ID: nht68-3.49

DATE: 08/05/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 1, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning a clarification of paragraph S 3.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S 3.4.3 specifies that, as a minimum, the taillamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated, except when the headlamps are being flashed. The phrase "except when the headlamps are being flashed", permits the vehicle manufacturer to use a separate switch or flasher for illuminating the headlamps only when it would not be appropriate or in the interest of safety to simultaneously illuminate the taillamps and headlamps. In addition to the examples cited in your letter, such devices could also be used for flashing the headlamps on public transit vehicles to indicate an emergency situation.

Since the subject matter of S 3.4.3 is taillamps and since Federal Standard No. 108 is otherwise silent as to headlamp flashing, this matter appears to be within the purview of the California vehicle code.

Thank you for your continued interest in the motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht68-3.5

DATE: 12/31/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Brixtax (London) Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 9, 1968, in which you inquire about the certification responsibilities of equipment manufacturers under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

You state that it is your understanding that a vehicle manufacturer has the responsibility to certify the entire vehicle, including equipment that is produced by other manufacturers and covered by Federal safety standards, as complying with the applicable standards, and that the basis on which that manufacturer satisfies himself that equipment from suppliers conforms to the standards is a matter of his own discretion. I consider that statement to be essentially correct, with the caveat that the manufacturer must be able to show, under @ 108(b)(2) of the Act, that "he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care" that any included equipment was nonconforming. What constitutes "due care" must be determined in light of all the circumstances of a particular case. You are also correct in your understanding that approval by the States has no relevance to the question of compliance with this Federal law.

Finally, regardless of certification requirements all equipment must conform to applicable standards, and certification by the equipment manufacturer is required if the equipment is ultimately sold in the aftermarket.

I am pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht68-3.50

DATE: 08/05/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Kawasaki Motorcycle Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 21, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning the mounting of the front side reflex reflector on motorcycles.

Mounting the front side reflex reflectors just below or immediately ahead of the front of the fuel tank, as shown in the brochures on your models C2TR. and F3, appears to satisfactorily meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The front side reflex reflectors shown in the brochure on your model W2TT do not appear to be located as for forward as practicable. A location corresponding to that shown for models C2TR and F3 also appears practicable for the model W2TT.

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 comments are for your information only and in the way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

ID: nht68-3.6

DATE: 06/07/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 25, 1968, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Numbers 111, 291, and 206. I hope these interpretations will answer your questions:

Standard No. 111:

Question 1. Your interpretation is not entirely correct. Your Figure 1 shows only six directions the 90-pound force can be applied; whereas, the force may be applied from any intervening location from within the solid wedge in the 180 degrees forward are inserted within the six lines you show in your Figure 1. S3.1.2.2 requires that the mirror is to be subjected to this test force. This may be applied to the center of the mirror or to any other location on the mirror surface.

Question 2. The test force may be applied as shown in your Figures 2(a), (b), and (c) but not as shown in Figure 3. As stated above, the test force must be applied to the mirror itself, not to the mirror support.

Question 3. As stated above, the 90-pound force may be applied as shown in your Figure 2(c) since it would not be possible, in this case, to obtain the maximum 45 degrees angle due to design of the mirror system.

Standard No. 201:

Since S3.4.2(b) of Standard No. 201 does not specifically state the thickness of energy-absorbing material required to cover the folding armrest, the armrest shown in your sketch on page 5 appears to be permissible. It does seem advisable, however, in future designs to either provide a greater thickness of energy-absorbing material or increases the potential area of contact with the underlying steel support by providing a wider flange and turning the edge inward.

Standard No. 206:

The inertia lond requirements of S3.3.3 refer to S3.3 - Door Latches only, and do not include the lock. Door lock requirements are specified separately in S3.1. Therefore, the door latch system requirements must be met without a lock engaged.

April 25, 1968

Dr. William Haddon, Jr., Director

National Highway Safety Bureau

We have questions on interpretation of Standards No. 111, No. 201, and No.

206.

Your kind cooperation would be very much appreciated if you answer the following questions.

Standard No. 111 S3.1.2.2

Question 1.

S3.1.2.2 specifies that " when the mirror is subjected to a force of 90 pounds in a forward or sideward direction in any plane 45 degrees above or below the horizontal". We interpret that direction of a force which should be applied to the mirror means any one of the six directions shown in Fig. 1, and that the force should be applied to a universal joint of the mirror or to a center of the mirror. Is this interpretation right?

Question 2.

As actual procedures of applying a force we use methods shown in Fig. 2 and 3, whether we use Fig. 2 method or Fig. 3 method depends on vehicle models. We think Fig. 2 method simulates actual application of a force better than Fig. 3 method, although direction of a force applied to the mirror by a head form will be different from 45 degrees (less than 45 degrees) when a head form approaches the mirror in Fig. 2 (a). If we use Fig. 3 method, we can always apply 45 degree force. Are those Fig. 2 and 3 methods permissible?

Question 3.

In applying a force using a head form, in some cases, it is impossible to apply 45 degree force due to shape of the mirror and mirror support. In this case, is it permissible to apply a force of as big as possible but less than 45 degree direction as shown in Fig. 2 (c)?

Standard No. 201 S3.4.2 (b)

We need clarification of "covered with energy absorbing material." In Fig. 5 and 6 we show a structure of folding armrest of Toyota Crown model. In Fig. 4, if force F is applied to the armrest as shown, fixtures of the armrest as shown A is comparatively easily deformed. However, a portion encircled in Fig. 5 BB crossection has only 5 mm thick cover of urethane foam rubber. Is this structure permissible?

Standard No. 206 S3.5.3

Is it permissible to lock the door latch system before we apply an inertia force of 30g to the door latch system?

Thank-you,

Toyotaro Yamada Manager

Fig. 1 (Graphics omitted)

Fig 2(a) Downward applied Force (Graphics omitted) Fig 2(b) Upward applied Force (Graphics omitted)

Fig 2(c) Downward applied Force. (Graphics omitted)

Fig 3 (Graphics omitted)

Fig 5 Armrest Installation (Graphics omitted)

Fig 6 Armrest Structure (Graphics omitted)

crossection CC. (Graphics omitted)

crossection AA (Graphics omitted)

crossection BB (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht68-3.7

DATE: 08/09/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: University of Nottingham

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On April 17 you wrote Senator Harris for assistance regarding importation of what you described in your "hand-built race car", and asked whether the[Illegible Word] small manufacturer exemption would be applicable to it. I explained in my response to the Senator on May 27 that racing vehicles designed for competition circuits were exempt from the Act, and that a racing vehicle not designed solely for competition might nevertheless be admitted to the United States if imported solely for purposes of competition and not licensed for use on the public roads.

Judging from your letter the "hand-built race car" appeared excepted from the Act and regulations/and it did not seem appropriate to discuss PL 90-283, the small manufacturer amendment.

PL 90-283 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to exempt temporarily a manufacturer of 500 or less motor vehicles per year from compliance with Federal motor vehicles safety standards after making certain specified findings. Exemptions under the law cannot be given to individual owners.

Procedures were established by which interested manufacturers could apply for an interia temporary exemption pending adoption of final procedures. Although Mr. P.H.G. Morgan had made no recent, a copy of the interim procedures was forwarded to him. In response, Mr. Morgan informed us that he could not submit an application but intended to bring his vehicles into full compliance with all Federal standards, hopefully around the first of 1969.

This means that any Morgan manufactured after December 31, 1967 may not be imported into the United States unless it bears the certification of its manufacturer that it conforms to all Federal standards or unless it comes within one of the exceptions net form on Form HS-7, a copy of which I note you have.

I regret the delay in answering your letter, especially since you state the car is being hand built to your specifications. However, Mr. Morgan has been aware continually of his rights and obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and he may have already explained his position to you.

ID: nht68-3.8

DATE: 01/14/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Bridwell has asked that I reply to your letter of December 5, 1967, which asks if the labeling requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 109, can be complied with by placing some of the information on one sidewall of a tire and other information on the other sidewall.

The Standard requires that all of the labeling information be on both sidewalls and placing some of the necessary information on one sidewall of the tire and some on the other would not satisfy this requirement.

The standard provides that until August 1, 1968, the labeling requirements of S4.3 may be met by affixing to each tire a label or tag that incorporate all specified information not molded into or onto the tire."

THE ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY

December 5, 1967

Mr. L.K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator National Highway Safety Bureau

Ref: Labeling of Tires where S.4.3 Requirements Appear on One Side of the Tire Only.

The mechanics of complying with the labeling requirements of S.4.3 MVSS No. 109 can become very cumbersome and expensive.

Here was our thinking over a year ago - we placed all the required information on what would be the white sidewall part of the mold, leaving the black side free to add that which would be required by the U.S. Department of Transportation, in the standards which we now have.

The attached sheet with this explanation will reveal the problem. Label No. 1 is basic. Labels 2 to 11 inclusive would have to be added to the tire. The workmen would first affix the basic label than a label to supply this missing information. As can be seen there are 56 sizes involved and ten other labels which shows a basic of conbinations to be 560.

We request an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on one sidewall, except the basic label. It is also our feeling that labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards.

R.L. Donnelly Corporate Secretary

ID: nht68-3.9

DATE: 01/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G. F. Lambert for Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: MR. BRIDWELL HAS ASKED me to reply to your letter of December 1, 1967.

In your letter you raise three questions. The first is:

"(1) We find that in smaller rim diameter models that it is impossible to place all the branding in the white sidewell side between the buffing rib and the top of the rim flange area as shown in Figure 1, Page 14 - MVSS No. 109.

In complying with a state requirement, namely V-1, it was necessary to place the stamping above the buffing rib. Permission is requested to place the stamping above the rib in a protected area where it will not be scuffed and destroyed."

The labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 make it mandatory that the approved symbol (DOT) and the code mark be between the maximum section width and the bead, other information need only be conspicuously labeled. Additionally, there is no requirement that the information be in one section of the area specified, but rather the entire circumferential area can be used for the labeling.

Your second question is:

"(2) Reprocessed Tires

In tire manufacturing sometimes a mold fold will occur in the area of the branding. The area is buffed. If such stamping is removed, will it be necessary to rebrand the tire, or will the use of a label be sufficient? This usually occurs on one side of the tire only."

Your question concerns new tires that have had the labeling information removed by some subsequent manufacturing process. In order to comply with S4.3 of Standard No. 109, the tire will have to be labeled on both sidewalls. Please note however, that S4.3.1 states that "until August 1, 1968, the labeling requirements of S4.3 may be met by affixing to each tire a label or tag that incorporates all specified information not molded into or onto the tire."

Your third question is:

"(3) Removal of 'V-1' born Models

It is our understanding that MVSS Standards No. 109 and 110 prcempt the 'VESC' regulation 'V-1' revised. We are also aware that states can impose safety regulations for tires and motor vehicles provided they are higher than the Federal Standards and are for use on the state owned equipment.

We request a statement from the Department of Transportation stating the position the Department will take regarding the 'V-1' requirements."

Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not require that tires be manufactured without the "V-1" symbol. Presently, a manufacturer may, at his option, continue the practice of molding tires with the "V-1" symbol.

ID: nht68-4.1

DATE: 08/15/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 23, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning the requirements for turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers as specified by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With certain exceptions, paragraph S3.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the use of combination lamps, reflective devices and items of associated equipment, provided the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met. Therefore, a combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flasher may be used, provided the requirements for each signal (turn and hazard warning) are met.

You are correct in your understanding that Standard No. 108 and basically referenced SAE Standards J590 and J945 do not require operation of the flasher unit with only one signal bulb in the test circuit. The standard test circuit shown in Figure I of SAE Standard J823 indicates a minimum of two signal lamps and one pilot indicator lamp as the lamp load.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht68-4.10

DATE: 09/03/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Officine Alfieri Maserati S.p.A.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in responce to your letter of August 8 with reference to compliance of the Maserati automobile with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You have asked first of all whether, as a manufacturer of 620 vehicles in 1967, Mascrati may be excused from compliance with some of the Federal standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, under which Federal standards are issued, was recently amended to authorize a procedure whereby manufacturers of limited production vehicles might petition for examption from the Federal standards. But this procedure is not available to a manufacturer of more than 500 vehicles a year, no matter how few vehicles of that manufacturer are exported to the United States. Consequently Maserati cannot be exempted from any of the Federal standards.

You have also mentioned the difficulties that a small manufacturer face in crash-testing vehicles, and have asked whether the photographs you submitted showing several Mascrasti automobiles which have been involved in front and collisions are acceptable as proof of compliance with Federal standard No. 204 (Steering Control Rearward Displacement - Passenger Cars). I hope the following explanstion will be of assistance to you. The Federal standards do not require crash-testing of vehicles, nor the submission of any data to the Federal Highway Administration for "approval". What is required is that a manufacturer attach a certification on plate to his vehicle stating that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal standards on the date of the vehicle's manufacture. How the manufacturer satisfies himself that the vehicle conforms is his own affair; he may have non-crash data or other information which indicates conformance. The Federal Highway Administration, however, may requests this date if through its own investigation it appears that a certification is false or misleading, and that a vehicle does not actually conform to a standard.

I enclose a copy of the latest Federal standards for your guidance.

ID: nht68-4.11

DATE: 09/06/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The Flink Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in answering your letter of April 9 to the Office of Performance Analysis, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the obligations of Flink as a manufacturer of spreader equipment for installation on trucks. It appears that your primary concern is with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment).

You have asked:

"1. Who is responsible for the meeting of the requirements when the spreader is shipped to a distant point and there mounted on an existing truck either by a dealer or by the ultimate customer?"

Section 101(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes in the definition of manufacturer any person engaged in the assembling of motor vehicles. Accordingly, any person including a dealer, mounting a spreader to a truck, prior to its sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, will be responsible for insuring that the completed vehicle, when sold, complies with Federal Standard No. 108 and any other standard which might have been adversely affected by installation of the spreader.

"2. If the manufacturer complies with the law and attaches the lights, etc., is his responsibility ended or is he responsible after the unit is mounted by another party?"

Flink's status, as a spreader manufacturer, is that of a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. There are no standards currently applicable to spreaders. In other words, the Act does not require that Flink install lights on spreaders if Flink is not attaching spreaders to trucks. Even if Flink attaches lights to a spreader pursuant to a contractual obligation, the responsibility for insuring compliance with Standard No. 108 lies with the party mounting the spreader. In neither event is certification by Flink required.

"3. If a dump body to which a spreader is to be attached already has the required lighting, etc., is anything further required on the spreader?"

Since Federal standards currently do not apply to spreaders, nothing is required on them. If Flink is mounting spreaders to trucks, however, it is possible that this installation could affect Standard No. 108 so that Flink would have to install lighting devices on the spreader to insure compliance with this standard. If Flink's mounting of spreaders does not affect previously existing compliance with Standard No. 108, no certification by Flink is required.