in the highway safety program standards to warrant our serious consideration of it.

I hope that this has answered Mrs. Hoffman's questions and I appreciate her interest in traffic safety.

ID: nht67-1.29

DATE: 05/25/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Busby and Rivkin, Counsellors at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 26, 1967, concerning the interpretation of Safety Standard Number 210.

Paragraph (Illegible Word) of Standard Number 208, specificas that the Type 2 seat belt anchorage shall be installed in each outboard passanger seat position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area. Therefore, the rear seat is not included in this area and no Type 2 belt assembly is required. A copy of the Federal Register published February 3, 1967, is enclosed for your information.

With regard to your comments on Standard Number 209 and on the provision of Section 108(b)(3) of the Act, please be advised that we anticipate the promulgation of joint regulations with the Secretary of the Treasury, permitting the incorporation of vehicles upon appropriate assurance that they will be brought into conformity with all applicable Federal standards prior to sale. These regulations or related regulations will prescribe the proper means of certifying such nonconforming vehicles in order to insure their admission through United States Customs.