ID: nht68-2.33

DATE: 12/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Consumers Union

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your several letters and the one from Mr. Posin in which an interest was expressed in learning about action planned by the National Highway Safety Bureau on a number of items which you have brought to our attention.

Your letters included a request for information that four named imported passenger cars comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 203 and 204, and your letter of September 13, 1963, and invited comment on several cases of alleged violation of the Standards that had been published in Consumer Reports.

I am unable to comply with your request for information by model about conformance with specific standards. To do so might cause damage to the National Highway Safety Bureau's enforcement program. As Consumer Reports has noted on many occasione, the Burcau lacks the funds and facilition to test every model of every make of motor vehicle sold in the United States to determine whether all such vehicles comply with applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This deficiency has hampered both the speed and extensiveness of the compliance program.

Consequently, we have been compelled, in our present enforcement program, to subject some makes and models to compliance testing and to omit others from the tests. Furthermore, the Bureau's resources do not permit it to test each vehicles selected for compliance testing to determine whether it complies with every Standard. The viability of this program of "spot checking" depends on secrecy as to which makes and models have been selected for testing and the exact tests each will undergo. The intentive for all manufacturers to comply with every Standard might be compromised if the manufacturers knew which vehicles(Illegible Line) must(illegible line).

Therefore, we cannot comply with your request for disclosure of the results of the Bureau's tests of four imported cars for compliance with Standards 203 and 204. When our present testing cycle is completed, we may be able to release the information you seek, if you care to renew your request at that time.

There are several specific points in your September 13 letter on which I am able to comment. My views on each of those points are as follows:

1. According to our information, the Dodge Polara mentioned in your letter was manufactured prior to January 1, 1968, the effective date of Standard No. 107. If you have information to the contrary, please supply it to us.

2. We are now studying the problem raised by the fact that, on some models of passenger care, the rear seat belts do not cross the "H" point at an angle(Illegible Word) near 45 degrees from the horizontal. Inquiries to one manufacturer and a limited amount of testing have indicated that the belt does make an angle close to 45 degrees when it is tested dynamically. From a safety viewpoint, of course, the important thing is that the proper angle exists during dynamic performance. For this reason, we are planning additional research with a view towards modification of Standard No. 210.

3. There of your comments deal with seat belts which are allegedly too long for snug adjustment. Standard No. 209 requires seat bolt assemblies to comply with the standards for seat belts promulgated by the National Bureau of Standards (31 F.R. 11528). Section 9.3(g) of the MBS standards requires each Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly to be "capable of snug adjustment by the occupant..." It does not specify the anthropometric dimensions of the hypothetical occupant. The seat belt assembly in common use today cannot be manufactured so that it can be snugly adjusted to fit the entire range of human body types, from the small thin child to the large obese adult. We are, therefore, planning further research to enable us to specify(Illegible Word) adjustment range which will be practicable and at the same time will cover as many body sizes and types as possible. I will appreciate it if you will assist us by sending the Bureau(Illegible Words) the individuals on whom you tested the belts referred to in your letter.

4. Our investigation of both the Peugeot outside mirror and the outside mirror mount on the Datsun has indicated that both comply with Standard No. 111. If you have any data which show that the contrary is true, please send them to us so that, if warranted, we can reopen our investigatory file on each of these mirrors.

5. Since the Peugeot headlamp control is not mounted on the instrument panel, Standard No. 111 does not require that it be identified to permit recognition.

6. As you probably know, Toyota has initialed a defect motification campaign in reference to the throttle following publication of this item in the September 1968 issue of Consumer Reports.

7. Your letter also asks me to comment on a report that a dealer has refused to alter an original-equipment seat belt on the ground that to do so would subject him to a $1,000 fine. Although the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not provide for fines, it does permit the imposition of civil penaltics of up to $1,000 for viclation on certain of its provisions. There are cases in which a dealer might be subject to civil penalty if he altered a motor vehicle or item of equipment so that it did not conform to applicable Standards. Whether, and in what circumstances, a dealer would run the risk of having a civil penalty imposed on him is a complex legal question. I cannot answer this question on the basis of the information you have supplied.

The remaining matters mentioned in your September 13 letter are currently under investigation by the Bureau. Consequently, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them at this time.

The information which you supply to us and which you print in Consumer Reports is particularly valuable in that it suggests areas where we should consider concentrating our limited resources. Wherever there is an indication of a defect or violation of standards which is brought to our attention, such as the items you mention, we attempt to accomodate our testing and review planning to include consideration of these items.

I think it might be valuable for us if you would be able to find the time to visit here with some of our staff and talk with Mr. H. M. Jacklin and his staff in the Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service. I think it would be very valuable for them and perhaps out of this could come some ideas for areas in which information available to you and available to us can be made mutually beneficial.

Thank you for your efforts to date. My apologies for the long delay in responding.

ID: nht68-2.34

DATE: 10/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Citroen Cars Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By your letter of October 8, 1968 you ask if the glazing material in the rear window of passenger cars can be 4 millimeters thick and be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 205; Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks, and Buses.

Standard No. 205 requires that glazing materials conform to the ASA Standard Z26.1-1966. The ASA standard Z26.1-1966 does not set forth how thick glazing material must be but requires the glass used to meet certain tests, depending on the type of vehicle the glass is being used in and the location of the glass in that vehicle.

ID: nht68-2.35

DATE: 06/04/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; william H. Risteen; NHTSA

TO: Clauson Manufacturing Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of May 20, 1968, to Mr. Bridwell, concerning pickup covers, has been referred to me for reply.

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

ID: nht68-2.36

DATE: 10/11/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Tejas Campers

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1968, concerning glazing and lighting requirements in campers.

The amendment to Standard No. 205 to which you refer, Docket No. 23, is enclosed along with a copy of FHWA Ruling 68-1. The amendment does not allow AS2 tempered glass to be placed in forward facing windows of campers. Forward facing windows of campers must be AS1, AS2 laminated that meets the requirements of test no. 26 of ASA Standard Z26.1 - 1966, or AS3 laminated that meets the requirements of test no. 26 of ASA Standard Z26.1 - 1966. Rigid plastics may be used in other windows.

With respect to your question on vehicle lighting requirements, enclosed is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969. You will note from the standard that clearance lamps are not required on vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width. The specified requirements for side marker lamps and side reflex reflectors on vehicles of less than 80 inches in overall width are contained in paragraphs S3.1.1.6 and S3.1.1.8 and Tables III and IV of Standard No 108.

I have had your name added to our mailing list for all rulemakings related to multipurpose passenger vehicles and trailers and I have also enclosed information on subscribing to the Federal Register should you so desire.

ID: nht68-2.37

DATE: 05/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: E.B. Buske Manufacturing Company, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 19, 1968, to Dr. William Hadden, Jr., requesting comments on the proposed installation of lighting equipment and the certification label for tow trucks which are manufactured by your company.

With exceptions as listed below, the lighting equipment shows on the photograph enclosed with your letter appears to meet the location requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102.

1. The front clearance lamps do not appear to be located "as near as practicable to the upper left and right exercise edges of the vehicle." Clearance lamps located further outboard on the cab would meet the requirements of the standard.

2. Standard No. 108 requires that rear indentification lamps be located "on the rear" of the vehicle. Location of these lamps beneath the truck body (for protection) would meet the requirements of the standard.

3. No red reflex reflectors are shown on the rear of the truck. The red reflector tape may be used in addition to the red reflex reflectors, but not as a substitute for the reflex reflectors.

4. No red rear side marker lamps are shown on the truck.

The photograph you enclosed of your trust has been marked to indicate possible corrections for the above discrepancies. Also enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108.

The information you have provided in regard to certification does not fully meet the requirements of Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1965. For your further information, we are enclosing copies of the certification requirement and labeling requirements for chassis-cabs under the notice of ruling regarding chassis-cabs.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. The above comments are therefore for your information only, and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht68-2.38

DATE: 10/03/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of September 3, 1968, to Mr. Sason of the National Highway Safety Bureau, discussing the Chrysler Corporation's Super Lite, has been referred to this office.

The State of Vermont has contacted us in regard to this question. We understand that in Vermont, and in other States, Chrysler has taken legal action to prevent state prohibition or regulation of the Super Lite on the basis of Federal preemption under @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and Standard 108.

I enclose a copy of a letter, dated September 17, 1968, from Director Hadden to the Chrysler Corporation, in which he says:

"It should be noted, however, that, while the incorporation of this lamp in your 1969 automobiles would not be precluded by the Federal Standard, the various States may interpose restrictions as to the lamp."

In this office stated to the State of Vermont's Department of Motor Vehicles in response to an inquiry on the question: It is the opinion of the FH A that Federal lighting Standard No. 108 does not deal with the aspect of performance that relates to the Super Lite, and therefore there is no preemption of State regulations dealing with it.

We will be glad to give you whatever interpretive assistance you wish in this and other matters relating to the traffic safety laws, within the limits of our resources. We would also like to hear from you that legal developments are taking place in your state in this area.

ID: nht68-2.39

DATE: 09/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: White Trucks, Division of White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 22, 1963, to Mr. David A. Fay, concerning a clarification of the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As a truck-tracter manufacturer, your responsibility with respect to the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 may be set by installing on your truck-tractors the switches, wiring and trailer electrical connectors that will, when properly mated with the wiring and electrical plugs on the trailern that are designed to be used with your particular electrical circuitry, cause the trailer tail lamps and the truck-tractor tail lamps to be illuminated when the truck-tractor headlamps are illuminated. If your truck-tractors are subsequently used to tow trailers that are not equipped with properly mated electrical plugs, connectors or circuitry, then you are not burdened with the responsibility of providing, for the resulting tractor-trailer combination, electrical circuitry that will cause the trailer tail lamps to be illuminated then the tractor headlamps are illuminated.

The trailer electrical connector that is installed on the tractor may be the 7-wire connector conforming to SAE 3560a, a 6-wire connector, or a special connector as specified by your customers. In this respect, we agree that your cannot ascertain at the time you build your truck-tractor the type of wiring system or electrical plugs that will be used on the trailer or trailer combinations that might, in the future, be tored by the truck-tractors.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht68-2.4

DATE: 05/16/68

FROM: ROGER H. COMPTON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID A. FAY

TO: White Trucks, Division of White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 20, 1968, to Mr. Lowell Z. Bridwell, requesting clarification of paragraph S3.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

In your referenced letter you have asked two questions as follows:

"1. While we provide as standard on all tractor models built on or after January 1, 1968, a 7-wire trailer connection and cable, is it satisfactory to furnish the 3-wire cable and connector being requested by many customer? Would we still be considered as conforming to Standard No. 103 with such a cable and contector?

2. Upon customer request, will we still be considered as conforming to the requirements of Standard No. 103 if, in addition to providing the standard double pole double throw switch which would actuate the brown circuit for the tail, clearance and certain marker lights on the trailer, we also furnish a separate switch for the black circuit on the trailer which would illeminate the remainder of the running lights, provided the trailer was wired in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J560A."

In answer to question No. 1, either the 7-wire or 6-wire trailer connection and cable may be used on truck-tractors, provided the wiring is such that trailer tail lamps will be illuminated when the truck-tractor headlamps are illuminated. It is also to be noted that Standard No. 105 does not specify the number of wires to be used in the trailer connector and cable.

In answer to question No. 2, on trailers wired in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J560a, a seperate switch for the black circuit on the trailer is permitted under the provisions of Standard No. 103. Again, the wiring and switching for the brown circuit must provide illumination of the tail lamps when the headlamps are illuminated.

The above answer also appear to be responsive to the questions raised in your letter of March 14, 1963.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht68-2.40

DATE: 11/13/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: NSU Motorenwerke Aktiengesellschaft

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 8, 1968, to Mr. Eugene Laskin, Acting Director, Office of Standards Preparation, concerning reflex reflectors.

The use of two Class B reflectors combined with the fail lamps on the rear of your vehicles will not impair the effectiveness of the two Class A red reflex reflectors required in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. These devices are therefore in accordance with Standard No. 108, including paragraph S3.1.2.

Since this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment, the above comments are for your information only, and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht68-2.41

DATE: 04/30/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Gilbert, Segall and Young

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 3, 1968, to Dr. Williams Haddon, Jr., requesting a clarification of the location requirements for license plate lamps as specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The installation requirements contained in the SAE Standard that are referenced in Standard No. 108 are enforceable requirements unless specifically excepted by Standard No. 108. With respect to the installation of license plate(Illegible Word), Standard No. 108 provides an exception to the "Installation Recommendation" contained in SAE Standard(Illegible Words) in that Standard No. 108 requires a location(Illegible Word) rear license plate." This exception permits installation of the license plate lamp or lamps at the top, sides or bottom of the license plate, instead of top and sides only as specified by the SAE installation recommendations.

Thank you for writing.