ID: nht68-1.43

DATE: 06/21/68

FROM: ROBERT M. O'MAHONEY -- NHTSA; CONCURRENCE BY GEORGE C. NIELD

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Bridwell has asked that I reply to your letter of June 4, 1968.

In your letter you refer to (1) an earlier letter dated November 8, 1967, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the application of the motor vehicle safety standards to recreational vehicles; and (2) a Petition for Reconsideration of the Chassis-cab regulation filed March 19, 1968.

With regard to your letter of November 8, as you know from conversations with members of the staff of the Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service and the Chief Counsel's Office this letter was misplaced. By letter of May 8, you were good enough to send a copy of the letter of November 8, noting that of the eleven questions asked two have not been clarified by some action taken by the Federal Highway Administration. The unanswered questions are quoted and answered below:

Question --- 3. "The inside mirror need not have the field of view prescribed by Paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No. 111 (even to the point of providing no view of the road behind a truck camper if the camper mounted on the truck obstructs the driver's vision) provided an outside mirror is installed on the passenger's side of the truck cab, as required by Paragraph S3.2.2."

Answer -- You are correct in your understanding of Standard No. 111. Subparagraph S3.2.2 of Standard No. 111 specifies that if the inside mirror required by S3.1 does not meet the field of view requirements of S3.1.1, an outside mirror of substantially unit magnification shall be installed on the passenger's side.

Question --- 10. "Everything said above concerning truck campers applies equally to truck caps, which are enclosures (roof, sidewalls and ends but no floor and usually no built in equipment) mounted on a pick-up truck.'

Answer --- Truck caps which you describe are considered to be in the same category as slide-in campers and are items of motor vehicle equipment for use in motor vehicles. As such truck caps must meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, and Motorcycles.

With regard to your Petition for Reconsideration filed March 19, 1968, you note in a letter of May 13, 1968 that three matters raised in the Petition are still unanswered and further action is required. The problems you raise, as you know, are complex. The entire problem of the applicability of the standards to vehicles produced in the multi-stage is still under consideration.

ID: nht71-2.23

DATE: 04/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: American Safety Belt Council, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 25, 1970, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, which was amended on September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14778), and Docket No. 2-15, Notice 5, which was published on the same day. In your letter you state that while S4.4 of Standard No. 213 presumes the continued availability of factory-installed seat belt assemblies, recent proposals on passive restraint systems say result in the reasonsibility for the installation of seat belts passing from the automobile manufacturer to the buyer of children's seats. You are apparently concerned that should this occur, there is insufficient guidance presently available to the customer on having installed in his vehicle a seat belt assembly for use with a child seat. While the Administration does not as a general rule comment on docket submissions, we believe you have raised an important issue, one for which a response is appropriate.

Under the recent amendment to the occupant crash protection standard, which was published March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4600), manufacturers will have the option of using seat belt assemblies to meet restraint requirements until August 1975. At present, we anticipate that most manufacturers will in fact continue to use seat belt assemblies until that time. Consequently, we do not believe modification of Standard No. 213, which you suggest in your letter, is presently necessary. Furthermore, there are other motor vehicle safety standards, which we intend to retain, that would eliminate much of the problem with which you are concerned. Thus, while seat belt assemblies would no longer be required as standard equipment, passenger cars would still be required pursuant to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, to be manufactured with seat belt assembly anchorages that provides a location designed specifically for the attachment of seat belt assemblies and that

can be used by a consumer in the installation of aftermarket seat belts. Moreover, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies," as you know, requires each aftermarket seat belt assembly to contain attachment hardware and instructions for installing the assembly in the vehicle. These requirements together provide consumers with sufficient information and materials for them to have seat belts properly installed for use with a child seating system. If problems do arise in the future that these requirements do not fully deal with, appropriate steps will be taken at that time.

Thank you for your continued interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht72-1.35

DATE: 03/23/72

FROM: HARTMAN FOR DOUGLAS W. TOMS -- NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of February 18, 1972, dealt with three aspects of Standard 215 that continue to be of concern to Chrysler and with one feature of Standard 210 that you regard as inappropriate.

Your first problem with Standard 215 is the requirement for corner impacts at heights below 20 inches. Our response to the objections raised by Chrysler and others when this requirement was made a part of the standard was to grant an additional two years for compliance. We did this in the expectation that the additional time would permit the manufacturers to make the necessary changes within their normal tooling cycle.

The agency considered the corner impact requirement to be justified, and it is not now persuaded to the contrary. We would be willing, however, to review any additional information you can provide on the subject of the costs and the benefits of the improved corners.

Your second concern has also been expressed at several points in the rule-making process. In response to comments advocating the use of resilient materials in the bumper itself, the standard was amended to specify a broader impact ridge, rather than to specify the resiliency of material with which contact would be permitted. The agency has not considered the styling effects of the pendulum requirement to be sufficient to justify amending the standard to permit cosmetic additions of the type you describe. Of course you are free to submit additional information to support the need for such an amendment.

The photometric requirements from Standard 108 that are proposed for incorporation in Standard 215 have been the subject of several comments under Notice 10 in Dockets 1-9 and 1-10. The issue has not been resolved by issuance of a final rule and we will therefore consider your remarks as an addition to Chrysler's comments on Notice 10.

In the area of seat belt anchorages, the question of whether to use dynamic or static test methods was resolved in October 1970 by specifying a static test with a 10-second holding period. It was thought that this was the surest means of testing the basic strength of the metal and that it therefore carried out the original intent of the standard. Although it may be that the resulting anchorages are able to withstand barrier crashes at speeds considerably higher than 30 mph, we do not consider this to be sufficient cause for relaxing the anchorage requirement. If you have information concerning the force levels at which accidents are survivable, and the relation of these levels to anchorage strength, we would be glad to receive this information.

ID: nht71-3.23

DATE: 06/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Coach Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1971, requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation to the mobile home and recreational vehicle industry.

You have asked if there is a specific regulation requiring the motor vehicle dealer to report tire data to the motor vehicle manufacturer when the vehicle is sold equipped with new tires installed by the manufacturer. There is no requirement that the vehicle dealer report tire data to the vehicle manufacturer, however, in the event the vehicle is sold with tires different from those shipped on or in the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle dealer would have to report the name and address of the purchaser along with the tire identification number to the tire manufacturer.

You have asked if the Administrator would apply section 113(f) of the Act to require vehicle dealers to provide tire data to the vehicle manufacturer when the vehicle is sold equipped with tires installed by the vehicle manufacturer. The vehicle manufacturer is required to keep records of tires shipped on or in his vehicles as well as the name and address of the first purchaser. It is doubtful that any additional requirements will be considered unless this system appears to be ineffective.

Regarding your question whether there is a regulation requiring the vehicle manufacturer to report tire data to the tire manufacturer, there is no requirement that vehicle manufacturer report tire information to the tire manufacturer because the responsibility for issuing defect notification to the first purchaser of the vehicle rests with the vehicle manufacturer and not with the tire manufacturer.

You have also asked, in a situation where a vehicle dealer refuses to provide "tire records" to the vehicle manufacturer, would this constitute a "due care" defense for the vehicle manufacturer who would be unable to maintain the records required by the regulation. Because each enforcement action is handled separately, it is impossible to determine in advance whether this would be considered a "due care" defense in the situation you describe, however, it would be taken into consideration before an enforcement action would be initiated. If vehicle dealers refuse to cooperate and provide first purchaser information which section 113(f) of the Act requires vehicle manufacturers to maintain, the Administration would consider issuing a regulation making this mandatory.

If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write.

ID: nht71-3.38

DATE: 07/16/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 29, 1971, in which you ask who would be the manufacturer of a retreaded tire, when the tire is manufactured by a process, known as "cure out". You explain this process as one in which one retread shop will process a casing to the point where it would be placed in a mold for curing. The tire is then sent to a second shop for curing and subsequently returned as a finished product to the first retread shop.

You indicate that one of your members is now involved in a legal case, and the outcome apparently hinges on who is legally responsible for the performance of the tire.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.) and motor vehicle safety standards and regulations issued pursuant to the Act (49 CFR @ 551 et seq.) the manufacturer in the "cure out" process as described above, would be the second retread shop, the one which produces the finished product. It is he who would be required to assume responsibility for the compliance of the tire with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires", and it is also he who would be assigned a code mark pursuant to the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574).

2

However, the person we consider the manufacturer for purposes of the Act and regulations issued pursuant to the Act, may not be responsible for the tire in a civil suit, and our opinion is not intended to speak to the issue of liability in a civil action.

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

June 29, 1971

David Smeltzer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Would you please give me in writing an interpretation of who is the legal manufacturer of a retread produced under the so-called "cure out" process. To refresh your mind a "cure out" is that operation whereby one retread shop will process a casing to the point where it would be placed in a mold for curing. At that stage the partially processed retread is sent to a second retread shop for curing and subsequently returned as a finished product to the first retread shop.

One of our members is now involved in a legal case and apparently the outcome hinges on who is legally responsible for the performance of the retread when it is sold to a consumer.

A timely response from you would be appreciated.

Philip H. Taft Director

ID: nht71-5.51

DATE: 06/04/71

FROM: DAVID SCHMELTZER FOR L. R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

COPYEE: PESKOE; ARMSTRONG; DRIVER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 11, 1971, in which you request an opinion on whether certain tires manufactured by Phillips Petroleum Company are subject to the requirements governing tires that have been issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 et seq.) You state that the tires in question result from Phillips' efforts to develop improved tread rubber, and are manufactured by purchasing new tires, buffing them down, and then retreading the remaining casings with experimental tread rubber compounds, You state further that after the casings have been retreaded, the tread rubber compounds are evaluated by stationary wheel testing, road testing, or both, and indicate that some of the road testing takes place on the public highways.

We agree with your conclusion that these tires are not retreaded pneumatic tires under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, because they are not manufactured from used tires. However, in our view these tires are new pneumatic tires, and accordingly are subject to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) provides that no person shall --

"manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard."

Phillips' use of the public roads for testing these tires is an introduction of them in interstate concerns and is prohibited by section 108(a)(1) if the tires do not conform to Standard No. 109.

One objective of the Act that you did not mention in your letter is the prevention of possibly hazardous motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment from being used on the public highways, where they may endanger not only the driver of the vehicle in question, but other users of the highway as well. The tires need not be manufactured for sale to the general public in order for a violation of section 108(a)(1) to occur.

However, if the testing of these tires is confined to the laboratory or to private roads, the prohibition of the Act will not apply to them.

I trust this answers your question. If you have further questions, please write.

ID: nht72-4.21

DATE: 05/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles H. Hartman; NHTSA

TO: Rose Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of March 23, 1972, and March 27, 1972, concerning our previous letter to you dated March 10, 1972.

We recognize your contribution to safety and your deep personal involvement in child harnesses. Harnesses, such as yours, offer many desirable features. The child is free to move about, and he is adequately restrained if the harness system is properly adjusted and anchored. Effective harness systems can probably be produced at modest cost.

There certainly can be no objection to the upper torso restraint provided by a good harness system. Indeed, this is a very important feature which is required because of the child's special skeletal structure.

On the other hand, restraints which are anchored to inadequate structures or which allow excessive motion of the child in a crash cannot be condoned. Actual thirty mile-per-hour, sixteen g dynamic sled tests of child harnesses anchored as you recommend have shown that a severe problem exists with the anchorage system. Quoting the University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute Report, Child Seat and Restraint Systems Test Program, DOT/MS-000-376, "In the test at 30 mph the adult seat back broke away due to the load imposed by the restraint system tether. This allowed the dummy to move forward far enough to cause potential contact with the vehicle interior." This test was conducted using a heavy duty Bostrom truck bucket seat and utilized only the thrity-pound, three-year-old child dummy, restrained by a Sears small harness. The present typical seat back strengths are, thus, inadequate to support a harness system which depends upon the seat back. It is our intention to encourage improvements in seat back strength for automobile production by future rule making action.

Since your harness is recommended for children up to fifty pounds and since most passenger car seats are not as strong as the test seat, we expect the situation to be even more serious in realistic usage conditions which also normally encounter appreciably higher load levels in thirty mile-per-hour crashes. This is why we object to your system of anchorage. Thus, our position is as stated in our previous letter to you.

We hope that you will consider other methods of anchoring your child harness which will prevent seat back failure and resulting excessive occupant excursions.

We appreciate your sincere interest and concern in this matter. We emphatically do believe that child harnesses play a vital role in child restraints.

ID: nht73-3.47

DATE: 03/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mike Pescoe, Attorney; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Goldberg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1973, forwarding to me a copy of the preface to your forthcoming paper on the development of Standard No. 213, and asking a few questions which we have already discussed over the phone.

With respect to the preface, it is essentially accurate, at least sufficiently so for the purpose for which it is intended.

The questions you've asked are repeated below, followed by our answers.

1. What gives credibility to and what reduces credibility of comments filed with Docket 2-15? Are the comments of some organizations given more credence than others?

Each comment to the docket is assumed to be of equal credibility, that is, we assume each is offered in good faith, and based upon the writer's legitimate beliefs and interests. The agency evaluates each submission on its own merits.

2. Do non-separating 3-point belts present a problem for usage of current child restraint systems?

Our understanding is that child seats can be used with 3-point belts. These belt systems do utilize one member that is essentially similar to the traditional lap belt. We understand the shoulder portions of these belts can be adjusted so as not to prevent installation of the child seat, by either placing that belt section in front of or behind the child seat. We have not received any information from the public that these belts are in fact difficult to use with child seats. If we do we will certainly look into the matter thoroughly.

3. Has NHTSA or will NHTSA be cooperating with JPMA on some kind of market survey?

The NHTSA has forwarded a list of suggested questions, which are also in the docket. We do not expect our contribution to include more than recommending that these questions be asked.

4. To what extent is rulemaking determined by comments and by internal direction?

This certainly depends on the issues involved. For the most part, initial decisions are made by the agency, with modifications resulting from comments received. However, comments may affect some issues more than others. In Standard No. 213, for example, much impetus for a dynamic test has been created by comments.

We've recently amended the standard, based on two outstanding notices (September 30, 1970; April 10, 1971). In case you haven't seen the amendments, I have enclosed a copy.

ENCLS.

ID: nht91-3.31

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: George D. Powley -- Project Engineer, Truck-Lite Co., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS NO. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Interpretation and/or petition for Orientation of electrical contact blades on sealed beam headlamps

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to George D. Powley (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like your advice regarding the orientation of electrical contact blades on sealed beam headlamps. We are contemplating the future production of a 2A1 type sealed beam with a contact blade orientation differing from that shown in SAE Standard J571, fig. 6 "type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit 4 x 6 1/2 in. (100 x 165 mm) rectangular unit" (Attachment A), which establishes a blade orientation that we will describe as being rotated 148 degrees 54' in the clockwise direction from the orientation established for a "type 2B sealed beam headlamp 142 x 200 mm" as shown in fig. 1 of SAE Standard J1132 (Attachment B).

We would like to produce both a large rectangular 2B1 and a small rectangular 2A1 using the same blade orientation. Specifically, we would propose to use the 2B1 orientation on the 2A1 unit. We wish to stress that the electrical function of each terminal in all cases would conform to the appropriate specification, and all the dimensional requirements, other than the "31 degrees 06' " orientation for the 2A1, would be adhered to on both products.

We do not feel that this proposed electrical contact orientation will in any way adversely effect the lamps performance or its ability to interchange with existing lamps in motor vehicles presently in the field.

We have observed that Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., of Japan is apparently presently marketing a 2A1 glass sealed beam unit with a non-standard blade orientation, and it is worthy of note that our proposed orientation differs from theirs only in that our terminal pattern would be rotated 180 degrees from theirs with respect to the top of the lamp.

We thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact the writer at (716) 665-6214 Extension 231.

Attachments

Attachment A

Figure 6 Type 2A Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit 4 x 6 1/2 in (100 x 165 mm) Rectangular Unit (Text and graphics omitted)

Attachment B

SAE Recommended Practice 142 x 200 mm Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit -- SAE J1132

Figure 1 Type 2B Sealed Beam Headlamp 142 x 200 mm (5.6 x 7.9 in) Rectangular Unit

(Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht88-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; ERIKA Z. JONES; EAS-ASE

TO: IRVING GINGOLD, ATTORNEY AT LAW

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Irving Gingold, Esq. 529 Nassau Road Roosevelt, NY 11575

Dear Mr. Gingold,

This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1988, asking whether any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to an airport baggage conveyor. The answer is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.), authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. Conversely, we have no authori ty to regulate vehicles that are not "motor vehicles" or equipment that is not "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (IS U.S.C. 1391(3) I defines a motor vehicle as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primar ily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Under this definition, any vehicle intended and sold solely for off-road use is not considered a motor vehicle under the Safety Act, even if it is operationally capable of highway travel. We have long offered "airport runway vehicles" as an example of ve hicles that are not motor vehicles, because they are sold solely for off-road use. NHTSA has specifically stated that an airport baggage trailer is not a motor vehicle, in a July 11, 1983 letter to D.F. Landers. Since the airport baggage conveyor to whic h you referred in your letter is not a "motor vehicle," none of our safety standards or other regulations would apply to the vehicle. We are not aware of any other Federal agency that has established safety standards applicable to airport baggage conveyo rs.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 27, 1988

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Jimmy Knight v. TWA et al My file #1422

Gentlemen:

I represent a client who was seriously injured while riding an airport baggage conveyor on October 9, 1984. I would appreciate it if you could forward to me any and all information pertaining to the safety standards that were applicable to conveyor type of vehicles as our client was operating.

Your cooperation would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

IRVING GINGOLD

IG:pe