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.

ID: nht71-1.32

DATE: 08/25/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Honiron

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 1971, concerning the notice published April 14, 1971 (36 F.R. 7054) amending the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) and establishing regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Part 568). You ask whether as a trailer manufacturer you need comply only with the requirements of @ 567.4(g)(1) at present, and need not comply with @@ 567.4(g)(2) through 567.4(g)(7) until October 1, 1972. The answer to this question is no. The amendment to the regulations on which your question is based merely added the requirements of @@ 567.4(g)(1)(iii) 567.4(g)(3), and 567.4(g)(4) to existing requirements that have been in effect since September 1, 1969 (copy enclosed). Thus, the requirements of @@ 567.4(g)(1)(i) and (ii), and 567.4(g)(2), (g)(5), (g)(6) and (g)(7) (as they appear in the notice of April 14, 1971) have been in effect since September 1, 1969. Of the new provisions @ 567.4(g)(1)(iii) did become effective June 1, 1971. The effective date of the other new provisions has been corrected to January 1, 1972, by a notice published April 27, 1971 (36 F.R. 7855), a copy of which is also enclosed.

You are correct in interpreting "gross vehicle weight rating" as it applies to trailers to exclude the weight of the tractor or other towing vehicle. It includes as you state only the weight of the fully loaded trailer. You are also correct in interpreting "gross axle weight rating" as it applies to trailers to apply to only the weight applied to the axle of the trailer. It does not include the weight applied to any part of the towing vehicle.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

ID: nht71-1.33

DATE: 04/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: WARREN M. BARNETT

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1971, requesting advice on the acceptability of your regrooving pattern for regrooved tires.

Enclosed is a copy of the Rules and Regulations on regrooved and regroovable tires as it appears in the Federal Register published January 24, 1969, under Section 369.7(a)(1) Requirements, "After regrooving, the new grooves generated into the tread material and any residual original molded tread groove which is at or below the new regrooved groove depth, shall have a (Illegible Word) of 90 linear inches of tread edges per linear foot of tire circumference."

There are no measurements on your drawings to assist us in determining if your zig-zag grooves and the three circumferencial grooves measure 90 linear inches. Three straight circumferential grooves would only provide approximately 72 linear inches.

The use of lateral cuts should substantially increase the tread edge measurements; providing the lateral cuts are from shoulder to shoulder to allow unobstructed fluid escape passages as required in Section 369.7(a)(5).

Thank you for your interest in tire safety.

Enclosure

ID: nht71-1.34

DATE: 01/16/71

FROM: CHARLES H. HARTMAN FOR DOUGLAS W. TOMS -- NHTSA

TO: LYNN E. TA TAKAGELL

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: (Illegible Words)

ID: nht71-1.35

DATE: 12/02/71

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON For Lawrence R. Schneider -- NHTSA

TO: G & D Communications Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 22, 1971, and your phone call to Michael Peskoe of November 15, 1971, requesting a copy of the Consumer Information regulations and asking what penalties may be imposed on manufacturers if their vehicles cannot perform as well as the figures they provide pursuant to the regulation. You stated in the above conversation that you have obtained the volume entitled "Performance Data for New 1971 Passenger Cars and Motorcycles" which contains a copy of the Consumer Information requirements. I have enclosed certain amendments to the Consumer Information regulations which will bring the regulations as they appear in this volume up to date.

With reference to your question regarding penalties for violations of the Consumer Information requirements, Section 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C.@@ 1397, 1398) authorize the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, and up to $ 400,000 for any related series of violations, against manufacturers whose vehicles cannot perform at least as well as the data they supply indicates. In addition, injunctive proceedings may be utilized pursuant to section 110 of the Act (15 U.S.C.@ 1399).

I trust this answers your question. We regret that it was over-looked in our first response to your letter.

ID: nht71-1.36

DATE: 04/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Air Force

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Secretary Volpe has asked me to reply to your letter of April 2. Section 108(b)(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 states that the "temporary importation of any motor vehicle" is permissible, and you ask "if any joint regulations have been established between the Secretary of the Treasury and your department establishing a maximum period of time or a definite period of time in which any vehicle may be imported into the United States, whether or not it meets the safety standards set forth."

Joint regulations (19 C.F.R. @ 12.80) were adopted in 1968 and I enclose a copy for your information. Obviously we have to objection to a vehicle remaining in the United States and used upon the public roads indefinitely if it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The word "temporary" within the meaning of section 108(b)(4) does, however, have differing meanings for vehicles which do not met Federal standards and which are imported under different circumstances. Section 12.80(b)(2)(iii) and (c) allow importers not otherwise exempted 90 days in which to bring a noncomplying vehicle into compliance and permit an extension of time if circumstances warrant. A non-resident of the United States is permitted by subsection (b)(2)(v) to import a noncomplying vehicle for a period of up to one year. Foreign diplomatic and military personnel are allowed by subsection (b)(2)(vi) to import their noncomplying vehicles for the duration of their stay and must declare that they will not sell their vehicles in the United States during that time. On the other hand, a noncomplying vehicle imported solely for purpose of show test, experiment, competition, or repairs, may be admitted indefinitely pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(vii) if it is not sold or licensed for use on the public roads.

These regulations do not apply to vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1963. We advise military personnel not to purchase vehicles produced after that date and manufactured for the European market as the conversion costs are prohibitive in many instances. We also advise them that vehicles which are alleged to have been converted to meet U.S. safety specifications in most instances do not. The best evidence of compliance with U.S. requirements is the certification of that fact, generally affixed by the original manufacturer to the door post on the driver's side of the vehicle. I enclose a booklet on the importation of motor vehicles for your guidance, and I will be happy to answer any further questions you may have.