ID: nht67-1.24

DATE: 08/18/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lowell K. Bridwell; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request to Dr. Haddon for an interpretation of the term "rigid material" as it appears in paragraph S3.4.1(b) in the National Highway Safety Bureau's "talking paper" of July 6, 1967. This term is identical to that used in paragraph S.3.4.1(b) of Standard 201, issued August 11, 1967. Therefore, the following interpretation applies to Standard 201 as issued August 11, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed.

"Rigid material" does not include a supporting structure of an armrest that is made of flexible spring steel if the supporting structure is designed to flex in the direction of transverse impact upon the pelvic impact area.

MERCEDES-BENZ OR NORTH AMERICA INC.

July 11, 1967

Dr. William Haddon, Jr. Director National Highway Safety Bureau

Re.: Application for Binding Ruling Standard 201, provisional July 6, 1967, Armrests S 3.4.1 (b).

As indicated in the discussion of the proposed language on July 9, 1967, we are applying for a ruling that the definition of "rigid material" in line 4 shall be understood not to include such supporting structures of armrests which are made of flexible spring steel when such supporting structure designed to flex in the direction of transverse impact upon the pelvic impact area, and shall therefore not be subject to the requirement of "minimum vertical height of not less than 1"."

Argument: There are numerous armrest designs which may not qualify under the requirements of S 3.4.1(a) since they are at some part less than 2" wide laterally, and therefore must qualify under Para. (b). If such armrests are designed to combine the function of a door opener, i.e. with a fingerhole, a flexible spring core is ideally suited and has many times been used as a demonstrably safe design in the past. The spring material, which need not necessarily be steel but may also take the form of various plastics, provides the necessary strength for vertical support required for an armrest but gives upon transverse impact to avoid injury.

We should be grateful to receive your ruling at the earliest possible date in view of current production schedules for the 1968 models, and in view of the fact that with this indication we agreed to wave further amending language of the standard Para. S 3.4.1 (b), so as to provide for the possibility of clear definitions in some future revisions.

Respectfully,

H. C. Hoppe

ID: nht67-1.25

DATE: 12/13/67

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

TO: Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter to me dated November 25, you have raised several questions relating to the status of Japanese motorcycles manufactured after December 31, 1967, and shipped to the United States without windshields.

Specifically you have stated:

"1. Is the . . . understanding (correct) that the importation of motorcycles not equipped with windowshields and/or any glazing material will not violate the . . . National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966."

Answer: Your understanding is correct. Motorcycles are not required to be equipped with windshields, and conformity to Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 is required only if motorcycles are equipped with windshields.

"2. In case motor cycles without glazing material are imported, what shall motorcycle manufacturers do in respect to certificate requirements according to Paragraph 114 of the Act and the Notice of October 31, 1967."

Answer: No certification is required for motorcycles which are imported without glazing materials.

"3. If certification is not required for motorcycles not equipped with glazing material, would there be any problem at the time of importation at U.S. Customs offices that may naturally seek safety certification on all motor vehicles covered by the Federal Standards."

Answer: Under the proposed joint regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department (Bureau of Customs) and the Department of Transportation covering importation of motor vehicles manufactured after December 31, 1967, vehicles not bearing certification will be admitted upon a declaration by the importer or(Illegible Word) that such vehicle was manufactured on a date when no standards applicable to the vehicle were in effect. To insure that there is no difficulty at the port of entry, it is contemplated that Customs officials will be notified that motorcycles without windshields may be admitted without certification. The proposed joint regulations were published in the Federal Register for November 30, 1967, and I enclose a copy for your consideration.

You have further asked: "Would there be any particular procedures that could be taken by Japanese motorcycle manufacturers in advance to avoid such a possibility."

Answer: If the motorcycles are shipped in a manner in which they are not readily visible, it might be advisable to atencil the shipping containers with a legend to the effect that the motor vehicle therein is not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., a motorcycle not equipped with a windshield).

Of course, any glazing material shipped for subsequent installation on a motorcycle must bear appropriate certification.

I hope this sufficiently answers your questions.

ID: nht67-1.26

DATE: 12/22/67

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

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 13, 1967, in which approval of a dynamic inertia load test procedure, as set forth in paragraph s4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 206, was requested.

This is to advise that the proposed procedure, as outlined in the enclosure to the referenced letter, is approved for the transverse inertia load portion of the standard test requirements.

Thank you for your continued cooperation in achievement of our mutual goals in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht67-1.27

DATE: 06/13/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Texas Department of Public Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Arnold Wise has asked that I answer your letter of April 14, 1967, concerning a clarification of several requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207, 208, and 209.

I am enclosing copies of the Federal Register of August 31, 1966, and February 3, 1967, which provide all of the information which you require. You will note that Standard No. 207 is concerned with the anchorage of the seats - not seat belts. Standard No. 208 requires seat belts in all passenger cars manufactured after January 1, 1968. In a regular size, four door, sedan-type vehicle with regular undivided seats, six lap belts would be required and, in addition, upper torso restraints would be required in the front outboard seats if the windshield header is in the head impact area.

The installation of seat belts in other than passenger cars is not required by the initial standards. However, any seat belts that are manufactured after March 1, 1967, must conform to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

Your interest in the traffic safety program of this Bureau is appreciated.

ID: nht67-1.28

DATE: 10/04/67

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

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 16 in which you attached a letter from your constituent, Mrs. Beverly Hoffman of San Diego. Mrs. Hoffman asked if there is any Federal or state regulation, or city ordinance, which forbids the removal or concealment of passenger seat belts in taxicabs. Mrs. Hoffman has raised an important question and one which is of vital concern to the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966: the retention of a safety equipment in a vehicle after its original purchase.

Since I expect that California law is of most interest to both Mrs. Hoffman and you, I will answer her question on the basis of the California Vehicle Code. Since January 1, 1964, Section 27309 has made it an offense to sell in California any new passenger vehicle which does not have at least two state approved restraint belts or harnesses in its front seat. Retention of the front seat belts by the vehicle owner is indirectly required by Section 40001(b) (2) which makes it unlawful for "an owner to request, cause, or permit the operation of any vehicle which is not equipped as required in this Code." (emphasis supplied) Since California has no annual motor vehicle inspection, enforcement of this law has presumably been by spot inspection. Members of the California Highway Patrol (Section 2804) and city traffic officers (Section 2806) have the authority to inspect a vehicle to determine whether its equipment is in compliance with the code.

With respect to rear seat-belts which most directly concern Mrs. Hoffman as a passenger, their installation has not been required by the Code. Such belts as she may have seen in the rear of California taxis have been provided as a courtesy of the owner rather than as a requirement of the law. But, as she directly notes, all passenger cars including taxicabs manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these, Standard No. 208, will require taxis to be manufactured with lap restraint belts installed in each rear seating position. But if the California legislature has not amended the Vehicle Code itself to require their installation it would appear that there is no legal reason why a cab owner may not remove rear seat belts should he wish to go to the trouble.

Under the Act, the Secretary of Transportation does not have the authority to directly regulate motor vehicles "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." Instead, Congress intended that used vehicles be regulated by periodic state inspection. To implement this intent the Secretary has been directed to study state inspection systems and, in due course, to establish uniform standards applicable to all used motor vehicles. A hypothetical standard and one which we shall consider -- requiring the presence of original equipment safety items at time of each inspection would be sufficient to cover retention of rear seat safety belts. But the Act establishes no requirement that the states or any individual follow any used vehicle standard. For the probable enforcement mechanism of used car standards it is necessary to turn to the companion Highway Safety Act of 1966. Under this Act each state is required to have a highway safety program in accordance with standards promulgated by the Secretary. One such standard, already issued, establishes minimum requirements for periodic motor vehicle inspection. Eventually it is possible that used car standards will be suggested to the states through this motor vehicle inspection standard, but enforcement of the used car standards will be left to the states.

Concerning concealment of the belts, I am aware of no legislation, Federal, state, or municipal, which requires that a safety item not only be retained but also available for use. But I believe that sufficient authority may exist in the Highway Safety Act's mandate to the Bureau to include "vehicle operation" in the highway safety program standards to warrant our serious consideration of it.

I hope that this has answered Mrs. Hoffman's questions and I appreciate her interest in traffic safety.

ID: nht67-1.29

DATE: 05/25/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Busby and Rivkin, Counsellors at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 26, 1967, concerning the interpretation of Safety Standard Number 210.

Paragraph (Illegible Word) of Standard Number 208, specificas that the Type 2 seat belt anchorage shall be installed in each outboard passanger seat position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area. Therefore, the rear seat is not included in this area and no Type 2 belt assembly is required. A copy of the Federal Register published February 3, 1967, is enclosed for your information.

With regard to your comments on Standard Number 209 and on the provision of Section 108(b)(3) of the Act, please be advised that we anticipate the promulgation of joint regulations with the Secretary of the Treasury, permitting the incorporation of vehicles upon appropriate assurance that they will be brought into conformity with all applicable Federal standards prior to sale. These regulations or related regulations will prescribe the proper means of certifying such nonconforming vehicles in order to insure their admission through United States Customs.

ID: nht67-1.3

DATE: 08/17/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter addressed to Dr. Haddon, dated June 19, 1967, which has been referred to me for reply to your inquiry concerning the effect of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on fire trucks.

The purpose of Standard No. 107 is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces in the driver's field of view will hinder the safe and normal operation of the motor vehicle. At present, paragraph S4, "Requirements," only covers windshield wiper arms and blades, inside windshield mouldings, horn ring and hub of the steering wheel, and inside rearview mirror frame and mounting bracket.

The initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards contain no mandatory requirement for seat belt installations or seat belt anchorages in trucks. However, if seat belts are installed in trucks they must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, effective March 1, 1967.

Sincerely,

FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

June 19, 1967

William Haddon, Jr. Administrator National Traffic Safety Agency

Dear Dr. Haddon:

Our concern is about Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107. In it view, glare, brightness, and reflection is set forth. Is the use of chrome prohibited because of its reflective qualities either inside the vehicle or on the outside of the vehicle? As you are aware, fire trucks have a considerable amount of chrome in their make-up.

One further question would be as to the seat belt assembly requirements. It is our understanding that only the anchoring point is necessary to be installed in the equipment as of March 1, 1967. The actual installation of the seat belt itself is an optional piece of equipment.

May we hear from you?

Very truly yours,

E.L. Koepenick Secretary-Treasurer

ID: nht67-1.30

DATE: 02/27/67

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

TO: North America Seat Belt Council, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1967.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies manufactured after February 28, 1967, for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Since Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, which provides that a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 shall be installed in each passenger car seat position, has an effective date of January 1, 1968, until that date seat belt assemblies installed in passenger cars need not conform to Standard No. 209 unless the seat belt assemblies have been manufactured after February 28, 1967.

Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we can be of further service to you.

ID: nht67-1.31

DATE: 09/21/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Busby and Rivkin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of July 13, 1967, you requested clarification of several issues relating to the location and size of turn signals as specified in the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Initial Standard No. 108, entitled, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, and Buses, 80 or More Inches Wide Overall," specifies that turn signal lamps shall conform to Class A of SAE Standard J588d. As stated in the enclosures to your letter, SAE Standard J588d specifies that the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam. This requirement of the SAE Standard is addressed to a single lamp with only one bulb. For a combination of lamps, such as that shown on the sketch enclosed with your letter, the intent of this requirement could be part if the optical center produced by the two bulbs is outside the 4-inch limit. The location of this optical center must be determined from laboratory test data, which was not presented in your letter.

Proposed Initial Standard No. 112, entitled, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Passenger Cars; Motorcycles; and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers and Buses of Less than 80 Inches Wide Overall," would permit the use of Class A (SAE J588d) turn signal lamps until January 1, 1969. Under this provision, lamp No. 1 on your sketch would conform to the 4-inch spacing requirement. Combining lamp No. 1 and No. 2 to obtain a Class A area would again result in the situation previously described with respect to location of the optical center.

Since your letter makes frequent reference to "cars," we assume that you are primarily interested in the requirements of Standard No. 112. In this respect, we would caution you that the requirements specifies therein are presently only proposed requirements, and are subject to change prior to issuance of the final standard.

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

ID: nht67-1.32

DATE: 06/14/67

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

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 10, 1967, clarifying the intent of your petition for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, and seeking a review of Order No. 12, dated March 29, 1967, denying your petition.

At your request I have reviewed your petition for reconsideration and wish to(Illegible Word) for the record, as you have asked, that your company did not seek to be relieved from the requirements of Standard No. 210, but rather sought permission to provide upper(Illegible Word) restraint anchorages in addition to those required by the standard. After reviewing Order No. 12, I have concluded that with respect to your company the order was intended as a(Illegible Words) paragraph(Illegible Words) is unnecessary, however, for the reason that Standard No. 210(Illegible Words)(Illegible Word) anchorages in addition to those required in paragraph 4.1. The location criteria for the anchorages as outlined in accordance with paragraph 4.1, and not to any additional anchorages provided by the manufacturer.

I believe the foregoing interpretation will enable your company to continue its practice of furnishing additional(Illegible Word) restraint anchorages on the(Illegible Words) large persons(Illegible Words) you have further questions concerning the(Illegible Word) please do not(Illegible Word) to let me know. MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Lowell K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator United States Department of Transportation

I have Dr. Haddon's letter of April 4, 1967, enclosing a copy of your order of denial regarding our petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 210, dated March 3, 1967.

It is important to indicate that it was not the intention of our petition to request relief from the requirement of Standard No. 210 (S 4.3.2.1) as stated in Order No. 12 issued on March 29. Our request was simply that Standard No. 210 be amended to allow a second upper torso restraint anchorage point -- in addition to an anchorage point complying with Standard No. 210 -- in order that such an additional point be available for persons of unuaually large body dimensions.

I think it important that the record clearly show that Mercedes-Benz of North America did not seek relief from Standard No. 210, but rather sought permission to comply with the Standard and at the same time provide for optimum restraint and comfort of persons of unusually large size. It has been standard practice in our company to furnish at least two upper torso restraint anchorages when they are mounted in the B--pillar of sedans and we sought in our March 3, 1967 petition to continue this practice.

Inasmuch as the relief denied in Order No. 12 is not the relief sought by Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., I would greatly appreciate your reviewing the Order in the hope that since we comply with Standard No. 210 the inclusion of an additional anchorage would be allowed to enhance the safety and comfort of unusually large persons.

Sincerely,

PEUGEOT, INC.

May 26, 1967

Mr. O'Mahoney National Traffic Safety Agency

Regarding our telephone conversation of May 26, I am in need of legal interpretation concerning Standards 208 and 210.

According to Standard 208, paragraph S3.1.1, Type 2 seat belt assembly should be installed in each outboard passenger car in the front seat position, including the windshield, within the impact area, which, in my mind includes the front seats only. Thus, the rear seats should have only Type 1 (lap belt).

From Standard 210, table 1, it seems to clearly indicate that we must have seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt in outboard seats in the rear, but it does not expressly state that the Type 2 seat belts should be installed in the outboard seats in the rear.

Would you kindly let me know if my interpretation is correct: on a 4-passenger car, we should have Type 2 seat belts in the front, Type 1 seat belts in the rear, but anchorages in the rear for Type 2 and Type 1 seat belts.

Thank you very much in advance for your reply.

Henri B. Combe Executive Vice President