ID: nht71-5.31

DATE: 12/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 16 and 30, 1971, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 to heavy duty trucks. You reported that you are unlikely to be able to bring the side door locks and latches on your truck into conformity with the standard until mid-1972.

In your first letter, you asked whether the standard will apply to all trucks or only those having a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. The standard will apply, beginning January 1, 1972, to all trucks without regard to their GVWR.

In your second letter, you requested for your trucks a temporary exemption of 180 days from the standard. We regret that we are unable to consider your request, since our authority under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) to grant such exemptions expired in April of this year.

Beginning January 1, 1972, the manufacture of any truck not in compliance with Standard 206 will be prohibited. Section 108(a) of the Act provides that

"No person shall manufacture for sale . . . any motor vehicle . . . manufactured on or after the date any applicable . . . standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397)

This prohibition is enforceable by civil penalties under section 109 (15 U.S.C. 1398) and injunction under section 110 (15 U.S.C. 1399). In addition, in the event that a noncompliance were determined to be a safety-related defect, notification of the defect would have to be furnished under section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402).

Let us know if we may be of further assistance.

ID: nht71-5.32

DATE: 12/28/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1971, enclosing copies of consumer information documents you plan to use to comply with the Consumer Information requirements applicable to motorcycles. You state that you plan to place the information for particular models back to back on the same sheet of paper in order that they may correspond to your specification sheets.

The documents you have submitted, when they contain the appropriate values, will comply with the Consumer Information regulations. There is no prohibition against placing the information for two models back to back on the same sheet as you plan to do.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht71-5.33

DATE: 12/27/71

FROM: R. L. CARTER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY E. DRIVER

TO: American Safety Belt Council

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 3, 1971, regarding seat belt buckle requirements.

Your interpretation that push-button buckles are not mandatory on seat belts offered for sale as replacement parts after January 1, 1972, is correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies that seat belts, installed in passenger cars after January 1, 1972, must have latch mechanisms that release by push-button action. It does not apply to replacement belts.

If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

ID: nht71-5.34

DATE: 12/29/71

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

TO: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 3, 1971, concerning the preemption of State vehicle safety standards under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1592(d). We apologize for the oversight that resulted in not answering the letter until this date.

You asked whether State laws requiring that vehicles having two red tail lamps, mounted on the same level and as widely spaced laterally as practicable, are preempted by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In our opinion the answer is no. Standard 108 has many detailed requirements that go beyond those described. Among them, however, are requirements that are substantively identical to your example, though not stated in precisely the same words. We do not interpret section 103(d), which prohibits a State standard "which is not identical to the Federal standard," as requiring the State requirement to be a verbatin copy of its Federal counterparts substantive identity of requirements is sufficient. Also, we do not interpret the statute as requiring the State to adopt all the Federal requirements on a given aspect of performance. It is sufficient that there be a Federal requirement that is substantively identical to the State requirement in question.

You also asked about two other requirements, as to which the answer may depend on a more detailed examination of their purposes and the circumstances under which they are enacted. One was the requirement that the light from the tail lamps be visible from a distance of 1,000 feet to the rear; the other was that a vehicle have "at least one tail lamp."

The guiding principle that we would apply to this situation is that State requirements that regulate the design of motor vehicles must be identical to the Federal standards, with the qualifications stated above. It was clearly the intent of Congress to provide for uniformity of regulation of the manufacturers in areas where the Federal agency has acted, and they did so by the identity requirement of section 103(d). By contrast, State requirements concerning the condition or adjustment of vehicles generally do not affect the requirements placed on manufacturers, and therefore do not fall within the section 103(d) identity provisions.

Applying this principle to your question, if the visibility requirement is construed by the State, and reasonably appears, to be basically a quantitatively stated requirement that the tail lamps be in good working order and not nearly degraded by conditions encountered in use, we would consider the requirement not to be preempted by section 103(d). Similarly, if the one tail lamp requirement is essentially a statement of required minimum working condition (as it appears to be on its face), it would not be preempted.

The issue you mentioned concerning the preemption of State laws applicable to vehicles in use was dealt with in detail in(Illegible Word). Tens' letter to you of December 21, 1970. As stated in that letter, our position is that the preemption question does not turn on whether the State law applies to pre-sale or on-the-road vehicles, and we feel that this position was upheld by the clear and compelling implication of the Super Lite cases. In light of the interpretations set forth in this letter, however, we do not believe that the problems of State law and enforcement that you felt may arise will be realized.

ID: nht71-5.35

DATE: 12/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hackney Bros. Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 6, 1971, in which you requested our opinion on the application of Standard No. 207 to swivel type pedestal seats.

Your problem arises from the method specified in S5.1.1 for the application of the force required by S4.2(a) of 20 times the weight of the seat. Although your letter does not state the problem directly, it appears that when a forward force is applied from behind the seat, as shown in the figures accompanying S5.1.1, the seat will tend to swivel. Your solution is to attach a T-shaped structure to the seat and to apply the force to the leg of the T forward of the swivel point.

The initial question raised by your letter is whether a seat that swivels under the application of a force through its back as shown in Figure 1, will be considered to fail to withstand the force and thereby fail the standard.

On the basis of our present information, we cannot say that such a swiveling action would result in a failure of the standard. The engineering staff has expressed uncertainty as to the effects on the occupant if the seat swivels in a side or angular crash, but they are not prepared to say that it would present a hazard. Since the swiveling itself is not a failure, the remaining question is one of test procedure. Our opinion is that the procedure you describe, using a T shaped structure, appears to be an acceptable means of applying the test force to the seat.

ID: nht71-5.36

DATE: 12/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Latham & Watkins

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971, in which you ask whether a manufacturer may add certain statements to the Certification label required pursuant to Part 567 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. You state that the manufacturer in question is engaged in the manufacturer and mounting of concrete mixer assemblies. Because, as you state, the weight of the concrete may vary according to the mix formula, and because the volume of mix loaded into a mixer can also vary, the manufacturer wishes to add to his Certification label a declaration of the vehicle's cargo load and an indication of the maximum volume of mix that could be safely hauled within the rated cargo load limit.

There is no prohibition to this additional information being added to the Certification label as long as (1) it appears after the required information, and (2) it is stated in such a way that it cannot be confused with the information, particularly the GVWR and GAWR, required to be placed on the label.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht71-5.37

DATE: 09/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes Benz of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1971, in which you asked whether the shoulder belt anchorages installed by Mercedes in its heavy trucks (over 10,000 CVWR) must meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 210, even though the standard does not require shoulder belt anchorages in vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR.

It is our opinion that because these anchorages are not required to be installed, they are not required to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 210. You may therefore continue to use plastic covers on the anchorages and need not redder them unusable.

Please advise us if you have further questions.

ID: nht71-5.38

DATE: 09/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 10, 1971, concerning the Defects Reports regulations, 49 CFR Part 573. You ask whether @ 573.6 (Owner Lists) requires that the list "show only the latest quarterly status of inspection and defect correction", or whether all prior quarterly lists must also be retained.

Section 573.6 of the regulation requires the owner list to be "updated as of the end of each quarterly reporting period," with the list being retained for five years after the date on which the defect information report is initially submitted.

We do not consider this section to require all prior quarterly lists to be retained. Therefore if you maintain a list that shows only the latest quarterly status of inspection and defect correction you will be in compliance with the requirements.

WE ARE PLEASED TO BE OF ASSISTANCE.

ID: nht71-5.39

DATE: 09/28/71

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

TO: Electric Device Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1971, to Mr. Douglas Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning your request for an interpretation relative to your safety backing system and the Federal Standards.

The use of your School Bus Safety Backing System is neither required nor prohibited in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and the proposed Pupil Transportation Safety Standard. However, it would appear that the regulations of the individual States apply to the use of your system in those States.

ID: nht71-5.4

DATE: 11/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Eastman Chemical Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1971, concerning the status of your petition to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", to allow the use of Uvex plastic sheet in motor vehicles. You request our comments regarding three matters which you list, and which are incorporated into our responses below.

You ask us to "explain that Uvex Sheet Plastic is and has been under active consideration for vehicle glazing approval for some time and that an early decision is anticipated." A notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205 (Docket No. 71-1) was published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 326). This notice would allow the use in motor vehicles of plastic materials, not presently allowed, that meet certain specified requirements. This notice is based in part upon a petition submitted by Enstran Chemical. The requirements do not refer to Uvex or any other material by name. The Administration takes no position on whether Uvex material would meet the proposal requirements. A final decision based on this notice is anticipated in the near future.

The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 9, 1971, does, as you indicate, propose other amendments to Standard No. 205. Some of these proposals have engendered substantial interest from industry and have consequently affected the amount of Agency work involved in the rulemaking action.

Finally, you ask if State highway standards preventing the use of Uvex will continue to be effective if Uvex is allowed to be used under the Federal standards. Under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), a State motor vehicle safety standard applicable to a particular aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance must be identical to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to that same aspect of performance. Consequently, a State vehicle standard prohibiting all use of Uvex would be pre-empted to the extent that amendment of Standard No. 205 permits its use.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.