ID: nht70-2.37

DATE: 12/02/70

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

TO: Charles O. Verrill, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of November 16 you inquire whether the Bureau's interpretation of "overall width" (49 CFR @ 571.21, with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108) can "embrace the situation where the entire lighting assembly, including the taillamps, stop lamps, and back-up lamps, as well as signal lamps, add to the dimension of the vehicle".

Since "overall width" means "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle exclusive of signal lamps [and] marker lamps . . . .", the Bureau concurs in your requested interpretation. Taillamps, stop lamps, and back-up lamps are "signal" lamps, and their combined mounting in a fixture which may extend beyond the widest part of a boat trailer does not result in a corresponding increase in the "overall width" of the trailer.

ID: nht70-2.38

DATE: 12/08/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 26, 1970, submitting a petition for reconsideration concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, "Child Seating Systems", published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14478). Because of the timing of your petition, it has been treated as a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR @@ 553.35, 553.31. Your letter requests that two amendments be made to the standard before its effective date of April 1, 1971. First, you request that paragraph S4.3 be amended to substitute the language proposed for that paragraph in the notice of proposed rulemaking concerning Standard No. 213, also published on September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786). Second, you request that the standard be amended to provide an alternative test procedure that is specified in your petition, as you believe "the test procedure under S4.11.1 and S5 of the standard to be wholly inappropriate for the Ford child restraint system."

With reference to your request concerning paragraph S4.3 of the standard, the Bureau did not intend the standard to require all child seating systems to have adjustable components to directly restrain the child. Consequently, the Bureau will not consider that a child seating system without adjustable components to directly restrain the child fails to comply, for that reason, with paragraph S4.3 of the standard. The language of the notice of proposed rulemaking, insofar as it states, "Each child seating system component that is adjustable and is designed to restrain the child directly . . ." is a clarification of the present language. For the proposed amendment to be made effective before April 1, 1971, is therefore unnecessary.

Regarding your request for an alternative test procedure, you state in your letter that "using the test procedures in S5.1, the torso block applies an unstabilized, concentrated load on the Tot-Guard shield much like that which would be applied by one cylinder loading another with their axes at 90 degrees to each other." It is not mandatory under S5.1(d) that the load be applied to the torso block at a single point. It may be applied at two or more points as long as the intersection of the load application line and the back surface of the torso block is not more than 8 inches or less than 6 inches above the bottom surface of the torso block. In the case of an unstabilized loading condition, such as that which you state occurs with the Tot-Guard, the load could be applied through a fixture attached to both the top and bottom of the torso block as long as the load application line is within the limits specified. During the test, however, only the torso block and not the attachment fixture may contact the seating system.

For the reasons specified above, the amendments you have requested have been found unnecessary and unjustified, and your petition is accordingly denied.

ID: nht70-2.39

DATE: 12/08/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 20, 1970 concerning your telephone conversation with Mr. Schmeltzer of my office, relating to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulations (Docket No. 70-12; Notice No. 2).

You are not completely correct in your understanding that, as a result of the tire identification regulations, the DOT symbol will only be required on the sidewall of the tire where the identification number will appear. As indicated in the(Illegible Word) of the notice of proposed rulemaking on these regulations, it is anticipated that the identification number required by the regulation will replace the manufacturer's identification number required by Standard No. 109. However, no decision has been made as yet whether Standard No. 109 will also be amended to require the "DOT" symbol on only one sidewall of the tire.

You are correct in your understanding that the regulations were not intended to restrict the third grouping of characters, the optional the type code, to three symbols. In addition, you are correct in your understanding that a tire manufacturer will receive individual identification numbers for each of its tire manufacturing and retread plants.

Under the regulations, B.F. Goodrich will not be required to apply for identification marks for Goodrich owned brand name tires if sold and controlled by them.

Concerning your question as to what class of certified mail would be required in the event of a recall, a notification letter sent by certified mail to the addressee, himself, would be preferable but is not, at this time, required by the Act or any regulation issued thereunder.

Thank you for your interest.

ID: nht70-2.4

DATE: 04/27/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Entyre and Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1970, to the Director, Office of Performance Analysis, now changed to the Office of Compliance, in which you pose the following question: "In the case of a body mounted on a chassis-cab which chassis-cab has had previous service as a completed vehicle, is it permissible to omit certification as required under Part 367, 49 C.F.R., since it is beyond the knowledge of the body manufacturer to ascertain compliance with the pertinent chassis-cab standards? The vehicle manufacturer will perform his work in compliance with current standards(Illegible Word) as practicable."

The answer to your question is yes. At this time it is permissible to omit certification in the case you have described in your question, since the motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to domestic used vehicles. In the event, however, that you use an item of automotive equipment for which there is an applicable standard, such as glazing material, you are required to certify in accordance with Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as it applies to items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Thank you for your letter and your interest in the programs of the National Highway Safety Bureau.

ID: nht70-2.40

DATE: 12/08/70

FROM: D.W. TOMS -- DIR., NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES H. HARTMAN

TO: Physicians for Automotive Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of November 6, 1970, to Secretary Volpe and me, concerning child restraint systems. I have taken the liberty of replying to both of your letter, as they seem to raise identical issues.

The points you raise are summarized at the conclusion of your letters. Your first is based upon your belief that no attempt has been made to require labeling on child harnesses that would enable the public "to distinguish between harnesses that provide collision protection, and those that merely serve to secure the child in one place and, at best, prevent him from being thrown forward in a sudden (but controlled) stop." You further state of the latter type of harness.

The Bureau's position in this matter is that harnesses marketed to provide restraint in panic or sudden stop situations must meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. In addition, enforcement proceedings in this area are presently underway to climinate harnesses that do not comply with the standard. The Bureau does not consider that these inexpensive harnesses provide a satisfactory minimum level of protection when used in motor vehicles. Furthermore, consumers desirable of obtaining crash protection for their children may be induced to compromise on safety by the availability of the cheaper systems, without realizing how limited is the effectiveness of these systems. Any benefits obtained from the cheaper harnesses are more than outweighed by these deficiences.

Your second recommendation concerns child seating systems, and consists of two parts. First, you suggest banning the manufacture of child seating systems that do not comply with Standard No. 213. Second, you recommed that warning notices be required on seating systems remaining on the market after April 1, 1971, that do not comply with the standard because they were manufactured before its effective date.

With reference to your first recommendation, the Buresu has proposed to take the action you recommend. In the notice of proposed rulemaking concerning Standard No. 213, published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786), the Bureau has proposed to extend the Scope of the standard to include all devices for seating children in motor vehicles. This requirement would become effective January 1, 1972, and a copy of the notice is enclosed for your information. Your letters will be placed in the rulemaking docket. With reference to your second recommendation, the Bureau is not authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require much a warning. The Act, pursuant to which Standard No. 213 and all other motor vehicle safety standards are issued, provides that only motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date of a standard must comply with it. We could not, therefore, impose a requirement, including a warning requirement, on those seating systems manufactured before April 1, 1971.

The Bureau agrees, however, that consumers should be aware that child seating systems that do not comply with Standard No. 213 will still be available after April 1, 1971. The Bureau is planning, therefore, to issue an advisory at or about the time the standard becomes effective that will indicate how consumers may distinguish between those child seats that comply with the standard and those that do not.

Your third recommendation is that child harnesses not meeting Standard No. 209 be required to contain warnings as to their deficiencies, and that harnessen that do meet the standard be required to carry detailed information about their value in a crash. As stated above, harnesses that do not comply with the standard may not be manufactured. As to requiring harnesses that do comply to carry detailed information concerning their value, the benefits that these devices can provide will differ according to the dynamics of all individual crash, and are not, therefore, capable of precise statement. The Bureau will, however, consider other methods of informing the public as to the broad safety benefits obtainable from the use of child restraint devices.

Your continued interest in motor vehicle safety is very much appreciated.

ID: nht70-2.41

DATE: 12/10/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Kawasaki Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your Petition for Reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment), dated November 30 and air-mailed that date.

To be considered as a petition for reconsideration our regulations (49 CFR @ 553.35(a)) require that a petition be "received not later than thirty (30) days after publication of the rule in the Federal Register". Because we did not receive your petition until the thirty-second day, @ 553.35(a) requires that it be treated as a petition for rule-making under @ 553.31. However, many of the questions you raise were also raised in the petition of the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. which was timely filed.

You will hear in due course as to the disposition of your petition.

ID: nht70-2.42

DATE: 12/17/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of November 18 you have requested an extension beyond one year of the time permissible for two DAF55 vehicles to remain in the United States for test purposes.

These vehicles were imported pursuant to 19 C.F.R. @ 12.80(b)(2)(vii) which permits importation of vehicles which do not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards:

. . .for the purposes of . . . test, experiment . . [if] such vehicle will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads: Provided, That vehicles imported solely for purposes of test or experiment may be licensed for use on the public reads for a period not to exceed one year . . . ."

The Bureau cannot grant your request for an extension of the one year period, however, the regulation does not prohibit the continue use of these vehicles on private property after the one year licensed period has expired.

ID: nht70-2.43

DATE: 12/24/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Peugeot Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1970 in which you asked whether it would be permissible to add the words "and Canadian" to your certification label.

With reference to a telephone conversation between you and Mr. Dyson of this office, I understand that the Canadian authorities will accept the certification statement that we presently require as long as the expression "U.S." does not appear on the label. Since use of the "U.S." is optional with the manufacturer under 49 CFR @ 367.4(g)(3), this appears to solve your problem in this regard.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht70-2.44

DATE: 12/29/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Mitchell & Sons, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 16, 1970, requesting a clarification of our October 8, 1970 letter on the subject of the compliance of your campers with Standard No. 206.

The second paragraph in our letter was intended to apply to both your 14' 6" and 12' 6" campers and should leave read as follows: "You are correct in stating that the door in camper bodies built according to either of the floor plans enclosed with your letter would not be required to comply with Standard No. 206 if, as it appears, no portion of a manikin positioned at any seating reference point would project into the door opening area." Of course, it is your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to determine whether both types of your campers actually meet the provisions of that paragraph.

Please write if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht70-2.45

DATE: 12/30/70

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

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 5, 1970, to Mr. Julian E. Ieysath of this office concerning mounting of clearance lamps and testing combination lamps.

The wording for the mounting requirements of clearance lamps was amended in Standard No. 103 (35 F.R. 16040) to provide clarification; there was no intent to change the actual requirements. S4.3.1.7 permits clearance lamps in Standard No. 103 (35 F.R. 16840) to provide clarification; there was no intent to change the actual requirements. S4.3.1.7 permits clearance lamps to be mounted on the cab of a truck tractor, which in many cases may not indicate the overall width of the vehicle.

Section L of SAE J575, as modified by S4.2.1 of the amended standard, states, "The device shall be operating in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service." Combination lamps have therefore been tested for less warpage with the steady burning tail or parking lamp operating continously and with the turn signal flashing. Now that the lens warpage test will also apply to the stop and backup lamps, this Bureau will test a combination lamp under the most severe possible operating condition. Since it is possible to have the tail, stop and backup lamps on simultaneously, these functions will be operating during the test for the stop and backup lamp lenses. A second test with the tail, turn signal and backup lamps operating will also be conducted.

Petitions for reconsideration have been received in Docket 69-18 requesting that the 10 minute cycling test be changed to 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off or that the effective date for the stop and backup lamp lens warpage requirement be extended beyond the July 1, 1971, effective date. Our decisions on these petitions will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.