ID: nht71-4.28

DATE: 10/22/71

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

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of October 14 you ask whether reflex reflectors on the tail gate of a pick-up truck, as shown in Figure 1 of the drawings you enclosed, meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Standard No. 108 requires, in part, that reflex reflectors be mounted "on the rear" of a vehicle. Compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 is judged with the vehicle in its normal road operating condition. In our view, a pick-up truck is normally operated with the tail gate in a closed position, and the reflex reflectors mounted as shown in Figure 1 appear to meet the rear reflector location requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht71-4.29

DATE: 10/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

COPYEE: MR. HITCHCOCK; MR. WOMACK; MR. DYSON; DT

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1971, in which you posed two related questions concerning the use of passive seat belt systems to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208.

The passive seat belt section S4.5.3, was added by the notice of July 8, 1971, "to make it clear that redundant active belts need not be used if passive belts are used to meet any option requiring Type 1 or Type 2 belts." If you choose to install a passive belt system, you do not have to provide a separate active system.

In response to your second question, S4.5.3 expressly provides that a passive seat belt assembly may be used in place of a seat belt assembly that conforms to the warning system requirements of S7.3. If a passive seat belt conforming to S4.5.3 is used to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.2, it must comply with paragraph (b) of S4.1.2.2 but need not comply with paragraph (a), (c), or (d).

Please advise us if your questions have not been adequately answered.

ID: nht71-4.3

DATE: 08/11/71

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

TO: Long Trailer Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1971, to Mr. Ed. Leysath of this office concerning the mounting location of side marker and taillights on your boat trailers.

The mounting requirements for lamps and reflectors are specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed). It appears as if devices mounted as indicated on your drawing would meet the requirements. If, however, severe problems would be encountered in mounting the devices as indicated or the devices would be subjected to damage during normal use, other mountings may be appropriate and still meet the "as far apart as practicable" or "as far to the rear as practicable" or "as far to the front as practicable" requirements.

If water damage is the only problem when lamps and reflectors are mounted in the indicated positions, special waterproof devices are available and could be used.

ENC.

ID: nht71-4.30

DATE: 10/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will serve to confirm your understanding that a retractor capable of meeting the requirements for a vehicle-sensitive emergency-locking retractor under Standard No. 209 conforms to the Standard even though it is provided with a back-up webbing-sensitive retractor that locks only at webbing accelerations greater than those specified in Standard No. 209.

ID: nht71-4.31

DATE: 10/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: National Association of Motor Bus Owners

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 2 to which you attached a letter from Mr. W. Dershko of Motor Coach Industries concerning the certification regulations that go into effect January 1, 1972. (Perhaps by error, you referred to a letter from Mr. Stieber of Greyhound Lines.) Rulemaking concerning gross axle weight rating and gross vehicle weight rating was in process at the time, hence the reason for our delay.

Mr. Dershko asked whether the gross vehicle weight rating must equal the sum of the gross axle weight ratings. The answer is no. The practice described, of stating a GVWR less than the sum of the GAWR's, will be quite proper under the new regulations.

Mr. Dershko also said that he was concerned as to how to interpret the definition of gross axle weight rating, and that "several factors to consider are the tire capacities, axle assembly capacity, and the coach frame structure capacity." We agree that all those factors must be considered. The manufacturer must set his gross axle weight ratings in view of the weakest elements in the load-bearing systems of the vehicle.

Let us know if we can be of further assistance.

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.