ID: nht71-4.35

DATE: 10/29/71

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

TO: Joseph Lucas (Electrical), Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to the petition of Joseph Lucas (Electrical) Ltd. dated October 13, 1971, for rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Specifically, you have asked for an amendment of paragraph S4.1.2 either to reduce the(Illegible Word) test cycle of the warpage test for backup and stop lamps from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, or to conduct the test for these lamps using a continuously flashing filament.

Petitions for reconsideration of the 10 minute heat test cycle were filed following amendment of Standard No. 108 on October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 16840). These petitions were denied on February 3, 1971 (36 F.R. 1896), because the Traffic Safety Administration had determined that the 10-minute cycle is appropriate in view of the frequency of usage of stop and backup lamps. I enclose a copy of the denial.

The Administrator has determined that your petition contains no new information such as to merit rulemaking on this issue, and we must therefore respectfully deny your petition.

ID: nht71-4.36

DATE: 11/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Renault, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We regret the continuing difficulty of communication concerning paragraph S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208. As we understand the question stated in your letters of September 14 and October 11, 1971, you have asked whether a passenger car that has passive 3-point belts at the front positions and that conforms to S4.1.2.2(b) by use of these belts will also have to have Type 1 belts at those positions and conform to S4.1.2.2(c).

It was our intent in adopting the passive seat belt requirement, S4.5.3 to permit manufacturers to substitute a Type 1 passive assembly or a Type 2 passive assembly with detachable or non-detachable shoulder belt for any assembly under an option that specifies a Type 1 assembly or a Type 2 assembly with detachable shoulder belt. Therefore, even though the assemblies specified under S4.1.2.2 are required to be Type 1 or Type 2 with detachable shoulder belts, a passive assembly used in place of any belt under S4.1.2.2 could have a non-detachable shoulder belt. In the light of questions rained by Renault and others, we are considering an amendment to S4.5.3 to clarify this point.

With specific reference to your question, a 3-point passive assembly may be used to meet the passive protection requirements of S4.1.2.2(b). Such an assembly(Illegible Word) not have a detachable shoulder belt. Since S4.5.3 provides that it may be used in

place of a Type 1 assembly, the passive assembly may be used in its 3-point configuration to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.2(c). The effect of using a 3-point passive assembly to meet subparagraph (c) is to make the test requirements of (b) and (c) identical.

Please advise us if further clarification is necessary.

ID: nht71-4.37

DATE: 11/02/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: REBCO

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1971, concerning the retention of records of the names and addresses of first purchasers of retread tires that you manufactured prior to October 13, 1971, the date you went out of the retread business.

Under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation you are required to maintain the names of first purchasers three years from the time the sale is reported to you or your designee. Therefore, as to those tires manufactured between May 22, 1971 and the date you went out of business, October 24, 1971, you are required to maintain, or have maintained for you the names and addresses of the first purchasers for three years after this information is recorded by you or your designee.

ID: nht71-4.38

DATE: 11/02/71

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

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent telephone inquiry as to whether the recent amendment of Standard 215, Exterior Protection, requires that vehicles meet the photometric requirements of Standard 108 after being subjected to the Standard 215 impacts.

S5.3.1 of Standard 215 reads:

"Each lamp or reflective device, except license plate lamps, shall be free of cracks and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108."

S4.3.1.1 of Standard 108 reads in relevant part:

"Each lamp and reflective device shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice. In addition, no part of the vehicle shall prevent the device from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice." (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, although the actual photometric tests may be considered "bench tests", that is, tests whose procedures include removing the devices from the vehicle, the above provision of Standard 108 requires that the configuration of the vehicle external to the devices not prevent them from meeting the photometric requirements. The test procedures themselves require the devices to be placed

in their actual orientation on the vehicle. Therefore, the provision in Standard 215 that the lamps and reflective devices shall meet all the requirements of Standard 108 after the impacts includes the photometric requirements.

ID: nht71-4.39

DATE: 11/03/71

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

TO: Patton; Blow; Virrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1971, in which you made several requests with respect to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR Part 574) and Certification (49 CFR Part 567) regulations.

1. You suggested that the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation be amended to provide that where tires are not shipped on or in a vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's record keeping obligation be limited to three years from the date of sale. We will take this request into consideration, and let you know when a decision is made. It appears that since the minimum time would apply to all vehicle manufacturers, such a requirement should appear in a regulation other than Part 574.

2. You requested the deletion of the requirement that information on the certification label be placed "in the order shown." We have previously denied petitions relating to the order of information on the label (36 F.R. 19593), and this request is also denied. The requirement that the label information be placed in a definite order has been in effect for over two years, and has been found to enhance the readability and hence the usefulness of the label. Now that further numerical information is to be required on the label, we consider that it will be even more important that this requirement be maintained.

3. You requested "an interpretation that a multi-column label or a label in two parts each with an information column, will meet the requirements of [Part] 567," because of the space limitations on some trailers. As long as the information appears in the order specified in the regulation, the NHTSA has no objection to a multi-column label or a label in two parts.

4. Finally, you requested that a trailer manufacturer be allowed to use up his existing supply of labels, by affixing a supplementary label with the additional required information. As stated above, we have decided to adhere to the requirement that the information on the label be in the order specified, although it may be in more than one column or part. To the extent that the action requested would allow a manufacturer not to conform to that requirement, the request is denied. Although the deviation might appear small, it would seriously detract from the integrity and enforceability of the regulation to allow incidental nonconformity without amending the requirement. The other vehicle manufacturers have undoubtedly already incurred costs similar to those cited by your client, and it would be distinctly unfair not to enforce the regulation evenhandedly as to all parties.

ID: nht71-4.4

DATE: 08/16/71

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

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributor Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 28 requesting a clarification of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108. This paragraph requires the installation of auxiliary lighting equipment, if the required lighting equipment is prevented from conforming to photometric output and visibility values by motor vehicle equipment such as snow plows, street sweepers, etc. You ask, in essence, whether auxiliary lamps must be provided in two situations: when the motor vehicle equipment is sold with but not attached to the vehicle, and when no equipment is sold with the vehicle but the vehicle is equipped with a hoist upon which equipment may be mounted.

With respect to the first situation, compliance should be determined with the equipment attached which(Illegible Word) the vehicle at the time it is sold. As for the second situation, compliance of a vehicle which is equipped at time of sale with hoists or mounting brackes only, and for which equipment will be provided at a time subsequent to sale, should be determined with the vehicle in its as-sold condition.

ID: nht71-4.40

DATE: 11/05/71

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

TO: Truck-Lite Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1971, to Mr. Lewis Owen of this Office concerning an interpretation regarding your Truck-Lite No. 127 License plate light.

The requested interpretation concerns the 8 degree incident light angle specified in SAE J587, "License Plate Lamps," as follows:

"When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg to the plane of the plate."

Since the 8 degree incident light angle is also a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, all license plate lamp designs must conform to it. It is our position that the angle be measured from the optical center of the lens; therefore, the Electrical Testing Laboratories' position is valid. That is, the incident light angle of your lamp, without the paint shield and when mounted as it will be installed on the vehicle, is below the 8 degree minimum requirement.

ID: nht71-4.41

DATE: 11/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1971, in which you asked whether the second and third options of Standard 208 require anthropomorphic test devices to be placed for the frontal crash tests only in the front designated seating positions, and not in the rear positions.

The answer is yes. The second and third options pose no requirements for testing that require dummies in the rear positions, hence dummies should be placed only in front positions. In the period from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1973, they should in fact be placed only in the front outboard positions.

You also suggested that "if Option 1 is used, a test device must be at each designated seating position." This statement is true, in a strict sense. But the general requirements for the periods before August 15, 1975 (S4.1.1 and S4.1.2) explicitly allow the "mixing" of options, so that if belts are provided for the rear seating positions they may be considered as fulfilling option two or three, without dummies positioned there for the crash tests. In other words, dummies must be positioned in the rear seating positions only if and when the manufacturer elects to fulfill option one for the rear positions.

ID: nht71-4.42

DATE: 11/06/71

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

TO: Truck-Lite Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1971, to Mr. Lewis Owen of this Office concerning the coating of Lexan lenses.

Plastic lenses used in the required lamps are required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to meet SAE J576, which specifies no loss of surface luster and no surface deterioration. This Agency does not have the authority to "waive" any requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If you believe that motor vehicle safety does not demand requirements of this severity, you may submit a petition asking for an appropriate amendment of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht71-4.43

DATE: 11/08/71

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

TO: Commercial Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1971, in which you ask whether matrices (or molds) must be relettered to a new identification code mark when the ownership of a company is transferred from father to son. The son may continue to use the existing number if he will write a letter to us stating that he is the new owner, the date on which he became the new owner, that he wishes to continue to use the same identification code mark, and that he assume all responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1381 et. seq) for tires manufactured with the identification mark on or after the date he assumes ownership of the company. This letter should also refer to the name of the old company and should include any changes being made in company name, address and types of tires being retreaded.

With the above procedure the matrices would not have to be relettered. We will change our records to conform to the information contained in the letter.