ID: nht71-1.9

DATE: 03/09/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1971, to Mr. Julian B. Leysath of this office requesting an interpretation on the mounting location of rear clearance lamps on slant-sided beverage truck bodies.

Rear clearance lamps mounted on the outermost top corners of the body, as indicated on the TBEA diagram, adequately meet the location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

ID: nht71-2.1

DATE: 02/02/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Department of Public Utilities and Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of December 14, 1970, concerning taxicab driver security.

It is our opinion that the facts presented do not warrant rule making action in the form of safety performance standards applicable to new vehicle manufacture.

There are available, however, manufacturing options that may be procured to satisfy operational requirements. Bullet resistant glass between the cab driver and holdup men is one that quickly comes to mind. Further, we have issued a notice of proposed rule making (on December 31, 1970, which proposes amendment to the glazing Standard No. 205, (36 PR 326), a copy of which is enclosed. This(Illegible Word), if carried to a rule, would allow high strength plastics such as cellulose acetate butyrate and polycarbonate in areas not necessary for driving visibility. Cellulose acetate butyrate and polycarbonate do not meet requirements of the glazing standard as presently written.

(Illegible Word) share your concern for the security of cab drivers who seem to be under constant threat of robbery. However, we feel that the matter is one of satisfying operational needs rather than safety performance requirements as dictated in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Enclosure

ID: nht71-2.10

DATE: 03/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1971, concerning certification of child seating systems. Your letter asks whether the statement, "This (child seating system) conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above," or alternatively the symbol "DOT," may be used to certify that a child seating system complies with Standard No. 213. You also ask whether the certification statement may be placed on the label required on the child seat pursuant to S4.1 of the standard.

The statement that you submit is an adequate certification statement. Furthermore, this statement or a similar statement may be placed on the label required pursuant to S4.1 of the standard, as the certification would therefore be "in the form of a label or tag" on the item of motor vehicle equipment as specified in section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403).

With reference to use of the symbol "DOT" for certifying child seating systems, while this symbol is presently used by manufacturers to certify other items of motor vehicle equipment, its use as such is only pursuant to specific provisions of the standards. We cannot approve of its use for child seating systems without prior rulemaking.

WE ARE PLEASED TO BE OF ASSISTANCE.

ID: nht71-2.11

DATE: 03/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to confirm your interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulations as expressed in your letter of February 18, 1971.

The vehicle manufacturer is responsible for the retention of records of tires shipped "in or on" a new vehicle. However, if the vehicle is used to transport extra tires, the manufacturer is not obliged to retain records of those tires, but rather, the vehicle dealer will be responsible for communicating the appropriate information to the tire manufacturer in accordance with either section 574.8 or section 574.9 of Part 574.

ID: nht71-2.12

DATE: 03/09/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1971, concerning the photometric requirements for amber turn signal lamps.

You have correctly interpreted the photometric requirements for amber turn signal lamps as specified in paragrap S4.1.1.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1972.

ID: nht71-2.13

DATE: 03/10/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: During your visit which Michael Peskoe on March 4, 1971, you indicated that you were desirous of having a reply to the question that you posed in your letter of December 14, 1970, concerning S4.6 of Standard No. 213, without delaying that answer until the response to the entire letter had been prepared.

Your question concerning S4.6, which states in part, " . . . [Each] forward-facing child seating system shall have a seat back. The height of the seat back shall be . . .," is whether an adjustable head restraint can be used to meet this requirement provided "(a) it meets the height requirement measured at the lateral center of the head restraint, and (b) it is accompanied, in the instruction sheet, by instructions for adjustment to fit the child."

It was intended by paragraph S4.6 that a head restraint could be used to meet the above height requirement, proviced that it meets the other requirements of the standard, such as the head impact protection requirements of S4.10, as well as those you described.

ID: nht71-2.14

DATE: 03/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The Bobby-Mac Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which you submitted for our review a draft of a label that you intend to use on your Bobby-Mac baby chair in accordance with paragraph S4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. We have restated the parts of your label whose compliance with the requirements of S4.1 is questionable, followed by our comments.

1. "In each position, reclining to upright, Bobby-Mac exceeds Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requirements for child seating systems."

We assume that you intend this statement to be your certification, pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the Bobby-Mac seat complies with Standard No. 213. While certification is not required to be placed on the label by S4.1, placing it there is not inconsistent with either Section 114 of the Act or Standard No. 213. However, we do not consider the statement you have used to be an adequate certification statement. This is because when read literally, the statement deals only with the static force requirements of the standard, as the other requirements, such as those for labeling (S4.1), providing instructions (S4.2), adjustments (S4.3), and others, are neither concerned with the "position " of the child seat nor can they be "exceeded." You must certify compliance with all the requirements of the standard, and your statement should be changed accordingly. Should you wish to use it, the following statement, for child seats manufactured on or after April 1, 1971, would be satisfactory: "This child seating system conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it on the date of manufacture shown below."

2. "Bobby-Mac can only be used in ears with standard auto seat belt which must be used to secure Bobby-Mac safely on front or rear auto seat. In vehicles with seats more elevated from floor than usual passenger auto, thereby not permitting sufficient length in auto seat belt to loop around Bobby-Mac, or if for any reasons auto seat belt is short, auto dealer or auto belt manufacturer can supply belt lengthener."

You have apparently placed this statement on the label to comply with paragraph S4.1(e) of the standard which requires a statement describing in general terms the types of vehicles and designated seating positions in those vehicles in which the system is recommended or not recommended for use. It is your responsibility under the requirement to make cortain that the types of vehicles you recommend have seat belts that are long enough to use the Bobby-Mac as recommended. You have stated that the Bobby-Mac can be used with a standard auto seat belt, but you have also indicated that there are types of vehicles or belt conditions with which the Bobby-Mac should not be used without some modification. We believe that your exceptions should be stated more objectively, such as prescribing the minimum belt loop length above the seat cushion that is required, so that a consumer can more accurately determine whether you are recommending the Bobby-Mac for use in his vehicle.

With reference to your recommendation concerning seat belt lengtheners if these lengtheners are not available by April 1, 1971, your label would not comply with the requirement. If they are available, your label should describe them in sufficient detail, such as by part number, so that consumer will know precisely what they must obtain in order to properly install the Bobby-Mac child seat. Your seat would be required to meet the force requirement of the standard when tested in the vehicles in which you recommend it for use and using any of the seat belt modifiers that you recommend for use with it.

3. "When Bobby-Mac is used for older, taller youngster, it must be used auto seat whose seat back or head restraint extends at least 6" above top of Bobby-Mac seat bucket."

In this case, you indicate that a child of a certain height must be placed at only certain seating positions. In order to provide consumers with some objective criteria by which they can determine whether Bobby-Mac is appropriate for their vehicles, the minimum height of the child that needs the additional head restraint protection should be provided, rather than describing him as merely "older" or "taller." In addition, it would be preferable if you specified the total seat back height above the seat cushion that is necessary for the children you have in mind, rather than indicating this measurement as the distance from the top of the child seat bucket. The information would be more useful to consumers, as it would allow them to determine the appropriateness of the Bobby-Mac without first obtaining one.

4. Finally, based upon the photographs submitted with your letter, the Bobby-Mac seat does not appear to be a rearward-facing child seat. If this is the case, the statement, "For use only on forward-facing vehicle seats," as required by S4.1(g), must be included on the label.

Please write if you have further questions.

ID: nht71-2.15

DATE: 03/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Willett Company

COPYEE: WILLIAM V. REYNOLDS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to a letter dated February 10, 1971, that was received from Mr. William V. Reynolds of the National Association of School Bus Contract Operators asking that we send our reply to you. The letter asks two questions concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, which are restated below with our response.

1. Is the standard applicable to a school bus operator who installs seat belts (not presently required) at the behest of a school board for use when transporting children attending Special Education Classes?

The answer to this question is no. Standard No. 213 applies only to child seating systems, and not to seat belts or persons who install seat belts. In addition, there are no other Federal requirements applicable to one who installs seat belts for passengers in either a new or used bus. There is, however, a Federal standard (No. 209) that requires all seat belt assemblies manufactured after March 1, 1967, to meet certain performance requirements. We strongly recommend that you examine the seat belts you wish to install to determine whether they were manufactured to comply with this standard. This can be done by examining the belt assembly, particularly its label or buckle assembly, for the date of manufacture, which may appear in an abbreviated fashion. Also, many seat belt assemblies manufactured after March 1, 1967, will be labeled with a specific statement that they comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This statement may alternatively appear on the box in which the belt assembly is delivered.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulation concerning requirements for seat belt assemblies at the driver's position, in buses under that

agency's jurisdiction, which became effective August 1, 1970. These requirements would be applicable to you if the buses in question are subject to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

2. Is the standard applicable to devices designed by the school physiotherapy department and built in the school carpentry shop for use in transporting handicapped children with a handicap that is peculiar to that one child? (This includes both regular and van-type buses.)

The answer to this question is yes. Standard No. 213 applies to all child seating systems for use in motor vehicles, including buses, regardless of whether the child seating system is manufactured by a company for sale or whether it is manufactured for persons for their own use, as in your case. If the standard poses a particular hardship in the situation you describe, however, we will be glad to discuss the matter further with the persons involved.

ID: nht71-2.16

DATE: 03/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1971, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulations, and your letter of March 12, 1971 submitting additional information.

Section 574.10 requires manufacturers to keep records of tires shipped "on or in" a vehicle. This would cover the case you describe of tires shipped on a trailer, whether attached to the axle or merely strapped to the frame, providing that the tires were meant for use on that particular trailer.

If the tires are shipped separately, either attached to another trailer or shipped in a separate package, they are not considered to be shipped "on or in" the trailer within the meaning of section 574.10. Therefore, the provisions of section 574.9(b) would apply and the dealer would be required to record the appropriate priate tire information and communicate it to the tire manufacturer.

If the tires are shipped separately, under Part 574 the trailer manufacturer would not be required to keep the records of the tires shipped. However, under section 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), the manufacturer is responsible for maintaining the name and address of the first purchaser. A copy of the Act and the recent amendment to the Act, section 113, which added subsection (f), are enclosed for your information.

Should you so desire, you may submit a petition for rulemaking on this subject under our rulemaking procedures (49 CFR 553).

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht71-2.17

DATE: 03/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Yarbrough Manufacturing Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1971 concerning tire Identification and Record keeping regulations. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574).

The regulation does not provide for exemptions or waivers, however, you will note that under @ 574.10 of the regulation vehicle manufacturers are required to keep records of tires on or in the vehicle when shipped to the dealer. Under the conditions you describe in your letter @ 574.9(b) appears to be the relevant section and requires that the vehicle dealer record the name, address, etc. of the purchaser and forward this information to the tire manufacturer.

I hope this letter is responsive to the question you raise.

Enclosure