ID: nht76-5.29

DATE: 02/25/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Mary Harding

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Fort Worth Regional Office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has forwarded to us your February 2, 1976, letter asking whether 16-passenger van-type school buses that presently serve to transport children to and from a day care center fall within the new definition of "School bus" recently issued by the NHTSA (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975).

The answer to your question is no. The definition is based on the regulatory authority found in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.). This Act authorizes the regulation of motor vehicle construction in accordance with standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture.

In the case of this amendment of the definition, the NHTSA chose to make the new definition effective on October 27, 1976, to correspond with the effective date of the new school bus standards. This means that the existing definition of "School bus" applied at the time of the construction of the vehicles operated by your library. The existing definition applies only to vehicles designed primarily to carry children to and from school, and would not include van-type vehicles.

YOURS TRULY,

FORT WORTH PUBLIC LIBRARY

February 2, 1976

Alex Calaluca NHTSA Region VI

Here is the information you asked for in our phone conversation on Feb. 2, 1976.

Vehicle Make, Model and Year--Dodge, Sports Van 1975. Vehicle Identification Numbers: B36BE54 131771 B36BE54 127066

These two vehicles are used to transport pre-school children from non-profit day care centers to branch libraries for special library programs. The children are picked up in a group at their center, accompanied by one or more day care staff members, and returned to their center after the program.

The vehicles are equipped with seat belts for each seat and a fire extinguisher.

I would like to know if these vehicles would be covered by the new amendment to the National Highway Transportation Safety Act?

Thank you so much for your time and trouble.

Mary Harding Director -- Outreach Program

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Memorandum

DATE: February 5, 1976

SUBJECT: School Bus Definition

FROM: Regional Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fort Worth, Texas

TO: Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Services, N40-40 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

In the enclosed letter of February 2, Ms. Mary Harding describes the make and model of vehicles she uses to transport preschool children. The vehicles are designed to carry 16 passengers and are equipped with a seat belt in each sitting position. Ms. Harding desires a legal interpretation on whether or not the above vehicles come under the new definition for a school bus and if this is the case, would the vehicles be in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard developed under the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974?

Please provide this office with a copy of your response to Ms. Harding. If we can be of further assistance to you in this matter, please let us know.

Alex M. Calaluca Motor Vehicle Programs Director

For: E. Robert Anderson Regional Administrator

ID: nht76-5.3

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Masoaka-Ishikawa and Associates, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 24, 1976, request for affirmation that a particular Takata Kojyo test procedure for applying force to a continuous loop Type 2 belt system "meet[s] the requirements set forth in Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies."

Section S4.4 of Standard No. 209 sets forth the requirements of the standard for assembly performance. Section S5.3(b) sets forth test methods that would be used in a determination of whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly conforms to the requirements of S4.4. Takata Kojyo's obligation as a manufacturer is to ensure that its certification of compliance is not false or misleading in a material respect, and that it has exercised due care in manufacturing to conform to Standard No. 209 (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(2)). A manufacturer is not required to follow specifically the test procedures of the standards, but to ascertain, in the exercise of due care, that its product will conform to the standard's requirements when it is tested by the stated methods.

From your description, you have modified the existing procedures by use of a clamp to ensure that all force is applied to the lower torso webbing and hardware or, alternatively, to the upper torso webbing and hardware. While it appears that the comtemplated test procedure may evidence the exercise of due care to certify compliance with S4.4, the NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturer's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to utilize sound engineering judgement in the exercise of due care.

MASOKA-ISHIKAWA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

February 24, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

On behalf of Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd., a manufacturer of seat belt assemblies whose products are used in automobiles marketed in the United States, we seek affirmation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the testing procedures for "continuous-loop" seat belt assemblies as shown in the attached illustrations meet the requirements set forth in Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The proposed Takata Kojyo test procedures as shown in Figures 3 and 4 are specifically designed for Takata Kojyo's newly developed energy-absorbing/conventional webbing, continuous-loop seat belt assembly.

Figure 1 shows Takata Kojyo's continuous-loop seat belt assembly. Figure 2 illustrates the manner in which Takata Kojyo's combination energy-absorbing/conventional seat belt webbing is manufactured in an unique continuous weaving process. The continuously type webbing for the lap portion and the energy-absorbing webbing for the upper torso portion in an especially advanced continuous-loop seat belt assembly which provides markedly improved occupant protection.

Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd., No. 10 Mori Building, 28 Sakuragawa-cho, Nishikubo, Shiba, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, is a privately held Japanese corporation engaged in the manufacture of seat belt assemblies. Takata Kojyo does not directly market its automotive safety products in the United States. Its products are sold to manufacturers whose automobiles are sold in the United States. Japanese automobiles which use Takata Kojyo seat belt assemblies include, but are not limited to, Toyota, Datsun, Mazda, Dodge Colt and Honda. Takata Kojyo is the largest supplier of seat belt webbing in Japan, accounting for the more than 80 per cent of the market.

We respectfully request your prompt reply to our inquiry as to whether the test procedures shown in the attached illustrations fulfill the requirements of Standard 209.

T. Albert Yamada

CC: S. ISHIKAWA

Fig. 3 Proposed test method. Takata Kojyo Type II Bedt System (Continuous Loop)

Fig. 4 Proposed test method. Takata Kojyo Type II Seat Belt (Continuous Loop)

(Graphics omitted)

Fig. 1 Takata Kojyo Continous Loop Seat Belt Assembly

Fig. 2 Takata Kojyo Energy-absorbing webbing. Manufactured in a continuous weaving process.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.30

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Cameo Industries

COPYEE: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 17, 1976, letter concerning reporting forms for the mini motor homes that you contemplate building.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which motor vehicles must conform. In addition, the agency requires that the manufacturer certify that the vehicles as completed comply with applicable safety standards. A pamphlet summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification. The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects and noncompliances with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If the agency or the manufacturer determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, the manufacturer is obligated to notify the vehicle owners and remedy the problem without charge. A copy of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, which deal with the responsibilities of manufacturers for safety-related defects and noncompliances in their motor vehicles or items of vehicle equipment (15 U.S.C. @@ 1411-1420) is also enclosed. Further, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect Reports, requires the submission to the NHTSA of information reports concerning defects. A copy of this regulation is enclosed. No particular reporting form is required.

In addition, a new manufacturer of motor vehicles is required by 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit certain information to the NHTSA not more than 30 days after he begins manufacture. A copy of this regulation is also enclosed.

SINCERELY,

To: Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

From: Cameo Industries

Subject: Motor home reports

MESSAGE:

We are contemplating building mini motor homes and are therefore interested in the reporting forms to be made on these vehicles. We would like to know what kind of monthly, quarterly etc. forms need to be filled out. Could your office send us a list of these forms? Thank you very much for your help on this matter.

Date 3/17/76

Signed Sam F Lancaster President

ID: nht76-5.31

DATE: 11/01/76

FROM: CHARLES E. DUKE FOR JOHN W. SNOW -- NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 20, 1976, letter concerning record keeping with respect to new passenger cars that are damaged prior to retail sale.

I would like to clarify the discussion of record requirements in my September 14, 1976, letter to you. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not require vehicle manufacturers to create records of safety-related repairs that are made to new motor vehicles prior to sale, we do require the retention of all such records that are in fact created by the manufacturer. Through such records, the NHTSA can in many cases trace the history of vehicles suspected of containing safety-related defects. We have not to date found a safety need sufficient to justify further requirements specifically regarding identification of the vehicles in question.

A copy of the record retention regulation, 49 CFR Part 576, is enclosed for your convenience.

ID: nht76-5.32

DATE: 12/31/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: TREAD LABEL FORMAT: UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING STANDARDS

On December 16, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. Calvin Schaffner of B.F. Goodrich Co. (216 379-3470) concerning Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, 49 CFR @ 575.104. That figure depicts the format of the tread label required by the rule.

Mr. Schaffner referred to Figure 2 as it appears in Notice 21 (41 FR 54205; December 13, 1976). I explained that, because Notice 21 is a notice of proposed rulemaking rather than final rulemaking, the inclusion of the warnings in the traction and temperature grades is not yet certain. I further explained, however, that (i) in all other respects, the depiction of Figure 2 in that notice was correct; (ii) the appearance of Figure 2 was incorrect in both Notices 17 and 18, due to printing errors at the Federal Register, and (iii) this point would be clarified in a final rulemaking notice.

ID: nht76-5.33

DATE: 06/22/76

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

COPYEE: STEVE JONAS -- AMC; ARCH DOTY -- MVMA; GEORGE NIELD -- AIA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone request of June 17, 1976, for confirmation that @ 575.101 of Part 575, Consumer Information, was recently revised to specify vehicle stopping distance information based on stops that may include wheel lockup under the conditions allowed by Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You note that the text of @ 575.101(c)(5), and the accompanying illustration in Figure 1 of the section, describe the information provided as performance achieved "without locking the wheels."

Your interpretation of the requirements of @ 575.101 is correct. In amending Part 575 to permit the use of stopping distance data collected in tests for Standard No. 105-75, the agency made all changes it believed necessary to provide for the use of stopping distance information gathered in connection with Standard No. 105-75 (41 FR 1066, January 6, 1976). The reference to "without locking the wheels" should have been deleted from the text of @ 575.101(c)(5) and Figure 1. A correcting amendment will be issued shortly.

The correction of an omission from the text of the first paragraph of @ 575.101(c) will also be made at that time. In the last sentence of that paragraph, the concluding option (as published in the Federal Register) should read "under the procedures specified in paragraph (d) of this section and the conditions specified in paragraph (e) of this section."

ID: nht76-5.34

DATE: 09/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Allan J. Kam; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING: TELEPHONE CALL FROM CHARLES McCARTY OF B.F. GOODRICH ON 9/22/76

On September 22, 1976, I received a telephone call from Charles McCarty of B.F. Goodrich. He asked about data which he said was referred to in the court's recent decision. When I asked specifically where in the court's decision, he referred to page 21, paragraph 2, which concerns the remand on course monitoring tires. I told Mr. McCarty that nothing has been published in that regard in the Federal Register since the court's decision, and that I would prefer not to offer any predictions because the matter was still in litigation.

I told him that, as he may know, the tire companies had filed a petition for rehearing on Septermber 16, and thus they had chosen to keep the matter in litigation. Therefore, I said, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the matter with him directly rather than with the attorneys for his company in the litigation. He said that he understood.

ID: nht76-5.35

DATE: 11/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yokohama Tire Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your October 15,1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR Part 575.104).

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, (i) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not yet established new effective dates for the UTQGS regulation; (ii) when the new effective dates are established, they will be announced in the Federal Register; and (iii) the interval between the announcement of the effective dates and the dates themselves will be sufficient to allow manufacturers to prepare for compliance with the regulation.

For your convenience, an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and Regulations" is enclosed.

ID: nht76-5.36

DATE: 05/11/76

FROM: VETTER FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to inform you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will, for a limited time, refrain from enforcing one portion of 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations.

Subpart B of Part 575 specifies certain items of consumer information that apply to motor vehicles and their tires. Section 575.6 in Subpart A requires this information to be delivered to first purchasers (paragraphs (a) and (b)), made available to prospective purchasers (paragraph (c)) and submitted to the NHTSA (paragraph (d)). In particular, @ 575.6(d) requires that:

Each manufacturer of motor vehicles . . . shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Part B of this part that is applicable to the vehicles or tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before that information is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

I understand that the strike by the United Rubber Workers has, by cutting off the supply of new tires, created an emergency situation within the motor vehicle industry, making it difficult for a manufacturer to know more than several days before it completes a vehicle which tires will be available for installation on the vehicle. I understand further that the provision of such information to the NHTSA 30 days before it is made available to prospective purchasers has become virtually impossible.

In view of the impracticability under the current circumstances of the 30-day-notice requirement, the NHTSA has concluded that enforcement of the requirement at this time is inappropriate. Accordingly, with respect to vehicles offered for sale during the strike and the 60-day period following its settlement, the NHTSA will refrain from enforcing the 30-day-notice requirement in @ 575.6(d). Submittals of information to the agency must continue to be made, however, not later than the time the information is made available to prospective purchasers. With respect to vehicles that will be offered for sale at the expiration of the 60-day period, the NHTSA expects to begin receiving submittals after the thirtieth day following settlement of the strike.

Please note that the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of @ 575.6, as well as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims -- Passenger Cars, are not affected by this letter.

ID: nht76-5.37

DATE: 03/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hogan & Hartson

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of December 5, 1975, and your subsequent conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning a vehicle manufacturer's duty to provide consumer information pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards.

Your letter included a sample information sheet for the model 240D with Dunlop 185 SR 14 tires. For that model equipped with those tires, the format of the sheet would meet the requirements of @ 575.104(d)(1)(iii) for information to be furnished to the first purchaser of a new motor vehicle. Similarly, if the vehicle is offered for sale only with those tires, the format would meet the requirements of @ 575.104(d)(1)(iii) for information to be furnished to prospective purchasers.

Please note that the stay of this regulation, issued last August by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, is still in effect.