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: nht68-4.18

DATE: 09/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Eugene B. Laskin; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol PAR=LOCATION

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 19, 1968, addressed to Mr. David A. Fay, of the National Highway Safety Bureau has been forwarded to my office for reply.

The original list of definitions of vehicles was published in the Federal Register as part of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making dated December 3, 1966. Comments were requested from interested parties. Subsequently, the definition of a multipurpose vehicle as added to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in response to a number of comments received from industry requesting a different category for certain utility vehicles. Under the previous classification, there were a number of special purpose vehicles which did not fit into any single category. It was agreed that certain types of motor vehicles, such as Dune Buggies, the Carryall, Travelall, Compact Van, Jeep Wagoneer, Ford Bronco, and Scout type vehicles comprised a hybid class of motor vehicle which possessed the characteristics of more than one of the motor vehicle categories previously established. The "special features" include such items as 4-wheel drive amphibious equipment. Due to the differences in body construction, load time requirements, and general vehicle purpose, it was not considered reasonable to require those dual purpose vehicles designed to carry ten persons or less to meet all of the passenger car requirements, as would have been required by the Notice. For those reasons, the new category of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" use added to Section 245(b).

Your interest in the automotive safety program of the Federal Highway Administration is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht68-4.19

DATE: 09/19/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Howard A. Heffron; NHTSA

TO: Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 10 to the Federal Highway Administrator with reference to implementation of 19 C.F.R. S12.80, in the Virgin Islands.

You have informed us that your analysis of S12.80(b)(1) which begins "Any vehicle or equipment item offered for importation into the customs territory of the United States. . . ." leads you to believe that these regulations are not applicable to the Virgin Islands, which are not within the customs territory of the United States.

These regulations were issued jointly by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Transportation pursuant to section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 102 (8) of this Act specifically includes the Virgin Islands in the definition of "State" so that the Act applies to the Islands. Since the Act applies, regulations issued under the Act also apply by their own force.

It is our understanding that these regulations have been implemented in AmericanSamoa and Guam, also outside the customs territory of the United State by Executive Order of the respective governors. We believe that Governor Palewonsky should do the same, substituting the word "Virgin Islands" for "customs territory", and an Island enforcement agency in lieu of the Bureau of Customs, and making such other minor changes as appear called for by local conditions. The alternative, of course, is for the Secretary of Transportation to issue a separate set of regulations applicable only to the Virgin Islands.

We would appreciate knowing what action will be taken by Governor Paiswonsky, and which Island agency will be responsible for enforcing the regulations.

ID: nht68-4.2

DATE: 08/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 24, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning the method of operating school bus signal lamps as required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S3.1.3.2(b)(2) of Standard No. 108 requires that the system of red and amber signal lamps shall be wired so that the red signal lamps are automatically energized, and the amber signal lamps are automatically de-energized, when the bus entrance door is opened. Paragraph S3.1.2 of the standard does not permit the installation of an additional lamp, reflective device or associated equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment.

Therefore, the criteria for determining the compliance of an additional manual switch for controlling operation of the signal lamps is whether or not the manual switch would impair the effectiveness of the required automatic entrance door switch. A manual switch which overrides the entrance door switch only while the entrance door is closed does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required automatic switch. However, a manual switch which controls operation of the signal lamps while the entrance door is open would definitely impair the effectiveness of the automatic switch.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht68-4.20

DATE: 08/21/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Bugetta Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: With reference to your letter of August 14 and its enclosed specification sheet covering the Bugetta, this vehicle appears to be a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for purpose of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards since it is constructed with features for ocasional off road use.

Your understanding of the applicability of standards to multi-purpose passenger vehicles is correct. We concur with your view that compliance with Standard No. 103 (Windshield Defrosting and Defogging) is a meaningless requirement for a vehicle with no top or windows.

BUGETTA INC.

August 14, 1968

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Attention: Robert M. O'Mahoney

Responding to letter of July 31st from Mr. David Schmeltzer, we enclose general specifications and line drawing of the vehicle which is constructed with racing components and aircraft quality fittings throughout.

The special features of this motor vehicle that are contained for occasional off-road operations are:

a. Telescopic shocks which can raise chassis approximately 18" off the ground to traverse rough terrain, water, etc.

b. Removable fiberglass body (8 pit pins) for use in mud, etc. Vehicle completely functionable with body removed.

c. Metal protective covering under entire vehicle for deflecting rocks, twigs, etc.

d. Off highway tires as standard item.

e. Roll bar for off highway and racing protection.

Safety Standards complied with: 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 205, 209, 211. It was felt that the following standards did not apply primarily due to the multipurpose classification or for additional reasons given:

101 - Not applicable.

103 - Impossible requirement without top and side windows to vehicle.

105 - Not applicable.

110 - Not applicable.

112 - Not applicable.

113 - No hood, therefore not applicable.

114 - Not applicable.

201 - Not applicable.

202 - Not applicable.

203 - Not applicable.

204 - Not applicable.

206 - Not applicable. No doors.

207 - Not applicable.

208 - Not applicable.

210 - Not applicable.

301 - Not applicable.

Please review and let us know if further information is desired.

R. J. Hart

Enclosure