ID: nht74-2.33

DATE: 08/26/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 2, 1974, asking for the appropriate method for bending plastic material over the mandrel as specified in Test No. 22 of ANS Z26.1-1966, which is incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205). You indicate that the test procedure does not specify either the bending force, or whether mechanical means for bending are allowed.

Paragraph 5.22.2 of Test 22 states, in part, as follows:

After conditioning, the test specimens shall be immediately bent over a mandrel so that either the entire length of the specimen shall conform to the surface of the mandrel or that it be bent 130 degrees over the mandrel, with the longitudinal axis of the specimen normal to the axis of the mandrel. (emphasis added)

As the procedure does not specify the bending force, or the method in which it is to be applied, the NHTSA would consider as appropriate any force or method of application that would permit the plastic to be bent immediately after conditioning. There is nothing to prohibit the use of hand or mechanical pressure, but it must be applied in such a way that an immediate bending takes place.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY

INCORPORATED

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

August 2, 1974

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

We manufacture a transparent acrylic safety glazing material, Lucite (register) AR abrasion-resistant sheet. Many of our markets are in the transportation industry, including public buses, people movers, and recreational vehicles. Safety glazing materials must conform to ANSI Z26.1-1966 code for glazing motor vehicles operated on land highways, as required by FMVSS #205. The ANSI Z26.1-1966 code, Item 6, flexible Plastics category, is defined in part by Test No. 22. This test requires that a sample of the plastic be "bent over a mandrel so that either the entire length of the specimen shall conform to the surface of the mandrel or that it be bent 180 degrees over the mandrel." (The diameter of the mandrel being 80 times the sample thickness.) The stated purpose of the test is to determine "satisfactory flexibility".

No mention is made of the method or technique used in forcing the plastic to conform to the mandrel. The test does not indicate whether mechanical means are allowed; and, if so, what force. It is my understanding that some independent testing laboratories use hand pressure.

Would you please indicate to me what the NHTSA or DOT position is on this test and the test method to be used

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Paul D. Carfagna -- Technical Representative, Lucite (register) AR Marketing

ID: nht74-2.34

DATE: 02/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Busby Rivkin Sherman Levy and Rehm

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 1973, asking whether glazing in the rear quarter windows of the Datsun model HLB-210 may, consistently with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, be manufactured of AS 3 glazing material. This depends, as you point out, on whether this glazing is used "at levels requisite for driving visibility" under American National Standards Institute Standard ANS Z26.1-1966, incorporated into Standard No. 205. You refer in your letter to section 1017(a) of the California Vehicle Code which states:

Side windows to the rear of the driver and the rear windows not used for vision directly to the rear are not considered areas requisite for driving visibility.

The locations where the use of AS 3 glazing is permitted are set forth on page 12 of ANS Z26. AS 3 glazing may be used, "anywhere in a motor vehicle except in passenger car windshields and in the following locations at levels requisite for driving visibility . . . . (2) Passenger automobiles and taxicabs. Glazing of all windows including rear window, all interior partitions, and all apertures created for window purpose. (emphasis added)

The only exclusion from the broad prohibition against the use of AS3 glazing in passenger cars is "at levels not requisite for driving visibility." We do not agree with the California Code provision. We consider the word "levels" in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to the driver's eyes. We, therefore, cannot concur in the application of the "levels requisite for driving visibility" concept as it appears in Standard No. 205 to complete windows or other glazing areas of passenger cars.

With respect to the Datsun model in question, there is no evidence in your letter that the windows in question are not at a level requisite for driving visibility. In fact, they appear to include levels of a driver's normal eye point.

The NHTSA presently hopes to publish a revised notice of proposed rulemaking regarding direct fields of view in the fall of 1974. Previous proposals regarding this subject were withdrawn by notice published March 7, 1973 (38 FR 6194).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 13, 1973

Guy Hunter -- Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Hunter:

This will confirm our conversation of December 7, 1973 relative to the specification of "levels requisite for driver vision" in the ANSI Standard referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

Specifically, we would like your assurance that the guidance provided in the enclosed California Highway Patrol Regulations is in agreement with your interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements. As marked, the California regulations permit the use of AS-3 glass in side windows to the rear of the driver (rear quarter windows).

Further, we would appreciate any indication from you regarding the timing of the proposed rule making on "direct fields of view", which we presume would establish precise future requirements for the location and light transmittance of motor vehicle glazing.

Our interest in this matter arises from the newly introduced model Datsun HLB-210 of our client, Nissan Motor Company. This vehicle has a small fixed pane of AS-3 glazing in what would otherwise be a solid rear quarter panel. I am enclosing a picture of this vehicle.

Respectfully submitted,

BUSBY RIVKIN SHERMAN LEVY and REHM;

George C. Nield -- Engineering Advisor

Enclosures

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL P. O. Box 898 Sacramento 95804

ORDER ADOPTING, AMENDING, OR REPEALING REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

After proceedings had in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code, Title 2, Div. 3, Part 1, Chapter 4.5) and pursuant to the authority vested by Section 2402 of the Vehicle Code, and to implement, interpret or make specific Sections 2402.5, 26106 and 26704 of the Vehicle Code, the Department of the California Highway Patrol hereby adopts, amends, or repeals regulations in Chapter 2, Title 13, California Administrative Code as follows:

(1) Repeals Article 7 of Subchapter 4

(2) Adopts Article 7 of Subchapter 4 to read:

Article 7. Safety Glazing Material

1010. Scope of Regulations. This article shall apply to safety glazing material governed by Sections 535, 26701, 26703, 26704, and 26705 of the Vehicle Code and required to be approved before sale or use.

1011. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply wherever the terms are used in this article:

(a) Safety Glazing Material. Safety glazing material is any glazing material so constructed, treated, or combined with other materials as to reduce, in comparison with ordinary sheet, plate, or float glass, the likelihood of injury to persons by glazing material whether it may be broken or unbroken.

(b) Areas Requisite for Driving Visibility. "Areas requisite for driving visibility" are glazed areas at levels established in Section 1017 of this code for the windshield, the windows and in Section 1017 of this code for the windshield, the windows and wind deflectors to the right and left of the driver, and the rear window, except for rear windows on vehicles equipped with left- and right-hand mirrors.

(c) Daylight Opening. The "daylight opening" is the maximum area of unobstructed visibility in the glazed window.

(d) Camper. A camper is a structure designed to be mounted upon a motor vehicle and to provide facilities for human habitation or camping purposes.

(e) ANSI Standard. An ANSI Standard is a standard issued by the American National Standards Institute, formerly referred to as ASA, American Standards Association, and USASI, United States of America Standards Institute.

(f) Approved Laboratory. An approved laboratory is a laboratory which has facilities and equipment for testing glazing material to ANSI Standards and has been approved by the department in accordance with the provisions of Sections 850 through 859 of this code.

1012. Application for Approval. Requests for approval or reapproval of safety glazing material shall be submitted on forms provided by the department, shall be accompanied by the items specified in following subsections (a) or (b), and (c) and (d), and shall be sent to the following address:

California Highway Patrol Engineering Section P. O. Box 898 Sacramento, California 95804

(a) Test Reports. Test reports shall be those issued by a laboratory approved by the department in accordance with Sections 350 through 859 of the code. Reports shall show compliance with Section 1015 of the code and shall contain at least the following information:

(1) Thickness of samples tested

(2) Color, shade, or tint of samples tested

(3) Size and spacing of conductor, size of bus bar, and spacing from periphery of glass, when electrical conductors are used

(4) A reproduction of the identification markings used on the material required by Section 1014 of this code

(5) Detailed results of each test required by ANSI Standard Z26.1-1966 (6) Date of test completion.

(b) Comparison Reports. Comparison reports shall include the following items:

(1) Copy of original test report for previously approved glazing material

(2) Written statement from the original manufacturer of the material authorizing its use by the applicant under a new identification marking

(3) Addendum to the original test report stating that "The new material is identical in every respect to the original material tested with the exception of the marks of identification. The old marks of identification are and the new marks of identification are ." This statement shall be signed by a representative of the approved laboratory.

(c) Identification Markings. One actual size reproduction of the identification markings used on the glazing material shall be reproduced in black on white paper and submitted with the application.

(d) Samples of Material. Samples of material shall be furnished as follows:

(1) One 2-inch or larger square sample of each color, tint, or shade of plastic glazing material bearing the required identification markings

(2) One 4-inch square sample of any glass containing an electrical conductor and bearing the required identification markings.

1013. Approval of Safety Glazing Material. Safety glazing material shall be approved as follows:

(a) Certificates of Approval. Certificates of approval for glazing material issued between January 1 and June 30, inclusive, shall expire on July 1, five years after the date of the test report. Certificates issued between July 1 and December 31, inclusive, shall expire on January 1, five years after the date of the test report. Certificates issued for a limited term of less than five years shall expire on the date shown on the certificate.

(b) Approval by Comparison. Certificates of approval for glazing material approved on the basis of a comparison report shall have the same expiration date as the certificate for (Illegible Words) glazing material.

(c) Reapproval. Reapproval certificates shall expire five years from the dates of the laboratory reports.

(d) Noncurrent Safety Glazing Material. Noncurrent glazing material for which the certificate has expired may continue to be used on the motor vehicle or camper on which it was installed at the time of expiration and may be transferred between vehicles or campers. Stock on hand in California may continue to be sold for two years after the expiration date of the certificate. Replonishment of stock with material for which the certificate has expired is prohibited.

1014. Identification Markings. Each piece of safety glazing material shall be permanently marked so as to be visible and legible when installed on a vehicle or camper.

(a) Name and Model Designation. Markings shall include the following information:

(1) The manufacturer's name, initials, lettered trademark, or United States Department of Transportation (DOT) assigned code number, which shall be clearly different from those of other manufacturers

(2) The letter "M" followed by the manufacturer's model number for each different type, thickness, color tint, shade, or construction of the material

(3) The letters "AS" followed by the item number in the ANSI Standard with which the material complies, such as ASI or AS2.

(b) Recommended Format. Glazing material submitted for approval on or after September 1, 1970, should have the markings required by subsection (a) arranged so that the manufacturer's name, initials, lettered trademark, or DOT code number and the model number appear in succession on a single line below the trade symbol with no other markings except the "AS" designation on the same line. The following examples illustrate acceptable format:

(Graphics omitted)

(c) Shaded Areas. Shaded areas of less than 70 percent light transmittance which adjoin areas of 70 percent or more light transmittance shall be marked "AVS1" or "AIllegibleS2" at the dividing line. The arrow shall indicate which portion of the material complies with the item number shown.

(d) Size of Markings. The markings required in subsections (a) and (c) shall be in letters and numbers at least 0.070 inch in height. Additional markings may be of any height, shall be immediately above the required markings, and may be changed without notification to the department provided no change is made in the glazing material.

1015. Applicable Safety Glazing Material Standards. Safety glazing material shall meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 and requirements of ANSI Standard Z26.1-1966.

1016. Electrical Conductors. Heating elements used for doing fogging and deicing, and wire and printed conductors used for other purposes manufactured in safety glazing material are acceptable for use in areas requisite for driving visibility in accordance with the following guidelines:

(a) Wire and Printed Conductors in Material Marked AS1. Heated wire conductors in material marked AS1 should not exceed 0.001 inch in diameter, should not be spaced closer than 0.040 inch or further apart than 0.150 inch, and the bus bar which connects the ends should be within 0.5 inch of the periphery of the daylight opening. The diameter of conductors used for other purposes should not exceed 0.010 inch for wire or 0.020 inch in width for printed types. Only one such conductor should be placed within 2 inches of and generally parallel to the periphery of the daylight opening; and not more than two should be centered vertically in the glazing material and spaced not more than 2 inches apart.

(b) Wire Conductors in Material Marked AS2. Wire conductors in material marked ASE should either meet A31 requirements in preceding subsection (a), or they should not exceed 0.0015 inch in diameter nor be spaced closer than 0.080 inch. The bus bar connecting the ends of the conductors should be within 0.5 inch of the periphery of the daylight opening.

(c) Printed Conductors on Material Marked AS2. Printed conductors on glazing material marked AS2 should not be more than 0.040 inch in width nor spaced closer than 0.900 inch. The bus bar connecting the ends of the conductors should be within 0.5 inch of the periphery of the daylight opening.

1017 Determination of Areas Regisite for Driving Visibility. The following methods for determining the levels of glazed areas requisite for driving visibility are recommended and considered acceptable until such time as a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard defining the levels becomes effective:

(a) Levels. The established levels requisite for driving visibility include all levels below a horizontal plane 28 inches above the undepressed driver's seat for passenger cars, and 30 1/2 inches for other motor vehicles, except as specified in following subsections (b), (c), and (d). Measurements are made from a point 5.0 inches ahead of the bottom of the backrest and directly behind the center of the steering wheel, with the driver's seat in the rearmost and lowest position and the vehicle on a level surface. Areas requisite for driving visibility include all glazed areas below this plane and all of the glazed area of windows capable of being lowered. Side windows to the rear of the driver and the rear windows not used for vision directly to the rear are not considered areas requisite for driving visibility.

(b) Special Vehicles. Corresponding eye heights, based upon an average seat depression of 3.3 inches for passenger cars and 2.0 inches for other vehicles, apply to specially designed vehicles or vehicles designed for a standing driver.

(c) Curved Windshields. In order to accommodate manufacturing procedures for curved windshields, it is permissible for shaded windshield glazing material to have less than 70 percent luminous transmittance over areas extending inward from each corner post for a distance not exceeding 10 percent of the windshield width. These areas of reduced luminous transmittance should not extend more than 1.5 inches below the level requisite for driving visibility. The curved windshield exceptions should not apply to motor vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1972.

(d) Motorcycles. The established levels requisite for driving visibility for motorcycles include all planes between a horizontal plane 15 inches above the lowest portion of the seat when the seat is depressed by the operator and a horizontal plane 31 inches above the undepressed seat.

1018. Locations of Safety Glazing Material. Safety glazing material shall be used in accordance with the "AS" number marked on the material as follows:

(a) AS1. Laminated safety glass marked AS1 is required to be used in the windshield of every motor vehicle except a motorcycle and is acceptable for use anywhere in motor vehicles and campers.

(b) AS2 and AS3. Laminated or tempered safety glass marked AS2 is acceptable for use anywhere in a motor vehicle except in the windshield, and anywhere in a camper. Material marked AS3 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(c) AS2-26 and AS3-26. Laminated safety glass marked AS2-26 is acceptable for use anywhere in a motor vehicle except the windshield, and anywhere in a camper. Material marked AS3-26 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(d) AS4 and AS5. Rigid plastic safety glazing material marked AS4 is acceptable for use in interior partitions, auxiliary wind deflectors, folding doors, standee windows in buses, flexible curtains, readily removable windows, openings in roofs, rear windows of soft tops, rear doors of taxicabs, and windows of campers. Material marked AS5 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(e) AS6 and AS7. Flexible plastic safety glazing material marked AS6 is acceptable for use in the rear windows of soft tops, windshields for motorcycles, flexible curtains, and readily removable windows. Material marked AS7 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(f) AS8 and AS9. Wire glass marked AS8 is acceptable for use in folding doors, standee and rearmost windows in buses, and windows to the rear of the driver in trucks and truck tractors. Material marked AS9 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(g) AS10 and AS11. Laminated safety glazing material marked AS10 or AS11 is for use only in armored cars for which permits have been issued under Section 21713 of the Vehicle Code. Bullet-resistant glass marked AS10 is required in the windshields and is acceptable for use anywhere in the vehicle. Bullet-resistant glass marked AS11 is acceptable for use anywhere in the vehicle except the windshield.

(h) Shaded Material. The dividing line in the "AVS1" or "AVS2" markings on shaded glazing material shall be located so that the darker side of the dividing line is outside the areas requisite for driving visibility.

This order shall take effect on September 1, 1970, as provided in Section 11422(d) of the Government Code.

Dated: July 22, 1970

DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; A. E. SHAFFER, Captain -- Acting Commander Safety Services Division

ID: nht74-2.35

DATE: 07/30/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Excel Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1974, requesting the status of a proposed amendment published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 327), to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," that would have required markings specified for windshields to appear in each windshield's lower left-hand corner.

This proposed requirement was not adopted. Other requirements proposed by this notice, however, were adopted by a subsequent notice published June 21, 1972 (37 F.R. 12237), which amended Standard No. 205. The preamble of this notice referred to the agency's action on the proposed requirements for marking location. A further notice was issued on November 11, 1972 (37 F.R. 24035), which responded to petitions for reconsideration of the amendments of June 21, 1972. Copies of the notices of June 21 and November 11, 1972, are enclosed.

There are presently no requirements regarding the location of markings for motor vehicle glazing materials.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

June 28, 1974

Lawrence Schneider -- National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

On January 9, 1971, page 327 of volume 36, #6 of the Federal Register, a proposed amendment was made to FMVSS#205 at the request of the California Highway Patrol to the effect that after installation of the glazing material in the vehicle, the markings are required to be visible in the lower left corner of each windshield and either the lower left or lower right corner of any other window.

As a manufacturer of windshields and side windows for the recreational vehicle industry, particularly motor homes, we have been trying to comply with this proposed standard by adding two trade marks to our windshields so that in a two part windshield, the glass could be used on either side of the vehicle and still comply; however, in reviewing the Federal Register, we find that no follow-up amendments to the safety standard reflect this change.

With the cost of materials increasing daily, and the fact that we are paying a premium for this added marking, we are going to discontinue this practice since Mr. Douglas Delve of the Department of Transportation has confirmed that this legislation has never been effected. I would like a written confirmation that this pending legislation is either still pending or has been dropped, so that we may proceed with production without any further concern regarding the compliance to the standards.

Very truly yours,

Steve A. Spretnjak -- Chief Design Engineer EXCEL INDUSTRIES

ID: nht74-2.36

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 9, 1974, petition to substitute the proposed performance requirements for child harness testing under Standard No. 213, Child seating systems, for the performance requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to which Questor's Model 275 child harness is presently subject. As reasons for the substitution, you cite the inappropriateness of attachment hardware requirements (S4.3(c)) and the configuration of the test device (Figure 7) of Standard No. 209 as well as the desirability of testing to dynamic performance requirements which may become a part of Standard No. 213.

The Standard No. 213 dynamic test values which you recommend are only proposals at this time. Interested parties have not had a full opportunity to comment on them and the NHTSA has not, of course, had the opportunity to fully evaluate them. For these reasons your petition to substitute these new dynamic tests for the Standard No. 209 static tests is denied.

You state that testing of the Model 275 to the assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209 (S4.4(c)) is complicated by the configuration of the test device for Type III harnesses, which is not suited to test a child harness such as the Questor No. 275 that utilizes the adult front lap belts and the rear adult lap belt or the package shelf as attachment points.

Paragraph S5.3(c)(2) of Standard No. 209 directs that in such a case "attachment shall be . . . in accordance with the [manufacturer's] installation instructions". As adherence to Model 275 installation instructions requires a front and rear adult belt installation (and in some cases a package shelf) the use of an actual vehicle bench seat in a passenger car would be an appropriate method to evaluate the assembly under S4.4(c) of Standard No. 209. Moreover, because the 12-inch extension requirement for an assembly tested under S4.4(c) is based on zero deflection of the test device, the actual vehicle seat should be modified to eliminate deflection.

The NHTSA has previously determined that the requirements of S4.3(c) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to bolts used to secure an adult upper torso restraint, other than the continuous loop type. Similarly, we interpret this provision not apply to the child harness upper torso restraint described in your letter. The bolts would be regulated with respect to strength only by the assembly performance requirements of S4.4(c).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

April 9, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson:

Questor Corporation has recently developed a novel child restraint harness that is to be marketed under the brand name "Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness." This restraint system has been under development for over two years to provide maximum dynamic performance at least possible cost to the consumer.

The Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness has closely approached the dynamic performance objectives proposed by the DOT to be effective September 1, 1975. When tested with a standard Sierra three-year-old child dummy, this restraint limited head excursion to 18.8 inches in a 30 mph frontal barrier impact test. Additional improvements in design have been made which will further reduce head excursion.

The unique design characteristics of this harness, which provide exceptional dynamic performance, also present difficulties in determining its compliance with FMVSS 209 for Type 3 seat belt assemblies. These problems were discussed with Messrs. R. Jasinski, J. Gilkey, T. Herlihy, and M. Peskoe during a personal visit to Washington on April 4. Mr. Jasinski also reviewed the situation in a phone conversation with Mr. R. Hitchcock. It was suggested after these conversations that this letter be written to you, outlining the areas of concern relative to FMVSS 209.

The design of Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness departs radically from child harnesses commercially available to date. Current harnesses require mounting to the floor of the automobile to restrain the child and vehicle seat back from movement during impact or load. Inasmuch as this floor anchorage could inadvertently be used by the present automobile owner or subsequent owners for an adult lap belt attachment point, it is understandable that FMVSS 209 would require the strength of this anchorage to be no less than 5,000 pounds, paragraph S4.3 (c) (1).

It is further recognized that currently available child harnesses loop over the adult backrest of automobiles, prior to being themselves anchored to the vehicle floor, and thus largely rely upon the strength of the automobile backrest to reduce movement of the child in an accident situation and/or also restrain the backrest. The assembly performance criteria of FMVSS 209 paragraphs S5.3 (c) (1) through (4) provide some degree of simulating this installation, and yet the force requirement that the complete assembly is required to withstand is 2,000 pounds, 100 per cent greater than the force requirements of FMVSS 213.

The Model 275 Child Harness is shown in accompanying Figures 1 and 2. The significant differences in its installation when compared with existing harnesses are readily apparent.

Firstly, an adult lap belt is used to position the lower portion of the child's harness both laterally and forwardly. Secondly, a back strap, or upper tie-down, connects the child harness at the shoulder strap area to either a rear seat adult lap belt for a front seat installation (Figure 1) in an automobile or to a supplementary anchor installed in the metal portion of the panel between the seat back and the rear window for rear seat installation (Figure 2). Neither the front nor rear seat installations require changes or additions to anchorages at the vehicle floor.

The viability of the upper tie-down attachment has been dynamically demonstrated by a well-known child seating restraint system that not only must restrain the child but also the child seating system itself. The upper tie-down strap most nearly approximates the function of an adult shoulder strap; that is, it keeps the upper torso from pivoting forward in a frontal impact. FMVSS 209 does not specify minimum force requirements for either Type 2, Type 2a, or Type 3 upper torso restraint attachment hardware.

It is suggested, therefore, that the requirements within FMVSS 209 for attachment hardware are neither clear nor appropriate for the Infanseat harness. In addition, the test method for assembly performance does not provide for the recommended installation of this product.

While attempts could be made to modify the simulated seat back shown in Figure 7 of FMVSS 209 to provide for the installation of the Infanseat harness, it is felt that any modification will not adequately reporduce the distribution of forces encountered in real-world situations. Also, any approved simulated static load test of a complete assembly at this time is not felt to be appropriate with dynamic testing of child harnesses soon to be required.

It is respectfully suggested that rather than subject the DOT to possible adverse public criticism by requesting another static test to determine the adequacy of the complete Infanseat harness assembly, it be excluded from the attachment hardware and complete assembly requirements of FMVSS 209. In lieu of these requirements, the Infanseat harness should be required to prevent head excursion of a Sierra three-year-old test device beyond 18 inches in a simulated 30 mph frontal impact test. The Infanseat harness would thus be required to meet the DOT's proposed dynamic performance requirements for child restraints.

Data substantiating the dynamic performance of the Infanseat harness has been independently verified by tests conducted for Consumers Union on prototype harnesses. These tests were not published by CU because the harnesses were not available commercially when their magazine went to press. Additional tests have been conducted to determine the suitability of various materials, installations, and test devices. Significant improvements to the harness are expected to be made, such that it appears likely in the very near future to provide dynamic protection for six-year-old children within the proposed excursion limits desired by the DOT.

As important as the Infanseat harness's dynamic performance is its expected retail selling price. The DOT and child restraint manufacturers are equally concerned that children's restraint devices be affordable by the largest possible segment of the public. It is recognized that the purchase and, therefore, the eventual use of children's restraints are directly related to their cost. The Infanseat harness is expected to be marketed at one-half to one-third of the price of existing restraint systems.

Thank you for your attention to this request for revised interim requirements that would be applicable to the Infanseat harness, and your early response shall be greatly appreciated. It is understood that this product would automatically be required to comply with the proposed revisions to FMVSS 213 when they become effective.

Yours very truly,

QUESTOR JUVENILE PRODUCTS COMPANY;

J. P. Koziatek, P.E. #E-36338 -- Director, Technical Services

Attachments

cc: R. Hitchcock; T. W. Herlihy; M. P. Peskoe; J. C. Gilkey; R. Jasinski

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-2.37

DATE: APRIL 26, 1974

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Granning Suspensions Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 21, 1974, request for an explanation of your certification responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as a manufacturer of liftable and "additional" axles which are installed on completed vehicles by an independent truck equipment dealer or, in some cases, by the vehicle manufacturer at the factory.

Your responsibilities under Standard 121, Air brake systems, are largely the same as your responsibility for certification of the GAWR of an axle under 49 CFR Part 567, although somewhat more complicated. It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard 121 (49 CFR Part 567.4), and if the completed vehicle is altered, it is the responsibility of the vehicle alterer (49 CFR Part 567.7). The addition of an axle will change the GAWR-GVWR and the brake performance of the altered vehicle and will require recertification by the dealer who undertakes alteration.

A dealer is normally not equipped to recertify an altered vehicle, except on the basis of certification information supplied to him by the manufacturer of the component that is being added. A component manufacturer like yourself might issue a performance guaranty which relies on the information that is supplied to him by the manufacturer of the basic parts (e.g. brakes, axles in your case) and which is conditioned on the observance of certain limits on installation. For instance, the reservoir volume requirement (S5.1.2.1) might be exceeded if the liftable axle manufacturer did not qualify his information by stating that a certain tank volume must be provided to serve the air chambers on his axle system. Another qualification could refer to brake actuation and release time as complying only if it did not reduce the brake actuation and release timing of the vehicle as a whole. The effect of your axle on each of the requirements would have to be determined.

We do not require certification of the axle by you as its manufacturer.

ID: nht74-2.38

DATE: 05/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Henke Manufacturing Corporation

COPYEE: MR. PESKOE; MR. SHIFFLETT; MR. FAY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1974, asking several questions regarding the sale of snow plows and related equipment and their installation on vehicles. Your questions are restated below, followed by our responses:

1. Question A: "When we sell a plow, lift frame, lights and brackets to a dealer, do we have to report to you what dealers we sold light kits. Lights meet the code. Yes or no."

No. The sale of lighting equipment to a dealer, without any concurrent installation on a vehicle, does not give rise to any reporting or other requirements.

Question B: "When we receive an order for a snow plow and no light kit is ordered, what is our responsibility in this case: We assume the dealer furnishes his own light kit."

As long as you do not install the plow no requirements apply.

2. "We mount a lift frame for a county or city and they want to mount their own lights. We instruct them that lights are mandatory before they affix the plow. The lift frame only does not affect the present requirement for lights. Are we violating the law and what must we do?"

The addition of a lift frame to a completed vehicle (to which a "readily-attachable" plow will later be added) would make you a vehicle alterer and subject to section 567.7 of the Certification regulations. The alterer label should take into account the weight of a plow. As lights may be considered to be readily attachable, you may deliver the vehicle to the county without the additional lights. The county must install them, however, and you should obtain written assurance that it will do so. If the lights were not installed by the user, you would be responsible for a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)). Your certification as an alterer would also be invalid, as the altered vehicle would not conform to all applicable standards.

3. "Henke receives a truck with a dump box and no certification label and nothing noted on incomplete registration. We certified the truck and informed the county that they should get the dealer mounting the box to put an addendum to the incomplete vehicle form to the effect that he mounted the box. Is this correct?"

Yes, if in fact the vehicle conforms to applicable standards, and its weight ratings are correct; no, if it does not conform or its weight ratings are not correct. In completing and certifying a vehicle without complete documentation required under Part 568, you run the risk of having no "due care" defense to a finding of nonconformity.

4. "Henke receives a truck that has a final certification. We mount lift frame, (Illegible Word) and front hydraulic power system. The county wants to mount their own lights. Do we have to put on an addendum sticker? We warn them regarding light requirements when plow is mounted."

Section 577.7 of the Certification regulations requires an alterer label when non-readily-attachable components, or any components whose installation modifies the stated weight ratings, are installed. We assume the equipment you mount in this case falls within one if not both of these categories, and an alterer label is therefore required. Your failure to install lights has the same effect here as in our answer to question 2.

5. "We receive a truck with a box capacity when loaded with sand which is more than the GVWR rating and we mount snow plow lift frame and wing. We instruct the customer to mount the plow and wing and add their normal ballast and take the truck to a scale and trim the load not to exceed the axle ratings as stated on the certification label. Our equipment does not overload any axle. Do we have any further liability in regard to the overloading of axles?"

As a vehicle alterer, you are required to recertify the vehicle, and modify its weight ratings if necessary, following the alterations you perform. The gross vehicle weight rating you establish must be based on the vehicle's rated cargo load. Normally, manufacturers are not required to determine what specific loads a vehicle they certify may carry, and are certainly not responsible for overloading by users. However, where the manufacturer (or alterer as the case may be) actually knows that a vehicle he certified is being purchased to carry primarily a particular commodity, the rated cargo load on which he bases his ratings should not be less than what he can reasonably expect the user to consider a "full load" of that commodity. If he knows that a normal full load of sand, for example, to be carried in that truck will weigh 5 tons, we would consider it false and misleading to rate the cargo load at 4 tons to avoid having to use heavier-duty running gear. In the example you describe, the answer would depend on what you (the manufacturer) know, or can reasonably be expected to know, about how the plow trucks are likely to be loaded. A warning to the buyer not to exceed the rated cargo load or the weight ratings, in that case, would not be sufficient if it were reasonable to expect that the vehicles would, in practice, exceed these ratings at normal full load despite the warning.

With respect to your request for a code number, no final requirements have been issued on this matter, and no number is presently required.

ID: nht74-2.39

DATE: 03/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Continental Gummu-Werke

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1974, raising certain questions about the effective date (September 1, 1974) of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation. You pose two hypothetical questions, asking whether tires must be quality graded when they are to be placed on vehicles manufactured or imported after September 1, 1974. In the first situation, the tires are manufactured in July 1974, while the vehicle is manufactured in August 1974 and imported in October 1974. In the second, the tires are manufactured in August 1974; the vehicle is manufactured in September 1974 and imported in November 1974.

The Quality Grading regulation applies to tires rather than vehicles. Its effective date of September 1, 1974, means that all passenger-car tires manufactured on or after that date must be graded in accordance with the regulation. There is no requirement, however, that vehicle manufacturers must use tires manufactured after that date. In each hypothetical question you present, the tires are manufactured before September 1, 1974, and therefore are not required to be graded. The date of manufacture or importation of the vehicle is immaterial.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Our Ref.: 61011-Ga-gs

January 29, 1974

Subject: U.T.Q.G. - Docket 25 Notice 7

Gentlemen:

As you know, the tire industry is faced with considerable difficulties in adhering to the date set, i.e. September 1, 1974.

This applies in particular to tires we supply to European vehicle manufacturers whose passenger car production is partly shipped to the United States.

Tires for such vehicles which arrive for instance in the United States in September 1974, have to be manufactured by us already in June. Therefore, your interpretation of paragraph 575.4a, reading as under, is very important for us:

". . . . . . . each section set forth in Support B of this Part applies according to its terms to motorvehicles and tires manufactured after the eff. date indicated, . . . . .".

To clarify matters, please permit us to put up for discussion the following two possibilities: Case Production Date Date of Import No. Tires Car of the Cars into USA 1 July 1974 August 1974 October 1974 2 August 1974 September 1974 November 1974

We would be very much obliged if you would inform us as to whether the tires of the vehicles in the above two cases have also to be provided with the statutory U.T.Q.G. marking.

Looking forward to hearing from you, we remain

Yours very truly, Continental Gummi-Werke Aktiengesellschaft; NEBE; (Illegible Word)

ID: nht74-2.4

DATE: 05/19/74

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

TO: Alfa Romeo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht74-2.40

DATE: 08/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Frank Schoen

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1974, inquiring as to what information must be included in a bill of sale upon the transfer of a motorcycle.

The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires that a written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer. The disclosure statement need not, however, be included as part of the bill of sale and may be executed to the buyer as a separate document. If Northline Honda failed to comply with this disclosure requirement, a civil remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater, may be available to you under section 409 of the Act, if the violation was committed with the intent to defraud.

Section 403 of the Act makes it unlawful for any person to disconnect, reset, or alter the odometer of a vehicle with the intent to change the number of miles indicated thereon. If Northline Honda violated this section with the intent to defraud, section 409 of the Act would provide you with the same civil remedy as noted above.

One way to determine if such an alteration has occurred is to compare the current mileage with that indicated on the disclosure statement provided to Northline Honda by the motorcycle's prior owner. If Northline has no such document you might attempt to find out who the prior owner was and contact him about the mileage. A mechanic might also check out the motorcycle to see if there is any evidence indicating that the odometer has been tampered with or that the cycle has travelled more miles than the odometer registers.

On the basis of the information you have supplied, I suggest that you contact an attorney about the possibility of bringing an action against Northline Honda. I am enclosing relevant portions of the Act and the odometer disclosure requirements for your use.

If you are in need of any further information, please do not hesitate to let us know.

YOURS TRULY,

June 19, 1974

Dear Sir

I want to see if you can help me no one in Houston, Texas can.

I bought a used bike from Northline Honda which was missented to me and unsafe to ride. I bought it on on May 23, 1974 carried it back May 24, 1974 and told them that it was (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) and unsafe to ride and wanted them to put the money paid for it on a new bike and that I would pay the difference. Mr. Jim Handcock would not do it, they did a few minor repairs on it and told me to come and get it that afternoon, so I did. I brought it back home rode it around in our yard a little that afternoon and sat on May 26 I carried it to the school yard and a friend was riding it and the handle bar broke into and fliped the bike me got to looking at it and the handle bars were almost into in two places.

I call Northline Honda and told them what happen and they said they couldn't do anything. I wrote to U.S. Department of Transportation in (Illegible Word) Texas, and they sent me a letter saying if I could prove that the odometer reading were incorrect that I could get my money back.

Do you know how I would go about checking on it and who and where do they keep a record of odometer readings.

And do you know anything about Delinquent Transfer penality. They put this one in my name when it should have been in their name.

I am sending you a copy of the bill of sale that they gave me.

So you can see they didn't put the odometer reading or the plate number didn't put the date or sign it.

Mr. Jim Hardcock say's that that is his business and that no one can tell him how to run it.

Is the (Illegible Word) number all that is required on a bill of sale or do you (Illegible Word) to put the motor number on it.

Help me if you can or tell me who I can go to for help.

(Illegible Word) Schoen 8022 Cabat St Houston, Texas 77028

ID: nht74-2.41

DATE: 02/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trailmobile Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of January 21, 1974, you cite the provision of Standard No. 108 under which "the height of the rear clearance lamps is optional if the identification lamps are located at the top of the trailer", and suggest that a similar option be adopted for identification lamps, i.e., that their height location "be made optional if the rear clearance lamps are located as close to the top of the closed van trailer as practical".

Clearance lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to "indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . as near the top as practicable". The primary purpose of these lamps is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and the secondary purpose is to indicate the overall height. Identification lamps on the other hand are a system (three lamps with specified spacing) located "as near the top as practicable". The sole purpose of this system is to identify a vehicle as one of large size. When the widest part of a vehicle is at a point other than the highest point, such as when the fenders are separate or protrude from the body, the option in Standard No. 108 in effect allows the clearance lamps to be mounted at the widest point even though it would be practicable to mount them higher, as long as the identification lamps are mounted at the top of the vehicle, thus fulfilling the secondary function of the clearance lamps. Since the identification lamps are a system serving only the one function of identification, the clearance lamps cannot act as substitutes and the system must be mounted at the point of maximum visibility ("as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle"). To adopt your suggestion would allow a manufacturer to mount the system at the bottom of a vehicle even if it is practicable to mount them at the top, thus substantially negating the identification function the system serves. For this reason we cannot adopt the option you suggest.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

TRAILMOBILE TECHNICAL CENTER

January 21, 1974

Richard B. Dyson, -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Thank you for your ruling on the rear identification lamps in a trailer shallow header (N40-302TV).

Although the ruling was not what we had hoped for, it did however contain the nucellus of a solution to the problem that would satisfy everyone concerned.

Today, the height of the rear clearance lamps is optional if the identification lamps are located at the top of the trailer. Obviously, the intent is to have the top of the rear of a van trailer marked by lights (but not necessarily by all of the required lamps).

To solve some of the problems that we manufacturers face, I request that the height location of the rear identification lamps be made optional if the rear clearance lamps are located as close to the top of the closed van trailer as practical.

I believe that this request is consistant with the intent of MVSS #108 and, in fact, is consistant with the requirements for open top, grain, and dump trailers.

Your prompt consideration and reply will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Evan Hammond -- Manager - Central Engineering

cc: E. E. Lungren; R. J. Deller; J. E. Cook