ID: nht71-1.23

DATE: 12/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mechanism Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of November 4, 1971, concerning the compliance of two dual rear door locking systems with Standard 206, has been forwarded to this office for reply.

Both systems consist of

. . . a primary locking system which when engaged renders the outside rear door handle and the inside rear door handle inoperative and a special locking device accessible from the door shut face, which when engaged renders the inside door handle imperative but does not affect the outside door handle.

The systems differ is that engagement of the special locking device in the first system prevents the engagement of the primary locking system, while engagement of the special device in the second system does not have this effect.

As stated in the preamble to the April 27, 1968 amendment (33 F.R. 6465) to the standard, S4.1.3 does not preclude the installation of a special locking mechanism in addition to the required locking mechanism. However, the required locking mechanism must be engageable or disengageable regardless of whether any additional locking mechanism is engaged or disengaged. If the special locking mechanism does not interfere with the operation of the required locking mechanism, it will not constitute a failure to comply with the standard.

Under these criteria, the first dual system would not comply with the standard since engagement of the special locking mechanism would interfere with the operation of the primary locking mechanism.

The second dual system would comply if engagement of the special locking mechanism would prevent neither the engagement nor the disengagement of the primary locking mechanism.

Please write if I can be of any further assistance.

ID: nht71-1.24

DATE: 08/16/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1971, in which you raised a question concerning the application of Standard 206 to doors on recreational vehicles.

Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, states that "Side door components referred to herein shall conform to this standard if any portion of a 90-percentile two-dimensional manikin as described in SAE Practice J826, when positioned at any seating reference point, projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view." The term "seating reference point" corresponds to a "designated seating position," which is defined as "any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodations while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats." The question you asked is whether a seating accommodation that the manufacturer labels as "not for use while the vehicle is in motion" may be disregarded in determining which vehicle doors must comply under the Standard 206 provision quoted above.

The relevant question is whether the seating position in question is "intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion." While Standard 207 will require all seats intended by the manufacturer not to be used while the vehicle is in motion to be so labeled, it does not necessarily follow that the label will be accepted in all cases as conclusive evidence of the manufacturer's intent. The design of the seat and its location in the vehicle must also be considered. As an example, if it were found that a manufacturer had previously intended that a particular seat be used while the vehicle is in motion, and that he now attached the label merely to evade the Standard 206 requirement without changing his design, the application of Standard 206 to the vehicle would not be barred. The ultimate question in such cases is whether the label clearly is in accord with the manufacturer's intent, in light of all the facts.

The above statement is our general position on the application of Standard 206, in answer to your question. It is not intended to change the interim agreements that we made with respect to the current Standard 206 compliance problems of some of your member manufacturers.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE INSTITUTE, INC.

July 27, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Larry:

We appreciate very much the time you, Dave Schmeltzer and Dick Dyson spent with us the morning of July 26th on the door lock problem.

In addition to the possible courses of action proposed in those discussions to resolve the current problem, we have reexamined the specific language of Standard No. 206 to see if an appropriate interpretation of the standard would be helpful. We have reached the conclusion as to proper interpretation of the standard set forth below and would appreciate your confirmation of this conclusion if you are in agreement with it.

Paragraph S4. Requirements, requires that side door components conform to the standard "if any portion of a 90 - percentile two - dimensional manikin . . . when positioned at any seating reference point, projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view . . ." (underscoring supplied). "Seating reference point", as defined in Part 571 - Section 571.3, seems clearly to be locatable only with reference to a "designated seating position". "Designated seating position", in turn, is defined as "any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodations while a vehicle is in motion . . ." (underscoring supplied). Standard No. 208 (as published September 30, 1970 - 35 F.R. 190, p.15222) prescribes this amended definition and in the preamble states that "the amended definition of designated seating position in Section 571.3 does not include seats that are not intended for use while the vehicle is in motion" (underscoring supplied). Standard No. 207, effective January 1, 1972, prescribes that seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect.

These cited provisions, and the specific requirements of Standards Nos. 207, 208, and 210, seem clearly to contemplate that in some vehicles subject to these standards there will be seating accommodations but which are not intended by the manufacturer for use while the vehicle is in motion. This is particularly true of motor homes since manufacturers provide seating for dining and for other uses while the vehicle is not in motion.

We have concluded, therefore, that current Standard No. 206 is not applicable in either of the following situations:

(1) Where there is no seating accommodation at all projecting into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view.

(2) Where there is a seating accommodation but the manufacturer of the vehicle has specifically designated as not for use while the vehicle is in motion any portion of such seating accommodation which would fall within the specific language of paragraph S4. of Standard No. 206.

It necessarily follows that, if the foregoing interpretations of the standard are correct, then a manufacturer, dealer or distributor, may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or introduce into interstate commerce a motor vehicle, without violation of the Safety Act, which either does not have any seating accommodation at all or does not have designated seating positions falling within the specific language of paragraph S4. of Standard No. 206. A similar conclusion applies to certification labeling as to conformity with applicable Federal safety standards. Although the labeling requirements of Standard No. 207 are not effective until January 1, 1972, we presume that any labeling by the manufacturer of each seating position which might otherwise make the vehicle subject to Standard No. 206 as "not for use while the vehicle" would make the standard inapplicable to such vehicle. We, of course, would recommend to manufacturers at the time these conclusions are communicated to them that such labeling be conspicuous and designed to attract the attention of the vehicle occupants. We would recommend also to the manufacturers, as an added safety feature, that they provide dead bolt locks where feasible for each such motor home where there are seating accommodations which, while designated as not for use while the vehicle is in motion, would otherwise fall within the language of paragraph S4. of Standard No. 206.

Your expeditious consideration of these conclusions and their confirmation would be appreciated. We would like to be able to incorporate them in the contemplated general memorandum from RVI to the industry which will provide information regarding the Bargman Company part replacement program. These interpretations of the standard will aid the situation to some degree, hopefully, and together with your favorable action on the other ideas for resolution of the matter which we discussed may well alleviate much of the worst of the considerable adverse economic impact on the RV industry.

Very truly yours,

David J. Humphreys

cc: F. M. Radigan; Philip N. Shrake

ID: nht71-1.25

DATE: 07/00/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht71-1.26

DATE: 05/16/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Mitsubishi Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 17, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W. Torns, regarding positioning of the anthropornorphic test devices for use in the crashes described in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

I am enclosing a copy of the newly revised version of the standard as well as an accompanying press release.

In regard to your specific inquiry, Standard No. 208 does not contain specifications for the alignment of the dummy's head once positioned in the vehicle. Paragraph S8.1.11(a) specifies that the dummy head is aligned prior to positioning in the vehicle. Paragraphs S8.1.11(b) through (c) specify the procedure for positioning the dummy in the vehicle seat. If the procedures in S8.1.11 are followed as specified, the dummy's neck and head may actually be inclined because of contact with the roof or other vehicle components.

Thank you for your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs.

ID: nht71-1.27

DATE: 01/01/71 EST.

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Renault, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1971, to Mr. Clue Ferguson, requesting a clarification of certain sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203 - Occupant Crash Protection, Docket 69-7, Notice 10.

It was our intent, under S4.5.3, to permit free substitution of Type 1 or Type 2 passive belts for seat belt assemblies required under S4. The standard specifies in S4.5.3 that a passive belt must conform to the requirements of S7.1 and to certain requirements of Standard No. 209, but it does not specify (Illegible Word) that shoulder belts should be detachable or that they should be non-detachable. The manufacturer may therefore choose either method of shoulder belt attachment. A detachable shoulder belt in a passive belt system must not, however, convert the system from passive to active status.

Please advise us if you need additional clarification of this point.

ID: nht71-1.28

DATE: 04/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Barbara G. Rothschild

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1971 in which you inquired whether a particular safety belt system, described in a patent application, would qualify as a "passive restraint" within the meaning of the Occupant Crash Protection standard. We have delayed an answer to your inquiry, pending issuance of amendments to that standard that were made on March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4600), in response to petitions for reconsideration.

You describe your system as one in which "you have to manually pivot the belt in order to take your seat in the car". From that point on, however, everything is automatic . . ." The issue, then, is whether such a system is a "means that require[s] no action by vehicle occupants," in the words of the standard.

Our position is that such a system would not meet the above requirement of the standard, since it is a system that does require action by the occupant,i.e., pivoting the belt. By "no action" is meant just that -- no action by occupants other that would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle. We recognize that in some cases, the action that is required may be ralatively slight. In terms of regulatory categories, however, we consider it important to distinguish "no-action" systems from "forced-action" systems, of which the most commonly discussed example is the seat belt with an ignition interlock. Your system appears clearly to come within the forced-action category.

Please note that although we are glad to provide interpretations in response to specific questions such as yours, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration generally does not issue overall "approvals" of any vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, with respect to conformity with the standards.

ID: nht71-1.29

DATE: 08/01/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 23, 1971, in which you asked a question concerning the requirement in Standard No. 208 that the seat belt warning signals deactivate when the parking brake is applied.

Your question was whether the standard's requirement would be satisfied by a system in which the seat belt warning signals deactivate at the same point at which the parking brake warning light goes on, considering the fact that the warning light is generally set to go on at a point where the parking brake lever is partially extended but before the brake is actually engaged.

We would consider the standard's requirement to be satisfied by the system you describe. We agree that the presence of the parking brake warning light is a sufficient deterrent to driving the vehicle with the parking brake partially engaged.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 23, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Hwy, Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This is a request for clarification of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," Docket No. 69-7, Notice 10 (36FR12858).

Section 7.3.4(b) of the standard prohibits activation of the warning system when the parking brake is engaged on a vehicle that has a manual transmission. Monitors which detect whether or not the parking brake is engaged are necessary to meet this section. Therefore, for this purpose we intend to use a parking brake warning switch which actuates according to the position of the parking brake lever.

However, very often the parking brake lever position, where the parking brake begins to engage, is slightly different among cars because of adjustment, elongation of wire cables, and wear of brake shoes, etc. Therefore, the parking brake switch is adjusted so that the switch will be off at the bottom position of the parking brake lever, and it will come on when the lever is slightly pulled before the parking brake begins to engage. This adjustment is necessary to prevent the driver from unknowingly moving a car with a partially engaged parking brake.

The parking brake warning lamp could be on when the parking brake lever is not fully released and the brake itself is not engaged due to the adjustment or slack in this system, etc. In such cases, the seat belt warning system will not

2

actuate, regardless of the transmission gear selector position.

Our understanding is that if the parking brake warning lamp is on, it may be considered that the parking brake is engaged because no driver should attempt to move a vehicle when the parking brake warning lamp is activated. We, therefore, do believe this system would meet the requirement of section 7.3.4(b).

Is our interpretation correct? When considering this information, please take into account that we do not have much lead time due to the proximity of the effective date.

Your prompt consideration and response will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

Y. Kosaka Staff Engineer

cc: Mr. Hitchcock

ID: nht71-1.3

DATE: 06/22/71

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

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 2, 1971, requesting clarification of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, which requires a placard containing specified information to be "permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location." Your letter lists seven locations on the vehicle (steering column, lower instrument panel pad or knee pad forward of the front seat occupants, sun visor, inside panel surface of the driver's door, door-latch post next to the driver's seat, door edge that meets the door-latch post next to the driver's seat, and door edge that meets the hinge pillar next to the driver's seat) and asks whether each would be considered an "equally accessible location" under the standard.

The phrase "glove compartment door or equally accessible location" is intended to require the placard to be affixed to a location where, like the glove compartment door, it can not only be easily referred to, but where it will also be relatively free from exposure to substances that may destroy it or render it illegible. With reference to your list of seven locations, we cannot determine without the specific configuration of the components involved whether placing the placard at any point on the component will meet the requirement. However, we believe the placard could be placed at some point on each of these components or locations so that the requirements of the standard would be met.

Please let us know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

June 2, 1971

Douglas W. Toms Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Toms:

This is to request the interpretation of the words "equal accessible" in S4.3 placard of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

S4.3 specifies "A placard, permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location, shall display the -----." In meeting this requirement, the design of the instrument panel or the glove compartment door some times necessitates us to seek the location for the placard somewhere other than the glove compartment door. We would understand that the places such as the following are considered to be "equally accessible locations".

1) Steering column 2) Lower instrument panel pad or knee pad foward of the front seat occupants

3) Sun visor

4) Inside panel surface of the driver's door

5) Door-latch post next to the driver's seat

6) Door edge that meets the door-latch post next to the driver's seat

7) Door edge that meets the hinge pillar next to the driver's seat

We would like to ask your interpretation or view toward our understanding of this matter.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD. --

Kunitaka Suzuki for Keitaro Nakajima, General Manager

ID: nht71-1.30

DATE: 12/06/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Auto Sun Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971, on behalf of Kangol Magnet, Ltd., in which you requested our opinion on the number of identifying labels required on a sent belt assembly by Standard No. 209. It is our opinion that the marking requirement of that standard (S4.1(k)) is satisfied by one permanent marking or label on each assembly and that it does not require each component of an assembly to be separately marked.

ID: nht71-1.31

DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1971

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers' Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 11, 1971, concerning the application of GVWR and GAWR (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) to semitrailers.

Your position is that the term "gross vehicle weight rating" is not meaningful when applied to semitrailers because the amount of cargo a semitrailer can carry depends upon the tractor that pulls it. You request that a different expression, "rating based on load-carrying capability" be used "for purposes of certification" (assumedly on the certification label). If that alternative is found unsatisfactory you request our concurrence with the following: "For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the King-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length." You also mention that gross vehicle weight rating has particular industry meaning and note that confusion "will certainly arise when state and Federal governmental authorities are using the same term to mean two different things."

As we indicated in our meeting with you of November 4, 1971, we do not agree that the concept of GVWR is meaningless when applied to a semitrailer. The definition of GVWR, "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle" (49 CFR @ 568.3), can be applied to a semitrailer without considering the load-carrying ability of a tractor. The fact that certain tractors should not be attached to a particular semitrailer loaded to its GVWR does not mean that the trailer cannot be so rated.

With regard to your first question, "rating based on load-carrying capability," while we do not grant your request that this language be substituted on the label, we believe that a GVWR based on operational load-carrying capability, as long as the weight of the vehicle is included, would be within the definition of GVWR in 49 CFR 568.3. Similarly, your other statement, "For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the king-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length" is likewise consistent with the definition of GVWR. With reference to your claim concerning confusion of State and Federal regulation, we believe that if problems in this regard are properly presented to a State government, any ambiguities can be satisfactorily resolved.

You also ask, with reference to Gross Axle Weight Rating, whether speed limitations can be included on the certification label. The regulation does not allow such weight limitations to be included within the listing of the required information, although it may be placed on the vehicle in any other location.