ID: nht74-3.42

DATE: 05/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dave's Tire & Fuel Oil Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of March 21 and April 22, 1974, in which you ask whether a tire sold as a "blemish" must be guaranteed for workmanship, material, and road hazards.

There are no Federal requirements that manufacturers guarantee blemish (or non-blemish) tires. Such guarantees are within the discretion of each manufacturer. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) requires all new passenger car tires to meet minimum safety performance levels for high speed performance, endurance, strength, bead unseating, physical dimensions and tradewear indicators. These requirements apply similarly to both blemish and non-blemish tires.

We have enclosed for your information a copy of the Federal Trade Commission's Tire Advertising and Labeling Guides which contain in Guide 11 requirements for the labeling of blemish tires.

ENC.

ID: nht74-3.43

DATE: 05/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: City of Philadelphia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1974, inquiring whether manufacturers of 4-door sedans to be sold to the City of Philadelphia at police vehicles may, consistently with Federal requirements, remove the window and door handles from the rear doors. You state that the vehicle manufacturers claim that Federal requirements prohibit them from modifying the vehicle in this fashion.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 571.206) requires each passenger car rear door to have a locking mechanism that is operable from within the vehicle and that, when engaged, renders the outside an inside door handles inoperative. This requirement applies to the locking mechanism. We do not interpret it to require an inside door handle. There are no Federal standards which require the installation of passenger car window handles.

The fact that in this case the vehicles are intended for government use is immaterial. To clarify the phone conversation which preceded your letter, Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) allows a State or its political Subdivision to require that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use meet a higher standard of preformance than the Federal safety standard, but all vehicles must meet the Federal safety standards.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

SINCERELY,

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

March 5, 1974

Lawrence Scheider Chief, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The City of Philadelphia is in the process of purchasing 1,000 four-door passenger Sedans to be used as police vehicles. We have requested the bidding manufacturers to remove the window and door handles from the rear doors of the vehicles. We have been told by the manufacturers that there is a federal regulation which prohibits this modification.

On March 1, 1974, I spoke via telephone with Mr. Stanley Feldman, Esquire, from your office regarding this matter. It was Mr. Feldman's opinion that modifications which are normally adhered to by federal regulations may be changed to suit our particular needs since the City of Philadelphia is a political sub-division of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I would appreciate receiving your written verification on Mr. Feldman's opinion prior to any further negotiations with the vehicle manufacturers.

Please send your response to the undersigned, City of Philadelphia, 1600 Municipal Services Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

CHARLES W. MURPHY

Safety Director

ID: nht74-3.44

DATE: 05/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1974, in which you ask whether a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a used body on a new chassis is required to certify the conformity of the completed vehicle in accordance with 49 CFR Parts 567, 568.

The answer is yes. A person who mounts a used body on a new chassis is a final-stage manufacturer and is required to certify the conformity of the completed vehicle. The NHTSA has interpreted the Certification requirement as applying to any complete vehicle manufactured using a new incomplete vehicle (chassis) whether or not the body to be installed is new or used.

ID: nht74-3.45

DATE: 05/21/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Peter Dakin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 4, 1974, requesting information concerning Federal safety standards applicable to the assembly of kit cars.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits the manufacture for sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, if the vehicle you are building is going to be used as a means of transportation on the road, it must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. The mere use of a vehicle on public highways constitutes an introduction into interstate commerce and is prohibited unless compliance with the safety standards has been achieved.

Part 56/.4(g) (1)(ii) of the certification regulations provides the producer of the kit with an option as to whether or not he certifies that the vehicle will comply with all applicable safety standards if completed according to his instructions. We would urge you to avoid undertaking the assembly of a kit that does not give assurance as to its ultimate ability to comply. If the producer of the kit takes the responsibility of certifying the completed vehicle, you as the assembler of the vehicle must exercise reasonable care in following the instructions he provides.

For your information I have enclosed a sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" which will direct you to the proper source for obtaining a copy of the safety standards and regulations.

ENC.

May 4, 1977

Peter Dakin

733 Spartan Drive

Rochester

Michigan 48063

Department of Transportation Washington DC

Dear Sir or Madam

please advise me what regulations I must obey in building a kit car for legal street use and registration?

Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Peter Dakin

ID: nht74-3.46

DATE: 05/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A.G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Porsche/Audi

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 73-0229) concerning possible fires resulting from a short in the radiator cooling fan in some Audi 100's.

The letter which you have sent to the owners of the involved vehicles does not entirely meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577. Specifically, the phrase, "possible hazard that may exist in your vehicle," may be construed as a disclaimer since it tends to discourage vehicle owners from having their vehicles corrected and is therefore not permitted. It is, however, permissible to state that the defect may not be present in every vehicle being campaigned if such a statement is applicable.

It will not be necessary to send an additional letter in this instance, but all future defect notifications must comply with the applicable regulation. If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. J. Reinhart or James Murray at this office (202) 426-2840.

ID: nht74-3.47

DATE: 05/24/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. Alec Reinhardt

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1974, asking us to approve language to be substituted for the first two sentences of the second paragraph of White's version of the defect notification letter in campaign #73-0140, as well as substitute language suggested by the Court.

We would consider the language of either submission to conform to 49 CFR Part 577 if the word "may" is stricken. The sentence would then read, "We have found that a defect exists in that. . . ." We have interpreted the regulations to require the finding that the defect exists, not that it may exist. However, the notification letter may indicate that the defect may not be present in every vehicle if that is the case.

ID: nht74-3.48

DATE: 05/31/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mitsubishi Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your verbal request to Mr. Herlihy of this office for a determination that a 3-point, continuous loop, Type II seat belt assembly would meet the requirements of @ 4.1.2.3.1(a) of Standard No. 208 if its emergency-locking retractor were mounted at the outboard floor anchorage instead of at the roof rail. The belt is routed from the fixed upper torso end, through a slip-fitting latch and pelvic section, to the retractor.

Assuming the belt assembly meets any other adjustment requirement of @ 4.1.2.3.1, it would conform to @7.1 or standard No. 208 and @4.1(g) of Standard No. 209 with the emergency-looking retractor mounted at the outboard floor anchorage. The upper torso restraint would "adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor" within the meaning of @7.1 as long as the continuous loop permitted slack from the floor-mounted emergencylocking retractor to reach the upper torso portion of the assembly.

ID: nht74-3.49

DATE: 06/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Michael Peskoe of NHTSA's Cheif Counsel's Office asking our comments on a sample defect notification letter Sears plans to send to known purchasers of the Armstrong L78-15 Allstate Wideguard Dynaglass tire having the identification number CEV3FP1372.

The sample notification letter you enclose would not conform to 49 CFR Part 577, "Defect Notification" in several respects. To comply with section 577.4(b) we believe your letter should include, in addition to the existing statement, a statement that the tires failed to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. We have taken the position that defect notification letters resulting from failures of compliance with applicable safety standards should contain that information, as it would be required under section 575.5(b) were the notification sent following an administrative proceeding.

We also believe the letter should include precautions the purchaser can take to reduce the chance that the failure will occur (@ 577.4(c) (4)). Such precautions could be stated as the corollary to the failure mode you describe, i.e., avoid prolonged driving.

The letter further fails to conform to Part 577 in that it does not evaluate the risk to traffic safety in the manner set forth in section 577.4(d). Vehicle crash would seem to be a potential result of tire failure, and the letter should therefore contain language meeting section 577.4(d)(1).

Finally, the letter does not conform to section 577.4(e). It is not clear whether the "replacement free of charge" will include mounting or balancing, both of which might be considered by consumers as part of a free replacement. Consequently, we find that the description required by section 577.4(a)(1) is incomplete. There is further no attempt to meet the requirements of 577.4(e)(2) or (e)(3), requiring a date by which replacement parts (tires) are available (if they are presently available, the letter should so indicate) and how much time will be necessary to perform whatever labor is included in the replacement.

In order for your letter to conform to Part 577, it must be modified in each of the respects described above.

ID: nht74-3.5

DATE: 07/09/74

FROM: P.K. KAMATH -- OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

TO: RICHARD DYSON -- U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

TITLE: 49 CFR PART 571, FMVSS 101 - CONTROL LOCATION, IDENTIFICATION AND ILLUMINATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/30/74 TO P.K. KAMATH FROM RICHARD DYSON -- NHTSA; N40-30 [ZTV]; OPINION FILE REDBOOK (-); STANDARD 101

TEXT: Dear Mr. Dyson:

Oshkosh Truck Corporation, in many vehicles, incorporates two controls to stop the engine. One control designated as engine stop (electrical) is operated in normal use to shut off the engine, the other control designated as the emergency engine stop (mechanical cable) is used only in emergency to shut off the engine, should the normal engine stop fail.

It is our understanding that the standard 101 applies to the control for normal engine stop and not to the emergency engine stop control.

Please confirm our understanding and if you disagree, please clarify how the control is to be identified and illuminated.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht74-3.50

DATE: 06/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: American Retreaders' Assoc., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of April 7 and April 8, 1974, regarding Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires." Your April 7 letter asks whether Standard No. 117 requires treadwear indicators to be straight across the tread face. Your letter of April 8 encloses two sample rubber labels and asks whether each conforms to the requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 117.

Paragraph S5.1.1(b) of Standard No. 117 does not specify a configuration for treadwear indicators. Rather, it incorporates by reference the requirements for treadwear indicators of S4.2.1(d) of Standard No. 109, which calls only for a treadwear indicator that provides a "visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch." We do not construe this language to require a straight-across treadwear indicator and other configurations are therefore permitted.

With respect to the labels you enclose in your letter of April 8, each would conform to all of the requirements of S6.3 (which includes the requirements for both affixed (S6.3.1) and permanent (S6.3.2) labeling) if the tires to which they are affixed are of neither bias-belted or radial construction. If they are of either of these construction types, that information would have to be included either through affixed or permanent labeling, including retention of the original casing labeling.

AMERICAN RETREADERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.

April 7, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In the manufacture of retreaded tires we have a need for clarification as to what constitutes a "tread wear indicator."

We are aware of a specific height requirement of 1/16" but are not clear as to whether it must be straight across the tread face or if some other type of configuration is acceptable.

Thank you for your assistance.

E. J. Wagner

Managing Director

AMERICAN RETREADERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.

April 8, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I have enclosed two sample rubber labels that we have been recommending to retreaders to affix to the sidewall of their product in order to comply with Section S6.3 as it now stands.

There has been some question as to whether this label complies with the requirements of S6.3.

May we have your views on this?

Thank you for your assistance.

E. J. Wagner

Managing Director