ID: nht71-5.34

DATE: 12/29/71

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

TO: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 3, 1971, concerning the preemption of State vehicle safety standards under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1592(d). We apologize for the oversight that resulted in not answering the letter until this date.

You asked whether State laws requiring that vehicles having two red tail lamps, mounted on the same level and as widely spaced laterally as practicable, are preempted by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In our opinion the answer is no. Standard 108 has many detailed requirements that go beyond those described. Among them, however, are requirements that are substantively identical to your example, though not stated in precisely the same words. We do not interpret section 103(d), which prohibits a State standard "which is not identical to the Federal standard," as requiring the State requirement to be a verbatin copy of its Federal counterparts substantive identity of requirements is sufficient. Also, we do not interpret the statute as requiring the State to adopt all the Federal requirements on a given aspect of performance. It is sufficient that there be a Federal requirement that is substantively identical to the State requirement in question.

You also asked about two other requirements, as to which the answer may depend on a more detailed examination of their purposes and the circumstances under which they are enacted. One was the requirement that the light from the tail lamps be visible from a distance of 1,000 feet to the rear; the other was that a vehicle have "at least one tail lamp."

The guiding principle that we would apply to this situation is that State requirements that regulate the design of motor vehicles must be identical to the Federal standards, with the qualifications stated above. It was clearly the intent of Congress to provide for uniformity of regulation of the manufacturers in areas where the Federal agency has acted, and they did so by the identity requirement of section 103(d). By contrast, State requirements concerning the condition or adjustment of vehicles generally do not affect the requirements placed on manufacturers, and therefore do not fall within the section 103(d) identity provisions.

Applying this principle to your question, if the visibility requirement is construed by the State, and reasonably appears, to be basically a quantitatively stated requirement that the tail lamps be in good working order and not nearly degraded by conditions encountered in use, we would consider the requirement not to be preempted by section 103(d). Similarly, if the one tail lamp requirement is essentially a statement of required minimum working condition (as it appears to be on its face), it would not be preempted.

The issue you mentioned concerning the preemption of State laws applicable to vehicles in use was dealt with in detail in(Illegible Word). Tens' letter to you of December 21, 1970. As stated in that letter, our position is that the preemption question does not turn on whether the State law applies to pre-sale or on-the-road vehicles, and we feel that this position was upheld by the clear and compelling implication of the Super Lite cases. In light of the interpretations set forth in this letter, however, we do not believe that the problems of State law and enforcement that you felt may arise will be realized.

ID: nht71-5.35

DATE: 12/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hackney Bros. Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 6, 1971, in which you requested our opinion on the application of Standard No. 207 to swivel type pedestal seats.

Your problem arises from the method specified in S5.1.1 for the application of the force required by S4.2(a) of 20 times the weight of the seat. Although your letter does not state the problem directly, it appears that when a forward force is applied from behind the seat, as shown in the figures accompanying S5.1.1, the seat will tend to swivel. Your solution is to attach a T-shaped structure to the seat and to apply the force to the leg of the T forward of the swivel point.

The initial question raised by your letter is whether a seat that swivels under the application of a force through its back as shown in Figure 1, will be considered to fail to withstand the force and thereby fail the standard.

On the basis of our present information, we cannot say that such a swiveling action would result in a failure of the standard. The engineering staff has expressed uncertainty as to the effects on the occupant if the seat swivels in a side or angular crash, but they are not prepared to say that it would present a hazard. Since the swiveling itself is not a failure, the remaining question is one of test procedure. Our opinion is that the procedure you describe, using a T shaped structure, appears to be an acceptable means of applying the test force to the seat.

ID: nht71-5.36

DATE: 12/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Latham & Watkins

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971, in which you ask whether a manufacturer may add certain statements to the Certification label required pursuant to Part 567 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. You state that the manufacturer in question is engaged in the manufacturer and mounting of concrete mixer assemblies. Because, as you state, the weight of the concrete may vary according to the mix formula, and because the volume of mix loaded into a mixer can also vary, the manufacturer wishes to add to his Certification label a declaration of the vehicle's cargo load and an indication of the maximum volume of mix that could be safely hauled within the rated cargo load limit.

There is no prohibition to this additional information being added to the Certification label as long as (1) it appears after the required information, and (2) it is stated in such a way that it cannot be confused with the information, particularly the GVWR and GAWR, required to be placed on the label.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht71-5.37

DATE: 09/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes Benz of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1971, in which you asked whether the shoulder belt anchorages installed by Mercedes in its heavy trucks (over 10,000 CVWR) must meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 210, even though the standard does not require shoulder belt anchorages in vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR.

It is our opinion that because these anchorages are not required to be installed, they are not required to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 210. You may therefore continue to use plastic covers on the anchorages and need not redder them unusable.

Please advise us if you have further questions.

ID: nht71-5.38

DATE: 09/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 10, 1971, concerning the Defects Reports regulations, 49 CFR Part 573. You ask whether @ 573.6 (Owner Lists) requires that the list "show only the latest quarterly status of inspection and defect correction", or whether all prior quarterly lists must also be retained.

Section 573.6 of the regulation requires the owner list to be "updated as of the end of each quarterly reporting period," with the list being retained for five years after the date on which the defect information report is initially submitted.

We do not consider this section to require all prior quarterly lists to be retained. Therefore if you maintain a list that shows only the latest quarterly status of inspection and defect correction you will be in compliance with the requirements.

WE ARE PLEASED TO BE OF ASSISTANCE.

ID: nht71-5.39

DATE: 09/28/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Electric Device Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1971, to Mr. Douglas Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning your request for an interpretation relative to your safety backing system and the Federal Standards.

The use of your School Bus Safety Backing System is neither required nor prohibited in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and the proposed Pupil Transportation Safety Standard. However, it would appear that the regulations of the individual States apply to the use of your system in those States.

ID: nht71-5.4

DATE: 11/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Eastman Chemical Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1971, concerning the status of your petition to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", to allow the use of Uvex plastic sheet in motor vehicles. You request our comments regarding three matters which you list, and which are incorporated into our responses below.

You ask us to "explain that Uvex Sheet Plastic is and has been under active consideration for vehicle glazing approval for some time and that an early decision is anticipated." A notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205 (Docket No. 71-1) was published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 326). This notice would allow the use in motor vehicles of plastic materials, not presently allowed, that meet certain specified requirements. This notice is based in part upon a petition submitted by Enstran Chemical. The requirements do not refer to Uvex or any other material by name. The Administration takes no position on whether Uvex material would meet the proposal requirements. A final decision based on this notice is anticipated in the near future.

The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 9, 1971, does, as you indicate, propose other amendments to Standard No. 205. Some of these proposals have engendered substantial interest from industry and have consequently affected the amount of Agency work involved in the rulemaking action.

Finally, you ask if State highway standards preventing the use of Uvex will continue to be effective if Uvex is allowed to be used under the Federal standards. Under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), a State motor vehicle safety standard applicable to a particular aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance must be identical to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to that same aspect of performance. Consequently, a State vehicle standard prohibiting all use of Uvex would be pre-empted to the extent that amendment of Standard No. 205 permits its use.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

ID: nht71-5.40

DATE: 10/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. Schmeltzer for L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1971, in which you request clarification of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, "Head Restraints". You state that you are of the opinion that "a head restraint system that can be retracted into the seat and thus made ineffective by virtue of being adjustable is in conflict with the prime object of the standard in reducing the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear end or other collisons."

Standard No. 202 does not prohibit head restraints from being adjustable in an up-and-down direction, as long as the top of the restraint, at its fully extended design adjustment position, is at least 27.5 inches above the seating reference point (S4(b)(1)). While some of these adjustable head restraints may not be completely effective in cases where they are placed at their lowest adjustment position and used by tall drivers, we have determined that this design, as long as it meets the requirements of the standard, is a minimum performance level that meets the need for motor vehicle safety. Consequently, use of these types of restraints does not conflict with the standard.

The standard establishes only a minimum performance level, however, and the NHTSA endorces efforts by manufacturers to exceed the

2 requirements is establishes. Many manufacturers have installed head restraints in their vehicles that meet the standard's requirements yet do not present the disadvantages you describe.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA LIMITED

September 8 1971

Douglas W. Toms, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, National Highway Traffic Administration,

As designers and manufacturers of the Aston Martin DBS V8 car, currently being marketed in U.S.A., we are concerned at what appears to be a very loose interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints - Passenger Cars, Section 5.4(b), adopted by certain American automobile manufacturers.

Aston Martin Lagonda have been concerned for many years with primary and secondary safety aspects of the car, and we hold the view that a head restraint system that can be retracted into the seat and thus made ineffective by virtue of being adjustable, is in conflict with the prime object of the Standard in reducing the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear end or other collisions.

We would appreciate clarification on this point, for our concern is to maintain the highest standard of interior safety as exemplified by our current production car.

H. Beach Director of Engineering

c.c. Mr. R. Layland, President, A.M.L. Inc. Mr. J. B. Walker, Vehicle Safety Engineer, A.M.L. Limited.

ID: nht71-5.41

DATE: 12/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of December 6, 1971, you have asked our opinion as to how S6.1 of Standard 208 applies to two hypothetical situations. S6.1 requires that "all portions of the test device shall be contained within the outer surfaces of the passenger compartment throughout the test."

Your first situation involves a vehicle in which the impact of the dummy's head causes the windshield to bulge beyond its original location but does not penetrate the windshield. It is our opinion that in this case the vehicle has contained the occupant and would conform to S6.1.

In your second situation, the dummy's head pushes the windshield loose its base and opens a gap between the windshield and the vehicle. It is our opinion that this drawing also shows the dummy to be satisfactorily contained.

In either situation, however, a manufacturer would have to assure himself that the windshield behaviour shown in the drawings would be consistent and would not lead to failure in tests in which the test dummy strikes it in a different manner.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

December 6, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of MVSS 208

If possible, could you give us your opinions on the following two cases, we would like to know whether such cases meet MVSS 208, S.6.1.:

After frontal barrier crash test, the head of the anthroponorphic test device is contained within the outer surface of the windshield glass, which, (case 1.) was deformed as shown in Fig. 1. (case 2.) was remved in part as shown in Fig. 2. by the head impact on the windshield glass. Although the test devices' head is out of the original outer surface of the vehicle passenger compartment.

Your kind cooperation and assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Liaison Office In U.S.A.

Attachments

(Graphics omitted) (Graphic omitted)

ID: nht71-5.42

DATE: 10/14/71

FROM: E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: Cox Tire Machinery Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of September 29, 1971, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, has been referred to this office for reply.

Within S5 of Standard No. 117, it states that retreaded tires must conform to S4.2.1 of Standard No. 109. S4.2.1 of Standard No. 109 requires a treadwear indicator that will provide a visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch. For your information, we have enclosed copies of Standards No. 109 and No. 117.

ENCLS.

COX Fire Machinery Company, Inc.

SEPTEMBER 29, 1971

Highway Safety Bureau Federal Highway Administration

Gentlemen:

Our company is engaged in the sale of retreading equipment and in this business we are constantly calling on tire dealers. A number of our customers have asked whether after retreading standards go into effect will wear indicators be necessary in retreaded tires.

I would appreciate an interpetation of the MVSS 117 in this regard.

Yours very truly,

J. T. Flynt President