ID: nht71-4.23

DATE: 10/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Secretary Volpe has asked me to reply to your letter of October 18, 1971, concerning the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 in the territories and possessions of the United States.

The Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued thereunder apply in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, and American Samoa. Motor vehicles, including buses, manufactured for sale and imported into those areas must meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Only one standard applicable to buses, No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, specifically does not apply to buses manufactured for sale outside the Continental United States. There are no Federal standards applicable to school bus bodies, so that the wooden bodied buses in American Samoa, of which you spoke, are not prohited by the Act. School buses manufactured for sale in Puerto Rico are required, however, to have a warning light system.

I HOPE THIS CLARIFIES THE MATTER FOR YOU.

ID: nht71-4.24

DATE: 10/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 15, 1971, requesting our interpretation of certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations:

1. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," as amended at 36 F.R. 4600 (March 10, 1971). If trucks over 10,000 pounds CV-R are equipped with a seat belt system as in paragraph S4.3.2, the vehicles need not meet the requirements of paragraphs S5 and S6, which apply only when the complete passive protection system option of paragraph S4.3.1 is adopted. Of course, the seat belt system must conform to the seat belt assembly requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies."

2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components." Your interpretation of the standard's coverage is correct: there are no requirements in the standard for the installation of the latches and hinges.

3. Part 573, "Defect Reports," S6 F.R. 3064 (February 17, 1971). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations do not require manufacturers to repair defective motor vehicles. Manufacturers are therefore free to make whatever arrangements for repair of defects they wish. Of course, we hope that in making such arrangements the manufacturers will assume the responsibility of assuring that the repairs are made properly.

ID: nht71-4.25

DATE: 10/19/71

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

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 FOR VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SNOW PLOWS

I appreciate your letter of September 8 and the concern you express about the effectiveness of the Federal motor vehicle safety program.

You have asked for a clarification of the opinion in my letter of August 16 that compliance of a vehicle with the Federal lighting standard, No. 108, would be based upon its "as-sold condition", where the vehicle is equipped with a hoist or mounting bracket and the snow plow, etc., is not sold with the vehicle. This opinion means that compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined without the plow attached even though, to use your hypothetical situation, the purchaser may be invited by the dealer to come back tomorrow and pick up your snow plow so we won't have to put the lights on.

The legal responsibility of a dealer under section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 is limited to ensuring that the vehicle complies at the time of sale. Section 108(b)(1) of the Act terminates compliance responsibility "after the first purchase of [the vehicle] in good faith for purposes other than resale." For this legal reason there is no violation of the Act if, after sale of the vehicle, the purchaser adds equipment (as in the mounting of a snow plow) or removes equipment (e.g., seat belts, head restraints) affecting compliance with Federal standards. A

vehicle equipped with a snow plow, however, would still be subject to State and local motor vehicle safety regulations, "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale."

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht71-4.26

DATE: 10/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of 4 October 1971 encloses drawings of several seat belt buckle installations that show the locations at which you propose to apply the buckle crash forces specified in Standard No. 209. As to each of the buckles depicted, we consider the force lines to be correctly drawn for purposes of the buckle crash test.

Please advise us if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht71-4.27

DATE: 10/22/71

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

TO: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 22 asking for clarification of the requirement for spacing of rear identification lamps on trailers, as applicable to your "change number 21-23."

Until January 1, 1972, Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that the three-lamp cluster be mounted "as close as practicable to the vertical center line." However, beginning January 1, 1972, the center lamp of the three-lamp cluster must be mounted on the vertical center line, and the offset arrangement in change number 21-23 will no longer meet the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht71-4.28

DATE: 10/22/71

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

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of October 14 you ask whether reflex reflectors on the tail gate of a pick-up truck, as shown in Figure 1 of the drawings you enclosed, meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Standard No. 108 requires, in part, that reflex reflectors be mounted "on the rear" of a vehicle. Compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 is judged with the vehicle in its normal road operating condition. In our view, a pick-up truck is normally operated with the tail gate in a closed position, and the reflex reflectors mounted as shown in Figure 1 appear to meet the rear reflector location requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht71-4.29

DATE: 10/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

COPYEE: MR. HITCHCOCK; MR. WOMACK; MR. DYSON; DT

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1971, in which you posed two related questions concerning the use of passive seat belt systems to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208.

The passive seat belt section S4.5.3, was added by the notice of July 8, 1971, "to make it clear that redundant active belts need not be used if passive belts are used to meet any option requiring Type 1 or Type 2 belts." If you choose to install a passive belt system, you do not have to provide a separate active system.

In response to your second question, S4.5.3 expressly provides that a passive seat belt assembly may be used in place of a seat belt assembly that conforms to the warning system requirements of S7.3. If a passive seat belt conforming to S4.5.3 is used to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.2, it must comply with paragraph (b) of S4.1.2.2 but need not comply with paragraph (a), (c), or (d).

Please advise us if your questions have not been adequately answered.

ID: nht71-4.3

DATE: 08/11/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Long Trailer Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1971, to Mr. Ed. Leysath of this office concerning the mounting location of side marker and taillights on your boat trailers.

The mounting requirements for lamps and reflectors are specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed). It appears as if devices mounted as indicated on your drawing would meet the requirements. If, however, severe problems would be encountered in mounting the devices as indicated or the devices would be subjected to damage during normal use, other mountings may be appropriate and still meet the "as far apart as practicable" or "as far to the rear as practicable" or "as far to the front as practicable" requirements.

If water damage is the only problem when lamps and reflectors are mounted in the indicated positions, special waterproof devices are available and could be used.

ENC.

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.