ID: nht71-1.44

DATE: 03/04/71

FROM: D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAM

TO: EISUKE NIGUMA -- TOYO KOGYO COMPANY LIMITED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/23/77 (EST) FROM ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO ROBERT K. DORNAN -- MEMBER U.S. CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 7/29/77 FROM WILLIAM B. STOVER TO BRIAN YOUNG OF CONGRESSMAN DORNAN'S OFFICE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Niguma:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1971, to Mr. Rodolfo A. Diaz, regarding attachment bolts used to secure seat belt assemblies to a motor vehicle.

The intent of the requirement in paragraph S4.3(c)(l) of Standard 209 is to assure that inadequate attachment bolts will not be used to attach seat belt assemblies to the vehicle. This paragraph does not require that the specific models of vehicles be listed on the label. It provides that if a seat belt assembly is designed for use in specific vehicles in which only one end of a belt assembly can be attached by a single belt, then the bolt need only have a breaking strength of 5,000 pounds.

It should be noted, however, that paragraph S4.1(l) of the Standard requires the(Illlegible Words) assemblies for aftermarket use to furnish an instruction(Illegible Word) stating whether the assembly is for universal installation or for installation only in specifically stated meter vehicles. (Illegible word) as you state, the seat belt assemblies used in MAZDA vehicles are designed exclusively for specific models, such models must be listed on the installation instruction sheet.

Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht71-1.45

DATE: 12/02/71

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTER

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lundstrom:

This is in reply to your petition of September 10, 1971, requesting that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials," be amended by (1) substituting a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate for the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate presently specified in the standard and (2) making certain specified changes in the test cabinet and test procedure. For the reasons stated below, your request for a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate is hereby denied.

The arguments you offer as a basis for your petition are stated below, and are followed by our responses. Generally, your position is that while you admit that "the available data may provide justification for a standard on flammability," you claim there is no evidence in the docket that supports the basis for, or establishes any safety benefit of, a 4-inch-per-minute burn rate. You argue also that the number of non-fuel fires is too small to warrant a 4-inch-per-minute burn rate. Finally, you claim that using materials having a 4-inch-per-minute burn rate would add an average retail cost of $ 10 to vehicles you manufacture, which cannot be justified under your analysis of the safety need. You indicate, however, that your present materials will or can be made to meet a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate.

"The 4-inch-per-minute burn rate was incorporated into the standard as a result of the agency's determination that it provided a flammability rate sufficiently low to provide adequate escape time from a vehicle in the event fire should occur." At no point in your petition do you present any data that shows that the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate is unreasonable or excessive from a safety standpoint. Moreover, despite your statement to the contrary, the Administration believes there is sufficient data on the number and degree of non-fuel fires in motor vehicles to justify the 4-inch-per-minute rate.

Much of the argument in your petition concerns a variability in the burn rate of materials you have tested. You apparently maintain that the variability makes it difficult for a manufacturer to know whether or not the material he uses in fact complies with the standard. The Administration realizes that the burn rate of any particular material may vary. This fact will be taken into account, along with the frequency and extent of any test failures, in assessing whether a manufacturer has exercised due care. It would not be appropriate, however, to respond to the problem of variability by raising the overall burn rate requirement. Such an action would probably result simply in manufacturers choosing cheaper and less safe materials.

You also argue that, under the specified test procedure, there may also be variations in burn rate results caused by inconsistencies of interpretation.

You provide data showing that GM and its suppliers obtained different results using adjacent material on the same roll. We find this argument to be without merit. General Motors is completely free to specify to its suppliers the method which it considers satisfactory under the standard to measure burn rates, or to test the materials themselves. This is no less than NHTSA itself does when it monitors test laboratories that are contracted to perform compliance tests.

You also provide data showing the effects of aging on a specific fire retardant additive. The evidence available to the NHTSA does not, however, indicate that it is necessary to use flame-retardant treatments that display these undesirable characteristics in order to comply with the standard.

Finally, while you present arguments against the retention of a 4-inch-per-minute rate, your petition lacks significant substantive arguments for the 12-inch-per-minute rate you wish to substitute. At no point do you show how a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate will allow sufficient time for the driver to stop the vehicle, and if necessary for occupants to leave it, before injury occurs. Based on the Administration's findings, such a 12-inch-per-minute rate will not provide the necessary escape time.

Your request for changes in the test cabinet and test procedure is presently being evaluated, and you will be notified when a decision concerning them has been made.

Sincerely,

ID: nht71-1.46

DATE: 01/01/71 EST

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

TO: L. R. Walders, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 108

In your letter of December 23, 1970, you asked on behalf of the Japan Automobile Manufacturer's Association whether a motorcycle manufactured prior to January 1, 1973, must comply with the location requirements for turn signal lamps if the vehicle is so equipped.

This will confirm your interpretation that "the location requirements for turn signal lamps do not apply to motorcycles manufactured before January 1, 197, and no change would be required for the location of turn signal lamps on motorcycles manufactured before that date".

ID: nht71-1.47

DATE: 01/08/71

FROM: R. H. COMPTON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: A. Hammerstein

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 23, 1970, to the U. S. Department of Tranportation concerning the time when stop lamps will be required to meet Class A photometrics.

The conflict between the requirements of paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 has already been called to our attention, and will be clarified in an amendment to Standard No. 108 scheduled to be published in the Federal Register in the near future.

It was not intended for the stop lamps to meet the Class A photometric values, nor are they required to, until January 1, 1973.

ID: nht71-1.48

DATE: 01/20/71

FROM: R.A. DIAZ -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY HAROLD M. JACKLIN

TO: Bus and Truck Supply Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1970, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," as it applies to the forward-facing window above the windshield of a particular bus, a picture of which you enclosed.

Because the window in question is a forward-facing window, we cannot conclude that it is an "opening in the roof" under the standard. We apologize for the inconvenience caused by any implication to the contrary that you may have been given on your visit here.

Based upon the picture submitted, and your statement that the window "is not adjacent to passenger seating," we conclude that this location is one that is not specifically designated by the standard. As such, the use of AS2 glazing, which you indicated you plan to use, or alternatively AS1, AS3, AS10, or AS11 glazing, would be appropriate.

If you have further questions, we will be happy to answer them for you.

ID: nht71-1.49

DATE: 01/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters, both dated December 16, 1970, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." One of these letters enclosed a request for clarification of two provisions of Standard No. 213. This request is presently under review and you should be hearing from the agency concerning it in the near future. You also enclosed in this letter a copy of a page from the 1970 Sears, Roebuck & Co. catalogue showing a child harness that is advertised as "not a safety harness," and ask whether this type of harness is exempt from the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. The agency considers these types of harnesses to fall within the purview of Standard No. 209 and they are required to comply with the requirements for Type 3 seat belt assemblies as specified in S4. of that standard. Enforcement procedures are currently in progress in this area to eliminate those child harnesses that do not comply with the standard.

Your second letter requests that a study conducted by the University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute (Contract No. FR-11-6962), entitled "Integrated Seat - Restraint and Child Systems," be placed in the public docket, and further request that the "data films of the dynamic sled test be made available through the Docket." The report to which you apparently refer has been placed in the general reference section of Docket 2-15. It is entitled "Child Seat and Restraint Systems Test Program" but bears the same contract number as the one you request. With reference to your request for data films, these films are presently available for examination by the public through the agency's Research Institute, and information to this effect has been placed in the Docket.

ID: nht71-1.5

DATE: MAY 28, 1971

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Boise Cascade Recreational Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 14, 1971, on the subject of the effective date of the requirements for seat belts and seat belt anchorages in multipurpose passenger vehicles.

You have been correctly informed by RVI that the seat belt installation standard (No. 208), and the seat belt anchorage standard (No. 210) are effective July 1, 1971, with respect to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. The amendment to Standard No. 208 issued September 30, 1970, required seat belts effective July 1, 1971. That standard will be superseded by the new occupant crash protection standard on January 1, 1972, but it is in full effect from July 1, 1971, to January 1, 1972. We regret any confusion that may have arisen as the result of the issuance of the occupant crash protection standard.

The requirements for seat belt anchorages have not been affected in any way by the occupant crash protection rule and it is therefore suprising to find that the effective date of the anchorage standard has also been misunderstood. We would hope that the changes in procurement schedule to which you refer would not result in inability to conform to the standard by July 1, 1971.

On the basis of the information presently available to us there does not appear to be sufficient cause to postpone the effective dates of Standards No. 208 and 210.

ID: nht71-1.50

DATE: 01/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. H. Hartman for D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Morgan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of November 19, 1970, you petitioned for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 - Side Door Strength (35 F.R. 16801, October 30, 1970). After consideration of the issues raised by Morgan's petition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found no sufficient justification for amending the standard and the petition is therefore denied.

Your company's petition states that the standard presents difficulties for cutaway doors, and that the structure of Morgan automobiles supplies a measure of protection through Clared side fenders that extend beneath the doors. The Administration recognizes that there is considerable variety in door and side structure. However, the need to protect occupants of all vehicles from injury in side collisions dictates a uniform measure of such protection, and the Administration has determined that the requirements of Standard No. 214 are reasonable, practicable and appropriate for passenger cars.

The remaining points in your letter of November 19, 1970, are more nearly questions for interpretation than requests for reconsideration. Your second question pertains to the height (or length) of the loading device. The standard states only that the device must not contact any structure above the bottom edge of the door window opening. There is no other restriction on the maximum height of the test device, and it is not clear, without further explanation, why Morgan would be limited to a cylinder only 4 inches high.

Your remaining question deals with the positioning of side windows. Although the standard specifies that side windows shall be in the uppermost position, it does not require that side windows exist and should not be so interpreted.

ID: nht71-1.6

DATE: 08/09/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Holen Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 30 and August 2 on the subject of the applicability of Standard No. 210 to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses as amended by notice of March 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 4291). The standard applies to these vehicles effective July 1, 1971, even though the heading published in the Register refers only to passenger cars. The application of the standard is controlled by the application section, S2, and not by the heading of the standard. The heading only reflects the substance of the application section and should automatically change whenever the application is changed. Through oversight, the Federal Register was given no instructions as to handing changes, and therefore inserted the old heading into the March 4 notice. Since the heading has no substantive role, and since the amendment is only in effect until the revised Standard No. 210 becomes effective January 1, 1972, we have not requested the Federal Register to alter the heading.

I hope this is responsive to your question.

ID: nht71-1.7

DATE: 06/01/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of June 7, 1971, you asked for confirmation of your understanding that under the NHTSA regulation (49 CFR @ 553.39) interpreting section 105(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a petition for judicial review of Standard No. 208 would be considered timely if filed within 60 days after the publication in the Federal Register of the Administrator's decision on any petitions for reconsideration of that standard.

Your understanding is correct. As the standard currently stands, we consider it (that is, the standard as it becomes effective January 1, 1972) a "single rule", to use your phrase, and the judicial review period will not begin to run until the publication of the decision on any timely-filed petitions for reconsideration of any part of it. If at a future date we wish to sever any portion of the standard for judicial review purposes, and consider it "final" despite pending action on other portions, we will give explicit notice of that action in the Federal Register.

We are pleased to be of assistance.