ID: nht72-2.1

DATE: 07/18/72

FROM: CHARLES H. HARTMAN FOR DOUGLAS W. TOMS -- NHTSA

TO: Consumers Union

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 28, 1972, forwarding to us a report to be published in the August issue of Consumer Reports, which raises numerous issues concerning child restraints and the efficacy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." You contend, based on testing you performed, that the static performance tests of the standard are meaningless, and that dynamic tests should be adopted.

We agree that a dynamic test should be included in the standard, and we discuss below our efforts and intentions in this regard. We also believe, however, that devices which conform to Standard No. 213 provide significant impact protection for children which is not available otherwise, and that the present standard has served a useful purpose in the development of effective child restraints and the removal from the marketplace of marginal products. We have pursued a vigorous enforcement policy with respect to the standard which has discovered and corrected numerous cases of noncompliance.

The 1,000-pound static test imposed by Standard No. 213 was determined by the NHTSA to be an adequate first step in the development of standards for child seating systems. This determination was based, in part, on the state of the art of the development of these devices, and the financial resources of the affected industry. The limitations of the static test have been known for some time, and in the NHTSA Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, published in October 1971, the NHTSA made clear its intention to develop a dynamic test to measure the performance of all child restraint devices.

We believe the most effective way to utilize a dynamic test is to couple it with realistic injury criteria that reflect the ability of children to withstand crash impacts. This is the approach taken for adults by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Although we have developed adult injury criteria as part of our work on that standard, further work must be done to correlate these criteria with the protection needed for children.

Rather than delay dynamic testing until this work is completed, however, the NHTSA plans to propose interim dynamic tests using other performance criteria which are presently being developed through research at the University of Michigan. We are also sponsoring othe research on the problem of the development of realistic child dummies. Another problem in the development of a dynamic test for child seating systems, or any other performance requirements for them, is that the performance of the child seat is in large measure dependent upon the design and construction of the vehicle in which it is placed. Because manufacturers can market these devices economically only if they are suitable for large numbers of vehicles, an endless number of variables occur, with a resultant difficulty in prescribing reasonable "worst case" test conditions.

We are presently working to provide answers to these questions, and are hopeful that the research projects presently under way will provide data in the near future on which we can proceed. You mention that you will be submitting to us a petition for rulemaking regarding the standard. We request that you also submit to us any data which you have available, including data from your testing program, which might assist us in solving these problems.

ID: nht72-2.10

DATE: 03/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Hance; Caston; Hefner and Green

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1972, concerning the certification of new trailers which your client manufactures. You state that some of those trailers are shipped (to customers) equipped with used tires that are intended primarily to be used to ship the trailers to their destination, and ask whether these tires should be taken into account in the values for GVWR and GAWR on the certification label.

We do not consider that temporary tires attached to a vehicle for purposes of shipment should be refelcted in the GVWR and GAWR on the certification label, if these tires are not intended to be part of the completed vehicle. Consequently, we would expect trailers certification as vehicles for which no tires have been provided. In such a case, the complete vehicle manufacturer, as indicated in the preamble to the Certification regulations (April 14, 1971, 36 F.R. 2054) must still bear responsibility and certify the vehicle, even though he does not install the tires with which the vehicle will ultimately be equipped. We suggest that one manner in which this could be accomplished by the manufacturer is to list GAWR and GVWR for the optional tire sizes which he recommends in accordance with the amendment to the Certification regulations published December 10, 1971 (35 F.R. 23571). The manufacturer should make it clear to the purchaser of the vehicle that the temporary tires should be replaced when the vehicle is put into use.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht72-2.11

DATE: 11/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mobile Aerial Towers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to the questions you asked in your letter of October 24, 1972, to Mr. Wells of the Federal Highway Administration concerning compliance with Standard No. 108 of trucks to which mobile aerial towers are mounted.

"1. The aerial tower is considered a load rather than part of the vehicle to be included in determining the overall length. Correct?"

Correct.

"2. Are amber intermediate side marker lights and/or reflectors required on the body?"

If the overall length of the vehicle is 30 feet or more, intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors are required, and they must be located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps and reflectors.

"3. Are amber side marker lights and/or reflectors required on the body?"

Front amber side marker lamps and reflectors are required to be mounted as far to the front as practicable on a vehicle. Generally, this is somewhere on the front fender, though in some configurations a manufacturer might determine that a location on the truck body is as far to the front as practicable.

"4. Are amber clearance lights and/or reflectors required on the front of the body?"

Yes. Front clearance lamps are required to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and to be mounted "as close to the top [of the vehicle, exclusive of load] as practicable."

"5. If a unit is over 30 ft. long, will amber side marker lights and reflectors suffice also as amber intermediate side marker lights and reflectors?"

No, they will not. As the above answers indicate, the location requirements are different for front and intermediate side markers.

ID: nht72-2.12

DATE: 08/30/72

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

TO: Albert Hammerstein

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your Broadview, Illinois, Subsidiary recently forwarded to us a copy of your December 17, 1971, letter concerning aiming adjustment tests as specified in SAE Standard J580a. A search of our files does not reveal that your letter was previously received by this Office.

Specifically, your concern is the interpretation of a requirement which is specified in SAE J580a as follows:

"2. The mechanism, including the aiming adjustment, must be so designed as to prevent the unit from receding into the lamp body or housing when an inward pressure of 50 lb is exerted on the outer surface of the lens."

Our interpretation of the above requirement is that no visible receding of the sealed beam unit is permitted when the inward pressure is applied on the outer lens surface. Testing for compliance to the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, which references SAE J580a, is conducted on the basis of this interpretation.

In the upcoming Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on FMVSS No. 108 (Docket 69-19), we are considering the feasibility of specifying more objective type requirements on this aspect of aiming adjustment tests for headlamps. You will no doubt be interested in commenting on the proposed requirements after issuance of the NPRM.

ID: nht72-2.13

DATE: 11/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 1972, to Mr. Schneider asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed photographs of boat trailers marked to show your understanding of the language "as far forward as practicable" and ask for our views.

Table II and Table IV of Standard No. 108 require that front side reflex reflectors and lamps on trailers, including boat trailers, be located as far to the front as practicable, Recognizing that a literal interpretation of the standard would require that these devices be installed on the trailer tongue and that in many instances it would be impracticable to do so, the NHTSA added paragraph S4.3.1.3 to allow a location as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue." The intent of the regulation is that the device be mounted as far to the front of the vehicle as the manufacturer determines is practicable, and a definition of "trailer tongue" is immaterial for this purpose. If the angled portion of the frame is deemed "practicable", and the device is located there, it must be mounted, as you suggested, in a position such that it meets the photometric requirements at the specified angles with respect to the vehicle.

ID: nht72-2.14

DATE: 10/30/72

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

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of September 1, 1972 and September 27, 1972, calling our attention to contradictory provisions of 49 CFR @ 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and 49 CFR @ 393.22, a regulation of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.

We confirm your interpretation that the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations prohibit the inclusion of a clearance lamp in the same shell or housing as a taillamp or identification lamp, while Paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108 allows use of the same shell or housing as long as the clearance lamp is not optically combined with a taillamp or identification lamp. Although identical regulations are preferable from a manufacturer's standpoint, section 103(g) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1381 et seq.) allows the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety to promulgate or maintain "a safety regulation which imposes a higher standard of performance [than the safety standards] subsequent to . . . manufacture." The Bureau views its regulation as establishing a higher standard of performance since, in its opinion, separate housings lessen the likelihood that, at a distance, marking and signaling functions will be confused. If you feel that 49 CFR @ 393.22 should be amended to be identical with Paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108, you should so petition the Bureau.

We also confirm that, if the rear identification lamps are located at the extreme height of the vehicle, Paragraph S4.3.1.5 of Standard No. 108 would allow clearance lamps, whether separate or in the same housing as other lamps, to be located at a height less than "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle."

ID: nht72-2.15

DATE: 07/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Barry Kulik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 14, 1972, to Mr. Armstrong asking whether combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers conforming to Federal requirements effective January 1, 1973, may be installed in vehicles manufactured before that date.

The answer is yes. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 was amended on December 28, 1971 to allow use of flashers manufactured to conform with Standard No. 108a. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

ID: nht72-2.16

DATE: 05/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Norman W. Quinn, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 5 on behalf of your client Lee Ross. Mr. Ross has developed a motor vehicle deceleration warning system that, as described by you, activates two amber lights on the rear of a vehicle. Your letter indicate that these lamps would be incorporated into a vehicle back-up lamp system and that Mr. Ross envisions his system as an aftermarket accessory item rather than as new vehicle original equipment. You state your understanding that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 would not preclude marketing the system as an aftermarket accessory, and that back-up lamps are required to be white in color. You ask our advice whether Standard No. 108 prohibits amber lamps in the back-up lighting system and, if so, whether a proposal for amendment of the Standard to allow the system would be feasible.

Standard No. 108 would in certain instances preclude the aftermarket sale of an amber deceleration warning system incorporated into a back-up lamp system. Standard No. 108 as of January 1, 1972, does cover certain aftermarket equipment items, and in some instances would preclude the sale of a back-up light system with amber lamps. Lighting equipment manufactured on or after that date as replacement for similar equipment on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, must meet Standard No. 108 which, as you have noted, requires that the color of the back-up lamps be white. Federal law would not preclude sale of this system for use on motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972, or purchase of an amber system by the owner of a vehicle manufactured after that date if he wished to change over from a white to amber system. As a practical matter, however, I believe That virtually every State has a requirement that back-up lamps be white, and that a back-up light with amber bulbs or lenses would be forbidden. Standard No. 108 would not preclude sale of the Ross System as a separate lighting device. I do not know what position the States would take on such a matter.

Our research contracts on deceleration warning system indicate that further development and testing under field conditions is necessary before specific proposals can be made by NHTSA. Therefore, I do not think action on a proposal by Mr. Ross would be feasible at this time, though we would welcome his comments to our Docket 69-19 as a comment to be considered in future rulemaking on this subject.

ID: nht72-2.17

DATE: 11/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: American Plywood Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 25, 1972, in which you ask whether there are any NHTSA requirements applicable to "do-it-yourself" plans for camper trailers.

Certain Federal requirements are applicable to the camper trailers which will be built based on your plans. These are Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment" (49 CFR 571.108). Requirements which we expect to issue in the near future will apply to the tires with which such trailers are equipped (proposed Standards Nos. 119 and 120). Moreover, manufacturers of these trailers are required by NHTSA "certification" regulations (49 CFR Part 567) to certify the trailer's confermity with the motor vehicle safety standards. These requirements apply to the finished trailer itself, and not to the plans for it, but the plans should include stops that will cause the finished trailer to conferm to all applicable requirements.

I have enclosed directions on how you may obtain copies of NHTSA requirements.

ID: nht72-2.18

DATE: 10/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Schlen Body and Equipment Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22 to Mr. Ed Leysath of this Office regarding Interpretations of FMVSS No. 108 on required mounting of marker lights on your dump trailers.

In answer to your first problem, a combination front clearance and side marker lamp must meet the requirements for both; therefore, the full 180-degree visibility is required. If you determine that it is not practicable to mount the combination lamp in your alternate location, because of a greater possibility of damage, then separate lamps should be considered.

In answer to your second problem, because of the configuration and end use of your dump semi-trailers, your interpretation that rear clearance lamps mounted in a light box just below the rear trailer crossmember are as high as practicable is correct.