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.

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: nht71-4.38

DATE: 11/02/71

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

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent telephone inquiry as to whether the recent amendment of Standard 215, Exterior Protection, requires that vehicles meet the photometric requirements of Standard 108 after being subjected to the Standard 215 impacts.

S5.3.1 of Standard 215 reads:

"Each lamp or reflective device, except license plate lamps, shall be free of cracks and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108."

S4.3.1.1 of Standard 108 reads in relevant part:

"Each lamp and reflective device shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice. In addition, no part of the vehicle shall prevent the device from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice." (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, although the actual photometric tests may be considered "bench tests", that is, tests whose procedures include removing the devices from the vehicle, the above provision of Standard 108 requires that the configuration of the vehicle external to the devices not prevent them from meeting the photometric requirements. The test procedures themselves require the devices to be placed

in their actual orientation on the vehicle. Therefore, the provision in Standard 215 that the lamps and reflective devices shall meet all the requirements of Standard 108 after the impacts includes the photometric requirements.

ID: nht71-4.39

DATE: 11/03/71

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

TO: Patton; Blow; Virrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1971, in which you made several requests with respect to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR Part 574) and Certification (49 CFR Part 567) regulations.

1. You suggested that the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation be amended to provide that where tires are not shipped on or in a vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's record keeping obligation be limited to three years from the date of sale. We will take this request into consideration, and let you know when a decision is made. It appears that since the minimum time would apply to all vehicle manufacturers, such a requirement should appear in a regulation other than Part 574.

2. You requested the deletion of the requirement that information on the certification label be placed "in the order shown." We have previously denied petitions relating to the order of information on the label (36 F.R. 19593), and this request is also denied. The requirement that the label information be placed in a definite order has been in effect for over two years, and has been found to enhance the readability and hence the usefulness of the label. Now that further numerical information is to be required on the label, we consider that it will be even more important that this requirement be maintained.

3. You requested "an interpretation that a multi-column label or a label in two parts each with an information column, will meet the requirements of [Part] 567," because of the space limitations on some trailers. As long as the information appears in the order specified in the regulation, the NHTSA has no objection to a multi-column label or a label in two parts.

4. Finally, you requested that a trailer manufacturer be allowed to use up his existing supply of labels, by affixing a supplementary label with the additional required information. As stated above, we have decided to adhere to the requirement that the information on the label be in the order specified, although it may be in more than one column or part. To the extent that the action requested would allow a manufacturer not to conform to that requirement, the request is denied. Although the deviation might appear small, it would seriously detract from the integrity and enforceability of the regulation to allow incidental nonconformity without amending the requirement. The other vehicle manufacturers have undoubtedly already incurred costs similar to those cited by your client, and it would be distinctly unfair not to enforce the regulation evenhandedly as to all parties.