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

ID: nht71-2.18

DATE: 03/23/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hankscraft Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which you asked for an opinion as to whether the Hankscraft Child's Auto Safety Harness, Style 705, is a Type 3 seat belt assembly within the scope of Standard No. 209.(Illegible Word) harness sold for automobile use that is advertised as a safety harness(Illegible Words)(Illegible Word) not carefully state that it is not intended to project a child from the efforts of the(Illegible Word) is considered a Type 3 seat belt assembly that must conform to Standard No. 209. Since Hankscraft identifies its product as an "Auto Safety Harness" and states that it will provide "effective restraint . . . with increased safety in all but the most(Illegible Words) us would require the harness in question to conform to Standard No. 209.

ID: nht71-2.19

DATE: 03/23/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of February 19 you ask about the possibility of "marketing" a total of 350 Mercedes-Benz C-111 vehicles in the United States which would not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I have checked this matter out with our legal staff and am advised that it is not possible to import and sell vehicles in the United States unless they meet all Federal standards, or unless they have been exempted from compliance pursuant to Section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Such an exemption is not, as you know, available to Mercedes-Benz since your total annual motor vehicle production greatly exceeds 500 units.

It is possible, however, under our importation regulations (19 CFR @ 12.80(b)(2)(vii)), to enter nonconforming vehicles for a period of up to one year and operate them on the public roads for purposes of test and experimentation provided that the vehicles are exported at the end of that time and are not sold in the interim. Leasing of the vehicle would be permitted during this period.

ID: nht71-2.2

DATE: 02/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Century Products, Inc.

COPYEE: C. DIETRICH -- BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN; D. SCHRUM -- ELECTRICAL TESTING LABS.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 28, 1971, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. Although your letter-refers to S4.11(d) as the paragraph with which you are concerned, it appears from the test of your letter that you are requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.1(d).

S5.1 of the standard specifies the test procedure that will be used by NHTSA to determine whether the child(Illegible Word) system meets the force resistance requirements specified in S4.1 of the standard. S5.1(d), the passage in question, rends as follows:

"Apply an increasing load to the torso block in a forward direction, not more than 15 degrees and not less than 5 degrees above the horizontal., until a loud of 1,000 pounds is achieved. The intersection of the lead application line and the back surface of the torso block, at the time that the force removes the slack from the lead application system, shall not be more than 8 inched or less than 6 inches above the bottom surface of the torso block. Maintain the 1,000-pound load for 10 seconds."

Your question is whether the angle at which the force is applied, even though initially between 5 degrees and 15 degrees above the horizontal, may above outside that range during application of the specified force.

The answer to your question is no. The relevant wording of the standard, that the force is to be applied in a forward direction "not more than 15 degrees and not less than 5 degrees above the horizontal, until a load of 1.000 pounds is achieved," clearfly requires that the direction of the test force remain within the specified angular limits throughout the period of force application.

Please write if you have further questions.

ID: nht71-2.20

DATE: 03/24/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: AGIP USA Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This office is in receipt of your letter of February 25, 1971, requesting concurrence with your proposed letter to an automobile manufacturer who wishes to import vehicles into the United States using your brake fluid.

Your proposed letter appears to adequately state the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, and as your letter indicates, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn't require that certification tests be conducted at Government approved laboratories. However, if your company plans to import brake fluid into the United States as an item of motor vehicle equipment rather than a part of a vehicle, proof of certification must be supplied by AGIP upon our request.

We trust this will answer your questions.

ID: nht71-2.21

DATE: 03/24/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 1, 1971, in which you inquired whether a "crew-cab" truck is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle or a truck.

You said in your letter, "It was our reasoning that the prime purpose of an MPV was to carry passengers, rather than to haul something, and that the addition of a crew cab which would accommodate an additional three persons, onto a chassis-cab which contains a dump body or utility body would not necessarily change the classification."

The above statement is essentially correct. A crew-cab truck combines the purposes of both multipurpose passenger vehicle and a truck. Where a vehicle has a significant capability for carrying either persons or cargo, its manufacturer may exercise his own discretion in classifying the vehicle.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht71-2.22

DATE: 03/29/71

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

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: PETITION TO AMEND STANDARD NO. 103

This is in response to your petition of February 24 to Douglas Toms for a amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (35 F.R. 16640).

You petitioned for an amendment of S4.6(b) that would allow use of a non-automatic means for flashing headlamps. Standard No. 103 does not contain requirements for, or prohibitions against, flashing headlamps non-automatically, and therefore installation of such devices is at the option of the manufacturer.

You commented that S4.6(b) appears to require simultaneous flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps if an automatic means of flashing is provided. Your interpretation is incorrect; either headlamps or side marker lamps, or both, may be flashed by automatic means.

You also petitioned for an amendment of S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 on the basis of a conflict in the dates of applicability of the effective date of the sections. Your petition on this point is moot; this ambiquity was resolved is an amendment to Standard No. 108 published on February 3, 1971 (36 F.R. 1896). I enclose a copy for your information.