ID: nht71-5.1

DATE: 11/17/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. W. Carson for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Ward School Bus Mfg., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of October 28, 1971, to Mr. Stan Haranski, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., concerning switching arrangements for school bus red signal lamps, has been forwarded to this Office for reply.

Paragraph S4.1.4(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that the four red signal lamps be controlled by a manually actuated switch. A two-way switch, whereby all four lamps are activated when the switch is in one position, and the two rear lamps only are activated when the switch is in the opposite position, would not be in violation of this requirement of Standard No. 108.

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: nht71-5.12

DATE: 12/03/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your inquiry concerning the certification required of seat belts installed in motor vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1972, has been brought to our attention. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, which governs the installation of seat belts, requires belts to conform to Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 is amended effective January 1, 1972, your question is whether a vehicle manufactured after that date must have seat belts that are certified as conforming to the new provisions of Standard No. 209.

We construe Standard No. 208 to require only that the belts conform to Standard No. 209 as it was at the time of their manufacture. Thus, a belt manufactured before January 1 that conforms to the contemporaneous (pre-amendment) version of Standard No. 209 may be installed in a vehicle manufactured after that date. A belt manufactured after January 1, must, of course, conform to the amended version of the standard.

ID: nht71-5.13

DATE: 12/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Dana L. Scott; NHTSA

TO: Hess and Eisenhardt Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 12, 1971.

As correctly stated in that letter, there is no current requirement that multi-purpose passenger vehicles must comply with standards 105, 109, 110, 201, 202, 203, 204, 212, 214, 215, and 301. Additionally, the information depicted in the chart you provided is correct as of October 11, 1971. However, your dates for proposed future requirements (columns 3 and 5) may change.

The small vans and similar type vehicles being converted for use as emergency medical vehicles are required to conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard definition for a "multi-purpose passenger vehicle," since they utilize a truck chassis. Contrary to your opinion concerning the safety hazard of the converted emergency vehicles, we have not received any factual data indicating that these converted emergency medical vehicles constitute a safety hazard to the general public, to the sick or injured occupants, or to the attendants who must operate such vehicles.

As stated in our previous correspondence to you and Senator Robert Taft, Jr., at this point in time the Department is not in the position of proposing an expenditure for the construction of a prototype ambulance. Our limited resources are being devoted to those traffic safety programs which result in the greatest savings in lives and in the reduction of injuries.

We are retaining your correspondence for reference. If, in the future, our priorities include the development of standards relating to the design of an emergency medical vehicle, please be assured that your interests will be fully considered.

Your continued interest in our traffic safety programs is appreciated.

ID: nht71-5.14

DATE: 12/06/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Seats, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 4, 1971, in which you asked our opinion as to whether Standard No. 207 permits a suspension type truck seat with fore and aft adjustment to be equipped with seat belt type webbing from the seat to the floor. It is our position that such webbing may be used to provide the strength required by Standard No. 207 and that a seat so equipped must conform to S4.2(c) of the standard (unless, as seems unlikely, the occupant's seat belt is anchored to the floor and not to the seat). Instructions for the adjustment of the seat to floor webbing are essential to the safe operation of such a system, however, and should be provided.

I apologize for any inconvenience that our delayed response may have caused you.

ID: nht71-5.15

DATE: 12/07/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Holmes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1971, to Mr. George Shifflett of my staff, in which you ask questions relating to clearance lamp locations on your wrecker bodies.

I am concerned with your statement that "there is no record of your department's approval on the clearance lamp corner mounting on the 750 and 850 bodies." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not "approve" vehicles or equipment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Conformance, and certification of that fact, are the manufacturer's responsibility under section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. We are glad, however, to provide informal interpretations of the standards when requested to do so by manufacturers such as yourself.

Your first question is, "Does the (low) location of the rear clearance lamp meet the position requirements?". Paragraph S4.3.1.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (effective January 1, 1972), permits a deviation in mounting height: "When the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." Thus, if the identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, Standard No. 108 permits a location of clearance lamps at any height less than the extreme height of the vehicle. This does not change the requirement currently in effect (Table II).

Your second question is, "Does the front clearance lamp location (on the body corner radius) on our 750 and 850 model bodies meet position requirements?". Standard No. 108 currently requires front clearance lamps to be located "as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle." The requirement

effective January 1, 1972, is that these lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . as near the top thereof as practicable." It appears from the photographs you enclosed that the front clearance lamps should be mounted higher on the body front, unless you have a good reason for determining that it is not "practicable" to do so.

I trust this will answer your questions.

ID: nht71-5.16

DATE: 12/08/71

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

TO: Holophane Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 27, 1971, to David H. Soule of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for school bus lighting.

You are concerned with paragraph S4.3.4(b)(ii) which roads:

"The 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."

You have commented that "the use of the automatic system would make it mandatory that the red lights go on when the door is open and stop traffic where unnecessary -- such as railroad crossings." That is not correct. You will see from S4.1.4(b)(ii) that the red lamps are not automatically activated when the bus entrance door opens unless there has been prior manual or foot activation of the amber signal lamps.

You are also concerned with the fact "that this automatic system is patented and only one manufacturer has the right to make it." Since you have not enclosed the copy of the patent enclosed in attorney Smith's letter to you dated June 4, 1970, I am unable to comment on your statement. I would like to point out that Standard No. 108 does

not mandate the use of an amber-red lamp system; a system of red lamps only is also permissible. If the amber-red lamp system is used, paragraph S4.1.4(b)(ii) does not specify system design but only that the system be wired so that the driver can activate the amber lamp system at his option, and if he does activate it, that it automatically be deactivated and the red system automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened.

ID: nht71-5.17

DATE: 12/09/71

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

TO: Import-Export

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 20, 1971, to Mr. Franklyn Bergsman, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning your "Flash Mirrors."

As described in the documents you furnished to us, your "Flash Mirror" does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. If this is indeed the case, the use of your "Flash Mirrors" as original vehicle equipment is not prohibited by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Nor is there a Federal prohibition against sale of your device in the aftermarket; Standard No. 108 covers only specified replacement lighting equipment for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972.

Since your product is not regulated by Standard 108, the sale and use of it is, however, subject to the regulations of the individual States.

ID: nht71-5.18

DATE: 12/09/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 26, 1971, in which you asked our opinion on how to position a 50th percentile 6-year-old child in determine the conformity of a seat belt warning system to S7.3.1(c) of Standard No. 208. Our opinion is that the child should be positioned with his back against the back of the seat and his head upright, in the posture in which he would be held by the seat belt if it were buckled around him as specified in S7.1. This is the position that will be used in our tests for conformity to S7.3.1(c).

The language that you cite from S8.1.11(b) of the standard ("normal upright(Illegible Words) to the positioning of test devices during the dynamic tests specified in S4 and S5, but is not applicable to the belt adjustment and warning system requirements of S7. The position that we intend to use under S7.3.1(c) is therefore not based on any definition of normal upright sitting posture."

ID: nht71-5.19

DATE: 12/10/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1971, enclosing a diagram of a revised "Vehicle Identification Plate," and requesting our approval, based on the Certification regulations. Your submission of this revised diagram is in response to our letter to you dated November 10, 1971, wherein we disapproved of an earlier version of the identification plate due to the manner in which the axle manufacturer's ratings of the axles were presented.

In your revised diagram, you refer to the ratings in question as the axle manufacturers "gross weight ratings." We believe that this language is still subject to being easily confused with the GAWR required on the Certification label, and we cannot conclude that wording the label in this fashion is consistent with the Certification regulations.

In our letter of November 10 we stated, "If you wish to provide information based on the vehicle's axle capability, we prefer that it not be represented as a vehicle or axle weight rating, but that it be described as the axle manufacturers rating of the axles." Thus, in our opinion elimination of the words "gross weight" from your revised label will eliminate the conflict between your vehicle identification plate and the Certification requirements.