ID: nht69-1.22

DATE: 09/12/69

FROM: CHARLES A. BAKER -- NHTSA OFFICE OF STANDARDS ON ACCIDENT AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PERFORMANCE SERVICE

TO: WARREN M. HEATH -- COMMANDER, ENGINEERING SECTION DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/29/69; FROM WARREN M. HEATH TO ROBERT BRENNER -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Heath:

Thank you for your letter of August 29, 1969, to Dr. Robert Brenner, Acting Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the flashing of sidemarker lamps when the turn signal switch is activated.

Paragraph S3.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the flashing of sidemarker lamps simultaneously with the turn signal lamps on the side to which a turn is contemplated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht70-2.22

DATE: 08/26/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: International Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 12 to Mr. Toms requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211 (Wheel Discs, Wheel Nuts, and Hub Caps).

This standard does not prohibit projections per see on wheel equipment items; it prohibits winged projections. Thus there is no limitation on how far a cylindrical projection, for example, may extend beyond the outer edge of the tire. On the other hand, any winged projection is prohibited, even if recessed.

I hope this answers your question.

ID: nht70-2.23

DATE: 08/27/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R.A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Lanes Auto Sales

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter in which you asked about the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in regard to combination of new and used components.

In your first group of questions, you asked whether you could put a used fifth wheel or a used dump body on a new truck. The answer is yes, but the finished vehicle must conforms to all the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type of vehicle at the time it is completed. At this time, probably the only standard that would require action on your part would be Standard 108 on lighting systems, Other Standards applicable to trucks have been proposed, however, which will require you to take further action or observe certain limits in the future, and you should take stops to keep informed of the applicable requirements. I an enclosing a copy of current standards and regulations, and if you will fill out the enclosed form you will be put on a smailing list for notices that apply to your operations.

Also in reference to this group of questions, the requirements on persons who complete vehicles are the same whether they own the trucks or do the work for a dealer or for the ultimate user.

You also asked about building "a trailer out of new frames using old axles, brakes, and wheels, with parts made before 1966". In such a case, the vehicle that you build must conform to current applicable safety standards, unless it is a repair job done on a presently registered used vehicle that will continue to be registered as a used vehicle. Whether you call the trailer a used or new one depends on the State requirements - you may do whatever is permitted by your State licensing authorities in this regard.

Finally, you asked whether, when you build a trailer with used wheels, axles, bearings, brake drums, and springs, you may put on used tires. At present you certainly may do so, since there is no Federal safety standard for truck tires. It is probable that one will be issued in the future, however, and if and when such a standard becomes effective, any tires you use must meet the requirements of that standard.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Enclosures

ID: nht70-2.24

DATE: 09/03/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On August 13, 1970, you petitioned, on behalf of General Motors Corporation, for reconsideration of the amendment of 49 CFR 571.3, published on July 14, 1970 (35 F. R. 11242), which established a definition of "fixed collision barrier". The views presented in your petition have been carefully considered. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.

You argued that the phrase "absorb no significant portion of the vehicle's Kinetic energy" was subjective, and therefore not in accord with the statutory requirement that standards be stated in objective terms. This argument is without merit. It appears to be based on the misconception that the purpose of the definition is to describe, or prescribe standards for, a manufacturer's test barrier, as evidenced by your statement that it "gives manufacturer no guidelines for determing whether or not he has built a barrier which complies with the definition." The Bureau does not intend that manufacturers should build barriers to "comply with the definition." As stated in the notice,

"this is not intended to be a description of an actual test barrier. It is a device used in various standards to establish required quantitative performance levels of a vehicle in a crash situation, and means simply that the vehicle must meet the requirement no matter how small an amount of energy is absorbed by the barrier."

Far from being subjective, the definition is mathematically precise. As the energy absorption of the barrier approaches zero as a limit, the performance characteristic being measured must remain at or above the minimum stated in the standard.

From a practical standpoint, the definition is an important aid in regulation, and is a help to all parties in that a potential source of controversy concerning compliance with the standards is removed. It simply means that when the Bureau crash-tests a vehicle, the vehicle must meet the requirement no matter what the energy-absorption properties of the barrier, and therefore there is no room for argument on the differing properties of the Bureau's and the manufacturer's test barriers. The purpose of the standards is to regulate vehicles and equipment, not test barriers; manufacturers may use whatever barriers or tests they wish to ensure compliance It is a reasonably simple matter to erect a barrier that absorbs only a minute fraction of an impacting vehicle's energy. A conscientious manufacturer should therefore have no difficulty in determining whether a particular design will meet a standard.

Your petition also argued that the definition was impracticable because

"there is no known method of measuring the amount of energy absorbed by a barrier. Therefore, there is no way that the manufacturer could even attempt to determine whether or not his barrier complied with the definition, and, more importantly, whether or not his vehicle when tested complied with the performance requirements of the standards."

The energy absorption of a barrier is a direct function of the movement of the barrier during the impact. To be sure, there are other properties, such as its effective mass and elasticity, that also are factors in energy absorption. But it is clear that as the barrier movement approaches zero, the energy absorption also approaches zero; and the barrier movement can be measured, as you indicated by your recommendation that a specified amount of movement be allowed. In all cases where the vehicle has a tangible margin of safety performance over the required minimum, therefor, a manufacturer will have no difficulty in determining that his vehicle complies,

If our standards "allowed" barrier movement, it would be far more difficult to establish conclusively that a given vehicle did not meet the standard, since it would always be open to the manufacturer to argue that the Bureau's barrier did not move as far, and consequently did not absorb as much energy, as the standard allowed. To the extent that there may be a small degree of uncertainty as to the variance is the vehicle test performance caused by the variance of a barrier from zero absorption, that uncertainty must rest with the manufacturer, who is free to design into his vehicles whatever margin of performance he desires.

This matter was thoroughly considered by the Bureau, and the opinions of knowledgeable members of the public were sought and carefully evaluated. For these reasons, your petition for reconsideration must be denied.

We appreciate your cooperation in the field of motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht70-2.25

DATE: 09/11/70

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

TO: Tanaka and Walders

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of July 27, 1970 to the National Highway Safety Bureau requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

You are correct in your statement that no formal petition for rule making action is necessary for tire and rim combination cited within the references of S3 of Standard No. 109.

Concerning your question on "approval equivalent rim", we offer the following. The policy of the Bureau in 1967 at the time of the promulgation of Standards No. 109 and No. 110 was to give a "blanket" approval of all rims cited within the references. From that time on however, all new tire and rim combinations had to be approved by the Bureau. After the tire and rim combination was approved then it was listed within Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 110.

Standards No. 109 and No. 110 do not have requirements for rim contours. Our standards only specify the flange letter-code and width for a particular rim designation. Therefore, any request to change a rim dimension of an existing rim does not require a formal action by this Bureau.

ID: nht70-2.26

DATE: 09/21/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Donald O'Neill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 17, 1970, concerning Mr. George R. Smith's comments on the energy-absorbing steering system in response to my interview in your August issue.

I did not mean to imply that energy-absorbing steering systems were not installed by some manufacturers, such as General Motors, prior to the effective date of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203 - Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System.

Mr. Smith is correct in noting that Standard No. 203 does not require collapsible steering columns. It was intentionally written in performance terms rather than as a design specification. Most manufacturers chose the collapsible steering column to meet the standard, hence the common use of the term "collapsible column" to refer to our requirement. However, it should be noted that the standard is also being complied with by steering control systems employing other methods of energy-absorption including energy-absorbing rims and a collapsible bellows located forward of the steering wheel hub.

Regarding your request for a copy of the National Highway Safety Bureau "Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards," this plan is a working document and represents the presently scheduled rulemaking actions to be issued by our Motor Vehicle Programs activity during the period of 1970-1972. I am pleased to enclose a copy as you requested.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of my interview remarks and I enjoyed reading Mr. Smith's comments.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht70-2.27

DATE: 09/23/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 27, 1970, concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations to a fire truck to be manufactured according to specifications in a military contract.

In your letter, you state that the windshield glass specified by the contract for the truck does not conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. You then ask:

Are we on the Military required to obtain an exemption from the(Illegible Word) for this or any other exception in military contracts that do not conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations?

The answer to your question is no. Section 571.7(c) of 49 CFR, Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Subpart A - General, provides that "(n)o standard applies to a vehicle or item or equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications." Consequently, no exemption need be obtained, since no standard applies to the fire truck. However, if the truck, although manufactured for the Armed Forces, were sold to someone other than the Armed Forces, it would be required to comply with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 205.

You also ask:

Does this type of vehicle require a certification label as specified in part 367 - certification?

The answer again is no. Section 567.2 of Part 567 (formerly 367) provides, in relevant part, that the Certification Regulations apply "to manufacturers . . . of motor vehicles to which one or more standards are applicable." Since, under section 571.7(c), no standards are applicable to the fire truck, the Certification Regulations do not require you to provide a certification label with the fire truck.

If we can be of any further assistance to you, please write.

ID: nht70-2.28

DATE: 09/29/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Aractho Motors Distributors

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I wish to express my apology for the fact that you have not received a response to your letter of August(Illegible Words) of our correspondence records does not indicate that it ever reached my office.

From information available on the Bureau Mini-bike, it would appear that it would fall within the scope of the Mini-Bike interpretation,(Illegible Words)(Illegible Word) -- October 3, 1969), a copy of which is enclosed for your information and guidance.

Each manufacturer must decide whether his vehicles are manufactured primarily for off-the-road use. This is usually determined by the manufacturer after his review of the aforementioned interpretation.

Your attention is directed to the fourth paragraph of that document which states in part, "Thus, if a vehicle is operationally capable of being used on the public thoroughfares, and in fact, a substantial proportion of the consuming public actually view it that way, it is a 'motor vehicle' without regard to the manufacturer's intent, however(Illegible Word)."

At this time, the Bureau would have no reason to challenge your off-the-road(Illegible Word) only" classification.(Illegible Word) on the other hand, we find that the vehicles are in fact being used for other than the intended purpose, your classification could be questioned by the Bureau.

Thank you for your letter and I trust this will answer your question.

ID: nht70-2.29

DATE: 10/07/70

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

TO: Automobili Lamborghini

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 23 informing us of Lamborghini's continued progress towards compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I want to remind you that Standard No. 211 precludes the use of wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps that incorporate winged projections, such as the one shown in the(Illegible Word) photograph which I enclose. We have seen several(Illegible Word) manufactured in 1969 with wheels identical to this one, and were informed in one instance that the winged projections had been shipped from Italy with the car. Such a shipment violates the spirit, if not the letter, of Standard No. 211.

There is no charge for the "Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards", enclosed at your request.

ID: nht70-2.3

DATE: 04/20/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1970, with which you submitted for our examination a sample format for consumer information produced by a computer.

The sample that you submitted does deviate from the requirements of the consumer information regulations in that the required warnings and explanations are placed on a sheet that is separate from the numerical data. The regulations generally require that the information be presented in the form illustrated by the published figures, with the explanatory matter in proximity to the numerical data. I believe that computer printing is flexible enough to allow you to accomplish this.