ID: nht70-2.1

DATE: 04/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Baker Equipment Engineering Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter to the Director, U. S. Department of Transportation dated February 19, 1970, concerning the mounting of identification lamps on your reel type trailers has been referred to this office for reply. A thorough review of our correspondence files indicates no record of our receipt of your letter of January 12, 1968, on this matter.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that all trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), which are 80 or more inches in overall width, be equipped with rear identification lamps in accordance with Tables I and II of the standard. The standard contains no provision for exemption of specially designed trailers such as your reel type models and we have to authority to provide relief for individual manufacturers.

Identification lamps mounted on the axle of your trailer would appear to meet the mounting location requirements of Standard No. 108.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comment is for your information only and in no way relieves the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht70-2.10

DATE: 05/15/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: Fleet Cap'n Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1970, to Mr. Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicle Programs, concerning the location of rear lamps on various models of your trailers.

From a review of the sketch attached to your letter, it appears that the tail, stop and turn signal lamps mounted on the trailer frame rearward of the fenders will meet the location requirements specified in Table IV of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. However, Standard No. 108, by reference to SAE Standard J588d, also re-requires that "--- visibility of the front turn signal to the front and the rear signal to the rear shall not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle throughout the photometric test angles for the lamps." The photometric test angles for turn signal lamps are specified in Table 2 of SAE Standard J575c. From your sketch it appears that the required visibility of the turn signal lamps, when mounted in the proposed location, would be partially blocked by the framework of the trailer. Mounting the lamps on the rear crossmember may therefore be necessary to provide the required unobstructed visibility.

For your information I am enclosing copies of Standard No. 108, SAE Standard J588d and SAE Standard J575c.

ID: nht70-2.11

DATE: 06/03/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 20 in which you ask "whether the Station Wagon should be construed as a Passenger Car or a Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle".

You are correct in your interpretation that a station wagon "does not normally fall under" the category of multipurpose passenger vehicle. However, if a station wagon "is constructed on a truck chassis" or "with special features for occasional off-road operation", such as four-wheel drive, it would be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle. I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht70-2.12

DATE: 06/15/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Montgomery Ward

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 19, 1970, concerning the new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems.

In your letter, you ask whether the Montgomery Ward catalog can contain a statement to the effect that child seats advertised for sale in the catalog have been certified as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 213. There is no law or other prohibition against retailers of products covered by safety standards advertising the fact that the manufacturers have certified the products as conforming to the standards.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 has a January 1, 1971, effective date. As a result, manufacturers of child seating systems will be required to certify that they conform to the standard only if the systems are manufactured on or after January 1, 1971. There is, however, to Federal law which prevents a manufacturer from voluntarily certifying that a child seating system manufacturered before the effective date of the standard conforms to the standard's requirements.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

MONTGOMERY WARD

May 19, 1970

Mr. Douglas W. Toms U. S. Department of Transportation

In the next week we will present to our management selections for our Spring General Catalog for 1971. Included will be our selection of child seating systems. We assume today that the products of the two or three resources under consideration will qualify for certification under Standard 213. We are faced then with a problem of indentication unique to a catalog presentation.

Over a period of years the catalog shopper has had a choice of many seats covering a fairly wide price spectrum. As we see the results of this ruling, the customer will face a shortened selection and higher prices. Essentially the seats will not be visibly different from many previous seats to any substantial degree.

We also believe that there should be a significant amount of publicity attendent to the effective date of this Standard. It should be our responsibility to assure concerned parents that the seat purchased from Montgomery Ward was indeed built in compliance with these regulations. We are very much aware of consumer reaction to some disclosures by the Commission on Product Safety. Simply, we want to answer the question first and assure the consumer.

Therefore, in this Spring 1971 General Catalog can we add to the general copy a statement that "The manufacturer of these car seats had certified that they meet the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213, effective January 1, 1971?"

We appreciate your consideration to a problem facing the catalog oriented portion of a chain merchandising organization. We need the help of your office, because we feel we must let people, to whom we can not speak individually, know that we are aware of their concern.

H. W. Wollin, Buyer Furniture Mdse. Office

ID: nht70-2.13

DATE: 06/18/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Capitol Tire Distributors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 6, 1970, asking if you are violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, or, regulations issued pursuant to it, if you distribute tires marked seconds.

Neither the Act nor the regulations prohibit the sale of tires marked seconds. Manufacturers are required to certify that their product complies with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and do so by labeling each tire they they certify with the symbol "DOT". Tires that are certified by the manufacturer and marked "seconds" are not necessarily unsafe, as the "second" may be due to a cosmetic defect not affecting the tire's performance. In such cases, the distributor of the tire would not be in violation of the Act.

Sometimes a tire manufacturer will make a tire that he believes is defective in a way that affects the safety of the tire. Often, that manufacturer will mark the tire "farm use only" or "non-highway use" and then sell it. In such instances, he is supposed to remove the DOT symbol. Enclosed is a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking dealing with this problem which may be of interest to you or your members.

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

ID: nht70-2.14

DATE: 06/22/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R.A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 7, 1970, requesting approval of an equivalent test procedure for interior compartment doors, in place of those specified in S3.3.1(a) and (c) of Standard No. 201.

Since the phrase "approved equivalent test procedure" appeared in the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the Bureau's position on this subject has undergone some clarification. The manufacturer's primary responsibility is to produce vehicles or equipment that, when tested according to the applicable standards, meet the stated requirements. Although a manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that his products meet all the requirements of the standards, there is nothing in the Act that requires a manufacturer to perform any predetermined series of tests. If a particular test is actually "equivalent" to the procedure described in the standard, in the sense that the test results can be accurately correlated to the standard's requirements, there is no need to request approval of the Bureau, and there would be no legal significance to the approval if given. Conversely, if the test is not equivalent, so that an item that "possed" the test might still fail to conform to the standard, the request would be actually for a lowering of the standard, which could not be done without rulemaking procedures. For this reason, we will not grant the approval in the form in which it was requested.

The procedure that you described does, however, appear to be a distinct improvement in the method of testing this aspect of performance. We intend to initiate rulemaking procedures directed at amending the standard to incorporate that test.

ID: nht70-2.15

DATE: 06/29/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Cristales Inastillables de Mexico S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1970, requesting the National Highway Safety Bureau's approval or comments on an Electrical Testing Laboratories Report No. 411430, concerning your CM-20 safety glazing material. The National Highway Safety Bureau does not approve or confirm whether specific motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment comply with Federal standards. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment bears the responsibility for ensuring that his product complies with applicable standards. Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1402), furthermore, requires manufacturers to "certify" that their products comply with applicable standards, and specifies how this certification is to be accomplished. A notice published in the Federal Register on November 4, 1967, further explained how manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment may comply with this requirement. I enclose a copy of this notice and the aforementioned Act, with the appropriate sections marked for your information.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203 (S3.4) provides an additional method by which manufacturers of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles may certify that their products comply with that standard. This method may be used as a substitute for the methods specified in section 114 and the enclosed notice. It consists of labeling the glazing material with a label that meets the requirements of Section 6 of ASA Z.26.1-1966, "Marking of Safety Glazing Materials", but to which has been added the symbol "DOT", and a manufacturer's code number which assigned by the Bureau on request. The label which you furnish in the appendix to your ETL

Report No. 411430, provided the required "AS"-designation, glazing-model number, and assigned DOT code mark are at least 0.070 inch in height, will meet this requirement. Should you desire to certify your glazing in this manner, we will furnish you with a manufacturer's code number.

Although the Bureau does not furnish approvals of glazing materials, many states do require some form of approval before specific glazing material can be used in motor vehicles subject to their jurisdiction. For information regarding such approvals and assistance in obtaining them I suggest you write to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Attention: Mr. Armand Cardarelli, Suite 500, 1828 L Streets N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States, you are required by section 110(e) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(a)) to designate an agent for service of process purposes. The designation must conform to regulations governing its making (49 CFR 551.45), and I enclose a copy also with appropriate sections marked for your reference.

ID: nht70-2.16

DATE: 07/15/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Transelex Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of July 1 you refer to your superflash 1000 as "device which simply extends the power-handling capability of a conventional thermal flasher which must be used in conjunction with it (to provide its timing) in order to operate". You ask whether this device "could be used in OEM vehicles without meeting any SAE or DOT requirements."

This will confirm that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) does not specify requirements for an auxiliary device such as the superflash 1000, and that it can "be used in OEM vehicles without meeting any SAE or DOT requirements, provided that the thermal flasher used with it" meets standard No. 108. The Superflash 1000, however, would be subject to regulation by the States.

ID: nht70-2.17

DATE: 07/21/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James Deifster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your request for information on requirements for camper manufacturers has been referred to this office for reply. The information we have received states that you are a manufacturer of campers, selling them to dealers, and also installing them on trucks.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. @(Illegible Word) et seq., (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to manufacture their products so that they comply, and to "certify" that they comply, with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Camper bodies for both slide-in and chassis-mount camper installation are items of motor vehicle equipment and must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, will be certified by their manufacturer that they comply with the standard. I enclose a copy of the standard and the regulations governing certification for your information, Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the USA Standard(Illegible Words) "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways." This USAS standard can be obtained for a small fee from the USA Standards Institute, 10 East 40th Street, New York, N.Y. 10016.

If you install slide-in camper bodies on pick-up trucks only, you are not subject to additional requirements. However, if you install chassis-mount camper bodies onto truck chassis, you are in addition to being a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, a manufacturer of motor vehicles, specifically, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and are required to comply with regulations and standards applicable to manufacturers of multipurpose passenger vehicles. Copies of these requirements, which have been promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and codified in Chapter 5 (formerly Chapter 3) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, are available from the Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402, under the title Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The price is $ 8.00, which includes a subscription for one year to receive copies of amendments.

Because of the relative length and complexity of these requirements, it is difficult to summarize them for you here. Many trade associations have familiarized themselves with them in order to assist their membership in complying with them. If after studying the materials you have specific questions concerning their application to you, we will be pleased to answer them.

I have also enclosed a mailing list questionnaire. If you will complete and return it to the address indicated thereon, you will receive future notices pertaining to those areas you have marked.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht70-2.18

DATE: 08/11/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: University of Michigan Law School

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of June 22, 1970, concerning the Cyromatic Safety Control, together with a copy of the July 1, 1970, reply sent by Mr.(Illegible Word) Weinberger, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, has been referred to my office for reply.

The National Highway Safety Bureau does not have the facilities for testing or investigating specific devices or designs. However, the(Illegible Word) on Winter(Illegible Words) of the National Safety Council has completed an(Illegible Words) of the type mentioned in your letter. I am enclosing for your information a copy of the National Safety Council report on this evaluation.

In brief, the conclusion of the Committee were that there were no significant differences in the performance of the test vehicles whether the device was stated and operable, rendered inoperable, or removed from the vehicles. The only test results considered significant involved a high(Illegible Words) on dry pavement where the device increased(Illegible Words) of the test vehicles by a substantial amount, thus effecting their handling performance adversely.

It is felt that sufficient date is available in the National Safety Council Committee on(Illegible Words) evaluation to warrant investigation on the(Illegible Words) on the Federal Trade Commission, concerning possible misleading advertising on the part of manufacturers of this type of device. Consequently, we have contacted, Mr. Weinberger directly concerning the(Illegible Words).