ID: nht71-4.32

DATE: 10/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Rex Chainbelt Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 8, 1971, in which you expressed concern over the implications of the gross axle and gross vehicle weight ratings to appear on certification labels, beginning January 1, 1972. You requested our assurance that "the GVWR will not be interpreted so strictly as to make liable the manufacturer whose body, if loaded to its nominally rated capacity, would exceed the GVWR indicated on the certificate."

The GVWR and GAWR values are, within limits, to be supplied by the vehicle manufacturer based on his own knowledge of the vehicle's capacity. In the amendment to the certification regulations published October 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 19593), a requirement was added that the GVWR figure "shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." From the standpoint of the regulation itself, the only other limit on GVWR would be that it should not be more than the sum of the GAWR's (although it may be less), since otherwise the vehicle would obviously be supplied with axle systems inadequate for its carrying capacity.

Thus, the GVWR must not be less than a figure that reflects the full "rated cargo load" of the completed vehicle. Obversely, if you supply a rated cargo load, the weight of the vehicle when carrying that load must not exceed the GVWR. If you supply no rated cargo load, but only the volumetric capacity, the capacity would not on its face lead to a violation of the certification regulations, since as you note the specific weight of the material carried varies considerably.

You should be aware, however, that completing the vehicle so that its apparent carrying capacity exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (section 113, 15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common-law product liability doctrines. In such a case, the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle might avoid liability, leaving it all on the final-stage manufacturer, by pointing out that the design of the vehicle as completed led the user to exceed the GVWR and GVWR furnished with the incomplete vehicle.

ID: nht71-4.33

DATE: 10/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 13, 1971, concerning the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You request a ruling concerning S573.7, which requires manufacturers to submit a copy "of all notices, bulletins, and other communications, other than these required to be submitted under #573.4(c)(8), sent to more than one dealer or purchaser of his vehicles regarding any defect, whether or not safety related, in such vehicles."

You ask wether this requirement includes letters that your company writes that are of a personal nature concerning possible defects, when the letters deal with more than one item, but have at least one item in common. If those letters are included in the requirement, you request that we specify a time span for which you would be responsible.

The intent of S573.7 is for manufacturers to provide the NHTSA with certain information each time a defect other than a defect under #573.4(c)(8) is found to exist in more than one vehicle. Thus, assuming the defect is not one on which information has been submitted pursuant to #573.4(c)(8), you may satisfy the requirement of S573.7 by submitting a copy of any one letter that pertains to a defect found in more than one vehicle, as long as the letter is approximately marked so that we can determine for which defect it is being submitted.

The regulation does not limit the time span for which manufacturers are responsible, and manufacturers must be sufficiently familiar with their repair programs so that if a defect appears at two or more points in time, the necessary information can be submitted.

ID: nht71-4.34

DATE: 10/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Rosenstein; Livingston; Fist & Rengold

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1971, concerning the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573), published February 17, 1971 (36 F.R. 3054), in which you request an interpretation of "produced" as used in @ 573.5(b) of the regulations. You state you believe that the term refers only to vehicles that have been invoiced and sold, or ready to be sold to a customer, and ask whether this would include vehicles retained by the manufacturer for demonstration or consignment purposes.

As used in the regulation "produced" refers to the date of the vehicle's manufacture. The agency takes the position that a vehicle is manufactured when the final stage of manufacture at its place of main assembly is completed. Thus, neither invoicing for sale nor sale are the points in time at which production is determined under the regulation.

With reference to whether demonstration or consignment vehicles must be included, any vehicle manufactured for use on the public roads must be included, and this includes both demonstration and consignment vehicles as those terms are generally understood. Only vehicles that are not to be used on the public roads, such as, for example, those manufactured or chosen for crash testing, need not be reported.

ID: nht71-4.35

DATE: 10/29/71

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

TO: Joseph Lucas (Electrical), Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to the petition of Joseph Lucas (Electrical) Ltd. dated October 13, 1971, for rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Specifically, you have asked for an amendment of paragraph S4.1.2 either to reduce the(Illegible Word) test cycle of the warpage test for backup and stop lamps from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, or to conduct the test for these lamps using a continuously flashing filament.

Petitions for reconsideration of the 10 minute heat test cycle were filed following amendment of Standard No. 108 on October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 16840). These petitions were denied on February 3, 1971 (36 F.R. 1896), because the Traffic Safety Administration had determined that the 10-minute cycle is appropriate in view of the frequency of usage of stop and backup lamps. I enclose a copy of the denial.

The Administrator has determined that your petition contains no new information such as to merit rulemaking on this issue, and we must therefore respectfully deny your petition.

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: nht71-4.37

DATE: 11/02/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: REBCO

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1971, concerning the retention of records of the names and addresses of first purchasers of retread tires that you manufactured prior to October 13, 1971, the date you went out of the retread business.

Under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation you are required to maintain the names of first purchasers three years from the time the sale is reported to you or your designee. Therefore, as to those tires manufactured between May 22, 1971 and the date you went out of business, October 24, 1971, you are required to maintain, or have maintained for you the names and addresses of the first purchasers for three years after this information is recorded by you or your designee.

ID: nht73-6.12

DATE: 06/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: RVI Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1973, concerning a defect notification campaign involving furnaces manufactured by Suburban Manufacturing Company of Dayton, Tennessee, that have been used in recreational vehicles. You ask whether the obligation of the individual vehicle manufacturers under the Safety Act and applicable regulations may be met if the appropriate documents and notices are sent or filed by Suburban Manufacturing.

Suburban Manufacturing Company may prepare and submit to NHTSA or mail to purchasers, on behalf of the individual vehicle manufacturers, the information required by 49 CFR Part 573 "Defect Reports," 49 CFR Part 577, "Defect Notification," and Section 113 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402). However, the requirements must be met as they apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles, and not manufacturers of equipment. Moreover, the vehicle manufacturers themselves will still be responsible if any of the documents filed or sent by Suburban Manufacturing Company fail to fully conform to all applicable requirements.

Sincerely yours,

May 18, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Larry:

At present a notification of defect campaign is being carried on in regard to NT32 furnaces manufactured by Suburban Manufacturing Company of Dayton, Tennessee. These furnaces have been sold to many different recreational vehicle manufacturers. We are pleased to note that Suburban Manufacturing Company has indicated a willingness to send all of the notices to purchasers, supply the parts required to repair the defect and bear the entire cost.

The only concern various manufacturers have expressed is that they want to be sure that their obligations under Section 113(d) of the Safety Act and Part 573 - Defect Reports - have been met if the necessary reports are filed by Suburban Manufacturing Company.

It would be appreciated if you would verify our belief that Suburban's reporting will be sufficient. I will undertake to convey your opinion to the RV companies involved.

Sincerely, David J. Humphreys RVI Washington Counsel

cc: Messrs. F. M. Radigan, P. Shrake, A. Spreen and W. Bigelow

ID: nht73-6.13

DATE: 12/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 6, 1973, requesting information on whether vehicle certification labels must be affixed by persons who for their own use install fifth wheels on chassis cabs.

The NHTSA takes the position that vehicles completed by persons for their own use must conform to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards and be certified (by affixing the appropriate label) as conforming. The NHTSA considers the use of these vehicles to be an introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce and subject to the prohibitions of section 108 of the Safety Act. Persons who complete incomplete vehicles are final-stage manufacturers and all other regulations applicable to manufacturers (Parts 566, 573, and 577) apply to them.

November 6, 1973

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

We have run into a situation in which a trucking firm told us that they had received some information "from Washington" that they did not have to affix Vehicle Certification Labels to the chassis-cabs to which they installed fifth wheels. These truck-tractors would then be placed into their fleet for their own use.

While Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 provides that "no person shall manufacturer for sale, sell, offer to sell or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . . " it would seem that part 568 of the current Certification regulations provides that any vehicle completed must be certified -- regardless of whether the vehicle is for sale or use by the Final-Stage Manufacturer.

We would appreciate your comments on this matter, as well as a statement regarding the Manufacturer Identification Reports and the various parts of the Defect Regulation. We are of the opinion that they have received some erroneous information, and would like to help them set the record straight.

Thank you.

THOMAS S. PIERATT Executive Secretary

ID: nht73-6.14

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Robins Davis & Lyons

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: (Ilegible Text)

ROBINS. DAVIS & LYONS

March 16, 1973

United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau Washington, D. C.

Attn: Office of Performance Analysis

Re: Roste v Ford Our File: S72-0534

Gentlemen:

Our office represents a woman who was badly burned in an automobile accident when the Ford Cortina, in which she was a passenger, exploded upon rear-end impact with another automobile. I am interested in knowing whether or not there have been promulgated any Federal standards or regulations pertaining to the safety of gasoline tanks, appurtenances thereto, fuel tank filler hoses and connections, or the need for a protective fire wall between the fuel tank compartment and the rear of the automobile.

If you can refer me to any information pertaining to these questions or send to me copies of the appropriate data, I would be most appreciative. We will, of course, reimburse you for any costs incurred.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

John F. Eisberg

ID: nht73-6.15

DATE: 04/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1973, to Mr. Francis Armstrong, requesting various interpretations of Standards No. 208 and No. 209, with respect to safety belt systems.

Your first question, referenced to Figure No. 1 of the enclosure with your letter, relates to the required strength of the webbing in the case where two widths are connected together in an upper torso assembly. Under the webbing strength requirements of S4.2(b) of Standard No. 209, both pieces of webbing in the upper torso restraint must, individually, meet a 4,000 pound strength test. Under the assembly performance requirements of S5.3(b) of Standard NO. 209, a common pelvic and upper torso restraint must meet a 3,000 pound strength test. The latter would be true regardless of whether sewing or other means is used to make the belt assembly.

Your second question, referenced to Figure 2 of the enclosure, relates to the bolt strength required in the belt assembly anchorage. Under the provisions of S4.1(f), "equivalent hardware" is permissible in lieu of the 7/16" bolts. In such a case, the tests required under S4.3(c), as prescribed under S5.2(c), would be performed on the entire equivalent hardware, rather than or the individual components (bolts).

With respect to your third question, concerning the acceptability of belts that do not conform to the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209, our reply is that under the present circumstances such webbing would not conform to either Standard No. 208 or

Standard No. 209. As a result of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ford v. NHTSA, belts installed under Standard No. 208's third option in 1973 (S4.1.2.3) will have to conform to Standard No. 209. Unless Standard No. 209 is amended with respect to its elongation requirements, therefore, energy absorbing webbing of the type you describe will not be permitted in 1974 cars.

TAKATA KOJYO CO., LTD.

February 24, 1973

Francis Armstrong Director, Office of Compliance Motor Vehicle Program National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention to; Mr. J. Gilkey Mr. G. Hunter

This is to request you to enlighten us upon the under-mentioned questions of ours so as to let us manufacture right seat belts assembly conforming to MVSS.

Please note, in this connection, that we have been manufacturing seat belts successfully for many years for installation in the cars destined to the United States.

Question # 1. (Please refer to the Figure # 1)

As shown on the Fig. #1, we made one shoulder belt connecting one webbing of 2" wide with another of 1" wide by pattern-stitching as the Figure. In this case, what breaking strength is required under S4.2(b) of MVSS 209? Is our belt taken as an assemblied webbings in spite of its connection by stitching? In other words, is 3,000 lbs. the required breaking strength for the said belt? How about in case the 2" webbing is connected with the 1"one with hardwares? Please clarify this case too.

Question # 2. (Please refer to the Figure # 2)

In compliance with the request of our customers, auto-manufacturers, we are preparing to use two bolts of smaller diameter than 7/16" for fastening to the anchorage. In this case, is each bolt is required to withstand the breaking strength of 5,000 lbs or more?

Question # 3.

We are planning to use an Energy Absorbent belt for 1974 cars. Our Energy Absorbent belt conforms to the requirement of MVSS 208's S.I. 1,000, but extends more than 40% at 2,500 lbs. In other words, the belt does not conform to MVSS 209. Can our belt be accepted by you, the U.S. authorities when shipped to the U.S. installed in the cars destined to the U.S. markets? Are we right in understanding that MVSS 208 takes precedence of MVSS 209 in this particular case?

Thanking you in advance for your kind guidance at your earliest convenience,

T. Hiramine, DIRECTOR

Enclosed.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

TAKATA KOJYO CO., LTD.

February 26, 1973

Francis Armstrong, Director

Office of Standards Enforcement National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention to; Mr. J. Gilkey Mr. G. Hunter

Enclosed please find the two copies of sketches numbered as Figure # 1 and Figure # 2.

Kindly take a trouble to check whether the two sheets of copied sketches attached to our letter to you dated February 24, 1973 were numbered as Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively.

We are afraid if we attached two copies of same number by mistake. If so, please replace the wrong ones by the correct ones enclosed herewith. Provided our originally attached ones were correct ones, please just destroy these copies enclosed herein.

Expressing our apologies for inconvenience caused by our oversight,

Sincerely yours

T. Hiramine

Enclosure.

(Graphics Omitted)

(Graphics Omitted)