ID: nht69-1.17

DATE: 04/18/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Auto Test Division, Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of March 17, 1969, and March 26, 1969, pertaining to certain child restraint devices and whether or not they are covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. Your specific questions and our corresponding answers are as follows:

Question No. 1: Which of the commercially available devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard No. 209, which must not?

Answer No. 1: Child restraint devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard No. 209 if, by visual examination of the design and the advertising thereof, they are sold as being a Type 3 seat belt assembly. By definition, a Type 3 seat belt assembly is a combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds or 23 kilograms and capable of sitting upright by themselves, that is children in the approximate age range of 8 months to 6 years.

Question No. 2: How does one tell whether a given device is covered or not?

Answer No. 2: If the manifested purpose of any belt, strap, webbing or similar device is to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, then the belt has to comply with the applicable portions of Standard No. 209. There is a distinct difference between a "child seating system" and a seat belt used to restrain a child. "Child seating system" means an item of motor vehicle equipment for seating and restraining a child being transported in a passenger car. This child seating system is not covered by Standard No. 209, but will be covered by a future standard No. 209, but will be covered by a future standard.

Question No. 3: Is the criterion (that a given device must comply) whether or not the maker claims that the device offers protection against impact injury?

Answer No. 3: Whether or not the maker of a child restraining belt claims that the device offers protection against impact injury is not the criterion upon which the compliance interpretation is based. (Reference Answer No. 2.)

Further investigation is needed before we can provide an answer to your question pertaining to which specific manufacturers of the belts that you tested are in violation.

To assist you in your project on child restraint devices, we are enclosing the latest copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 and the copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on child restraint systems.

We trust that we have been of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Enclosures: F-38 and 49 C.F.R. Part 371, Docket No. 2-15, Notice No. 2

March 17, 1969

Frank Armstrong Office of Performance Analysis National Highway Safety Bureau U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Frank:

Consumers Union has under way a project on child restraint devices. As I told you briefly on the phone a couple of weeks ago, the question has come up, which of the commercially available devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard 209, which must not? How does one tell whether a given device is covered or not? Is the criterion whether or not the maker claims that the device offers protection against impact injury? I talked to Joe O'Gorman about this problem at some length, but he was not able to provide an answer.

I hope that you, or someone in your office, can throw some light on this question for us.

Sincerely yours,

CONSUMERS UNION OF U.S. INC.

Auto Test Division--

Joseph N. Ulman Jr.

Automotive Safety Engineer

cc: Morris Kaplan

March 26, 1969

Frank Armstrong Office of Performance Analysis National Highway Safety Bureau U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Frank:

On March 21, I received a phone call from Joe O'Gorman in response to my letter of March 17 to you requesting advice on how to tell whether any given child restraint device is governed by the Type 3 requirements in Standard 209. I believe Joe now has a clear understanding of our question, and he is trying to obtain an answer.

In the meantime, we would like to amplify for you the information on child restraint devices that appeared on pages 169 and 170 of our April issue. The 15 devices listed as failing to meet the 2000-pound load requirement were sold with safety claims as follows: DEVICES WITHDISCLAIMER:

Penney's No. 0858

Sears No. 1507

Tommee Tippee WP 207

Tommee Tippee WP 205 SP

DEVICES MAKING NO SPECIFIC SAFETY CLAIM:

Auto Babe

Ward's No. 6053 "Tiny World Safety Belt"

Wizard No. 5480 "All Purpose Safety Strap. . ."

DEVICES MAKING SOME CLAIMS:

Hollywood 495 C

497 C "1000-lb. test." "Secures against sudden stops." ". . .allows for. . .with perfect safety."

Kiddie King KKB-1 "Child's Auto Safety Belt." "Protects your child against sudden stops."

Kiddie King KKB-2 "Child's Safety Harness and Belt." "Protection. . .in Autos. . ." ". . .Maximum of safety."

Safety Guard B 12 "Auto Safety Strap." "For protection, comfort, safety." "Will protect children on short stops."

Safety Guard B 112 "Child's Auto Safety Strap." "Exceeds SAE Safety Specifications." "Protection against short stop danger."

Safety Guard B 1212 "Safety Harness Strap." "Protect your child from short stops." ". . .exceeds S.A.E. Safety Specifications."

Toidey SC-3 "Auto Harness." "Keeps little explorers safe." ". . .webbing withstands over 2000 pounds pull."

Our question: Which of these devices are Type 3 restraints; and thus which of them are, according to our static tests, in violation of Standard 209?

We shall appreciate any information you can supply us.

Sincerely yours,

CONSUMERS UNION OF U.S. INC.

Auto Test Division-- Joseph N. Ulman Jr.

Automotive Safety Engineer

cc. Morris Kaplan

David Tallman

ID: nht69-1.18

DATE: 02/11/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Payne, Barlow and Green, Attorneys at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 23, 1969, to William Haddon, Jr., M.D., requesting information on Federal standards for child restraint devices.

I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Scat Belt Assemblies - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses" which includes requirements for a Type 3 seat belt assembly for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds and capable of sitting upright by themselves.

The technical requirements of the present standard No. 209 were previously included in "Standard for Seat Belts for Use in Motor Vehicles (15 CFR Part 9; 31 F.R. 11528)" which was incorporated by reference in the initial Standard No. 209. I am also enclosing copies of these previous documents.

We are in the process of developing a standard for child car seats and I am enclosing a copy of a recently issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making on this subject. It is important to note that this is only a proposed regulation and the requirements may be modified somewhat when the final rule is published. However, this proposed rule indicates those safety features which are considered to be important for a child car seat.

There are no other existing Federal standards on child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

January 23, 1969

William Haddon, Director National Highway Safety Bureau Department of Transportation

Dear Dr. Haddon:

I am seeking information regarding Federal Standards for Child Restraint Devices and will appreciate your furnishing same to me as soon as it is convenient for you.

I am attempting to measure the adequacy of a particular device that apparently contributed to a child's injury that occurred on May 15, 1968. I do not know the date of manufacture of this device but it is important that I obtain an itemization of minimum standards that have applied for several years.

Sincerely,@@53:426

ID: nht69-1.19

DATE: 12/02/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David E. Wells; NHTSA

TO: Attorney General; The Virgin Islands of the United States

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht69-1.2

DATE: 08/22/69

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

TO: S. Hoffman, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This in further response to your letter of July 14 enclosing an engineering drawing of a hub cap "incorporating a decorative device designed to create an impression of spinning at the center of the wheel during operation of the vehicle", and requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211 with respect thereto.

Standard No. 211 specifies the requirement that hub caps, wheel nuts, and wheel discs shall not incorporate winged projections. That in the sole requirement of this Standard. The drawing submitted by you depicta a hub cap which, in our judgment, incorporates a winged projection. The Standard does not regulate vehicle width, and thus your observation that "it would not broaden or extend the front (or top or rear) profile of automobiles . . ." is not a factor to be considered.

I enclose the engineering drawing you furnished us.

ID: nht69-1.20

DATE: 10/25/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht70-2.20

DATE: 08/11/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Bruce Duncan Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 20, 1970, in which you request a ruling as to whether the Honda ATV is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations promulgated as a result of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act).

The descriptive literature furnished with your letter states that, "the machine looks to be street legal," and shows that the vehicle has lighting equipment. Therefore, the Honds ATV, as described, appears to be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Section 102(3) of the Act, and specifically a "motorcycle" as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b). Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

We trust this will clarify the situation for you. We will be pleased to answer any additional questions that you might have.

ID: nht70-2.21

DATE: 08/11/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 23, 1970, in which you asked for the Bureau's interpretation of the phrase, "designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area."

The phrases "designated seating position" and "head impact area" are both defined in the general Definitions section of the standards, 49 CFR 571.3. The remaining substantive phrase, "windshield header," is not defined in the standards. It is intended to refer to the portion of the interior of the vehicle immediately above the top of the windshield, usually but not necessarily a strip of molding separating the glass from the interior roof.

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.