ID: nht70-2.19

DATE: 05/26/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Oliver and Sons Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1970, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, that has been referred to this office, in which you enclose certification labels you are(Illegible Word) using to fulfill the requirement of Section 118 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Your letter did not reach me until now, and I apologize for delay in responding.

You really did not comply enough information for us to properly evaluate your situation. You state that you are a distributor of truck bodies, but you as not say whether you install the bodies yourself.

If you do, in fact assemble a truck body to a chassis-cab, you are considered to be a manufacturer under the Act. As the statutory manufacturer of the vehicle, you are required to certify that the completed assemblage meets all the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis-cab.

The primary responsibility for conformity of the chassis-cab, however, falls on the manufacturer of it (generally a major automotive manufacturer and under the regulations, that manufacturer is required to affix a label to the chassis-cab listing the standards to which it conforms. Under Section 108(b)(2) of the Act, such a certification protects subsequent persons in the chain of distribution from liability for nonconformity of which they have no knowledge. Thus, they body assembler to directly responsible for comformity of the finished vehicle with (1) any applicable standards to which the chassis-cab manufacturer was not certified, and (2) any other standards conformity to which is affected by what the(Illegible Word) door to the vehicle, his certification must be for all standards, in the language specified in the certification regulations;(Illegible Word) he can rely on the chassis-cab manufacturer's label for the standard it covers, as(Illegible Word) as he does not know of any nonconformity.

The(Illegible Word) being used on your labels does not fulfill the requirements of the certification regulations that becomes effective as to(Illegible Word)(Illegible Word) after August 11, 1969 (49 C.F.R. 367).

A truck body is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act and the regulations, and therefore is not covered by the present certification regulations. Although it is motor vehicle equipment such equipment is only required by the Act to be certified where there is a safety standard applicable to it or to equipment, such as glazing, that is part of it. When the body is assembled to the chassis, the completed vehicle must be certified in accordance with the certification regulations, as explained above.

It is not clear what you mean by the phrase "modification label." You may be referring to Section 367.6 of the certification regulations, which is intended for the use of distributors who alter a previously certified vehicle that has been completed by another manufacturer. In any event, the nonenclosure does not meet the requirements of the section.

We are enclosing the following publications:

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

The Certification Regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 367).

A sample certification label.

A publication having to do with the availability of the latest edition of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

Mailing List Questionnaire.

A new proposal having to do with vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (35 F.R. 4639 through 4641).

Please cobalt a copy of your label that has been revised to fulfill the requirements.

We trust this will clarify the situation for you. We will be pleased to answer any additional questions that you might have.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht70-2.2

DATE: 04/09/70

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

TO: Toyo Kogyo Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 2, 1979, to Mr. Clue D. Ferguson, concerning an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111.

In your letter you indicated that the mirror, as mounted in the vehicle, cannot be hit at a 45 degrees angle by a 6.5 inch head form because of the geometric arrangement in your automobile. In this case we would accept the maximum(Illegible Words) Form. We must point out, however, that the test also includes any other angle from the one you describe down to a 45 degrees angle under this horizontal(Illegible Word) S3.1.2.3 of standard No. 111).

Please note that this interpretation is intended to provide(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line)(Illegible Words) a given item of equipment meets applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and he must certify to that effect.

ID: nht70-2.20

DATE: 08/11/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Bruce Duncan Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 20, 1970, in which you request a ruling as to whether the Honda ATV is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations promulgated as a result of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act).

The descriptive literature furnished with your letter states that, "the machine looks to be street legal," and shows that the vehicle has lighting equipment. Therefore, the Honds ATV, as described, appears to be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Section 102(3) of the Act, and specifically a "motorcycle" as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b). Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

We trust this will clarify the situation for you. We will be pleased to answer any additional questions that you might have.

ID: nht70-2.21

DATE: 08/11/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 23, 1970, in which you asked for the Bureau's interpretation of the phrase, "designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area."

The phrases "designated seating position" and "head impact area" are both defined in the general Definitions section of the standards, 49 CFR 571.3. The remaining substantive phrase, "windshield header," is not defined in the standards. It is intended to refer to the portion of the interior of the vehicle immediately above the top of the windshield, usually but not necessarily a strip of molding separating the glass from the interior roof.

ID: nht70-2.22

DATE: 08/26/70

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

TO: International Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 12 to Mr. Toms requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211 (Wheel Discs, Wheel Nuts, and Hub Caps).

This standard does not prohibit projections per see on wheel equipment items; it prohibits winged projections. Thus there is no limitation on how far a cylindrical projection, for example, may extend beyond the outer edge of the tire. On the other hand, any winged projection is prohibited, even if recessed.

I hope this answers your question.

ID: nht70-2.23

DATE: 08/27/70

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

TO: Lanes Auto Sales

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter in which you asked about the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in regard to combination of new and used components.

In your first group of questions, you asked whether you could put a used fifth wheel or a used dump body on a new truck. The answer is yes, but the finished vehicle must conforms to all the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type of vehicle at the time it is completed. At this time, probably the only standard that would require action on your part would be Standard 108 on lighting systems, Other Standards applicable to trucks have been proposed, however, which will require you to take further action or observe certain limits in the future, and you should take stops to keep informed of the applicable requirements. I an enclosing a copy of current standards and regulations, and if you will fill out the enclosed form you will be put on a smailing list for notices that apply to your operations.

Also in reference to this group of questions, the requirements on persons who complete vehicles are the same whether they own the trucks or do the work for a dealer or for the ultimate user.

You also asked about building "a trailer out of new frames using old axles, brakes, and wheels, with parts made before 1966". In such a case, the vehicle that you build must conform to current applicable safety standards, unless it is a repair job done on a presently registered used vehicle that will continue to be registered as a used vehicle. Whether you call the trailer a used or new one depends on the State requirements - you may do whatever is permitted by your State licensing authorities in this regard.

Finally, you asked whether, when you build a trailer with used wheels, axles, bearings, brake drums, and springs, you may put on used tires. At present you certainly may do so, since there is no Federal safety standard for truck tires. It is probable that one will be issued in the future, however, and if and when such a standard becomes effective, any tires you use must meet the requirements of that standard.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Enclosures

ID: nht70-2.24

DATE: 09/03/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On August 13, 1970, you petitioned, on behalf of General Motors Corporation, for reconsideration of the amendment of 49 CFR 571.3, published on July 14, 1970 (35 F. R. 11242), which established a definition of "fixed collision barrier". The views presented in your petition have been carefully considered. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.

You argued that the phrase "absorb no significant portion of the vehicle's Kinetic energy" was subjective, and therefore not in accord with the statutory requirement that standards be stated in objective terms. This argument is without merit. It appears to be based on the misconception that the purpose of the definition is to describe, or prescribe standards for, a manufacturer's test barrier, as evidenced by your statement that it "gives manufacturer no guidelines for determing whether or not he has built a barrier which complies with the definition." The Bureau does not intend that manufacturers should build barriers to "comply with the definition." As stated in the notice,

"this is not intended to be a description of an actual test barrier. It is a device used in various standards to establish required quantitative performance levels of a vehicle in a crash situation, and means simply that the vehicle must meet the requirement no matter how small an amount of energy is absorbed by the barrier."

Far from being subjective, the definition is mathematically precise. As the energy absorption of the barrier approaches zero as a limit, the performance characteristic being measured must remain at or above the minimum stated in the standard.

From a practical standpoint, the definition is an important aid in regulation, and is a help to all parties in that a potential source of controversy concerning compliance with the standards is removed. It simply means that when the Bureau crash-tests a vehicle, the vehicle must meet the requirement no matter what the energy-absorption properties of the barrier, and therefore there is no room for argument on the differing properties of the Bureau's and the manufacturer's test barriers. The purpose of the standards is to regulate vehicles and equipment, not test barriers; manufacturers may use whatever barriers or tests they wish to ensure compliance It is a reasonably simple matter to erect a barrier that absorbs only a minute fraction of an impacting vehicle's energy. A conscientious manufacturer should therefore have no difficulty in determining whether a particular design will meet a standard.

Your petition also argued that the definition was impracticable because

"there is no known method of measuring the amount of energy absorbed by a barrier. Therefore, there is no way that the manufacturer could even attempt to determine whether or not his barrier complied with the definition, and, more importantly, whether or not his vehicle when tested complied with the performance requirements of the standards."

The energy absorption of a barrier is a direct function of the movement of the barrier during the impact. To be sure, there are other properties, such as its effective mass and elasticity, that also are factors in energy absorption. But it is clear that as the barrier movement approaches zero, the energy absorption also approaches zero; and the barrier movement can be measured, as you indicated by your recommendation that a specified amount of movement be allowed. In all cases where the vehicle has a tangible margin of safety performance over the required minimum, therefor, a manufacturer will have no difficulty in determining that his vehicle complies,

If our standards "allowed" barrier movement, it would be far more difficult to establish conclusively that a given vehicle did not meet the standard, since it would always be open to the manufacturer to argue that the Bureau's barrier did not move as far, and consequently did not absorb as much energy, as the standard allowed. To the extent that there may be a small degree of uncertainty as to the variance is the vehicle test performance caused by the variance of a barrier from zero absorption, that uncertainty must rest with the manufacturer, who is free to design into his vehicles whatever margin of performance he desires.

This matter was thoroughly considered by the Bureau, and the opinions of knowledgeable members of the public were sought and carefully evaluated. For these reasons, your petition for reconsideration must be denied.

We appreciate your cooperation in the field of motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht70-2.25

DATE: 09/11/70

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

TO: Tanaka and Walders

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of July 27, 1970 to the National Highway Safety Bureau requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

You are correct in your statement that no formal petition for rule making action is necessary for tire and rim combination cited within the references of S3 of Standard No. 109.

Concerning your question on "approval equivalent rim", we offer the following. The policy of the Bureau in 1967 at the time of the promulgation of Standards No. 109 and No. 110 was to give a "blanket" approval of all rims cited within the references. From that time on however, all new tire and rim combinations had to be approved by the Bureau. After the tire and rim combination was approved then it was listed within Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 110.

Standards No. 109 and No. 110 do not have requirements for rim contours. Our standards only specify the flange letter-code and width for a particular rim designation. Therefore, any request to change a rim dimension of an existing rim does not require a formal action by this Bureau.

ID: nht70-2.26

DATE: 09/21/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Donald O'Neill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 17, 1970, concerning Mr. George R. Smith's comments on the energy-absorbing steering system in response to my interview in your August issue.

I did not mean to imply that energy-absorbing steering systems were not installed by some manufacturers, such as General Motors, prior to the effective date of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203 - Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System.

Mr. Smith is correct in noting that Standard No. 203 does not require collapsible steering columns. It was intentionally written in performance terms rather than as a design specification. Most manufacturers chose the collapsible steering column to meet the standard, hence the common use of the term "collapsible column" to refer to our requirement. However, it should be noted that the standard is also being complied with by steering control systems employing other methods of energy-absorption including energy-absorbing rims and a collapsible bellows located forward of the steering wheel hub.

Regarding your request for a copy of the National Highway Safety Bureau "Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards," this plan is a working document and represents the presently scheduled rulemaking actions to be issued by our Motor Vehicle Programs activity during the period of 1970-1972. I am pleased to enclose a copy as you requested.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of my interview remarks and I enjoyed reading Mr. Smith's comments.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht70-2.27

DATE: 09/23/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 27, 1970, concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations to a fire truck to be manufactured according to specifications in a military contract.

In your letter, you state that the windshield glass specified by the contract for the truck does not conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. You then ask:

Are we on the Military required to obtain an exemption from the(Illegible Word) for this or any other exception in military contracts that do not conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations?

The answer to your question is no. Section 571.7(c) of 49 CFR, Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Subpart A - General, provides that "(n)o standard applies to a vehicle or item or equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications." Consequently, no exemption need be obtained, since no standard applies to the fire truck. However, if the truck, although manufactured for the Armed Forces, were sold to someone other than the Armed Forces, it would be required to comply with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 205.

You also ask:

Does this type of vehicle require a certification label as specified in part 367 - certification?

The answer again is no. Section 567.2 of Part 567 (formerly 367) provides, in relevant part, that the Certification Regulations apply "to manufacturers . . . of motor vehicles to which one or more standards are applicable." Since, under section 571.7(c), no standards are applicable to the fire truck, the Certification Regulations do not require you to provide a certification label with the fire truck.

If we can be of any further assistance to you, please write.