ID: nht73-1.8

DATE: 08/20/73

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

TO: Renault, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1973, asking for clarification of S5.2.1 and S6.9 of Standard No. 105a.

You interpret the parking brake test as allowing "the vehicle to slide down the 30% incline (because of its weight) as long as the wheels remain locked". The parking brake must hold the vehicle on a 30% grade for 5 minutes. If vehicle weight distribution is such that the limit of traction is exceeded and the vehicle slides down the incline, no noncompliance would be indicated unless the parking brake failed to lock the wheels.

No skid number is specified for the "clean, dry, smooth, portland cement concrete" incline surface specified in S6.9.

Yours truly,

August 1, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Admins.

SUBJECT: FMVSS 105a - Docket 70-27, Notice 8

Dear Mr. Schneider:

Regie Nationale des Usines Renault would like to request a clarification regarding section S.5.2.1. and S.5.2.2.1 of the above Docket.

It is our understanding that in order for the parking brake to comply with these paragraphs, the wheels of the vehicle must remain locked, but the vehicle may slide down the 30% incline (because of its weight) as long as the wheels remain locked.

We would appreciate receiving a written confirmation of our interpretation.

In addition, we would appreciate the NHTSA informing us of the skid number of the "clean, dry, smooth, Portland cement concrete" referred to in paragraph S.6.9.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.

Very truly yours,

RENAULTINC --[Illegible Words] for Francois Louis, Manager, Technical Standards Dept.

ID: nht73-1.9

DATE: 10/29/73

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

TO: T. N. O'Leary, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of October 8, 1973, to the Department of Transportation you ask whether it is true that DOT requires trailer braking systems to have stainless steel conduits rather than copper ones.

Neither the Federal motor vehicle safety standards nor the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety contain such a requirement, and we are unaware of any Federal regulation of this nature.

Yours truly,

October 8, 1973

Office of the General Counsel -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

We have been informed that there is a Department of Transportation regulation to the effect that trailers hauled behind motor vehicles must have stainless steel, as opposed to copper conduits for their gravitational braking systems. As I understand it, the idea behind the gravitational braking system is that when the car puts on its brakes, the trailer naturally exerts forward pressure on the hitch, and this pressure in turn activates the conduits or braking system in such a way that brake fluid flows through the conduit and puts the brakes on the crailer in action.

If there is, in fact, such a regulation, I would appreciate your pointing it out to me. Thank you.

Yours very truly,

PAIN & JULIAN --

Thomas N. O'Leary

P.S. Also, I would appreciate knowing the reasons behind such a regulation and the evidentiary effect, if any, in a Court of Law for such a rule.

ID: nht73-2.1

DATE: 07/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1973, concerning the procedure for testing seat belt attachment bolts specified in section S5.2(c)(1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

The attachment bolts that you describe have extremely long shoulders and are installed in the vehicle by being passed through a hat section before entering the floor pan. Your question is whether(Illegible Word) test procedure of S5.2(c)(1) permite the hat section to be used in conjunction with the test fixture shown in Figure 3. It is our opinion that section S5.2(c)(1) permits some discretion in the manner in which the Figure 3 test fixture is to be used and that a hat section duplicating the section used in the vehicle would be permitted as part of the test apparatus. We therefore confirm your impression that you may use the hat section in testing your bolts.

Sincerely,

May 24, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider-- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Schneider:

Jeep Corporation is requesting your concurrence with our interpretation with regard to FMVSS No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies" More specifically, we refer to paragraph S5.2(c)(1) which pertains to the demonstration procedure for verifying the strength of seat belt attachment bolts. This paragraph contains, by reference, a drawing (Figure 3) which shows a test fixture into which the seat belt attachment bolt is threaded. In addition, the angle of pull is specified with respect to the axis of the bolt as well as the number of threads that must remain exposed, etc. We would particularly like to point out that paragraph S5.2(c)(1) states that attachment bolts can be tested "in a manner similar to that shown in Fig. 3." We interpret this to mean that the geometry of the attachment bolt "environment" as it exists in an actual vehicle can be simulated on the strength testing machine when the tensile strength of the bolt is verified. The following information explains our problem in more detail.

In one of our future model Jeep vehicles the attachment bolt "environment" is considerably unlike that portrayed in Fig. 3 of FMVSS No. 209. Our Figure 1, attached to this letter, shows a side view of the installation in this Jeep vehicle. It should be noted that the long shank of the bolt goes through a sheet metal "hat section" before being threaded into the anchorage nut. This "hat section" supports the shank of the bolt and prevents an excessive amount of bending as would occur if the long shank were fully exposed without the "hat section" being there. The anchorage plate with its attached nut is on the underside surface of the floor pan of the vehicle.

In verifying the strength of the attachment bolt we will therefore mount a section of floor pan complete with the "hat section" on the test fixture which is shown in Fig. 3 of FMVSS No. 209. Our adaptation of the floor pan section to the text fixture is shown in our attached sdetch, Figure 2. Naturally, in our strength test the attachment bolt will be "backed out" so as to expose two full threads as required in FMVSS No. 209. Also, we will obviously delete the sound insulation material which is used in the actual vehicle since it offers no lateral support whatsoever. Thus, the bolt shank would be supported in exactly the same way it is in the actual vehicle since we would be using the same thickness of metal for the floor pan and "hat section" as used in production. Finally, the diameter of the hole(s) in the "hat section" through which the attachment bolt passes would be the same as in the actual vehicle.

Your confirmation of our interpretation would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

F.A. Stewart-- Vice President Safety & Reliability, JEEP CORPORATION

Att:2

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-2.10

DATE: 09/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sebring Vanguard Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of September 7, 1973, to Mr. Vinson with its enclosures and appreciate your providing them.

In your "memo" on purchase orders you state that Sebring Vanguard "has decided that our vehicles are multi-purpose vehicles." The Vanguard, however, is not for purposes of the safety standards a multipurpose passenger vehicle, defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." (In a recent notice, copy enclosed, we have proposed a change in this definition that would make it more restrictive.)

The Vanguard as we understand it is a "passenger car", defined as a vehicle designed for carrying 10 passengers or less, other than a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer. Vehicle design, rather than actual usage, is the definitional determinant, and the fact that some purchasers of a Vanguard may use it off-road or as a replacement for MPV's does not change its category.

ENC.

SEBRING VANGUARD INC.

September 7, 1973

Taylor Vinson, Attorney NHTSA

In our continuing effort to keep N.H.T.S.A. informed of our development program concerning the VANGUARD line of electric vehicles, enclosed please find some new data.

You will note our initial vehicle, the CitiCar, does not resemble the fifty VANGUARD Sport Coupes that have been merrily humming around the nation. We will shortly petition the N.H.T.S.A. for an amendment to standards 204, 206 and 208. As I mentioned on the phone today, we also intend to petition for the commencement of the writing of new standards more appropriate for light-weight vehicles in connection with structural strength and crush distance.

You and your associates are cordially invited to our display at the National Transportation Defense Associations Conference at the Washington Hilton starting Sunday, 23 September through Noon of the 26th. We will be happy to provide you with additional new information at that time.

Sincerely, Robert G. Beaumont President

Encls.

(Graphics omitted)

September 7, 1973

TO: Taylor Vinson

FROM: Robert G. Beaumont

SUBJECT: Copies of Purchase Orders enclosed in the letter of 9/7/73

After careful determination our company has decided that our vehicles are multi-purpose vehicles.

Hawaiian Electric Co. . . This vehicle is used at the Waiau Guard House for security in and around the penal institution's site.

Smithtown High School . . . These two vehicles will be used strictly off-road by security guards for patrol at the two high school complexes.

Post Office Dept. . . . Information concerning this bid has come to us that indicates for a varity of reasons that we will be awarded it. Specific usage of these vehicles will be postal security both on-the-road and off-road, inside the Jersey City complex and outside the complex.

Department of Commerce . . . (see attached letter from Test and Evaluation) This is a reorder, clearly specified on the Purchase Order "special purpose." As the letter indicates, it is replacing a jeep which is a multi-purpose vehicle.

Modern Metal Magazine, August 1973. Please read exciting article on electric cars.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National (Illegible Word) and Atmospheric Administration

August 14, 1971

Robert C. Beaumont -- Vanguard Vehicles, Inc.

Dear Mr. Beaumont:

Here's the answer to your question on vehicle replacement:

The Vanguard electric car we purchased last December has been used in place of a jeep (4 wheel drive, 4 cylinder, (Illegible Words) He returned the jeep to our vehicle group with the recommendation it be junked.

The other two Vanguards we expect to get this month will replace (Illegible Words) from the General Services Administration. One is a Ford (Illegible Words) other is a Ford station wagon which will be (Illegible Words) special project requiring many trips on high speed highways.

I know you're aware that I can't publicly endorse a product by (Illegible Word). I can say however with no problem that your vehicle meets our requirements better than any we have found so far. For the many short trips our 35 people make around our (Illegible Words) have tried pick-up trucks, (Illegible Words) bicycles, in addition to jeeps, vans and station wagons. (Illegible Words) has come so close to meeting our need (Illegible Words) (Illegible Lines)

ID: nht73-2.11

DATE: 08/28/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 21, 1973, in which you inquire whether British Leyland Motors Inc. may add to the consumer information leaflets for prospective purchasers, required by NHTSA regulations, the consumer information required by the Environmental Protection Agency.

As long as the information required by NHTSA is presented in conformity with 49 CFR 575, we have no objection to the inclusion within the same covers of additional information relative to EPA requirements. This would permit any format which include:EPA information without detracting from the clear and unconditional presentation of tabular information required under @ 575.6(a) of Part 575.

ID: nht73-2.12

DATE: 08/22/73

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON For Lawrence R. Schneider -- NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 9, 1973, in which you inquire whether Alfa Romeo may add to the consumer information "handouts" for prospective purchasers, required by NHTSA regulations, the consumer information required by the Environmental Protection Agency.

As long as the information required by NHTSA is presented in conformity with 49 CFR Part 575, we have no objection to the inclusion within the same covers of additional information relative to EPA requirements.

The wall posters you mentioned are not required by our regulations, so you may do with them as you please.

Alfa Romeo, Inc.

August 9, 1973

Richard Dyson --

N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Dyson:

I'm enclosing a copy of our consumer information handout that is used by our dealers in their showroom. This, as you know, is given to prospects.

This same layout is also given to each dealer in poster size format (about 30" x 40") for his showroom display.

What we'd like to do, is to add to both the handout and the poster, EPA's fuel consumption table. Ms. Sue Hickey of Dr. Briceland's office has already discussed this with you, and explained their program. It was suggested that we write you asking for your authorization to modify the Part 375 format to include EPA's table.

Our sample will give you an idea of the type of approach we'd like to use. We feel that this will present to prospective buyers all of the C.I. in one source, and possibly avoid some confusion.

Sincerely,

D. Black

Technical Director

Enclosure

cc: Claire Bain

ID: nht73-2.13

DATE: 12/12/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark I. Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: To interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht73-2.14

DATE: 11/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Jack Edwards; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your request for information on the Federal Odometer Disclosure regulation on behalf of Mr. Charles J. Fleming has been referred to as for reply.

I am enclosing a copy of the regulation which includes an example of an acceptable format. Other formats are acceptable if all the required information is included.

We are unable to advise Mr. Fleming about the effect of a particular typographical error without knowing its nature, but as a general matter a typographical error would not give rise to liability unless it were deceptive in a way which misleads a purchaser.

Sincerely.

Enclosure

LANE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY --

EUGENE, OREGON

October 12, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We wish to submit the following questions to you for your review and response:

(1) Under the Federal Odometer Disclosure Act, is an automobile dealer required to include six (6) digit figures if the vehicle's odometer has gone over 100,000 miles?

(2) What duty does an automobile dealer have in checking the vehicle or former owner to see if the vehicle has gone over 100,000?

(3) Must a dealer reveal the former owner of a vehicle upon the request of the prospective purchaser?

We would greatly appreciate your cooperation in providing the answers to the above questions at your earliest possible convenience as we receive many inquiries regarding these matters.

Very truly yours,

J. PAT HORTON, District Attorney; Marcia Mellinger, Investigator

cc: Tom Trent

ID: nht73-2.15

DATE: 11/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Greg Beck

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of October 18, 1973, asks what violations of the Federal odometer laws may have occurred in your purchase of a 1962 Tempest which was misrepresented as a 1964 model.

Misrepresentation of the model year, which appears to be your principal grievance, is not a violation of Federal law but could be a violation of local laws against fraudulent merchandising.

Bill Tillett's failure to give you a disclosure statement may be a violation of the Federal odometer disclosure regulation, a copy of which is enclosed. After March 1, 1973, the regulation requires each seller to make a signed, written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage to his purchaser. If he knows the odometer reading is inaccurate, he must also state that the actual mileage is unknown. This statement must be made before the vehicle is sold.

If your seller violated these regulations with fraudulent intent, a civil remedy is available to you under @ 409 of the Act for $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain your remedy, @ 409 provides that you may bring a private civil action in State or Federal court. You may wish to consult an attorney about the possibility of bringing an action in your case.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

October 18, 1973

Local Consumer Protection Commission and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Used Car

Dear Sirs:

My wife and I purchased for her a used car in the beginning of August however the recent newspaper articles on used car dealings leads me to believe that I was swindled.

The car dealer, Bill Tillett of Lancaster Pennsylvania, promised delivery of a 1962 Corvair on August 2, 1973 so on the previous day I gave him a check for $ 156.50 (check #791) which included title, license, state tax, etc on the car which cost $ 125.00. In return I received only a receipt of the money stating said car would be ready the following day. This car was not ready for a week, and even then it was not able to pass inspection (one of my conditions) so being in immediate need of a car he said that he would give us a 1964 Pontiac Tempest 4 cylinder. This car was suited for our needs so we agreed. Then he said that since the Tempest was 2 years newer that it would cost us $ 40.00 more. This we paid reluctantly August 8 (check # 800). I had to return the Corvair's receipt and a new receipt with just Tempest written on it with the total cost of $ 196.50 at the bottom. The bill was not itemized. I received a small slip of paper containing the year (1964) and model # and number of cylidners to send to my insurance company. Mr. Tillett took care of the title and sent us to pick up the license. When I received the title two weeks ago I noticed that only the serial number and model - Tempest appeared on the title. This was ignored until yesterday when I saw a 1964 Tempest - it was not like my car in style. Further checking revealed that I purchased a 1962 Tempest.

1. I received no mileage disclosure statement as I now see was required by law.

2. I was told, as was my insurance company, that I purchased a 1964 Tempest and thus paid another $ 40 for this car over the 1962 Corvair's price. Recently Bill Tillett ran an ad for a 1963 Tempest for $ 95 while I paid $ 165 for a 1964 which was really a 1962.

I wish to press any charges which will enable me to get my money back.

Sincerely,

Greg and Sandra Beck

1715 Swarr Run Rd.

Lancaster, Penna. 17601

or

c/o Lancaster Theological Seminary

555 West James Street

Lancaster, Pa. 17604

cc: both addresses

ID: nht73-2.16

DATE: 11/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Lane County District Attorney

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: You have asked what information an automobile dealer must provide in a Federal odometer statement concerning prior vehicle ownership and mileage over 100,000 miles

The Federal regulation only requires information which the transferor knows or has good reason to know about the vehicle's mileage. It does not require that he disclose the name of the former owner. It does not require that he state the recorded mileage, and if he knows or has good reason to know that the recorded mileage is not correct he must make a further statement that the actual mileage is unknown. In your example, therefore, he would only state the five-digit figure appearing on the odometer, and make the further statement if he knew or had been told that the vehicle had traveled more than 100,000 miles. He is not required to check with former owners as to vehicle history, but he would be accountable under local consumer protection laws for any misleading statements he made about the vehicle's history.

Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Enclosure