ID: nht71-2.19

DATE: 03/23/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of February 19 you ask about the possibility of "marketing" a total of 350 Mercedes-Benz C-111 vehicles in the United States which would not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I have checked this matter out with our legal staff and am advised that it is not possible to import and sell vehicles in the United States unless they meet all Federal standards, or unless they have been exempted from compliance pursuant to Section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Such an exemption is not, as you know, available to Mercedes-Benz since your total annual motor vehicle production greatly exceeds 500 units.

It is possible, however, under our importation regulations (19 CFR @ 12.80(b)(2)(vii)), to enter nonconforming vehicles for a period of up to one year and operate them on the public roads for purposes of test and experimentation provided that the vehicles are exported at the end of that time and are not sold in the interim. Leasing of the vehicle would be permitted during this period.

ID: nht71-2.2

DATE: 02/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Century Products, Inc.

COPYEE: C. DIETRICH -- BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN; D. SCHRUM -- ELECTRICAL TESTING LABS.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 28, 1971, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. Although your letter-refers to S4.11(d) as the paragraph with which you are concerned, it appears from the test of your letter that you are requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.1(d).

S5.1 of the standard specifies the test procedure that will be used by NHTSA to determine whether the child(Illegible Word) system meets the force resistance requirements specified in S4.1 of the standard. S5.1(d), the passage in question, rends as follows:

"Apply an increasing load to the torso block in a forward direction, not more than 15 degrees and not less than 5 degrees above the horizontal., until a loud of 1,000 pounds is achieved. The intersection of the lead application line and the back surface of the torso block, at the time that the force removes the slack from the lead application system, shall not be more than 8 inched or less than 6 inches above the bottom surface of the torso block. Maintain the 1,000-pound load for 10 seconds."

Your question is whether the angle at which the force is applied, even though initially between 5 degrees and 15 degrees above the horizontal, may above outside that range during application of the specified force.

The answer to your question is no. The relevant wording of the standard, that the force is to be applied in a forward direction "not more than 15 degrees and not less than 5 degrees above the horizontal, until a load of 1.000 pounds is achieved," clearfly requires that the direction of the test force remain within the specified angular limits throughout the period of force application.

Please write if you have further questions.

ID: nht71-2.20

DATE: 03/24/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: AGIP USA Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This office is in receipt of your letter of February 25, 1971, requesting concurrence with your proposed letter to an automobile manufacturer who wishes to import vehicles into the United States using your brake fluid.

Your proposed letter appears to adequately state the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, and as your letter indicates, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn't require that certification tests be conducted at Government approved laboratories. However, if your company plans to import brake fluid into the United States as an item of motor vehicle equipment rather than a part of a vehicle, proof of certification must be supplied by AGIP upon our request.

We trust this will answer your questions.

ID: nht71-2.21

DATE: 03/24/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 1, 1971, in which you inquired whether a "crew-cab" truck is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle or a truck.

You said in your letter, "It was our reasoning that the prime purpose of an MPV was to carry passengers, rather than to haul something, and that the addition of a crew cab which would accommodate an additional three persons, onto a chassis-cab which contains a dump body or utility body would not necessarily change the classification."

The above statement is essentially correct. A crew-cab truck combines the purposes of both multipurpose passenger vehicle and a truck. Where a vehicle has a significant capability for carrying either persons or cargo, its manufacturer may exercise his own discretion in classifying the vehicle.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht71-2.22

DATE: 03/29/71

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

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: PETITION TO AMEND STANDARD NO. 103

This is in response to your petition of February 24 to Douglas Toms for a amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (35 F.R. 16640).

You petitioned for an amendment of S4.6(b) that would allow use of a non-automatic means for flashing headlamps. Standard No. 103 does not contain requirements for, or prohibitions against, flashing headlamps non-automatically, and therefore installation of such devices is at the option of the manufacturer.

You commented that S4.6(b) appears to require simultaneous flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps if an automatic means of flashing is provided. Your interpretation is incorrect; either headlamps or side marker lamps, or both, may be flashed by automatic means.

You also petitioned for an amendment of S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 on the basis of a conflict in the dates of applicability of the effective date of the sections. Your petition on this point is moot; this ambiquity was resolved is an amendment to Standard No. 108 published on February 3, 1971 (36 F.R. 1896). I enclose a copy for your information.

ID: nht71-2.23

DATE: 04/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: American Safety Belt Council, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 25, 1970, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, which was amended on September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14778), and Docket No. 2-15, Notice 5, which was published on the same day. In your letter you state that while S4.4 of Standard No. 213 presumes the continued availability of factory-installed seat belt assemblies, recent proposals on passive restraint systems say result in the reasonsibility for the installation of seat belts passing from the automobile manufacturer to the buyer of children's seats. You are apparently concerned that should this occur, there is insufficient guidance presently available to the customer on having installed in his vehicle a seat belt assembly for use with a child seat. While the Administration does not as a general rule comment on docket submissions, we believe you have raised an important issue, one for which a response is appropriate.

Under the recent amendment to the occupant crash protection standard, which was published March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4600), manufacturers will have the option of using seat belt assemblies to meet restraint requirements until August 1975. At present, we anticipate that most manufacturers will in fact continue to use seat belt assemblies until that time. Consequently, we do not believe modification of Standard No. 213, which you suggest in your letter, is presently necessary. Furthermore, there are other motor vehicle safety standards, which we intend to retain, that would eliminate much of the problem with which you are concerned. Thus, while seat belt assemblies would no longer be required as standard equipment, passenger cars would still be required pursuant to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, to be manufactured with seat belt assembly anchorages that provides a location designed specifically for the attachment of seat belt assemblies and that

can be used by a consumer in the installation of aftermarket seat belts. Moreover, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies," as you know, requires each aftermarket seat belt assembly to contain attachment hardware and instructions for installing the assembly in the vehicle. These requirements together provide consumers with sufficient information and materials for them to have seat belts properly installed for use with a child seating system. If problems do arise in the future that these requirements do not fully deal with, appropriate steps will be taken at that time.

Thank you for your continued interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht71-2.24

DATE: 04/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Good Rumor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of March 2 you petitioned for an amendment of S4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10 which would eliminate the requirement for an outage indicator on vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width equipped with variable-load turn signal flashers.

The Administration has determined that vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width should be provided with a turnsignal outage indication. As a general rule, these vehicles are not subject to the inspections and maintenance that larger vehicles are, and a malfunctioning turn-signal unit is less likely to be discovered in the absence of an outage indication to the driver. Your petition for rulemaking is therefore denied.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards, however, do not prohibit the use of variable-load flashers as replacement equipment for fixed-load flashers.

ID: nht71-2.25

DATE: 04/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Tire Retreading Institute

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 28, 1970, to Roger Comptom, requesting an interpretation whether the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574) is applicable to retreaded tires sold to the General Services Administration (GSA); and, if the regulation is applicable, what will GSA be considered to be; a distributor, a dealer, or a first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

The regulation is applicable to both new and retread tires sold to GSA. We consider GSA to be a "purchaser" under the regulation, and the manufacturer or retreader is required to maintain records of the purchaser's name and address and the identification number of the tires sold to them. However, as you must realize, individual arrangements on a contractual basis between GSA and its suppliers are not precluded by the regulation.

ID: nht71-2.26

DATE: 04/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 16, 1971, requesting interpretations of several provisions of the Defect Report Regulations, 49 CFR Part 573.

You ask whether a quarterly report containing the information specified by section 573.5(b) concerning quarterly motor vehicle production must be submitted for calendar quarters during which no defect notification campaign is conducted. This interpretation is correct. A quarterly report containing the production figures and such other information as may be required by section 573.5 must be submitted for each calendar quarter.

You ask whether the first quarterly report required to be submitted pursuant to section 573.5 need cover only the period from August 16, 1971 (the effective date of the regulation) to September 30, 1971. This interpretation is correct.

Finally, you ask whether the term "submit", as used in sections 573.4(b) and 573.5(a), means "send". This interpretation is generally correct. The requirements in these sections for the submission of the defect information and quarterly reports would be satisfied by mailing the reports so that they are postmarked within the specified period of time. For example, defect information reports that are mailed to NHTSA must be postmarked not more than 5 working days after a defect in a vehicle has been determined to be safety-related. However, hand-delivered defect information reports must be received by NHTSA not more than 5 working days after such determination.

ID: nht71-2.27

DATE: 04/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schenider; NHTSA

TO: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of February 9 and February 17, 1971, requesting a clarification of the applicability of Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation, to changeover tires.

In your letters you suggest that, for purposes of Part 574, changeover tires should be considered as used tires, because (1) as a legal matter title to both the vehicle and the tires passes to the purchaser of the vehicle at the time of purchase; (2) tire dealers generally accept changeover tires with less than 100 miles of use as trade-in tires; (3) changeover tires are considered to be used tires by the Federal Trade Commission; and (4) in most cases the tire manufacturer will not have direct contact with the tire dealer selling the changeover tires after they have been traded in by the vehicle purchaser.

We have carefully considered these points, and have determined that Part 574 is nevertheless applicable to changeover tires.

Part 574 is an integral part of the enforcement scheme for compliance with the standards and the requirements with respect to safety-related defects, and as such its coverage is intended to be coextensive with the applicability of the standards. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, or offering for sale of tires which do not conform to applicable standards. Although the Act provides that this prohibition shall not apply after the first purchase, it specifically limits this exemption to purchases made "in good faith for purposes other than resale." Therefore, the fact that title to original-equipment tires has passed to the vehicle purchaser is not controlling, because in these cases the purchaser intends to exchange the tires-- that is, he is purchasing them for the purpose of reselling them, not for using them.

If the standard were not applicable to changeover tires, tire dealers could with impunity alter these tires in a manner that would make them unsafe. A case in point is the known practice whereby dealers alter the sidewalls of tires, often changeover tires, by cutting out a groove and laminating a whitewall surface to the surface of the tire.

Another policy reason for applying Part 574 to changeover tires is that, from a safety standpoint, the person who actually is using the changeover tires on his vehicle should be the one who is notified in the event the tires are suspected of being defective.

We recognize that the Federal Trade Commission does not allow changeover tires to be sold as new tires. That agency is, however, primarily concerned with fraudulent sales, an area of concern much different from ours. The difference in the definitional categories used by the two agencies is, we feel, fully justified by their different missions.

With regard to your point that the manufacturer of the changeover tires would not have direct contact with the dealer who sells the changeover tires, I will simply say that this is true in many situations with regard to tire distribution, and we do not consider it sufficient grounds to make the regulation inapplicable to changeover tires. It does not appear to be an undue hardship for a tire dealer to obtain a form and forward the information concerning the purchaser of the tire to the tire manufacturer.