ID: nht72-4.46

DATE: 05/25/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: National Association of School Bus Contract Operators

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 21, 1972, concerning problems some school bus manufacturers are having completing school buses manufactured with chassis ordered before January 1, 1972. You request our opinion as to whether these buses can be delivered even though they exceed by 350 pounds the GAWR specified for the rear axle of the chassis.

One purpose of the Certification requirements and the requirements regarding "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages," which went into effect January 1, 1972, and which require manufactures to specify GAWR and GVWR, was to prevent the construction of motor vehicles of insufficient capability to carry anticipated loads. In our view, a manufacturer who completes a vehicle whose loaded weight or axle loads are in excess of its weight ratings is manufacturing a potentially unsafe vehicle which could be subject to the defect notification provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The regulations apply to motor vehicles completed after January 1, 1972, and will apply to the school buses in question.

We do not consider the notice of December 28, 1971, to allow these manufacturers to omit GAWR and GVWR from their certification labels. That notice allows this to be done only when a final-stage manufacturer, using a chassis manufactured before January 1, 1972, does not have and cannot obtain the gross axle and vehicle weight ratings for particular vehicles. These ratings have evidently been furnished to the school bus manufacturers who are the subject of your letter, and as a consequence they are responsible for placing these values on the labels of the completed vehicles.

ID: nht72-4.47

DATE: 08/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 5 and July 18, 1972. In your letter of July 5, you ask whether manufacturers of school buses may delete any reference to seating capacity in establishing the gross vehicle weight rating in complying with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).

The definition of gross vehicle weight rating, for school buses, requires the value used to include 120 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. "Designated seating capacity" is defined to mean "the number of designated seating positions provided," while "designated seating position" means "any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats" (49 CFR 571.3). While the definition refers to the manufacturer's intent as the determinant of the number of designated seating positions, the actual test, as in other legal determinations of "intent," is how that intent is objectively manifested. Because it is obvious that school buses, due to their anticipated use, must have positions where children will sit while riding, a school bus manufacturer could not successfully argue that his vehicles do not have designated seating positions. Accordingly, his failure to include the designated seating capacity in his computation of GVWR would be a violation of the Certification regulations and of section 108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 139(a)(3)). Violations of that section are subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 400,000, and other sanctions (sections 109 & 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).

Your letter of July 18 asks whether a vehicle will be in compliance with the Certification regulations if the axle load exceeds the front or rear GAWR, but the total load does not exceed the GVWR. Because the regulations do not specify minimum criteria for GAWR, a vehicle whose actual weight on an axle system exceeds the stated value will not fail to conform to the Certification requirements. It may, however, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, depending on the actual circumstances involved, and if so, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying owners pursuant to section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402).

We will consider the possibility of establishing minimum requirements for GAWR (as we have for GVWR), in light of the facts you have presented.

ID: nht72-4.48

DATE: 12/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 3, 1972, in which you ask whether a Certification label, a drawing (33-1-78) of which you enclose, will meet both the requirements of the Certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) and those of proposed Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. "Tire and Rim Selection and Rim Performance" (36 F.R. 142730). In our conversation of November 28, 1972, you asked two additional questions -- first, whether GAWR for trailers could be expressed as a single figure when the ratings for each axle are identical, and second, as followed up by your letter of November 30, what is the appropriate method for determining GVWR for a semitrailer having a "sliding-bogie" axle.

The Certification label you have submitted would conform to the requirements of Part 557, and proposed Standard No. 120 if "rim size" is moved from its location following GAWR and GVWR to the bottom of the label, in proximity to the "maximum rim load rating." The Certification regulation does not require rim size to be specified, and rim size would therefore have to appear after the information required by that regulation. The requirements of proposed Standard No. 120 are tentative only, as you must know, and manufacturers should not make permanent plans regarding them until a final rule is issued.

The NHTSA position with respect to GAWR being expressed as one figure when identical axles are involved is that such a method is not consistent with the Certification regulation. Each axle must be listed separately on the Certification label regardless of whether its rating is identical to that of other axles. We have no record of any oral statement to the contrary, and if one was made, as you seem to recall, we regret that it was in error. With respect to specifying GVWR for trailers having sliding-bogie axles, the NHTSA position is that a manufacturer is free to assume the axle to be in either position. If the manufacturer wishes to indicate at which position the rating is based, he may do so on the label, following all required information.

ID: nht72-4.49

DATE: 10/25/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Manitowoc Engineering Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I apologize for the delay in answering your letter regarding Part 566, Manufacturer Identification and Part 567, Certification. You describe the machines you manufacture and ask whether you are a final-stage manufacturer within the meaning of the regulation and therefore required to submit information regarding your products.

Parts 566 and 567 apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. "Motor vehicle" is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power for use on the public streets, roads, and highways."

Since the truck cranes you describe appear from the information you provide us to have a primary purpose of transporting the cranes on public highways, you are considered a manufacturer of motor vehicles and thus you are covered by Parts 566 and 567. Because you "mount the crane upperworks and outrigger assemblies to the carrier" you are a final-stage manufacturer as defined in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, and are required to submit information to us under these regulations. As a manufacturer of motor vehicles you are also required to submit information under Part 573, Defect Reports.

I enclose copies of Parts 566, 567, 568, and 573 for your reference. I have also attached a description of Government Printing Office documents services which cover NHTSA rulemaking developments.

ID: nht72-4.5

DATE: 03/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Dockets

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: Conversation with Jensen Motors representative on Monday February 7, 1972

Howard D. Panton, Chief Designer for the Jensen Motors Company, met with representatives of NHTSA to discuss rulemaking actions of concern to his company. Representing the NHTSA were Robert Crone, Office of Crashworthiness, and John Womack, Office of Chief Counsel.

The major areas of concern to Jensen are Standard 206, 208 and 214, and the proposed rulemaking on Standard 201.

Standard 206 bears on Jensen's plans to develop a car with gull-wing doors. Their problems with the test procedure are similar to those expressed by Mercedes and they were invited to submit suggestions for changes in the test procedure.

Standard 214 also affects the gull-wing car, which would have a very high sill. The company feels that a test with the ram five inches above the bottom of the door would require then to have an unsatisfactory height for the door structure, with corresponding reduction in the glass area. It was indicated that Jensen's problem could not be met by an interpretation of the standard, and that they would have to seek an amendment of the procedure. Panton indicated that the company would consider doing this.

Standard 208 is of particular concern due to the apparent need for impact testing of several cars. This is said to be a serious problem for a small company (1000 cars a year) with a high cost per car ($ 10,000 plus). The NHTSA representatives indicated that the agency was aware of the problem. On the question of exemption authority, which Jensen considered to be a possible remedy, they were told that the agency no longer has exemption authority but that if such authority were returned to the agency it might be used to give the smaller manufacturers additional time on complex standards if they can establish the need for delay.

The current proposal on Standard 201 concerns Jensen in several ways, most notably with respect to the proposed changes in the windshield header location. They were advised that this requirement is undergoing careful review and that any detailed comments they could make would be welcome.

ID: nht72-4.50

DATE: 10/01/72 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pioneer Machinery Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of September 15, 1972, you ask for clarification of the records that Pioneer Machinery, Inc., as a manufacturer and installer of truck hoists and racks, is required to keep.

There are several regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that could apply to Pioneer. The first of these is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Under this regulation manufacturers of vehicles and equipment to which a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies must file certain information with the NHTSA. Although Pioneer may not manufacturer equipment subject to a standard, it could be a final-stage manufacturer, as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, and subject to both these regulations. I enclose a copy of each. If Pioneer determines it is a "final-stage manufacturer" then it would also be subject to the obligations of Part 568 (@ 568.6) and the requirements of Part 567 (@ 567.5) Certification, copy enclosed.

If Pioneer is a "final-stage manufacturer," it must file quarterly reports of production figures pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, (@ 573.5 (b)) Defect Reports. I have also enclosed a copy of this regulation for your review.

ID: nht72-4.6

DATE: 03/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1972, in which you asked to be referred to the information on which we based our statement in the notice of February 24, 1972, that systems meeting the injury criteria of Standard 208 are available using current seat belt technology.

Research data on the capabilities of seat belts are found in several places in the public docket, notably in the progress reports from our Safety Systems Laboratory and from Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (69-7 General Reference Nos. 74, 75, 83, 96, 102, 117, 120 and 135). There are records of vehicle tests in which current lap and shoulder belt systems have met the injury criteria (see, e.g. N<13>-69-7-20; N<13>-69-7-37). Also, the record contains information on energy absorbing webbing and anchorages, both of which are improvements within the current state of the art (see, for example, the 6th progress report from Cornell, runs no. 625-630, 69-7 General Reference No. 135; the data from Toyota in N<13>-69-7-23; and the Takata Koyjo data in N<16>-16-69-7-1).

Although the behavior of the head seems to be a greater problem for belt systems than the behavior of the chest, due in part to the effects of rebound, we have proposed changes in the head injury criterion that should ease the problem considerably.

ID: nht72-4.7

DATE: 04/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 28, 1972, in which you asked to be referred to the information on which we based our statement in the notice of February 24, 1972, that systems meeting the injury criteria of Standard 208 are available using current seat belt technology.

Research data on the capabilities of seat belts are found in several places in the public docket, notably in the progress reports from our Safety Systems Laboratory and from Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (69-7 General Reference Nos. 74, 75, 83, 96, 102, 117, 120, and 135). There are records of vehicle tests, including some performed by General Motors, in which current lap and shoulder belt systems have met the injury criteria (see, e.g., N<13>-69-7-20; N<13>-69-7-37). Also, the record contains information on energy absorbing webbing and anchorages, both of which are improvements within the current state of the art (see, for example, the 6th progress report from Cornell, runs no. 625-630, General Reference No. 135; the data from Toyota in N<13>-69-7-23; and the Takata Koyjo data in N<16>-69-7-1).

Although the behavior of the head seems to be a greater problem for belt systems than the behavior of the chest, due in part to the effects of rebound, the changes in the head injury criteria proposed in Notice 17 should ease the problem considerably.

ID: nht72-4.8

DATE: 10/20/72

FROM: F. ARMSTRONG FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 26, 1972, to Mr. Douglas W. Toms, in reference to our restraint systems and other standards for motor vehicles which may be purchased for use by law enforcement agencies.

Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards regulate new motor vehicles up to the sale to the purchaser. Accordingly, a law enforcement agency or other purchaser is not restricted by Federal law from removing or modifying required vehicle safety equipment once delivery is taken.

In the case of restraint systems, an aircraft or racing type safety harness with double shoulder belts would probably be superior to the standard automotive safety belts. However, our testing with human volunteers and baboons has demonstrated that the air cushion provides better crash protection than either aircraft or automotive safety belt systems. Thus, while we would not have reservations about replacing the standard automotive safety belts with the aircraft or racing type harness, we would not recommend replacing an air cushion system with any type of harness system. Rather, we would recommend relocating shotguns, communications, or other equipment to a location compatible with air cushion function if at all possible. In most cases, the vehicle manufacturers should be able to provide assistance in this regard.

I appreciate your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs. We would be pleased to provide whatever advice or assistance we may be able to give in assuring that law enforcement officers are afforded the safest vehicles suitable for their planned application.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 26, 1972

File No.: 1.A2711.A997

Douglas W. Toms, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Toms:

There are few who are more concerned with highway safety than the members of the California Highway Patrol. The members of this Department spend most of their waking hours striving for the reduction of injuries and deaths on the roadways of California. Certainly Departmental policy has supported all governmental regulations aimed at the reduction of highway accidents. However, some present and proposed automotive design features hinder the effectiveness of the traffic officer in performing his duties. In fact, some regulations will actually result in a reduction of safety for the patrolman or police officer.

A restraint system which will slow an officer's exit from or entry into the car can be dangerous in some situations. Could not law enforcement agencies be allowed some leeway in the ordering of their cars? An aircraft-type quick release belt/harness arrangement would be effective yet would not create the problems of entry and exit inherent to the proposed sequential system to be introduced on 1974 model cars.

Shotguns are presently mounted in a vertical position to the right of the transmission hump and are attached to the dash. The vertical mounting provides visibility of an enforcement item, the muzzle is aimed in the safest direction, and the near center location provides accessibility to each front seat occupant. If the manufacturers supply air bags to comply with passive restraint regulation, will qualified law enforcement agencies be allowed to deactivate the system until the car is sold following its useful life? The convenient and safe installation of the shotgun and communications equipment will be most difficult in a car equipped with an armed air bag system.

It would seem that some consideration must be given to the needs of law enforcement agencies. Exemptions would not be requested just for the sake of reducing problems but rather in those few instances where a design requirement in the name of occupant safety actually increases the hazard to a police officer on duty.

The problems heretofore related are only a few of the many which face those who must use basically standard production automobiles for law enforcement adaptation. It is hoped that some action can be taken in those instances where regulations may actually make the car more dangerous and ineffective for enforcement work.

W. PUDINSKI Commissioner

ID: nht72-4.9

DATE: 01/26/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: As noted in your letter of January 18, 1972, the section of Standard 208 dealing with passive belts states, in S4.5.2.3, that passive belts furnished under S4.5.2 do not have to conform to S7.4 of the standard. As you correctly note, the standard as it presently exists does not contain a section S7.4.

The section to which S4.5.3.3 refers is the S7.4 proposed in the notice regarding seat belt interlocks. Until such time as the interlock proposal is adopted, the reference to S7.4 should be disregarded. Since the reference will serve a purpose when the interlock provisions are adopted, we do not intend to delete it at this time.