ID: nht71-1.21

DATE: 09/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sierracin Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1971, in which you enclosed a copy of the manufacturer's symbol that would be used to identify windshields manufactured by the Sierracin Corporation, and ask whether the symbol is acceptable as illustrated. You also request our comments on requirements for the label location on the product.

The symbol you have enclosed complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" and, except for the omission of a hyphen between the "DOT" symbol and the manufacturer's code mark, also with the marking requirements proposed in the notice of January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 326), which would amend certain provisions of the standard. We would consider this deviation to be inconsequential.

With reference to location requirements, the present standard does not specify a location for the windshield marking. The proposed amendment, which is still under consideration, would require the mark to be placed in the lower left hand corner of the windshield.

Sincerely,

August 4, 1971 Ref: SD7108-5

Lawrence R. Schneider Acting Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

Enclosed is a copy (SK-2137) of the Sierracin Corporation's manufacturing symbol to be used to identify automotive windshields of our manufacture.

May we please have your comments regarding its acceptance as shown and an expression of the label location requirement on the product.

Very truly yours,

SIERRACIN CORPORATION

William H. Lawson, Jr., Manager, Market Development

Enclosure

ID: nht71-1.50

DATE: 01/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. H. Hartman for D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Morgan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of November 19, 1970, you petitioned for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 - Side Door Strength (35 F.R. 16801, October 30, 1970). After consideration of the issues raised by Morgan's petition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found no sufficient justification for amending the standard and the petition is therefore denied.

Your company's petition states that the standard presents difficulties for cutaway doors, and that the structure of Morgan automobiles supplies a measure of protection through Clared side fenders that extend beneath the doors. The Administration recognizes that there is considerable variety in door and side structure. However, the need to protect occupants of all vehicles from injury in side collisions dictates a uniform measure of such protection, and the Administration has determined that the requirements of Standard No. 214 are reasonable, practicable and appropriate for passenger cars.

The remaining points in your letter of November 19, 1970, are more nearly questions for interpretation than requests for reconsideration. Your second question pertains to the height (or length) of the loading device. The standard states only that the device must not contact any structure above the bottom edge of the door window opening. There is no other restriction on the maximum height of the test device, and it is not clear, without further explanation, why Morgan would be limited to a cylinder only 4 inches high.

Your remaining question deals with the positioning of side windows. Although the standard specifies that side windows shall be in the uppermost position, it does not require that side windows exist and should not be so interpreted.

ID: nht72-1.15

DATE: 08/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider for R.B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 24, 1972, to Mike Peskoe, and your letter of July 25, 1972, to Lawrence Schneider. Your letter of July 24 discusses your dissatisfaction with the present method of amending the Appendices of Standards 109 and 110 and suggests that we meet to discuss with you possible methods of changing this procedure. We will be happy to meet with you to discuss possible other methods of amending the Tables, and if you will contact either Ed Wallace or Mike they will arrange a meeting with you.

In your letter of July 25 you request the legal status of a petition dated July 4, 1972, from E.T.R.T.O., to amend the Tables of Standards 109 and 110 to include a tire size designation and alternative rim sizes which have not been standardized by E.T.R.T.O. The guidelines for amending the Tables, which you cite in your letter, do not require tire size designations and alternative rims to be standardized by the respective associations before inclusion in the Tables. Rather, they require only that the petition indicate whether the tire size designation and rim sizes have been standardized. As a consequence, the size in question (240-15 Radial) and the alternative rim sizes were included in the amendment to the Table published August 2, 1972 (37 F.R. 15430). If you object to the inclusion of this size designation in the Tables, as you have been informed by phone, your objection with supporting statements should be submitted to NHTSA in writing, within 30 days from publication of the amendment to the Tables.

ID: nht72-2.14

DATE: 10/30/72

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

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of September 1, 1972 and September 27, 1972, calling our attention to contradictory provisions of 49 CFR @ 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and 49 CFR @ 393.22, a regulation of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.

We confirm your interpretation that the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations prohibit the inclusion of a clearance lamp in the same shell or housing as a taillamp or identification lamp, while Paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108 allows use of the same shell or housing as long as the clearance lamp is not optically combined with a taillamp or identification lamp. Although identical regulations are preferable from a manufacturer's standpoint, section 103(g) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1381 et seq.) allows the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety to promulgate or maintain "a safety regulation which imposes a higher standard of performance [than the safety standards] subsequent to . . . manufacture." The Bureau views its regulation as establishing a higher standard of performance since, in its opinion, separate housings lessen the likelihood that, at a distance, marking and signaling functions will be confused. If you feel that 49 CFR @ 393.22 should be amended to be identical with Paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108, you should so petition the Bureau.

We also confirm that, if the rear identification lamps are located at the extreme height of the vehicle, Paragraph S4.3.1.5 of Standard No. 108 would allow clearance lamps, whether separate or in the same housing as other lamps, to be located at a height less than "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle."

ID: nht72-2.26

DATE: 01/11/72

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

TO: Westinghouse Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of December 22, 1971 to Lawrence R. Schueider you ask for a clarification of the relationship between 49 CFR Part 566 "Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR @ 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically you ask whether identifying information is required for miniature bulbs.

Standard No. 108 establishes performance requirements for items of motor vehicle lighting equipment, and incorporates by reference certain SAE standards that specify requirements lamps must meet in laboratory tests when assembled. The SAE standard that applies to bulbs: J573d, Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units, is not incorporated by reference, and Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the output of bulbs furnished with a lamp assembly. When a lamp is tested for conformity, the production bulb is removed and a calibrated bulb substituted, in accordance with Paragraph 0 of SAE Standard J575d, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components; the test bulb is to be "representative of Standard bulbs in regular production" and must be "selected for accuracy in accordance with specifications listed in . . . SAE J573." In summary, Standard No. 108 does not specify performance requirements for lamp bulbs, and production bulbs are not used in lamp testing. Therefore, Standard No. 108 does not apply to bulbs and bulb manufactures are not required to certify conformance to Federal standards, or to submit information pursuant to the Manufacturer Identification regulations.

ID: nht72-2.36

DATE: 12/08/72

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

TO: P. F. Middleton, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1972 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration asking "whether when a school bus is being used to transport pupils, the red lights must go on when the entrance door is opened without exception."

If the system is one of red lamps only, its activation according to SAE Standard J887 is not automatic but manual. The situation differs with respect to the combination amber and red lamps system. Paragraph S4.1.4(b)(ii) of Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1972, which you reference, states

"The school bus signal lamp system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened."

This means that the red lamps are only activated if the amber lamps have been activated before the door is opened. Activation of the red lamp system is thus dependent upon the action of the bus operator in prior activation of the amber lamp system. From the standpoint of safety we hope that his activation of the amber lamp system will be "without exception" whenever he is transporting pupils.

Because paragraph S3.1.3.2 of Standard No. 108 as it was in effect from January 1, 1969 to January 1, 1972, which you also reference, could mistakenly be interpreted to require activation of the red lamp system without exception whenever the door was opened, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted the language of S4.1.4 to clarify the ambiguity.

ID: nht72-2.39

DATE: 06/13/72

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

TO: Lox Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1972, concerning problems you are having establishing gross axle weight ratings on vehicles you manufacture. You indicate that the problem occurs because brake drums which you use do not come with manufacturer's ratings, but are merely recommended for use with certain axles. You also ask whether a motor vehicle safety standard will require a 40-foot stopping distance from 20 mph.

Your understanding that brake drum capability does not have to be considered in determining gross axle weight rating is not entirely correct. The gross axle weight rating, which is the load carrying capacity of a single axle system (49 CFR 571.3), is a measure of the safe load-carrying capacity of the entire axle system. Manufacturers should include components in their vehicles that are designed to handle loads up to these ratings. Normally an assembler can rely on the specifications or the advice of a reputable supplier as to the capacity of the supplier's components. We expect manufacturers to exercise due care in ensuring that purchased components are adequate and safe for the vehicles they are used on, in accordance with careful business practices. These do not necessarily have to take the form of formal "ratings."

With reference to your question regarding stopping distance, Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, effective September 1, 1974 (not July 1, 1972) will, among other things, require a vehicle to stop from 20 mph in 33 and 54 feet on surfaces with skid numbers of 75 and 30 respectively.

ID: nht72-2.6

DATE: 11/02/72

FROM: F. ARMSTRONG FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Pine Ridge Nursery

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 11, 1972, regarding the installation of LP gas tanks in a small van to serve as a "recreational vehicle."

There is no Federal regulation regarding installation of LP gas tanks on the exterior of recreational vehicles.

There is a voluntary standard on recreational vehicles issued by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 60 Batterymarch Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. Identified as NFPA Standard No. (Illegible Word). This standard includes requirements for fuel supply systems based on the use of LP gas. You may wish to refer to the standard for safety guidance in installing your system.

I appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

SINCERELY,

PINE RIDGE NURSERY

Oct. 11 1972

National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Dept. of Transportation

Gentlemen:

I am equipping a small van as a "Recreational Vehicle".

I have been told by a commercial builder of these vehicles that a new Federal regulation will become effective Jan. 1, 1973 prohibiting installation of LP gas tanks on the exterior of such vehicles.

If he is correct, I will have to revise my plans.

Can you inform me if such a regulation exists or will be (Illegible Word)? If I can obtain a copy of the text or pertaient paragraph of such rule (if one exists) I shall take steps to comply.

Thank you.

Ray Brown.

ID: nht72-3.19

DATE: 01/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Libbey-Owens-Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: You have requested that Libbey-Owens-Ford Company be exempted from the requirements of Part 566. Your request is denied for the reasons set forth below.

You state that Libbey-Owens-Ford is a manufacturer of automotive safety glass which has been assigned a DOT number under the "certification alternative" of Standard No. 203. You draw an analogy to the exemption of tire manufacturers from the manufacturer identification regulation, based on your (Illegible Word) under other NHTSA regulations to submit (Illegible Words) meets the requirements of Part 566.

However, the analogy is incorrect in that manufacturers of glassing materials are not specifically required by Standard 205 to submit the data required by Part 566. If manufacturers meet the certification requirements of $ 114 of the Act, no admittal of information is required. If they do choose the certification alternative, as Libbey-Owens-Ford has done, it is still not clear that the requirements of Part 566 will be met.

By contract, under Part 574 submittal of information is (Illegible Word) for all covered tire manufacturers. Moreover, that regulation in its "Identification mark" occasion requires submittal of specific information which has been found to meet the requirements of Part 566.

The purpose of Part 566 is to establish a centrally organized system to collect information regarding the manufacturer's corporate status, mailing address, and items manufactured. Such a system has been found necessary for efficient enforcement of the Act as well as distribution of information to manufacturers. These purposes cannot be accomplished if individual manufacturers in particular industries are greater exemption from coverage.

ID: nht72-3.21

DATE: 07/24/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Argo Plastic Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 27, 1972, requesting Federal "approval" for plastic glazing material you manufacture. You enclose copies of certificates showing approval by the State of California.

The NHTSA does not provide approvals for glazing materials subject to its requirements. Those requirements are found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," and apply to glazing materials for use in motor vehicles manufactured for sale to the United States. (This includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, and American (Illegible Word), and not 37 States as you mentioned.)

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (18 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) manufacturers must use due care to ensure that products they manufacture conform to applicable standards (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)). The manufacturer must certify conformity as specified in section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), and in the case of Standard No. 205, as specified in the standard. The NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or their certification, but monitors compliance with the standards by purchasing materials on the open market, and testing them to the requirements of the standard. The failure of materials to conform can result in the imposition of civil penalties against the manufacturer, and other sanctions (15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).

A copy of Standard No. 205 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act are enclosed for your information.

Enclosures