ID: nht72-3.36

DATE: 08/23/72

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: Automotive Trade Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1972, to Miss Nancy Brownell concerning the placement of additional seats in a "van" by a dealer.

Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) prohibits, among other things, the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction in interstate commerce of motor vehicles that do not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the day of the vehicle's manufacture. This prohibition applies until after the sale of the vehicle to a purchaser for a purpose other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

This provision prohibits all persons, including dealers, from altering a new vehicle before its sale to a user in such a way that the vehicle no longer conforms to the standards. A person who performs such alterations would be required to ensure that the vehicle conformed to all applicable standards after the alterations have been made. It appears that merely adding seats to a van without making additional alterations would cause it to fail to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection", (49 CFR 571.208), and possibly other standards as well. The failure of the vehicle to conform could result in the imposition of civil penalties against the person making the alteration or selling the vehicle of up to $ 1,000 for each violation (15 U.S.C. 1398), and other sanctions (15 U.S.C. 1399).

You are right in your opinion that the vehicle may be modified without regard to the standards after its first purchase for a purpose other than sale.

ID: nht72-3.45

DATE: 08/23/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Fairchild Semiconductor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 26, 1972, on the subject of the situations in which S7.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 permits operation of the engine starting system, notwithstanding the ignition interlock requirements of S7.4.1 of the standard.

Your first question is whether the engine may be restarted if the ignition switch is turned off after the driver has left the seat. Our reply is that restart would not be permitted except within a period of three minutes after the switch has been turned off. There is no sequential relationship between the operation of the switch and the driver's leaving the seat, so that the starting system will have to become inoperable if the driver has left the seat and has turned the ignition off, regardless of whether he turned the switch before or after leaving the seat.

Your second question is whether the engine may be restarted if the ignition switch is turned off, then on, and then the driver leaves his seat. Our reply is again that restart would not be permitted. S7.4.3 refers to operation "if the ignition has not been turned off". Once the ignition has been turned off, turning it on again will not revive the restart mode unless the engine is actually started again and then stopped with the ignition "on".

We have forwarded your check for a Federal Register subscription to the Superintendent of Documents. Enclosed you will find a copy of Notice 20, as you requested.

ID: nht71-3.28

DATE: 07/10/71

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

TO: Superex of Ramsey Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1971, in which you state that you are interested in determining whether a particular child seat meets Federal requirements, and whether you may submit a sample fo us for approval.

The NHTSA does not furnish approvals, or statements that a particular product complies with an applicable Federal standard. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 at seg.) it is the responsibility of each manufacturer both to determine that his products comply with any applicable safety standard, and to certify that the product complies in accordance with section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C 1403) and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed).

Manufacturers generally either test their products to the applicable standards in their own facilities, or contract with an independent test laboratory to perform the appropriate tests. It is up to the manufacturer to determine what means are best suited for his particular product. You should note, however, that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a manufacturer to use due care both in manufacturing his products to comply with applicable standards, and ensuring that his certification that they comply is not false or misleading (Section 108). Violators of those requirements may be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions provided for in the Act (Sections 109 and 110).

A copy of the Act, with the sections specified above marked for your convenience, is enclosed. If you have any questions concerning its application to you, please write to us and we will be happy to answer them for you.

Enclosure

ID: nht71-4.1

DATE: 07/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of May 11, 1971, you requested our opinion as to how Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to a seating system in which the seat belt is attached, to an eyebolt anchored on the seat frame and the eyebolt, in turn, is anchored by another length of webbing to the floor. The evident purpose of such a method attachment on suspension-type seats is to eliminate the shocks which would otherwise be transmitted to the occupant and to augment the strength of the seat, which might be unable by itself to withstand the occupant's weight in a crash.

As you correctly indicate in your letter, a system in which the belt is attached only to the floor requires a force under S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) of 20 times the weight of the seat in a forward and rearward direction, while a system with a lap belt anchored to the seat requires in addition, a force of 5000 pounds to be applied simultaneously to the seat belt in accordance with Standard No. 210 (S4.2(c)). It is our opinion that the hybrid seat belt installation shown by Oshkosh will be likely to impose significant loads on the seating system in the event of a crash, and that it should therefore be treated under S4.2(c) as a system with a seat mounted belt. The webbing running from the eyebolt to the floor is considered to be a part of the seat anchorage and should be employed during the test.

If you have further questions, please advise us.

ID: nht71-4.36

DATE: 11/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Renault, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We regret the continuing difficulty of communication concerning paragraph S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208. As we understand the question stated in your letters of September 14 and October 11, 1971, you have asked whether a passenger car that has passive 3-point belts at the front positions and that conforms to S4.1.2.2(b) by use of these belts will also have to have Type 1 belts at those positions and conform to S4.1.2.2(c).

It was our intent in adopting the passive seat belt requirement, S4.5.3 to permit manufacturers to substitute a Type 1 passive assembly or a Type 2 passive assembly with detachable or non-detachable shoulder belt for any assembly under an option that specifies a Type 1 assembly or a Type 2 assembly with detachable shoulder belt. Therefore, even though the assemblies specified under S4.1.2.2 are required to be Type 1 or Type 2 with detachable shoulder belts, a passive assembly used in place of any belt under S4.1.2.2 could have a non-detachable shoulder belt. In the light of questions rained by Renault and others, we are considering an amendment to S4.5.3 to clarify this point.

With specific reference to your question, a 3-point passive assembly may be used to meet the passive protection requirements of S4.1.2.2(b). Such an assembly(Illegible Word) not have a detachable shoulder belt. Since S4.5.3 provides that it may be used in

place of a Type 1 assembly, the passive assembly may be used in its 3-point configuration to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.2(c). The effect of using a 3-point passive assembly to meet subparagraph (c) is to make the test requirements of (b) and (c) identical.

Please advise us if further clarification is necessary.

ID: nht71-5.22

DATE: 12/14/71

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

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to a request made on behalf of Phillips Petroleum Company by Veigh J. Nielson for an assigned identification mark for two of Phillips' plants which manufacture tires for research purposes.

As I informed you in my letter of September 20, 1971, if Phillips purchases a new tire, removes the tread material and then applies its own experimental trend containing various rubber compounds, Phillips is considered to be a new tire manufacturer. If Phillips applies its experimental tread to a used tire, it is considered a retreader of tires.

As a new tire manufacturer you are required to certify the tire as conforming to the new passenger car tire standard (No. 109) and comply with Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR 574). Accordingly, you are assigned the identification mark of "J1" for tires made in your Bartlesville, Oklahoma plant and "K1" for tires manufactured in your Stow, Ohio plant.

If you act as a retreader then Part 574 would not be applicable for the tires you retread because they are retreaded for your own use. (Enclosed is a copy of Docket No. 70-12, Notice No. 8 which makes the regulation inapplicable to retreaders who retread for their own use). As explained in my letter of September 20, you are, of course, required to certify that your new tires and your retreaded tires comply with the respective standards for new and retreaded tires if they are to be used on the public highways, by placing the symbol DOT on the tires in the prescribed location.

ENC.

ID: nht71-5.30

DATE: 12/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Angle Product Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to the telephone inquiries you made on December 14, 1971, concerning the effective date of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206 with respect to trucks.

You stated that you understood that the original January 1, 1972, effective date had been or would be postponed to September 1, 1972. No such postponement has been made or proposed. The standard will go into effect with respect to trucks on the first of this coming year, as originally scheduled.

Your source of information may have confused the effective date of the standard with that of a minor proposed amendment to the standard. That amendment, which was to become effective on January 1, 1972, is now scheduled to become effective September 1, 1972. A copy of that proposed amendment is enclosed for your information.

You also asked about the existence of a mailing list which would enable you to receive our new standards and amendments to our existing standards. The Government Printing Office periodically publishes supplements to a loose-leaf publication entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and Regulations." The most recent supplement, number 5, was published in November of this year. Detailed information concerning this service, including its cost, can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

If you wish to receive our proposed, as well as our final, new standard and amendments, you should consider subscribing to the Federal Register. A year's subscription to this publication, which cost $ 25.00, can be ordered from the Superintendent of Documents.

Please write if we can be of further assistance.

ENC.

ID: nht71-5.35

DATE: 12/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hackney Bros. Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 6, 1971, in which you requested our opinion on the application of Standard No. 207 to swivel type pedestal seats.

Your problem arises from the method specified in S5.1.1 for the application of the force required by S4.2(a) of 20 times the weight of the seat. Although your letter does not state the problem directly, it appears that when a forward force is applied from behind the seat, as shown in the figures accompanying S5.1.1, the seat will tend to swivel. Your solution is to attach a T-shaped structure to the seat and to apply the force to the leg of the T forward of the swivel point.

The initial question raised by your letter is whether a seat that swivels under the application of a force through its back as shown in Figure 1, will be considered to fail to withstand the force and thereby fail the standard.

On the basis of our present information, we cannot say that such a swiveling action would result in a failure of the standard. The engineering staff has expressed uncertainty as to the effects on the occupant if the seat swivels in a side or angular crash, but they are not prepared to say that it would present a hazard. Since the swiveling itself is not a failure, the remaining question is one of test procedure. Our opinion is that the procedure you describe, using a T shaped structure, appears to be an acceptable means of applying the test force to the seat.

ID: nht71-5.5

DATE: 11/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James Eckstein

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 27, 1971, which was forwarded to this office October 20, 1971, by the Federal Trade Commission, regarding Government specifications for retreaded tires. You refer to problems you believe result from "out of roundness;" specifically, abnormal wear and blowouts at normal boulevard and highway speeds. You wish to determine whether this problem results from "too lenient" Government requirements, or whether "manufacturers are negligent."

Out-of-roundness can occur in a retreaded tire for numerous reasons, and its presence does not necessarily indicate negligence on the part of the manufacturer. Moreover, while an out-of-round tire may affect vehicle handling it generally does not blow out at normal boulevard or even highway speeds, as a result of the out-of-round condition. Thus, a blow out in an out-of-round tire could have resulted from other factors. Many tire dealers, in addition, have machines that can eliminate out-of-roundness by cutting off excess tread.

With reference to Federal regulations of retreaded tires, the first such regulation will become effective January 1, 1972. This regulation, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires," specifies size and performance requirements for retreaded tires for use on passenger cars. These requirements are similar to those that have been applicable to new passenger car tires since January 1, 1968. None of these requirements specifically concern "out-of-roundness." We do not have evidence that this characteristic, by itself, is a safety problem.

ID: nht73-3.36

DATE: 03/02/73

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

TO: Semperit of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1973, inquiring whether size designations "225/70SR14 replaces G70SR14", and "215/70SR15 replaces F70SR15" etc., may be used under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 provides for the labeling of "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." The NHTSA has taken the position that this requirement does not prohibit the labeling of replacement sizes when the replaced size is in fact being superseded by the replacement size.

Because your proposed label contains both a metric and an inch size designation, however, it is not clear whether these size designations are intended as "equivalent" or "replacement" sizes. If you intend the former size to supersede the latter, your use of "replaces" between the two size designations is consistent with Standard No. 109. If your intention is to label equivalent size designations, however, the use of "replaces" is inappropriate One way in which equivalency may be appropriately shown is to place the inch size designation in a parenthesis () immediately following the metric size designation.

One last point is that the size designations listed in the Appendix of Standard No. 109 for 70 Series radial ply tires differ from those specified in your letter. Table I-G, which lists this tire type, specifies size designations in which the second letter is an "R". Thus, the size designations which you submit should have read GR70SR14 and FR70SR15. Other size designations of this tire type should be identified accordingly.