ID: nht72-1.25

DATE: 05/26/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Livingston's Tire Shop

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1972, requesting a letter from NHTSA to the effect that tire manufacturers are free to sell you new repairable tires which you plan to repair and sell. We have assumed that the manufacturers of the tires do not believe that they conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. "New Pneumatic Tires," and that they have not certified conformance to the standard, as this is apparently the reason for their reluctance to sell you these tires.

Paragraph S6. of Standard No. 109 provides, among other things, that passenger car tires that are not certified, defined as "reclassified tires," must bear a label (specified in the standard) stating that they are not to be sold for use on passenger cars.

If you wish to purchase reclassified tires, repair them, and resell them for passenger car use, you must ensure that they conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 109 (paragraphs S1. through S5.), and relabel and certify them in accordance with paragraph S4.3.

You should be aware that the NHTSA has proposed, in a notice dated November 27, 1971 (36 F.R. 22688, copy enclosed) to prohibit the sale for any purpose of reclassified tires.

ID: nht72-1.3

DATE: 10/03/72

FROM: C. A. BAKER FOR E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA

TO: G. D. Stapley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1972, proposing "that legal standards for the performance of windshield defrosting systems be established and applied to vehicles manufactured in or imported into USA."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened Docket No. 1-3 to receive comments on extension of coverage of the passenger car defrosting and defogging system standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Ice or slush buildup on the windshield, as well as the overall performance of the defroster system, are among the problems and concerns currently being investigated by the NHTSA. We plan to combine all the problems associated with vision and precipitation into an Adverse Weather Visibility standard such as you suggest in your letter. This would also include wiping and washing requirements. At the present time research has been initiated to obtain data so that we can propose definite performance requirements for all types of weather conditions. Under our Program Plan such a standard would become effective September 1, 1976.

Your suggestion and the mention of the specific problems are appreciated and will be considered as we proceed in our rulemaking. Thank you for writing and if we can be of further service, please let us know.

ID: nht72-2.13

DATE: 11/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 1972, to Mr. Schneider asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed photographs of boat trailers marked to show your understanding of the language "as far forward as practicable" and ask for our views.

Table II and Table IV of Standard No. 108 require that front side reflex reflectors and lamps on trailers, including boat trailers, be located as far to the front as practicable, Recognizing that a literal interpretation of the standard would require that these devices be installed on the trailer tongue and that in many instances it would be impracticable to do so, the NHTSA added paragraph S4.3.1.3 to allow a location as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue." The intent of the regulation is that the device be mounted as far to the front of the vehicle as the manufacturer determines is practicable, and a definition of "trailer tongue" is immaterial for this purpose. If the angled portion of the frame is deemed "practicable", and the device is located there, it must be mounted, as you suggested, in a position such that it meets the photometric requirements at the specified angles with respect to the vehicle.

ID: nht72-3.33

DATE: 03/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1972, to the Administrator, in which you requested "clarification" of two requirements of Standard 207 that impose forces on rearward facing seats.

We do not believe that the requirements are unclear. S4.2(b) requires a rearward facing seat to withstand a force of 20 times its weight applied in a rearward direction, while S4.3.2.2 requires the restraining device not to release or fail under an acceleration of 20 g's in the direction opposite to that in which the seat folds.

You suggest that these forces and accelerations are equivalent to those in a 30 mph barrier impact, and point out that none of the existing standards provides for a 30 mph rear impact. The intent of the cited sections is to require rear facing seats to withstand the force of rear and collisions, which occur frequently and are often of considerable severity. We have some doubt that the 20 g acceleration is equivalent to a 30 mph rear barrier impact; frontal 30 mph impacts typically produce accelerations of 30 to 40 g's. Whether it is not is irrelevant, however, to the validity of the standard. The standard is clear in its own terms, and in our judgement its requirements are appropriate and feasible.

ID: nht72-3.34

DATE: 05/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of American, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 10, 1972, on the subject of the label required by Standard 207 to be affixed to a seat that is not intended for use while the vehicle is in motion.

Although S4.4 of Standard 207 does not require the warning to be verbal, it is our impression that the concept is difficult to convey by nonverbal symbols. A quick review of personnel in the NHTSA revealed that most of them were familiar enough with the international sign system to know that something was being forbidden, but were unsure as to what the forbidden act was. Of the two symbols, the one showing the vehicle in motion appeared to be more understandable, but not by much.

It is our conclusion that neither of the symbols is adequate to give the warning intended by S4.4. This is not to say that the symbols would not be adequate in other countries whose citizens are more familiar with symbolic labeling. I might add that the label need not contain the exact words of the standard. It would be acceptable, for example, to say "Do not ride in this seat," if you find that shortening the phrase would make the label less cumbersome.

ID: nht71-3.37

DATE: 07/16/71

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

TO: Minnesota Automotive, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 29 asking whether the installation of MICO brake locks, as a supplemental parking brake system, is acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

We understand that the MICO brake lock is used only in hydraulic brake systems of trucks. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard currently in effect covering truck hydraulic brake systems, and installation of MICO brake locks by a dealer, prior to first sale of a vehicle, is permissible as long as the lock does not impair conformance of brake hoses and brake hose assemblies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. That the installation might impair conformance is inferred in the Chevrolet Dealer letter, DD-1412, May 19, 1971, which you enclosed.

A proposal has been issued (Docket No. 70-27) that would require trucks equipped with hydraulic brake systems to meet certain performance requirements, effective with trucks manufactured on or after October 1, 1972. If this proposal is adopted as a Federal standard, installation of the MICO supplemental brake system on a truck, by a dealer, prior to first sale of a vehicle would be allowable as long as the installation does not affect conformance of the required mechanical parking brake system with Federal requirements, or with Standard No. 106.

ID: nht71-4.41

DATE: 11/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1971, in which you asked whether the second and third options of Standard 208 require anthropomorphic test devices to be placed for the frontal crash tests only in the front designated seating positions, and not in the rear positions.

The answer is yes. The second and third options pose no requirements for testing that require dummies in the rear positions, hence dummies should be placed only in front positions. In the period from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1973, they should in fact be placed only in the front outboard positions.

You also suggested that "if Option 1 is used, a test device must be at each designated seating position." This statement is true, in a strict sense. But the general requirements for the periods before August 15, 1975 (S4.1.1 and S4.1.2) explicitly allow the "mixing" of options, so that if belts are provided for the rear seating positions they may be considered as fulfilling option two or three, without dummies positioned there for the crash tests. In other words, dummies must be positioned in the rear seating positions only if and when the manufacturer elects to fulfill option one for the rear positions.

ID: nht71-5.11

DATE: 12/02/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lotus Cars Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971, in which you asked whether Standard No. 208 would require seat belt retractors to be installed after January 1, 1972, for the rear occasional seats of the Lotus Plan Plus Two. Our answer is that retractors will be required if the rear seats are "designated seating positions" as defined in our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3(b). The definition provides, among other things, that to be a designated seating position a seat must accomodate a 5th percentile adult female. To define an occupant of this size, the regulations incorporate a U.S. Public Health Service publication that includes the following specifications: weight, 104 pounds; standing height, 59 inches; sitting height, 30.9 inches; knee height, 17.9 inches; buttock-knee length, 20.4 inches. If the Plan Plus Two cannot accomodate a person of this size in the rear seat, it need not have a seat belt retractor for that seat. If such a person can be accomodated, then retractors will be required unless the seat is otherwise exempt by the definition as an auxiliary seating accomodation such as [a temporary or folding jump seat." We do not have the information necessary to judge whether the seat is exempt as an auxiliary seating accomodation.

Please advise us if further explanation is necessary.

ID: nht71-5.29

DATE: 12/22/71

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

TO: Holophane Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 13, 1971, in which you made further comments on the requirements of Standard No. 108 with respect to school bus lighting. You expressed concern over the fact that a company holds a patent relating to the wiring for eight-lamp systems that are permitted (though not required) under Standard No. 108.

Although the existence of patents is one factor that may be taken into account in setting motor vehicle safety standards, it is not the primary one. This agency is charged by Congress with the responsibility of setting standards that represent the best possible resolution of the problems of safety, cost, and technological feasibility. If two alternative regulatory courses of action are found to be substantially equal in other respects, the agency might prefer the one in which the largest number of companies were free to compete at will. But the granting of patents is a long-established policy of our government, administered by the U.S. Patent Office under the direction of Federal statutes and the Constitution. We do not, therefore, agree with your suggestion that it is "against public interest" to issue regulations that have the incidental effect of favoring or requiring the use of patented products.

ID: nht71-5.53

DATE: 06/10/71

FROM: CLUE D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY ZEMAITIS

TO: Physicians for Automotive Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 24, 1971, informing us of Mr. Hurley's Safe-Trip-Seat and inquiring about enforcement of Standard No. 209 concerning a non-complying Hankscraft child harness.

Mr. Hurley sent us a letter on April 10, 1971, informing us of his device. Our letter to him was sent out on May 10, 1971, so he had not received it when he wrote to you. I believe we have adequately informed him of his lack of compliance with Standard No. 213 and the penalties involved if he does not. A copy of our letter to him is enclosed for your information. Our compliance personnel were also alerted on the Safe-Trip-Seat.

Hankscraft was notified in a letter dated March 23, 1971, of our position on any child harness (copy enclosed). Please note that we will enforce Standard No. 209 on harnesses advertised in any way to provide any measure of protection in a vehicle accident. We will not enforce the requirements of Standard No. 209 on harnesses which "carefully state that they are not intended to protect a child from the effects of an accident."

A copy of this letter is being forwarded to our compliance personnel for appropriate action by them.

ENC