ID: nht72-6.45

DATE: 06/06/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: International Houseing Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge your letter of May 19, 1972, regarding tire identification and recordkeeping.

Regulation Part 574 requires a vehicle manufacturer to maintain a record of tires on each vehicle shipped to a dealer and requires that he maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser of the vehicle for a period of three years. The purpose, of course, is to enable him to locate tires in the event of a recall. The name and address of the purchaser is provided by the dealer. The manufacturer is not required by the regulation to record each identification number for each tire, but may do so by group or category. There is a strong possibility that all tires on one vehicle will be of the same brand and will have the same identification number. The manner in which a manufacturer chooses to maintain the tire records is optional and the dealer would be expected to cooperate in his system of recording data. It is primarily a matter of agreement between manufacturer and dealer.

In the event the original tires on a vehicle are changed by the dealer prior to sale, he must report the new tire identification numbers and the purchaser's name and address to the manufacturer of the tires sold with the vehicle.

We note that your letter refers to registration of serial number rather than identification number. It is the letter that is subject to the regulation.

We trust this information answers your questions.

ID: nht72-6.46

DATE: 06/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Super Mold Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your phone call of June 6, 1972. Under Part 574, the tire identification number may be placed on the side of the top cap area or may be branded into the tire in accordance with the regulation. If the top cap area is used, the number should be as close to the sidewall as is feasible so that the number will remain legible as long as possible. Seetthe enclosed amendment on this subject (Docket No. 70-12; Notice No. 9).

ID: nht72-6.47

DATE: 10/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Gislaved

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 21, 1972, in which you inquire about the use of the third grouping of characters in the tire identification number required by Regulation Part 574.

You are correct in your understanding that there has been no recent change in the regulation regarding the optional use of the third grouping for tire type (Illegible Word) purposes. The third grouping may be used by the manufacturer if he so desires to identify significant characteristics of the tire and he may use up to four symbols in the group. However, if the tire is manufactured for a brand name owner, the third grouping must be used to identify the brand name owner. The tire type code is not compulsory except to identify a brand name owner.

Apparently the organization that uses the enclosure accompanying your letter is making (Illegible Words) within its own operations of using a 10 character identification number even though the regulation does not make it mandatory. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to this practice.

We appreciate your concern for compliance with the regulation. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht73-3.25

DATE: 02/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1973, concerning the sequence of manual switch operation under S7.4.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. Your question is whether S7.4.4 requires the manual switch and ignition switch to be operated in a specific order.

S7.4.4 does not require any specific sequence. After the ignition has been turned off, it can be made operable either by turning the ignition switch on, then operating the manual switch, or by operating the manual switch and then turning the ignition on.

ID: nht73-3.26

DATE: 02/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1972, concerning the absence from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 of requirements for seat belts after the passive restraint requirements become effective.

Our aim in the last three years has been to improve the protective capabilities of the autombile so that it will automatically protect its occupants from serious injury and death. We do not intend in the least to disparage seat belts -- to the contrary, we are making every effort to encourage their use. However, as passive restraints are installed, the marginal benefits to be gained from belts do not appear to be great enough to justify keeping them as required equipment.

The impacts that particularly concern you -- those occurring between 90 degrees and 270 degrees -- are partially covered by the lateral impact test of Standard 208. Impacts in which the force is more nearly rearward are the subject of continuing investigation by our Research Institute, with a view toward possible improvements in the rear-end structure. If standards are proposed concerning rear impact protection, they will probably focus on improved seat structure or on rear-end modifications rather than on seat belts.

We think the course we are following will result in significantly increased protection for the motoring public.

ID: nht73-3.27

DATE: 02/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of October 23, 1972 and January 25, 1973, concerning the intent of the antilock performance requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. I apologize for our delay.

Your question arises from an amendment to S5.3.1 of the standard. As originally adopted in February 1971, the section required that the vehicle be capable of stopping without wheel lockup except for "momentary" lockup allowed by an antilock system. As amended in February 1972, the word "controlled" is used in place of "momentary", so that the section now provides that stops are made

without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 m.p.h. except for controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system . . . .

In making this change, the agency had in mind the type of antilock system that was designed to permit one wheel on an axle to lock under some circumstances while the other wheels continued to turn. It was thought that adequate control could be attained by such systems, and the standard was amended accordingly.

The question you raise is whether a system could be designed in which all wheels could be permitted to lock for substantial periods, so long as they are "controlled" by an antilock system. As you correctly indicate, the term "controlled", unlike "momentary", is not a time-related word. Our answer, therefore, is that such an antilock system would be permitted under the standard as it now stands.

It is our present opinion, however, that such a system would probably not provide an acceptable level of performance. If it appears that such a system would be installed, it is likely that we would undertake rulemaking action to prohibit it.

ID: nht73-3.28

DATE: 02/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Charles J. Simerlein

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 29, 1972, concerning the method in which a load is to be "secured in the luggage area" under the test procedures of Standard 208. I apologize for our delay.

The intent of S8.1.1(a) is to place the load in the luggage area in such a way that it stays there during the test. The standard does not specify the manner in which the load is secured. A manufacturer may secure it in any reasonable manner.

ID: nht73-3.29

DATE: 02/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 28, 1972, concerning the application of Standard 124, "Accelerator Control Systems", to a particular Nissan design.

Prior to our receipt of your letter, Nissan representatives met with representatives from our Office of Operating Systems. At this meeting, Nissan representatives explained their questions and left a carburetor with NHTSA staff engineers as an aid to understanding the matters in question. Your company's concern is with the failure of a spring, designated as spring C, which in the event of severance or disconnection, would allow the secondary throttle plate to stay open slightly and thereby increase normal idle speed by approximately 300 rpm. Since spring C only returns the secondary throttle plate to idle position, spring C could not be considered as a return energy source under S5.1 of the standard, and, the failure of Spring C would not fall under the same requirements as a failure of either A or B. Further, spring C is not a part of the "driver-operated accelerator control system" but is part of the "fuel metering device", and as such, severance or disconnection of spring C would not fall within the purview of S5.2.

You also presented a drawing of an accelerator control system and asked which point of severance or disconnection along the system is appropriate when conducting tests for the standard. Since the standard requires that the return to idle time must be met when "any one component of the accelerator control system disconnected or severed", you ask if this would apply to bolts holding together mounting brackets, or just those components which move in relation to foot-pedal actuation. The components intended to be tested under severance or disconnection in the standard are those which are strictly defined in S4.1. "Driver-operated accelerator control system". Accordingly, those components which move in accomplishing the regulation of engine speed would be tested, while fixed parts such as brackets and bolts depicted by the drawing you submitted would not be tested.

The carburetor your representatives left with us is being returned to Nissan under separate cover. Your letter and the attached photographs of the carburetor with labeled springs will be placed in Docket 69-20.

ID: nht73-3.3

DATE: 11/27/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1973, concerning the installation of seat belts and seat belt anchorages for passenger seats in school buses. The belts would be used to assist handicapped passengers in remaining seated while the bus is in motion.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, which regulates the strength of seat belt anchorages, applies only to the driver's seat in a bus. The passengers' seats are not covered by the standard. As a result, an anchorage provided at a passenger seat in a bus does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 210.

If you plan to acquire conventional automotive seat belts for use in the buses, you will find that all belts must be certified to Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, by the belt manufacturer. Because of this the belt should not be a problem for you.

We would encourage you to construct the belt anchorages so that they have the capacity to protect the passengers in sudden stops or crashes, as well as to keep them in the seat during normal service. However, the anchorage standard does not have to be met for these seats and will not be an impediment to fulfilling your customers' orders for anchorage-equipped seats.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

October 23, 1973

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel NHTSA

Recent advertisements tell us that court decisions have held that it is a right of every child, regardless of physical or mental handicaps, to have a publicly financed education. In addition to this, there seems to be increased awareness of the special needs of handicapped children.

For these reasons, the usage of, and demand for special vehicles to transport handicapped children to and from school has increased in the past few years. With this increased usage, the problem of "passenger containment" during transportation has become more acute. Typical vehicles are used to transport both wheechair-confined passengers and other passengers who are ambulatory when aided, but yet have reduced muscular control. The problem we wish to address deals with the containment of these latter passengers in regular school-bus type seats during normal vehicle operation.

We have received several requests to install seatbelts in these special vehicles - not to mitigate the results of any accident - but rather to contain passengers during normal vehicle operation. Heretofore, we have declined such requests because our interpretation of FMVSS 209, S2 and S3 indicates that any such belts would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS 209 and FMVSS 210 even though seat belts are not now required for bus passenger seats.

We have not attempted to build seats with belts that meet these regulations because:

2

1. Anchoring (3) belts to the seat frame would require the frame to withstand a 15,000 lb. load as specified by FMVSS 210, S5.1. Current seats cannot withstand this loading and the market does not warrant the cost of a totally redesigned and re-tooled seat for handicapped passengers.

2. Anchoring belts to the floor would inhibit wheelchair movement within the vehicle, would present unacceptable tripping hazards to already handicapped children and is not acceptable to the purchasers and users of these special vehicles.

However, demand for occupant containment devices has increased to the point where some states are requiring them in their specifications. For example, the latest specification from Pennsylvania reads:

"Seat frames shall be equipped with rings or other devices to support pupils. This is not a seat belt or harness intended to mitigate the result to traffic accidents."

Therefore, we would like to propose that seatbelts which do not meet the full anchorage strength requirement of FMVSS 210 be allowed in special vehicles to transport handicapped children. Clearly these devices would add to passenger protection in all modes of operation.

Because of the urgency of this matter, we would appreciate an early response. Thank you.

W. G. Milby Project Engineer

cc: Dave Phelps Jim Moorman John Maddox

ID: nht73-3.30

DATE: 02/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Canadian Pittsburgh Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 22, 1972, which was forwarded to us by the Department of Transport of Canada, requesting assignment of a manufacturer's code number for glazing materials you manufacturer.

In your letter you indicate that the glazing in question is purchased in stock sheets, and then out to the customer's requirements. The assignment of Code number is limited to what NHTSA has called "prime glazing material manufacturers" and this group includes only those who "fabricate, lauinate, or tamper the glazing material." As your function appears to be only that of cutting the material to size, we would not consider you, at least with respect to this material, to be a prime glazing material manufacturer. Consequently, a code number assignment would be improper. The labeling requirements which you would be subject to, if this glazing as cut by you is to be imported into the United States, are those requirements specified in S6.4 and S6.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, copy enclosed.