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.

ID: nht72-5.1

DATE: 01/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Distributers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 24, 1971, in which you asked several questions concerning the weight rating requirements in the Certification Regulations that go into effect January 1, 1972.

Your first three questions are summarized in your third question, as follows:

"We are under the impression that the only way in which the CVW and GAW Ratings assigned to an Incomplete Vehicle by the Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer can be increased would be (a) if a third axle is added, or (b) if the component parts of the existing axles are increased. Is this correct?

The answer is no. The information supplied to the final-stage manufacturer by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer under Part 568 is to assist the final-stage manufacturer in completing the vehicle in conformity with the standards, and certifying in conformity with Part 567. There are no requirements, however, as to how the final-stage manufacturer uses this information. If he wishes to take it on himself to change the ratings in either direction, or to disregard the conformity information, that is his right. Of course, he will be assuming legal responsibility for whatever changes he makes, as indicated by the facts of the particular situation. Similarly, he has the right to make whatever physical changes he wishes in the chassis, and assures the normal responsibilities of a manufacturer in doing so. The Part 568 document offers him protection to the extent that he chooses to stay within its limits, but it is his choice to make.

You asked for a definition of "rated cargo load" as used in the Part 567 requirement that GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." We have not provided a definition for this term in the regulations. By it is meant simply any figure provided to the vehicle user as to the cargo-carrying capacity, by weight, of the vehicle. There is no requirement that such a figure be provided; but if it is, it must be consistent with the gross vehicle weight rating.

Finally, you asked whether it would be "illegal" to supply a body with a volumetric "capacity for holding eight tons of feed," on a vehicle whose GVWR only allowed for a cargo load of five tons. If no rating by weight is supplied, the labeling requirement would not be violated by the volumetric capacity of the body. As we stated in a recent letter on the same question, however, such action might have adverse consequences beyond the certification regulation:

"[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 GAWR furnished with the incomplete vehicle." (Letter from L. R. Echneider to E. W. Mentzer. October 26, 1971, filed in Interpretations Redbook, Part 567, 568.)

We are pleased to be of assistance. We are sorry that we will be unable to have one of our attorneys attend your meeting in Las Vegas.

ID: nht72-5.10

DATE: 04/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: G. and W. Body Works

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your "Manufacturer Identification Registration Report" with which you submitted a sample of a certification label that you intend to use to fulfill your obligations under Part 567 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, soliciting our advice.

The nomenclature on the label fulfills the requirements. However, there is some question as to whether the material would meet the permanency requirements of section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act).

The subject is further addressed in the Preamble to the certification requirements that became effective on September 1, 1969, ". . . The intent of the requirement is that the label last for the life of the vehicle . . . ," (34 F. R. 7031) copy enclosed.

You should assure yourself that the material used will meet those requirements.

ID: nht72-5.11

DATE: 04/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: White River Distributors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1972, concerning your earlier letter to us of March 6, 1972, which we answered on March 22. You indicate that you have received trucks with identical specifications, but with different GVW ratings, and ask, why is it permissible for a manufacturer to place different GVW ratings on identical vehicles. You state further that, based on our letter, you have concluded that it is the responsibility of the user to see that the GVW rating assigned by the final-stage manufacturer is not violated.

As we indicated to you in our letter of March 22, 1972, there is nothing in the regulations that prohibits a manufacturer from placing different GVW ratings on identical vehicles, as long as the rating in each case meets the requirements of sections 567.4(g)(3) or 567.5(a)(5), whichever is appropriate. Manufacturers may have various reasons for changing the GVWR or GAWR of vehicles they manufacture, and the regulations allow them to do this. As we indicated to you previously, final stage manufacturers such as yourself might resolve this problem by specifying the desired weight ratings in your purchase order.

Your statement that it becomes the user's responsibility to see that the GVWR assigned by the final stage manufacturer is not violated is essentially correct. However, the requirement for affixing the GVWR and GAWR to a vehicle should not be confused with the requirements pertaining to the overloading of vehicles. The latter are presently primarily a matter of state enforcement, and do not affect the requirements of final stage manufacturers to affix GVWR and GAWR in accordance with Parts 567 and 568.