ID: nht71-2.28

DATE: 04/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Allied Chemical Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1971, requesting our interpretation of S4.5.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. You have asked whether the requirement of S4.5.2 that "all electrical circuits" must be monitored would mean that a bridgewire circuit in an electroexplosive device would have to be monitored. Our answer is that such a circuit must be monitored, although it should be noted that monitoring need not be continous, but may be designed to occur, for example, only when the ignition is in the "start" position.

Your letter points out several potential problems with the inclusion of such a bridgewire circuit among the monitored systems. We are giving consideration to the self-monitoring requirement in the light of the comments we have received, with a view to possible amendments that may be found advisable.

ID: nht71-2.29

DATE: 04/20/71

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

TO: Morgan Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 17, 1971, in which you requested further clarification of the test procedures of the standard on side door strength, Standard No. 214. Your diagram of the Morgan Plus 8 shows a horizontal line drawn across the door 5 inches above the lowest point of the door. This would appear to be an accurate depiction of the location of the lower edge of the loading device as specified in the standard. You express concern that the line is a considerable distance from the ground, but under the requirements of the standard, the height above the lower edge of the door is the relevant height, and not the height above ground.

I hope this will help to resolve your questions with respect to Standard No. 214.

ID: nht71-2.3

DATE: 02/10/71

FROM: R.A. DIAZ -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CLUE D. FERGUSON

TO: The Yokohama Rubber Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of December 30, 1970, requesting exemption from the requirements of Section 374,4, concerning the location of the required labeling between the maximum section width and the based, of Regulation Fact 374. Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Your request is being(Illegible Word) as a petition for rulemaking under @ 353.551 of title 42 and by way of this letter is denied.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administrative is requiring the location of the identification number because the maximum sections width and the based for two reasons. As you have currently cited the location is such as this labeling will not be remove in the retreading(Illegible Words). The second reason is that such a location will provide the maximum protection to(Illegible Word) that the number is not scuffed or(Illegible Word) off during the operation. In view of these reasons, you are not allowed to put the identification number in the space above the regular section width.

Your question concerning the height of the "DOT" for motorcycle tires is not applicable at this time. The symbol "DOT" cannot be used as motorcycle tires until there is an applicable standard. The(Illegible Word) for the standard covering these tires will be issued later this calender year and probably will not be effective until January 1, 1972.

ID: nht71-2.30

DATE: 04/23/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: J.O. Phillips

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of March 31 you ask what requirements may apply to you if you rebuild truck tractors from salvage units.

To begin with, you become a "manufacturer" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and subject to the requirements which the Act imposes upon manufacturers. These requirements are that you ensure that any motor vehicle you manufacture complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, that you cooperate with safety-related investigations by providing information and access to your premises upon request by this agency, that you furnish certification to distributers(Illegible Word) of your motor vehicles that the vehicles comply with applicable general standards, standards, and that you furnish notification to vehicle owners of any safety-related defects in the vehicle when they come to your attention. At present, regulations requiring that prospective purchasers be supplied with certain safety-related performance information do not apply to manufacturers of truck tractors.

Under our regulations a "truck tractor" is a sub-category of "truck," and therefore it must comply with Federal standards applicable to trucks, as well as requirements that specifically apply to truck tractors.(Illegible Word) standards, however, do not apply to vehicles in use, that is, to a vehicle which is merely repaired. A vehicle which is rebuilt, however, so that it becomes in(Illegible Word) motor vehicle must. In our view, comply with all Federal Standards applicable to the manufacturer of new vehicles.

You informed Mr. Vinaon of our Office of Chief Counsel on April 19 that, in a typical operation, you would assemble a truck tractor using both parts from one or more existing truck tractors and new parts contained in a "Glider" kit such as is held by(Illegible Words), and that the resulting truck tractor would be eligible for registration as a new motor vehicle. In our opinion, truck tractors which you produce in this manner must comply with all Federal standards applicable to trucks or truck tractors as of the date of their manufacture.

I enclose a copy of the Act and "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Other Regulations" for your guidance.

Enclosures

ID: nht71-2.31

DATE: 04/28/71

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

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to conform your understanding that the DOT symbol, which represents the tire manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with the passenger car tire standard, is required on tires installed on multipurpose passenger vehicles, if such tires are originally designed and have passenger car tire size designations. However, since Standard No. 110 does not, at the present time, apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, the responsibility for assuring that these tires contain the DOT symbol is limited to the tire manufacturer.

ID: nht71-2.32

DATE: 04/28/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Simek Manufacturing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 7, 1971, concerning the applicability of the Tire identification and Record Keeping Regulations to boat trailers. As used in the regulation, "Motor Vehicle" includes boat trailers as well as other types of trailers. Thus, the regulation does apply to boat trailers.

If a trailer is shipped with the tires attached, section 574.10 requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to maintain the records of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale because the tires will be "on or in" a vehicle shipped by him. If, however, the trailers are shipped in a "knocked down" configuration with the tires shipped seperately, the tires are not considered to be shipped "on or in" the vehicle within the meaning of Section 574.10, and therefore, the vehicle dealer is, by section 57 required to report the name and address of the purchaser to the tire manufacturer.

The manner of maintaining the records is not specified by the regulation and any method that satisfies the requirements of the regulation may be used.

ID: nht71-2.33

DATE: 04/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Ashimori Industry Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1971, regarding self-fastening seat belt systems.

Any system which requires no action by vehicle occupants can be used to meet the appropriate options of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection. "The action," in this case, means that no action is permitted by vehicle occupants other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.

We have received a number of petitions for reconsideration or clarification of Notice 9, particularly in reference to the role of a passive (no action) safety belt system as it relates to the requirements for Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt installations prior to August 15, 1975. We are now in the process of resolving the petitions received, and our final decisions in response to the petitions will be issued in the Federal Register as soon as possible.

Your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs is most appreciated.

ID: nht71-2.34

DATE: 04/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Busby, Rivkin, Sherman and Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1971, in which you enclosed a request for clarification, on behalf of Rolls-Royce, Ltd., of the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Essentially, the question was whether a "European type combined lap and diagonal strap seat belt assembly with retractor" could be furnished instead of the "Type 1 seatbelt assembly" specified in the second protection option on passenger cars manufactured from August 15, 1973, to August 14, 1975.

Standard No. 208 does not permit this substitution. The key feature of the second option in the August 1973- August 1975 period is that the manufacturer must design his vehicles so that the front seat occupants are protected from injury when restrained with lap belts only, and provide lap belts for all occupants that may, at least, be separately usable as such. A detachable upper torso belt may be provided at the manufacturer's option. The basis for this requirement is the well-documented finding that a much larger percentage of the American public will fasten lap belts than will use upper torso belts, whether the latter are of the detachable or the combination type.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht71-2.35

DATE: 04/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hamill Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1971, in which you ask certain questions concerning a child booster seat that you plan to market. You describe the booster seat as a rectangle about 6 inches in height, tapering to 4 inches in the front, and state that it would be advertised for use by children under 50 pounds and would not be designed to fall into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213. You also state that your engineers feel a booster chair will "definitely help more five, six and seven year old children to use seat belts simply because these children will be able to see out of a vehicle."

While you state that the booster seat "would not be designed to fall into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213," it is not clear from your description of the device that this is actually the case. If you wish an opinion on this matter, we will provide one, but to do so we will need some additional information. Specifically, we will need to know if the booster seat is to be designed or advertised for use with the vehicle seat belts, and if so, how it will be so designed or advertised.

The questions you ask concerning the booster seat are: (1) Can we set a minimum of 50 or 60 pounds? (2) Exactly what is the maximum child weight covered under MVSS #213? and (3) What recommended weight can we advertise as a minimum for our booster seat?

The answers to these questions do not depend on whether the standard applies to your booster seat. If the device is a child seating system, Standard No. 213 does not specify the minimum or maximum heights or weights for children who may use it. Under the standard, it is up to the manufacturer to determine, based upon the design of each particular child seating system, the heights and weights of children for which he recommends the child seating system.

If the device is not a child seating system, the manufacturer is not required to recommend any heights or weights for children who can use it. Should he choose to do so, however, the heights and weights recommended must be consistent with the safe use of the device.

ID: nht71-2.36

DATE: 04/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hartman Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 9, 1971 concerning certain provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." In your letter you ask whether S4.4 of the standard requires the child seating system itself to be restrained by the seat belt assembly. You state that S4.5.1 indicates to you that the vehicle seat belt assembly is employed to restrain both the child and the seating system, and request that this issue be clarified.

S4.4(a) of the standard requires each child seating system, when installed as the manufacturer directs, to be restrained by the vehicle seat belt assembly. The vehicle seat belt assembly may also be used to directly restrain the child, but it is not required to do so. When it is used for this purpose, however, it must distribute the restraint forces as specified by S4.5.1 of the standard.

The statement in the preamble of the notice of March 23, 1970 to which you refer describes the scope of the standard. This statement means that any device for seating children in a motor vehicle that is designed to utilize the vehicle restraint system or provides restraint by itself, or both, is a "child seating system" and must comply with all the requirements of the standard.

We are pleased to be of assistance.