ID: nht72-1.13

DATE: 09/22/72

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

TO: Mr. Darrell L. Lindemann

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your letter of September 8, 1972, concerning glare from chrome trim on the hood of your 1971 Ford Torino, which was forwarded to our attention by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, "Reflecting Surfaces . . .", regulates the specular gloss of four types of bright metal components in the driver's field of view but does not include chrome trim on the hood of a vehicle. In an effort to extend the scope of this standard to make it more effective in reducing daylight glare, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has sponsored four contract investigations dealing with glare. The final report on the last entry will be completed soon. After studying the results of this research. We intend to revise Standard No. 107 to cover other glare-producing areas of the vehicle.

ID: nht72-1.14

DATE: 06/15/72

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

TO: Frank and Frank

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your most recent inquiry regarding hood latch systems, dated May 26, 1972.

Examination of the 1964 Chevrolet hood latch system reveals that this system does meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 113, which was effective on January 1, 1969. While, as stated in our correspondence of February 16, 1972, we favor a system in which two complete operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard.

A current review of our Office of Defects Investigation files reveals that no information relative to 1964 Chevrolet hood latching systems has been added since our last communication.

Thank you for your inquiry.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

01/01/72 EST.

Irving Frank -- Frank and Frank

Dear Mr. Frank:

Thank you for your letter of December 22, 1971, in which you requested safety information pertaining to 1964 Chevrolet hood latching mechansims.

Our Offices of Defects Investigation and Accident Investigation and Data Analysis have made a search of their files, and have found no specific information relating to defects in 1964 Chevrolet hood latching. I should like to point out that, inasmuch as Federal motor vehicle safety standards first became effective on January 1, 1968, we have not in all cases received information pertaining to defects which may have affected earlier vehicles. We have, however, monitored a recall campaign affecting potentially defective hood latch mechanisms on 1969 Mercury Cougars, wherein the possibility of binding components could cause the hood to open while the vehicle is in motion. In this connection, we are enclosing a copy of a report, Motor Vehicle Safety Defect Recall Campaigns, covering calendar year 1969. Your attention is invited to page 13 of the report for a brief summary of the action, and to page 1 for instructions for obtaining further detailed information relative to this campaign. We are, of course, continuing to be alert for further problems in this area.

Regarding designs of hood latch systems, we favor the type system you describe in which two complete operations are necessary before the hood can be opened completely. I am enclosing a copy of Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 113, entitled Hood Latch Systems, which has required secondary latch positions or secondary hood latch systems on most vehicles since January 1, 1969.

Thank you for your inquiry. Do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, J. E. FORESTER FOR Robert L. Carter -- Acting Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs

Enclosures

ATTACH.

FRANK AND FRANK

December 22, 1971

Office of Compliance, National Safety Bureau

Re: Pettiford v. Hassell and Rhodes Our File No. 70-45

Gentlemen:

We represent a Mr. Dennle Pettiford of Brooklyn, New York who was seriously injured in an automobile accident in October, 1970.

On his behalf we are writing to you to determine whether or not there is any information available concerning the design, construction and maintenance of a hood or hood mechanism used in the 1964 Chevrolet station wagon. We would also be interested in knowing whether there are any statistics or other reports available concerning prior accidents arising in the same manner as the one in which our client was involved.

In September 1970, my client was driving a 1964 Chevrolet station wagon. While the car was in motion, after it had been traveling for some time, with no sign of any impending danger, the hood suddenly opened. Because his vision was completely obstructed, the driver immediately applied his brakes. At this time, there was traveling behind him a large trailer truck. Apparently, it was unable to stop. The truck collided with the rear of the station wagon ramming the station wagon against the side of the bridge and dragging it for a considerable distance. A serious fire ensued. Four people were killed and two others severely burned.

We understand that both vehicles were traveling on a very narrow bridge. A fast-moving vehicle traveling in the opposite direction may have created a vacumm-like effect as it passed our driver's vehicle. The vacuum-like effect in some fashion created pressure on

the hood causing it to fly upward and open.

We understand that at this time other vehicles had not only a latch to control the hood but also an additional safety catch. Thus the 1964 Ford automobile was equipped with a hood-release mechanism and also a secondary safety catch. Two complete operations were necessary before the hood could be opened completely.

The first device was released by compressing a lever located below the grillwork. This allowed for a partial opening of the hood; then a second device above the grillwork and below the hood was compressed to release a "hook" or "safety catch". Thus, assuming that a Ford vehicle was involved and mechanism was operating properly, the passing truck creating a vacuum-like effect, might have allowed the hood-release mechanism to become disengaged. However, the safety hook or catch would still have caught the hood before it could obstruct the driver's vision.

Any information that you may have concerning the hood release mechanism and/or safety catch on vehicles manufactured by General Motors in 1964, or for any other manufacturers that might have a bearing on this particular kind of accident would be greatly appreciated. If there's any additional information you require from us, please do not hesitate to ask.

Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Very truly yours, IRVING FRANK

FRANK AND FRANK

May 26, 1972

Robert L. Carter -- Acting Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

Re: Pettiford vs. Hassell and Rhodes Our File No. 70-45

Your reference: 41-42

Dear Mr. Carter:

You were good enough to write to us on February 16, 1972. This was in reply to our inquiry concerning the hood-latch systems on the 1964 Chevrolet.

We have recently been able to obtain a diagram from a publication known as "Gleen Mitchell Collision Estimator Inc." which is prepared for automotive mechanics. I am enclosing a copy of the same. You will notice that in the lower right-hand corner of this page 2-7, there is a small diagram of the hood and the locking mechanism.

As near as I can make out, it would appear that there is but one latch, consisting of an upper and lower assembly.

Would you be good enough to have your office indicate to us whether or not this assembly for the hood-latch system complies with the regulations which came into effect through your office on January 1, 1969.

We would also like to know whether or not since our last inquiry, there has been any further information obtained by your office with respect to the 1964 Chevrolet hood-latching mechanism.

Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Very truly yours, IRVING FRANK

Enclosure

ID: nht72-1.15

DATE: 08/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider for R.B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 24, 1972, to Mike Peskoe, and your letter of July 25, 1972, to Lawrence Schneider. Your letter of July 24 discusses your dissatisfaction with the present method of amending the Appendices of Standards 109 and 110 and suggests that we meet to discuss with you possible methods of changing this procedure. We will be happy to meet with you to discuss possible other methods of amending the Tables, and if you will contact either Ed Wallace or Mike they will arrange a meeting with you.

In your letter of July 25 you request the legal status of a petition dated July 4, 1972, from E.T.R.T.O., to amend the Tables of Standards 109 and 110 to include a tire size designation and alternative rim sizes which have not been standardized by E.T.R.T.O. The guidelines for amending the Tables, which you cite in your letter, do not require tire size designations and alternative rims to be standardized by the respective associations before inclusion in the Tables. Rather, they require only that the petition indicate whether the tire size designation and rim sizes have been standardized. As a consequence, the size in question (240-15 Radial) and the alternative rim sizes were included in the amendment to the Table published August 2, 1972 (37 F.R. 15430). If you object to the inclusion of this size designation in the Tables, as you have been informed by phone, your objection with supporting statements should be submitted to NHTSA in writing, within 30 days from publication of the amendment to the Tables.

ID: nht72-1.16

DATE: 05/31/72

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

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of May 1, 1972, we would consider a tire with a cord carcass angle of 85 degrees to be within the definition of "radial ply tire" as that term is defined in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

ID: nht72-1.17

DATE: 01/26/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: National Farmers Union Property and Casualty Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 4, 1972, in which you inquired into the possibility of selling tires that sustained (Illegible Words) damage in a service station fire. In 1969, you were faced with a similar situation and we advised you of the way in which these tires could be sold. In 1970, Safety Standard No. 109 was amended to deal with the problem of tires that had to be reclassified and thus you cannot (Illegible Word) rely upon our comments of three years ago.

I have enclosed a copy of the (Illegible Word) on point. The Amendment indicates a policy of (Illegible Word) control over the sale of "farm use only" tires. Since you are reclassifying the tires, you will have to meet the requirements of (Illegible Words) the same manner as a manufacturer. You will also be interested in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making I have enclosed. This proposal would prohibit the sale of tires which can now be sold as reclassified.

ID: nht72-1.18

DATE: 09/18/72

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

TO: Demman Rubber Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 14, 1972, requesting information as to whether you may sell tires to a Mr. Harvey Livingston, who is in the business of repairing tires with correctable defects. You ask what assurance you should obtain that the tires are actually repaired and rebranded by Mr. Livingston before their sale by him.

The sale of passenger car tires is subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. "New (Illegible Word) Tires" (49 CFR 571.109). Under these provisions tire manufacturers may sell passenger car tires only in the following circumstances: They may sell tires which perform to the performance and labeling requirements of Standard No. 109, and which have been certified as specified in the standard and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574); or, they may sell, until October 1, 1972, (See our notice of August 17, 1972, 37 F.R. 16694) tires which have been reclassified pursuant to paragraph S6 of Standard No. 109. This requires the removal original labeling and the affixing of new labels which were against the was of such tires on public highways. These restrictions apply to the sale of passenger car tires so any purchasers including persons such as Mr. Livingston, who wish to repair the tires and resell them.

If you sell conforming tires to Mr. Livingston, he would not be required by Federal regulations to remove Demmas labeling and to affix his own. Whether or not he did this would depend upon whatever agreement you reach with him. A satisfactory assurance, should you agree with him to follow this procedures, would be a written agreement to that affect; but you should also record the serial numbers of tires which you sell to him. Demman, however, is not permitted to remove its own labeling before sale.

Even if Mr. Livingston affixes the DOT symbol and his own identification number to the tires, the NHTSA would not necessarily find him responsible should the tire fail to conform to Standard No. 109. Mr. Livingston would be entitled to a show that the reason for the nonconformity is not attributable to the work he performed. If he could demonstrate this, Demmas could then be found responsible for the nonconformity.

If you sell Mr. Livingston "reclassified tires", Mr. Livingston would be required to label the tires as required by Standard No. 109, and to certify their conformity to the Standard before he could sell them as passenger car tires. In this situation, Mr. Livingston would be responsible if the tires failed to conform to Standard No. 109.

We have send Mr. Livingston a copy of our response.

ID: nht72-1.19

DATE: 02/11/72

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

TO: Salt Lake Auto Auction

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 5, 1972, inquiring whether you may inlay whitewall rings on black tires. You state that in the process a narrow strip of black rubber around the tire is buffed or ground off and replaced with a strip of whitewall which is bonded or vulcanized to the tire in its place.

Assuming that you are discussing applying this process to new passenger car tires, whether the process is permissible depends upon whether or not it adversely affects the tire's compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires," which prescribes performance requirements for all passenger car tires sold in the United States. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

If after using the process the tire will not comply with Standard No. 109, the use of the process is prohibited, and its use can result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per tire and of other sanctions as well (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1), 1398, 1399). In addition, it is the responsibility of the one who wishes to use the process to determine whether it will cause the tires to fail the standard.

ID: nht72-1.2

DATE: 02/23/72

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

TO: Petro Electric Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter of December 16, 1971, requesting interpretations of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they apply to electric vehicles.

The engine retardation braking effect of Standard No. 102 applies only to vehicles equipped with automatic transmission, and not to an electric vehicle that has no transmission.

Standards Nos. 201 through 204 do not apply to trucks. You have stated that your electric vehicle is designed so that "the rear . . . will normally be used for tools, service equipment, spare parts, etc., as would be required in a service vehicle as used by an electric utility company for going out and making repairs." You have also stated that the back area could be converted to a seating area for two passengers, but that this would be "unusual and occasional." On the basis of this information we have concluded that your vehicle is a "truck" and need not meet Standard Nos. 201-204.

ID: nht72-1.20

DATE: 05/31/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We are in receipt of your response of October 7, 1971, to CIR 368.1.1, concerning Admiral Belted 78 tires that were branded on one side only.

The Administration considers the act of branding on only one sidewall at a time when the standard required both sidewalls be labeled, to be inexcusable. If similar incidents of overlooking requirements come to our attention we will pursue civil penalties. However, based on the information before us we are closing our files in this case with regard to both civil penalties and defect notification. The Administration reserves the right to reopen this file in the event that further violations of this nature come to its attention.

ID: nht72-1.21

DATE: 12/15/72

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

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 8, 1972, inquiring whether new casings, to which tread is later added, are considered to be "tires" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The NHTSA has taken the position that such casings are not tires until after the tread has been added, and the casings are not required to be certified as conforming to applicable standards until that occurs. Consequently, such casings may be imported without prior certification.

You also ask how best to inform Customs of our position, to avoid possible importation problems. We suggest you write to Mr. P. K. McCarthy, Chief, Restrictive Merchandise Branch, U. S. Bureau of Customs, Room 704C, 1145 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20226, advising him of our opinion, and ask him to acknowledge this interpretation. You might also take steps to ensure that this information is relayed to the local customs officials at those ports of entry where the casings will be imported. If you need further assistance in this matter, please let me know.