ID: nht73-1.18

DATE: 10/10/73

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

TO: Motor Vehicle Administration

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in further response to correspondence dated July 10, 1973, between the Maryland Department of Transportation and Mr. Bernard Nolan. Mr. Nolan had written to the Maryland State Attorney General's Office regarding the practice of tire dealers of selling tires that have been relabeled "tube type" by their manufacturer, while representing that it was not necessary, and may even be unsafe, to install tubes in them. You attach a memorandum to you from Mr. Thomas J. Widerman which concludes that the practice does not violate any Federal or State law but recommends that Maryland's proposed tire safety standards be amended to prohibit the practice. You indicate to Mr. Nolan that you are forwarding the matter to this agency for appropriate action.

We believe this practice involves at least a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) prohibits, among other things, the sale of motor vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date of an applicable safety standard that does not conform to the standard.

We believe a person who sells a "tube type" tire as a tubeless tire is at least representing that the tire will meet the Federal standard applicable to tires, No. 109, without a tube. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate under the Safety Act to test that tire to the standard as a tubeless tire and, if failure occurs, to initiate civil penalty proceedings against the tire seller. That seller may also be liable for civil penalties for certifying the tire as conforming in a false and misleading manner (Sec. 108(a)(3) of the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(3)).

I am therefore referring the matter to our enforcement personnel with the recommendation that they inquire into the matter.

However, I also concur with the recommendation of Mr. Widerman that a specific prohibition against this practice be made part of Maryland law. NHTSA's enforcement procedures are civil in nature, and involve determinations that products fail to meet technical tests which are time-consuming and costly to run. State criminal procedures would, in our view, be far more effective than NHTSA's procedures in dealing with situations such as this.

Sincerely,

July 10, 1973

E. Wallace -- Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Ed:

A little slow perhaps, but here is a section of the B.F.Goodrich "Space Saver Spare" tire you asked me for.

We are trying spring plates in the molds to get the prescribed branding below the curb rib as now required. As you can see it will not be visible for(Illegible Word) to see it when it is in the trunk and folded as is normally the case,(Illegible Word) his we must also put it below the tread edge as you can see it on the section. This means a "double" branding job on these tires.

I gathered from Mike Peskos concluding remarks after our meeting on our petition that he felt there was a good chance of us getting some relief from this multiple and unnecessary branding.

Any suggestions or ideas your office may have which can be accomplished by rewording and/or rewriting the petition to make acceptance more likely will be appreciated.

Please call any time you feel further discussion on the petition is necessary or might help solution of our problems in this area.

Yours very truly,

B.F.GOODRICH TIRE COMPANY,

A Division of The B.F.Goodrich Co. --

F. S. Vukan

ID: nht73-1.19

DATE: 12/28/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Continental Rubber Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: At the request of Continental Tire Company by letter of November 27, 1973 (90316 - Ga/MAB/Sc), we are forwarding our response to their question through you. They asked to know the lettering height to be used in compliance with the labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is presently considering the lettering height to be used for labeling required by Standard 119. Our decision as to lettering size will appear in the Federal Register as soon as possible after it has been made.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

November 27, 1973

90316 - Ga/MAB/Sc

Gentlemen:

Re: Part 571 FMVSS 119 Docket 71-18, Notice 3

Part 571 S 109 Preamble 25-26, Docket 71-23, Notice 3, prescribes a height of 0.078" for the general lettering on tires; excepted herefrom is the Identification No, which can be 5/32" or 1/4".

The abovementioned Notice referred to Standards 109 and 117 only, no mention being made of Standard 119. It would therefore be appreciated if you would advise us of the lettering height to be used in order to comply with the labeling requirements of Standard 119. If we might be permitted to voice an opinion, we would suggest a height of 0.078" in view of the fact that motorcycle tires, with limited sidewall space, will have to be labeled; the same applies to small trailer tires.

We would be grateful for your early advices, as we intend to start soon with engraving of the relevant tire molds. May we suggest you notify our US representatives

Conti Rubber Products Inc. Minue Street Carteret, N.J.

per telex (transcontoret, No. 138 297) who will forward your instructions to us.

Thanking you in advance for an early reply, we are Yours very truly, CONTINENTAL Gummi-Werke Aktiengesellschaft; Fritsche; Garbe

ID: nht73-1.2

DATE: 01/10/73

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

TO: Van Doorne's Automobielfabrieken N.V.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1972, about compliance of DAF cars with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102.

Your question concerns the interpretation of paragraph S3.1.2. From your description in the letter and the description in the owner's manual, only one forward drive position is provided and engine braking can be achieved by actuating the transmission low ratio control switch. Under the conditions described above, the Variomatic transmission in DAF cars is not in violation with paragraph S3.1.2 of Standard No. 102. However, it appears that you do not comply with certain other paragraphs of the standard. For example, paragraph S3.1.1 requires that "A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse positions. . . ." and paragraph S3.1.3 requires that "The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position."

The DAF 66 owners manual dated September 1972, also indicates non-compliance with other standards; for example, 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination, 114, Theft Protection, 115, Vehicle Identification Number, etc. It is recommended that all standards and regulations be checked for compliance.

A copy of "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" is enclosed for your review and information.

ID: nht73-1.20

DATE: 03/01/73

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

TO: Nashville Glass Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1973, requesting information concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 212 and replacement of motor vehicle windshields.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 212 applies only up to the point where a vehicle is first sold to a user. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration currently has no standards that apply to vehicles in use. A program for the development of standards that would apply to vehicles other than new vehicles is being considered by the Administration for implementation in the future.

Thank you for your inquiry.

ID: nht73-1.21

DATE: 04/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Lewis Polin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to our Region III office in which you requested information on infant car seats and regulations affecting the manufacture of such seats.

Enclosure 1 is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, along with a recent amendment to the standard. The effective date of this standard was April 1, 1971. All child car seats which both seat and restrain a child in a motor vehicle are now required by law to comply with the requirements of this standard. This regulation requires the date of manufacture to be placed on each seat along with recommendations for its use. Child seating systems are recommended for use by children from approximately eight to nine months to three to four years of age.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is presently developing a proposed amendment to the existing standard which will require dynamic tests of all child restraints and will regulate infant restraints which are not presently covered by Standard No. 213. However, it is not anticipated that this amendment will become effective in the near future.

Enclosures 2 and 3 are copies of press releases notifying consumers of devices which have failed to pass Standard No. 213, and of the action the manufacturers are taking to correct the situation. Additionally, we are enclosing a copy of a consumer information booklet entitled, "What To Buy In Child Restraint Systems." We hope this information will assist you.

We do not endorse or advocate any specific product, but rather develop, issue, and enforce minimum safety standards for consumer protection. In the final analysis, the consumer should select a restraint which best fits his particular needs. Many practical considerations may affect the usage of a device, for example, the activity level of the child, portability of the device, and ease of attachment. These are all factors which the buyer of a child restraint system should consider in making his selection.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

4 Enclosures

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

REGION III March 22, 1973

Mrs. Lewis Polin

1912 Nester Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19115

Dear Mrs. Polin:

We would like to thank you for your interest in highway safety. Your request for information concerning regulations enacted in regard to infant car seats, along with brand names of those manufacturers who have produced such products in conformance with these standards, has been forwarded to our Washington office, and they in turn will help you with obtaining the information you need.

Sincerely,

Vincent D. Walsh, Sr. -- Regional Administrator

ID: nht73-1.22

DATE: 09/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 26 and August 7, 1973, requesting an opinion on the applicability of the emergency exit provisions (S5.3 to S5.5) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217), to buses that are of the same design as "school buses," but which are not manufactured (they are not painted yellow, nor do they have warning devices) nor used as school buses. You ask further that the standard exempt prison buses.

We interpret the exemption for school buses to include buses similarly designed, without regard to their intended use. School bus is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean,

"a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school . . . ."

We are of the opinion that buses which share the same design as buses that clearly fall within the definition of "school bus" are school buses under Standard No. 217, and are therefore exempt from the emergency exit provisions of the standard. No modification of the standard is accordingly called for.

With respect to your request regarding prison buses, we are presently considering similar requests previously received, and plan to respond by notice published in the Federal Register in the near future.

Yours truly,

August 7, 1973

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Vehicles U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Thomas Built Buses, Inc., High Point, North Carolina, a manufacturer of school bus bodies, respectfully petitions the Department of Transportation for a revision in wording of said Standard, particularly section S5.2.3 School Buses. We petition that the wording in this section be changed to read as follows: "The emergency exit requirements do not apply to school buses or buses of like design adapted for use for other than transporting children to and from school, but if such buses contain any pushout windows or other emergency exits, these exits shall conform to S5.3 through S5.5."

We base our petition on the fact that we as a body manufacturer do offer our base product design for other uses such as churches, activity buses for schools used for field trips and other school events, Boy Scouts, YMCA's, Salvation Army Clubs, etc. These units are constructed of the same basic design as what is termed a school bus but may vary as to color and omission of specific school bus safety warning systems. Our conclusion is that as the Standard is presently worded, it is a double Standard in that it states the Standard applies not to school buses but to those same buses if used for other than hauling children to and from school. We feel strongly that the Standard should apply to neither school buses or those of like design used by other groups or the Standard should apply to all buses including school buses. Due to the basic design of the product for school use, we are in agreement with the Standard as proposed but suggest the above additions.

In addition to the above, we respectfully submit to the Department of Transportation that prison buses which are vehicles manufactured to haul prisoners from one point to another, should not be included under this Standard. Prison buses should be exempt along with school buses and the others listed. The basis for this petition on prison buses is due to the fact that the Standard contradicts the specific purpose of a prison bus. In other words, prison buses are security vehicles with a minimum of escape possibility whereby the Standard increases escape possibility.

We would respectfully request your expediting a ruling on this petition since all body manufacturers have buses as described in this petition on order to build after September 1, 1973, and the effective date of said Standard is September 1, 1973. If further information is required by you, please advise us immediately.

Respectfully submitted,

James Tydings Chief Engineer

c.c. Berkley Sweet Executive Secretary School Bus Manufacturers Institute 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D. C. 20015

July 26, 1973

Berkley C. Sweet Truck Body & Equipment Association

Dear Mr. Sweet:

Kindly forward this letter to the Department of Transportation for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation on FMVSS #217 - Bus Window Retention and Release.

We request an interpretation on the definition of "School Bus" as applied to units which we sell to school bus route contractors. Many contractors use their buses for purposes other than just carrying school children. For example, they may carry a Sunday School class to the beach for a weekend. Will the requirement for a minimum number of emergency exits be applicable to a bus used in such a case?

We request that the "designated seating capacity" for a handicapped persons vehicle be taken as the number of wheelchair spaces plus the seated passenger capacity.

Are "School Activity Buses" required to have a minimum number of emergency exits? Such buses are used to carry sports teams to games and classes on field trips. These buses are owned by the schools and used because most states have laws that preclude the use of state owned route buses for such activities.

We request an exemption for buses which are sold to prisons on the basis that we sold less than 100 of them during 1972. We expect to sell approximately 30 such vehicles this year. Also, there is the reason of possible prison escape.

Thanking you in advance for your services, we remain

Very truly yours,

James Tydings Chief Engineer

ID: nht73-1.23

DATE: 08/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Oregon Traffic Safety Commision

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 23, 1973, enclosing an amended version of Oregon House Bill 2721.

We note that Section 2 of the Bill no longer requires a mandatory green-yellow-red rear mounted lighting system but specifies that it may be used on an optional basis, in accordance with the suggestions in Mr. Wilson's letter of July 20, 1973. In order to avoid preemption under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ORS 483.412(3)(b) [Section 3] should be similarly amended to substitute "may" for "shall" so that all references to a mandatory system are removed from the Bill.

Sincerely,

OREGON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

July 23, 1973

James E. Wilson -- Associate Administrator, Traffic Safety Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: N40-30 (ZTV)

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Attached is an engrossed (amended) version of Oregon House Bill 2721 relating to a series of red-yellow-green taillights.

Note that, as passed, the law is permissive. It does not relate to the manufacturer of a vehicle. A vehicle owner may, under the new law, add an accessory with a red-yellow-green series of taillights on his car.

Since this is in addition to the standard taillight system, it does not conflict with 49 CFR @ 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.

When you are in Oregon we would be pleased to show you this system. We believe it will reduce rear-end collisions substantially.

Sincerely,

Gil W. Bellamy Administrator

[Enclosure Omitted.]

ID: nht73-1.24

DATE: 12/06/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Fruehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 20, 1973, asking whether you may install "lights as set forth in Example 1." In this example identification lamps would be mounted under the rear crossmember of the vehicle while "the combination tail and turn signal lamps (at the bottom) could serve as the clearance lamps."

The rear lighting scheme shown in your "Example 1" appears to be seriously at variance with Standard No. 108. There is a clear violation of paragraph S4.4.1 which forbids the optical combination of tail lamps and clearance lamps. Both clearance lamps and identification lamps must be located "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." The fact that you have developed a clearance lamp that can be mounted in the header area demonstrates that that is the "practicable" location, despite the fact that the header may be too shallow to accommodate the lamps specified by the customer. Further, since the performance required of clearance lamps is identical to that for identification lamps, and three of your clearance type lamps could serve as identification lamps and the header would appear to be the "practicable" location for the identification lamp arrangement as well.

Sincerely,

November 20, 1973

Richard Dyson National Highway Safety Administration, DOT

Ref: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

Dear Mr. Dyson:

We would like an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 in the area of rear clearance lamps and identification lamps under the conditions outlined below:

Fruehauf Corporation has been asked to build a large number of van type trailers (over 80 inches in overall width) which incorporate a rear header too shallow to accommodate the identification lamps or clearance lamps specified by the customer.

The customer contends that due to the shallow header, it is not practicable to mount the identification lamps any higher than below the rear crossmember and that the combination tail and turn signal lamps (at the bottom) could serve as the clearance lamps.

EXAMPLE I (Graphics omitted)

Rear Header

Stop & Tail Lamp

Tail & Turn Signal Lamp

Identification Lamp

Fruehauf Corporation has a clearance lamp which could be installed in the shallow header and has proposed that they be installed at the top rear corners, with the identification lamps being installed below the rear crossmember.

EXAMPLE II

Clearance Lamp

Identification Lamp

The customer has refused to accept Fruehauf's proposed installation due to the clearance lamps not being compatible with the existing lamps in his large fleet, thus creating a hardship.

This order will be held in abeyance until we can get a ruling from your department as to whether we may install the lights as set forth in Example I and certify the vehicles as being in accordance with FMVSS No. 108.

Very truly yours,

FRUEHAUF CORPORATION -- R. O. Crider - Manager, Government Safety Standards and Regulation Compliance

cc: E. Chosy

ID: nht73-1.25

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1973

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

TO: Reservation Business Enterprise

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16 concerning a definition of "steady burning" lamps.

Our definition of "steady" is "regular, uniform; not changed, replaced or interrupted; not fluctuating or varying widely." Stop lamps activated by the Pulsating Safety Brakelite would therefore not be "steady burning."

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 16, 1973

E.T. Driver, Director -- Office of Operating Systems, Motor vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Driver;

Over a year ago, I wrote you concerning our "Pulsating safety brakelite". Recently we have developed a legal question concerning our product and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stanlanl no. 108. 108 states that the brakelite must be steady burning. Our device does not over turn the bulb out but only changes it's brilliance in a pulsating manner.

Our question is; does "steady burning" mean that the bulb must always be on, and therefore our product falls within that definition or does it require it to burn at a steady intensity which would make our product fall outside the definition.

We are very eager to get this clarified.

Sincerly

Mel Aanerud, Manager -- RESERVATION BUSINESS ENTERPRISE

ID: nht73-1.26

DATE: 04/23/73

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

TO: Hyster Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 1, 1973, to Mr. J. E. Leveath of this Office, concerning the lighting requirements for special purpose dollies and trailers as manufactured by your company.

The first vehicle in question, which you identify as a helper dolly and(Illegible Word) on page 2 of your letter, would be classified as a trailer converter dolly for purposes of determining conformance to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As such, the vehicle is excepted from the lighting requirements specificed in FMVSS No. 108 (copy enclosed). The vehicle would, however, be subject to the applicable lighting requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) regulations when it is towed alone (without an attached(Illegible Word) in interstate commorce.

The second and third vehicles in question, as shown on pages 3 and 4 of your letter, would be classified as trailers for purpose of determining conformance to FMVSS No. 108. As such, the vehicles must be equipped with lighting devices as specified in the standard. If the vehicles are 80 or more inches in overall width, front clearance lamps, installed as specified in Table II of the standard, are required. An interpretation of the term "overall width" is provided on page S 108-5 of the standard.

The requirements of FMVSS No. 108 are applicable to each new vehicle (truck, bus, trailer, etc.) as manufactured and offered for sale. The possibility that one vehicle may be operated in combination with another in no way alters the specified requirements. Vehicles operating in combination on the public highway are subject to regulations of the individual States and to BMCS regulations (for vehicles engaged in interstate commerce). BMCS regulations permit deactivation of lamps which are obscured when vehicles are operated in combination, but temporary removal of such lamps is prohibited (see 49 CFR, Sections 390.1 through 390.7, 393.14, 393.15, 393.25 and 393.26).

Should you desire additional information concerning the requirements of FMVSS No. 106, please do not hesitate to contact me. For further information on the BMCS regulations, I would suggest that you contact Mr. W. R. Fiste, Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20590.

Sincerely,

MArch 1, 1973

Edward Leyseth National Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Leyseth: We build heavy duty low bed trailers and related dollies and booster axles. I need some information concerning legal definitions of some of our vehicles and lighting equipment required by Federal Standard No. 108.

The first vehicle in question is a helper dolly, which is not a converter dolly because of load transfer and kingpin, but is similar in appearance and use (see page 2). What is the legal definition of this vehicle and what lighting equipment is required? What lighting is required by a converter dolly?

also build beam frame trailers designed for hauling large machinery, usually tracked, which straddle the frame to keep the load low and the trailer light (see page 3). Does this trailer require a front clearance light directly in front of the undercarriage? The trailer shown is a folding gooseneck type and is 5 ft. wide across the frame.

Next is a booster dolly, which is a hydraulically loaded trailing axle or axles articulated at the rear of the trailer. The frame comes to a point similar to tow type trailer tongue at the point of articulation (see page 4). What is the legal definition of this unit? Are front side marker and clearance lights required?

Also, can lights be temporarily removed when another vehicle in a combination prevents their visibility (e.g., the rear lights on a trailer are removed when a helper dolly is attached and replaced when the trailer is pulled alone)? Any information you could give me would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

HYSTER COMPANY --

Jim Glover,

Project Engineer