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.

ID: nht71-5.40

DATE: 10/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. Schmeltzer for L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1971, in which you request clarification of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, "Head Restraints". You state that you are of the opinion that "a head restraint system that can be retracted into the seat and thus made ineffective by virtue of being adjustable is in conflict with the prime object of the standard in reducing the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear end or other collisons."

Standard No. 202 does not prohibit head restraints from being adjustable in an up-and-down direction, as long as the top of the restraint, at its fully extended design adjustment position, is at least 27.5 inches above the seating reference point (S4(b)(1)). While some of these adjustable head restraints may not be completely effective in cases where they are placed at their lowest adjustment position and used by tall drivers, we have determined that this design, as long as it meets the requirements of the standard, is a minimum performance level that meets the need for motor vehicle safety. Consequently, use of these types of restraints does not conflict with the standard.

The standard establishes only a minimum performance level, however, and the NHTSA endorces efforts by manufacturers to exceed the

2 requirements is establishes. Many manufacturers have installed head restraints in their vehicles that meet the standard's requirements yet do not present the disadvantages you describe.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA LIMITED

September 8 1971

Douglas W. Toms, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, National Highway Traffic Administration,

As designers and manufacturers of the Aston Martin DBS V8 car, currently being marketed in U.S.A., we are concerned at what appears to be a very loose interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints - Passenger Cars, Section 5.4(b), adopted by certain American automobile manufacturers.

Aston Martin Lagonda have been concerned for many years with primary and secondary safety aspects of the car, and we hold the view that a head restraint system that can be retracted into the seat and thus made ineffective by virtue of being adjustable, is in conflict with the prime object of the Standard in reducing the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear end or other collisions.

We would appreciate clarification on this point, for our concern is to maintain the highest standard of interior safety as exemplified by our current production car.

H. Beach Director of Engineering

c.c. Mr. R. Layland, President, A.M.L. Inc. Mr. J. B. Walker, Vehicle Safety Engineer, A.M.L. Limited.

ID: nht71-5.41

DATE: 12/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of December 6, 1971, you have asked our opinion as to how S6.1 of Standard 208 applies to two hypothetical situations. S6.1 requires that "all portions of the test device shall be contained within the outer surfaces of the passenger compartment throughout the test."

Your first situation involves a vehicle in which the impact of the dummy's head causes the windshield to bulge beyond its original location but does not penetrate the windshield. It is our opinion that in this case the vehicle has contained the occupant and would conform to S6.1.

In your second situation, the dummy's head pushes the windshield loose its base and opens a gap between the windshield and the vehicle. It is our opinion that this drawing also shows the dummy to be satisfactorily contained.

In either situation, however, a manufacturer would have to assure himself that the windshield behaviour shown in the drawings would be consistent and would not lead to failure in tests in which the test dummy strikes it in a different manner.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

December 6, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of MVSS 208

If possible, could you give us your opinions on the following two cases, we would like to know whether such cases meet MVSS 208, S.6.1.:

After frontal barrier crash test, the head of the anthroponorphic test device is contained within the outer surface of the windshield glass, which, (case 1.) was deformed as shown in Fig. 1. (case 2.) was remved in part as shown in Fig. 2. by the head impact on the windshield glass. Although the test devices' head is out of the original outer surface of the vehicle passenger compartment.

Your kind cooperation and assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Liaison Office In U.S.A.

Attachments

(Graphics omitted) (Graphic omitted)

ID: nht71-5.42

DATE: 10/14/71

FROM: E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: Cox Tire Machinery Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of September 29, 1971, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, has been referred to this office for reply.

Within S5 of Standard No. 117, it states that retreaded tires must conform to S4.2.1 of Standard No. 109. S4.2.1 of Standard No. 109 requires a treadwear indicator that will provide a visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch. For your information, we have enclosed copies of Standards No. 109 and No. 117.

ENCLS.

COX Fire Machinery Company, Inc.

SEPTEMBER 29, 1971

Highway Safety Bureau Federal Highway Administration

Gentlemen:

Our company is engaged in the sale of retreading equipment and in this business we are constantly calling on tire dealers. A number of our customers have asked whether after retreading standards go into effect will wear indicators be necessary in retreaded tires.

I would appreciate an interpetation of the MVSS 117 in this regard.

Yours very truly,

J. T. Flynt President

ID: nht71-5.43

DATE: 11/30/71

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

TO: Dr. J. G. Lundholm Jr.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1971, to Secretary Volpe, in reference to our occupant crash protection program.

I am enclosing a copy of the proposed amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Occupant Crash Protection, which would allow an ignition interlock system as an option to front seat passive systems from August 15, 1973, to August 15, 1975. I am also enclosing an explanatory press release.

In regard to your question number one, we require that the interlock system be acquentially linked to the seat switch, such that a person would have to fasten the belt, after being seated, each time he attempted to start the car.

With regard to your questions numbers two and three, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 gave us authority to set safety requirements for new motor vehicles. Under this authority, we cannot prevent an owner from tampering with or modifying his vehicle once purchased. Such authority would indeed require additional Congressional legislation. However, the Highway Safety Act of 1966 permits us to establish standard which serve as guides for individual state safety programs. It is possible for the states to(Illegible Words) such anti-tampering regulations. We will certainly be considering such actions once we determine the magnitude and effect of tampering in vehicles which have been produced to meet the Federal standards.

In regard to your question number four, I am not presently aware of any plans by insurance companies to require seat shoulder belt usage in order to be(Illegible Word) for collision coverage in case of an accident.

You are certainly correct in that the present shoulder belt designs often make it difficult to have a properly adjusted shoulder belt and still be able to have a reasonable degree of freedom of movement during normal vehicle operation. We are attacking this problem on two fronts. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination -- Passenger Cars, requires that most critical controls, such as the steering wheel, headlamp switch, etc., be within reach by a person restrained by a lap and shoulder belt system. The present version of this standard does not include the parking brake or its release mechanism. The second action, which we are taking, is to propose a requirement that shoulder belt systems in cars manufactured after August 15, 1973, shall be equipped with inertia reel retractors that allow freedom of movement except in a crash situation.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your intense interest in our motor vehicle safety programs. It is very helpful to our efforts to improve highway safety when concerned citizens, such as yourself, take the time to bring their comments and suggestions to our attention.

November 2, 1971

Honorable John A. Volpe Secretary, Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Automobile Safety/Air Bags

I have been waiting to write you until I had time to think a bit more about your recent decision to defer the requirement for installation of air bags in the front seat of cars from August 1973 to August 1975.

I have followed the development activities of the air bags and am aware of certain shortcomings such as their present inability to protect occupants from side collisions and "second collisions." It is my understanding that the noise problem (while very loud) was tolerable, especially preferable to death if the air bag saved the person's life. I also have no doubt that suitable sensors can be developed (if they are not already available) which do not trigger accidentally.

I must add that I feel DOT has been negligent in not pushing the development of the passive air bag system with greater effort so that your decision could not be partially based on the lack of development of the device. With over 50,000 human lives being lost each year, too much is at stake for such a situation to exist. As a former resident of Massachusetts, I remember (and I am sure you remember) the "Boston Strangler" which I believe accounted for some eight lost lives and caused considerable furor. The entire Boston community was alarmed. You seem to pay less attention to the loss of 50,000 lives by failing to provide a passive restraint system but instead provide what I believe is a seat/shoulder belt system that can easily be by-passed with some wiring jumpers.

Now for some constructive comments: I am aware that the new alternatives to the air bags are the seat/shoulder belts with a switch built in the seat so the car will not start unless the seat belt/shoulder strap is fastened. I believe that the seat/shoulder belt system is an excellent system (even better than air bags) if you can require that all persons use them at all times.

In order to understand better your new ruling, I would appreciate receiving answers to the following specific questions:

1. What means are being taken to prevent a person from merely by-passing (or shorting out) the seat switches which would simply negate your recent decision?

2. Are you now or do you plan to push for a federal law that prevents tampering (by-passing) the seat switch and which will make it mandatory that the front seat occupants wear these devices at all times while the car is in motion?

3. Does the federal government (DOT) have the perogative to issue an anti-tampering regulation, or does it require a federal law passed by Congress, or will it require each state to take separate action?

If this is a law or regulation that must be passed by each state, what measures are you encouraging the states to take in order to continue to receive certain federal highway funds?

4. Do you know of any plans by insurance companies to require occupants to wear seat/shoulder belts in order to be reimbursed for collision coverage in case of an accident?

Due to the very small acceptance by the public of seat/shoulder belts installed in cars since 1968, I believe that unless you take some very specific actions such as mentioned in items 1-4 above, the public will continue to refuse to employ the belt system and you likely will not make your agency goal of cutting automobile fatalities in half by 1980.

Now that you have taken the seat/shoulder belt route, I encourage you to see that the automobile manufacturers correct certain present obvious deficiencies in these systems which you should never have allowed to exist. The deficiencies are as follows:

In many cars (I regularly use rental cars) I cannot reach the emergency brake release after latching the shoulder belt, nor can I reach the open car door to close it. I quite often leave the car door open while I figure out the particular belt system and get it properly adjusted. I have a 1968 Delta 88 Oldsmobile in which neither of these deficiencies exist so it is certainly possible to design around this problem. I believe the inability to

reach the emergency brake release can be considered a safety hazard since one might find it necessary to perform a modulated stop if the dual braking system should suffer a catastrophic failure.

I would appreciate receiving detailed information on what specific actions you have taken to overcome the deficiencies listed above.

I also would appreciate receiving a copy of the latest regulations that spell out the requirements of the various seat/shoulder belt or passive restraint systems.

I will continue to support a strong and broad-based automobile/highway safety program. The tremendous loss of life, suffering, and monetary losses of car accidents are so large that anything short of a most serious effort on your part to correct this national problem would be totally unfair to all citizens.

Dr. J. G. Lundholm, Jr. 8106 Post Oak Road Rockville, Md. 20854

cc: The President The White House Washington, D.C.

The Honorable Charles Mathias United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable J. Glenn Beall, Jr. United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Gilbert Gude U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. Ralph Nader Washington, D.C.

Mr. Judson B. Branch Chairman of the Board Allstate Insurance Companies Allstate Plaza Northbrook, Ill. 60062

Mr. Douglas W. Toms Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Consumers Reports P. O. Box 1111 Mt. Vernon, N.Y. 10550

ID: nht71-5.44

DATE: 09/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 16 and September 1971, regarding the computation of the severity index under Standard No. 208. I apologize for our delay in replying.

Your question is whether the severity index for an acceleration time history with two(Illegible Word), one caused by initial impact and the other caused by rebound, is computed on the basis of both peaks. Our reply is that both peaks must be used, even though the accelerations may be in opposite directions and separated by a measurable interval. The severity index computation is based on the entire event from onset of acceleration until the end of motion.

SINCERELY

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

September 14, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Our letter to you dated June 16, 1971.

On June 16, 1971, I wrote a letter to you requesting clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

To date, I have not received your reply.

As we have developed a passive restraint system to meet Standard 208, your clarification is quite necessary for the evaluation of our own system.

I would very much appreciate your reply as soon as possible.

K. Nakajima Director/General Manager

attachment

June 16, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to request clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 -- Occupant Crash Protection.

Figure 1 (attached) is an example of head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in a front passenger seat which were recorded during a 30 mph barrier crash test for the evaluation purpose of passive restraint systems. These time histories indicate two acceleration peaks. The first peak occurs when the device in a passenger seat is restrained at the time of impact to the barrier by a passive restraint system which is installed in the front of the device. About 0.1 seconds after the first impact, the second peak follows when the device rebounds to strike the front seat back.

The Severity Index is calculated at 840 for the first impact to the front restraint system and calculated at 343 for the second impact to the front seat back. Therefore, the Severity Index of these two combined impacts is 1183.

Several questions on obtaining the Severity Index have arisen from the two impacts. We interpret these two

P2 impacts to be independent phenomena from each other because of the following reasons:

a. The impact areas on the vehicle's interior are different between the first and second impact.

b. The directions of the acceleration of the device are opposite, and the impact areas of the device are different. The first impact is to the front of the head, and the second impact is to the rear of the head.

c. A zero acceleration period is observed between the first impact and the second impact.

d. The time interval of these two peaks is about 0.1 seconds which seems to be enough time for the human brain to recover from the effect of the first impact.

Therefore, we believe that the evaluation of the Severity Index on the acceleration time histories should be done separately and should not be added together. In other words, the restraint system, the performance of which is shown in Figure 1, meets the requirement of Section 6.2. Is our interpretation correct?

Also, please advise us of the minimum time interval of these two impacts or the other bases of judgement which can be evaluated separately.

Your consideration is greatly appreciated.

K. Nakajima General Manager

Attachment

The first head impact to a passive restraint system. S.I. = 840

The second head impact to the front seat back.

S.I. = 343

Longitudinal accel.

Transverse accel.

Vertical accel.

Figure 1. Head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in the front passenger seat at 30 mph barrier impact.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht71-5.45

DATE: 09/16/71

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

TO: Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1971, concerning the recent amendment of Standard 108 concerning turn signal and hazard warning flashers (36 F.R. 17343, August 28, 1971).

You noted that test-condition temperatures are listed without tolerances, and asked what tolerance is acceptable for testing.

In the case of motor vehicle safety standards, the testing that a manufacturer may perform or have performed on its products is not an end in itself, but is done to enable the manufacturer to certify that the products meet the required performance levels under the specified conditions. Thus, the requirement that a product meet or exceed certain values at 75 degrees F. refers to a legal conclusion that is to be drawn from appropriate testing, and no tolerance is necessary or appropriate in the text of the standard. In practical terms, it is up to the manufacturer to determine what tests will enable him to certify his products as conforming. Normally, this is done by testing his products under slightly more adverse conditions than those specified in the standard. If, for example, higher temperatures constitute more adverse conditions for a flasher, the laboratory should test at a temperature slightly higher than that specified. In sum, the testing should be sufficient to support the conclusion that, if tested under the specified conditions, the product would perform as required.

RB

cc

ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

September 8, 1971

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Docket No. 71-12588

69-18, notice 5

We have reviewed the above mentioned notice to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 relative to automotive turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers. We find that in Section S4.6.1.3, subparagraphs (b)(ii) and (c)(ii) have been interchanged relative to current testing procedures. We also note that paragraph S4.6.1.3, subparagraph (c)(iv) 11 volts is shown as 11.00. The additional zero indicates accuracy beyond normal testing procedure.

We find that in all cases the ambient temperature is shown as 75 degrees F. without a tolerance. We would like to ask what tolerance is acceptable for testing.

W. Glenn Pracejus Manager Electrical/Electronic Division

ID: nht71-5.46

DATE: 08/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1971, concerning the applicability (@ 573.3) of the Defect Reports regulations (Docket No. 69-31: Notice 2) published February 17, 1971 (36 F.R. 3064). In your letter you ask,

"If a concrete truck mixer manufacturer is notified of a defect (on brakes, for example) and the concrete truck mixer manufacturer relays this information to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer indicates that he will file the necessary defect reports with [the] Administration and then does not, would . . . [the] concrete truck mixer manufacturer be deemed in violation of Part 573?"

The answer to this question is yes. Under the circumstances you describe, both the concrete truck mixer and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be in violation of the regulation. Neither manufacturer would be in compliance until one of them filed the report in question, which could be either the defect information report required pursuant to @ 573.4 or the quarterly report required pursuant to @ 573.5.

The NHTSA cannot become involved in disputes between complete and incomplete vehicle manufacturers as to which one of them will furnish the required reports, and the manufacturers concerned must bear the responsibility for deciding this question between themselves.

TRUCK MIXER MANUFACTURERS BUREAU

Mr. Laurence R. Schneider Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration

We have reviewed the final rule making on defect reports which appeared in the Federal Register on February 17, 1971, and I have a question relative to Section 573.3 -- "Applications".

Section 573.3 provides that "In the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, compliance by either the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle or one of the subsequent manufacturers of the vehicle with(Illegible Word) and 573.5, with respect to a particular defect, shall be considered compliance by both the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and the subsequent manufacturers."

If a concrete truck mixer manufacturer is notified of a defect (on brakes, for example) and the concrete truck mixer manufacturer relayes this information to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer indicates that he will file the necessary defect reports with your Administration and then does not, would, under such circumstances, a concrete truck mixer manufacturer be deemed in violation of Part 573?

Your prompt response to this question would be grately appreciated.

Stephen C. Royer Director of Governmental Relations National Ready Mixed Concrete Association