ID: nht69-2.19

DATE: 12/02/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: Thompson Aircraft Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of November 6, 1969, the Department of Transporation hereby assigns number 211 to the Thompson Aircraft Tire Corporation, South San Francisco, California, as its approved code mark. The approved code mark is for use in identifying the tire manufacturer in accordance with S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966 (15 USC 1421(1)).

You are cautioned that the approved code mark at the present time is for use only on new pneumatic passenger car tires.

ID: nht69-2.2

DATE: 05/02/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Reliance Trailer and Truck Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1969, to the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau concerning your questions on mounting of clearance and identification lamps on your open top bulk commodity trailers. In response to your question no. 1, identification lamps mounted below the bottom edge of the tarp as shown on your attached marked print no. 2 appear to be in compliance with Standard No. 108. With the identification lamps to mounted the rear clearance lamps may be mounted at the extreme edge of the rear lower structure as shown on print no. 2.

The answer to question numbers 2 and 3 is that the front clearance lamps should be mounted as high as practicable to clear the bottom edge of the tarp as shown on your attached marked print no. 2.

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.

ID: nht69-2.20

DATE: 11/24/69

FROM: R. H. COMPTON -- DIR., OFC. OF STANDARDS ON ACCIDENT AVOIDANCE, MVS PS, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY C. A. BAKER

TO: Gumifabriken Gislaved Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of November 3, 1969, the Department of Transportation hereby assigns number 210 to the Gumifabriken Gislaved Aktiebolag, Gislaved, Sweden, as its approved code mark. The approved code mark is for use in identifying the tire manufacturer in accordance with S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1421 (1)).

Your attention is directed to the requirement for designation of an agent in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Subsection (110(e)). This requirement is implemented by our "General Procedural Rules, Subpart D - Service of Process; Agents.

As requested, I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments.

ID: nht69-2.21

DATE: 06/05/69

FROM: H.A. HEFFRON -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; CONCURRENCE OF TENNEY JOHNSON -- MVSPS

TO: G. M. Hilgendorf, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Frank Coy, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Transportation, has asked that I respond to your letter of April 16, 1969, in which you ask whether a station wagon purchased in March of 1968, equipped with two ply tires, violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

The vehicle you purchased was apparently manufactured prior to April 1, 1968, and therefore, it was not required to be equipped with tires conforming to Standard No. 109. However, even if the standards were applicable, because a tire is labeled "2-ply" it is not necessarily a non-conforming tire. Standard No. 109 does not specifically require tires to have a given number of plies. It does require that irrespective of any ply rating tires pass minimum performance tests. As to passenger cars, Standard No. 110 requires that passenger cars manufactured after April 1, 1968, (1) must be equipped with tires that comply with Standard No. 109; and (2) the vehicle must not place a load on any of the tires greater than the load capacity of the tire specified in Standard No. 109.

ID: nht69-2.22

DATE: 10/03/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Donald J. Norris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This reply is in reference to your letter to Mrs. Knauer concerning Federal tire codes and tire tests, and a minimum service guarantee on tires.

The list of tire manufacturer's approved code marks is periodically updated wherever new number are requereted or other chop as are necessary. The latest revision, a copy of which is enclosed, was printed on July 2, 1969. in the Federal Register. The tire code mumber, you realise, is placed on the tire to enable the consumer to identify the actual manufacturer of a tire. With respect to the minimum performance standards for passenger care times it is our intent to revise there standard and up-grade as necessary to protect the motoring public.

It has been the policy of the National Highway Safety Bureau to retest tires when individual failures are found and to request the manufacturer of these tires to provide information concerning their basis of certifying compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. When upon retesting a significant number of tires of a certain brand and line of tires are found to be defective, indicating that failures are not of the "isolated-instance type", this information has been released to the public and recall campains have been initiated. The Bureau has taken the position that an isolated instance of failure is not necessarily representative of the tires being manufactured and further verification is needed by retesting. We feel that the release of information on isolated failures would be confusing and serve no useful purpose to the consumer.

The National Highway Safety Bureau has the responsibility of establishing safety standards for motor vehicles to reduce accidents.(Illegible Words) injuries in(Illegible Word) accidents.(Illegible Words) into relationships between the consumer and the caller of tires in cases involving(Illegible Word) service(Illegible Word).

ID: nht69-2.23

DATE: 09/08/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Caroline Nigro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1969, concerning head restraints on your 1969 Pontiac Catalina.

Before Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, which requires passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, to be equipped with head restraints was issued, the issue you raise, that of the possibility of decreased visibility, was carefully considered. It was felt, however, that the possibility of a slight decrease in visibility, which may occur in certain passenger cars, was far cutweighed by the benefits to safety provided by head restraints.

In a study published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, and conducted by members of the Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineers, U.C.L.A., it was concluded that (1) "Rear-end collisions are one of the most common types of accidents, and can cause crippling injuries even at low speed," and (2) "head restraints are as important to the motorist involved in rear-end collisions as the safety belt is to the motorist involved in front-end impact."

Furthermore, in the recent case of Sterling Products versus Boyd, in which the Federal Highway Administrator's iasuance of the head restraint standard was challenged and upheld, Judge McGovern of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia concludeds;

"In any event, we find substantial support in the record for conclusion that the contribution of head restriants to consumer safety is such as to warrant their inclusion in all newly manufactured motor cars. There can be no question but that the Administrater, on the besis of the submissions made to him, could reasonably determine that the benefits from mandatory head restraints for outweighed any disadvantage from such restraints due to decreased visibility, or other possible adverse effects upon safety."

Federal law does not prohibit you from removing head restraints. However, I strongly urge that you retain these safety devices in your vehicle for your own safety and protection.

ID: nht69-2.24

DATE: 09/19/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Bus and Truck Supply Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1969, and August 15, 1969, in which you request approval of an alternative to the label locations specified in Section 367.4(c) of the Certification Regulations that will be effective as to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1969.

The location you have selected is not considered to be in the same general area, left side of the vehicle, as specified. In view of the fact that interested parties will be looking for the label in that general area, your proposed location, on the right side forward of the entrance door, is not approved. Please select another location that would be in the general area of the driver's seat and submit for approval.

The nomenclature on your label, as shown in drawing No. BS6111-007, does not fulfill the requirements of Part 367.4(g) of the regulations in that the required information is not presented in the order prescribed.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

ID: nht69-2.25

DATE: 09/18/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Etnyre & Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1969, to the Federal Highway Administration, that has been referred to this office. In your letter you ask for a yes or no answer to specific questions relative to certification of assemblies completed from chassis-cabs. The answers to your questions follow: 1. QUESTION: "We manufacture bodies that are sold through a non-exclusive dealer that sells construction equipment.

The dealers sale includes only the body and its mounting on a chassis-cab. The chassis-cab is furnished by the customer and is normally purchased through a second dealer that handles truck sales. The chassis-cab is delivered to our factory for the mounting of the body. Do we supply certification for the completed vehicle?" ANSWER: The answer to your first question is yes, you would supply certification to the dealer or distributor at the time of delivery of the vehicle. 2. QUESTION: "If the answer to the first question is yes, do we remove the temporary certification label on the chassis cab (367.5), write the chassis-cab vehicle identification number on this and place this in our file as evidence that the vehicle we assemble has been furnished with a certified chassis-cab?" A simple yes or no answer cannot be given to question No.

ANSWER: 2.

The method you use in procuring and retaining information relative to the chassis-cab would be up to you. The procedure you describe, writing the chassis-cab identification numbers on the label and placing some in your file would be considered satisfactory.

3. QUESTION: "With reference to the vehicle identification number, paragraph 267.4(g)(4), do we supply only our vehicle identification (or serial0 number?" ANSWER: yes, you would only supply your vehicle identification (or serial) number in accordance with Part 367.4(g)(2) of the regulation. 4. QUESTION: "Paragraph 367.4(g)(2) requires the month and year of manufacture. It further states "This shall be the time during which work was completed at the place of main assembly of the vehicle." In a previous response to a letter of ours signed by Mr. F. C. Turner and addressed to Senator Charles Persy (copy enclosed). Mr. Turner stated that a FHWA ruling stated that a completed assemblege need only conform to the standards that were in effect at the time of completion of the chassis-cab.

requirement will be the month and year of manufacture as stated on the label in paragraph 367.5." ANSWER: Yes, the month and year of manufacture of the chassis-cab would be used to satisfy the requirements of 367.4(g)(2), month and year of manufacture.

We trust this will clarify the situation for you

ID: nht69-2.26

DATE: 09/24/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Arrow Trailers Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1969, to Dr. Brennar that has been referred to this office, in which you asked whether the name of another company may be placed on the certification label affixed to vehicles manufactured by your company.

The question of "private brand" manufacturing was raised at various stages of rulemaking in respect to the certification regulations. It was decided that the certification label on a vehicle must show the name of the actual manufacturer. This information is important in the enforcement of standards and regulations under the Act. The Vehicle Safety Act, moreover, places primary responsibility for conformity to the standards and for certification of conformity, on the manufacturer, and the regulations are designed to implement that intent. You should note, however, that distributors of the vehicles in question share the responsibility for compliance with the standards to the extent of their knowledge, and participate in the certification by passing it along to dealers or other distributors.

We trust this will clarify the situation for you.

ID: nht69-2.27

DATE: 10/03/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Harbors Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of August 12 and September 4, 1969 in which you asked several questions about the responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of companies that assemble bodies to chassis. I have taken the liberty of restating your questions.

What does a person who assembles truck bodies to chassis certify, and on what basis: Such an assembler is a manufacturer" under the Act, and the vehicles that he assembles must be certified by him as conforming to all applicable standards. The primary responsibility for conformity of the chassis-cab, however, falls on the manufacturer of it (generally a major automotive manufacturer), and under the regulations that manufacturer is required to affix to label to the chassis-cab listing the standards to which it conforms. Under section 108(b)(2) of the Act, such a certification protects subsequent persols in the chain of distribution from liability from noncenformity of while they have no knowledge. Thus, the body assembler is directly responsible for conformity of the finished vehicle with (1) any applicable standard to which the chassis-cab manufacturer has not certified, and (2) any other standards conformity to which is affected by what the assembler does to the vehicle. His certification must be for all standards, in the language specified in the certification regulations, but he can rely on the interim certification of the chassis-cab manufacturer for the standards it covers, as long as he does not know of any nonconformity.

What are the applicable standards? The applicable standards for a vehicle manufactured by assembling a body to a chassis-cab are those in effect on the date on which the chassis-cab was completed. This date appears on the label that the chassis-cab manufacturer must affix to the chassis-cab.

What is the vehicle identification number that must appear on the assembler certification label? At present there is not a safety standard relative to a vehicle identification number for vehicles other than passenger cars. The vehicle identification number to be affixed to the completed vehicle under the certification regulations, therefore, should be a number assigned to the vehicle by the assembler, by which he can identify the vehicle on request of an investigating agency such as the Federal Highway Administration.

Is there any requirement for certification of truck bodies separately from the assembled vehicles? No. A truck body is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Act and the regulations, and therefore is not covered by the present Certification Regulations (49 CFR Part 367). Although it is "motor vehicle equipment", such equipment is only required by the Act to be certified where there is a safety standard applicable directly to it; and there are none at present for truck bodies. When the body is assembled to the chassis, the completed vehicle must be certified in accordance with the Certification Regulations, as explained above.

I am enclosing a copy of the current standards and regulations. We are pleased to be of assistance.