ID: nht71-4.1

DATE: 07/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of May 11, 1971, you requested our opinion as to how Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to a seating system in which the seat belt is attached, to an eyebolt anchored on the seat frame and the eyebolt, in turn, is anchored by another length of webbing to the floor. The evident purpose of such a method attachment on suspension-type seats is to eliminate the shocks which would otherwise be transmitted to the occupant and to augment the strength of the seat, which might be unable by itself to withstand the occupant's weight in a crash.

As you correctly indicate in your letter, a system in which the belt is attached only to the floor requires a force under S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) of 20 times the weight of the seat in a forward and rearward direction, while a system with a lap belt anchored to the seat requires in addition, a force of 5000 pounds to be applied simultaneously to the seat belt in accordance with Standard No. 210 (S4.2(c)). It is our opinion that the hybrid seat belt installation shown by Oshkosh will be likely to impose significant loads on the seating system in the event of a crash, and that it should therefore be treated under S4.2(c) as a system with a seat mounted belt. The webbing running from the eyebolt to the floor is considered to be a part of the seat anchorage and should be employed during the test.

If you have further questions, please advise us.

ID: nht71-4.10

DATE: 09/13/71

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

TO: Ray. C. Ellsworth Ranches

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 2 inquiring whether your braking system hydraulic valve "is in conformity with the Federal Dual Braking Regulations now in effect."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Service Brake, Emergency Brake, and Parking Brake Systems, applies to passenger cars, and not to individual items of motor vehicle equipment incorporated in a hydraulic brake system. Thus, there is no Federal Standard to which your valve must conform. If the valve is installed as original equipment in a passenger car, it is the vehicle that would be required to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 105.

I have noted your comment that the valve is to be tested on braking systems for military vehicles. You may be interested to know that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including No. 105, do not apply to vehicles manufactured for and sold to the Armed Forces of the United States.

ID: nht71-4.11

DATE: 09/16/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Alex Feigelson Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of August 23, 1971, the NHTSA neither requires nor provides forms by which manufacturers must submit quarterly reports pursuant to @ 573.5 of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). Manufacturers are free to use any form they wish in submitting the required information. However, a suggested format is enclosed for your guidance.

Please note that the effective date of the regulation has been extended to October 1, 1971. A copy of the Federal Register notice extending the date is also enclosed.

ENCLS.

ID: nht71-4.12

DATE: 09/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Greenbaum; Soloff & Earnst

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1971, requesting an official interpretation of certain provisions of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You ask whether @ 573.5 requires quarterly reports to contain information on defect notification campaigns initiated prior to the regulations effective date, which is now October 1, 1971 (36 F.R. 14742, August 11, 1971). If not, you ask whether an automobile manufacturer must provide any information concerning campaigns begun prior to the regulation's effective date.

The answer to your first question is no. Quarterly reports required pursuant to @ 573.5 are not required to contain information regarding notification campaigns initiated before October 1, 1971.

With reference to your second question, manufacturers are required to provide certain information regarding notification campaigns initiated before the regulation's effective date. Section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1402(d)) requires manufacturers to furnish NHTSA a copy of all notices, bulletins, and other communications to dealers or purchasers regarding any defect in a vehicle of item of equipment sold or serviced by the dealer. In addition, @ 573.7 of the Defect Reports regulations requires a copy of certain notices, bulletins, or other communications to be furnished to NHTSA monthly. Both of these requirements apply to notices, bulletins, and other communications regarding defects discovered or determined to be related to motor vehicle safety before as well as after the regulation's effective date. Furthermore, the agency may, should the need arise, request information from manufacturers regarding past campaigns under the authority of section 112(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1401(d)).

If you have further questions please write.

ID: nht71-4.13

DATE: 09/18/71

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

TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSE ASSEMBLIES

This is in reply to your letter of September 3 asking questions about compliance of hydraulic brake hose assemblies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106.

With respect to your first two questions, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not require that you demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 106 prior to supplying Japanese car manufacturers with brake hose assemblies to be installed on cars intended for export to the United States. If the Japanese vehicle manufacturers request proof of compliance from you (apparently in the form of a certification from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania based upon test reports from only one of two test laboratories) such a request is solely a business matter between you and the vehicle manufacturer.

Your third question points out that proposed Standard No. 106 (Docket No. 1-5, Notice 7) would eliminate the specification of braid material for hydraulic brake hoses and asks whether you may implement this "revision" at the present time. Notice 7 is a proposal only, and the current requirements specifying braid material remain in effect until a formal amendment of Standard No. 106 occurs. The brake hose manufacturer's code number, the subject of your fourth question, is also a proposal which may or may not be adopted in the final rule.

ID: nht71-4.14

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Automobiles, Peugeot

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We appreciate the opportunity to further discuss the questions you raised during our visit of June 9 and 10. I will try to answer each question as fully as possible.

1. It would be unfortunate if the effect of our standards on domestic passenger car production in Europe is to raise costs to the point where significant numbers of people are forced to rely on cheaper and more dangerous vehicles such as motor driven cycles. However, we do not think this result likely in the light of the continuing demand for inexpensive passenger cars and in the absence of legislation by the European nations to compel adoption of the costlier safety features.

2. We are aware of the concern of foreign manufacturers with the effects of the standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will attempt to be as flexible as possible, consistent with its mandate to insure the safety of vehicles sold in the United States. The discretion allowed the agency to exempt vehicles from a standard is a matter that Congress will have to decide. At the present time, the exemption authority given the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by the 1966 Act has expired, and we are therefore unable to agree to any exemptions unless Congress chooses to recreate the exemption authority in some form.

3. In the development of standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration attempts to evaluate their effects on foreign as well as domestic manufacturers. As you are aware, it is sometimes not possible to reconcile all points of view on a standard, but we would urge you to make every effort to set forth your position on proposed rules during the comment period.

4, 5. Your comments on the proper height for bumpers and the problem of the license plate location have been considered in the context of the rulemaking on Standard No. 215. The amendment issued on June 22, 1971, should serve to lessen the height problem to some degree, and on the basis of present data we regard the height thereby established as reasonable for the overall vehicle population. The share of the license plate itself is determined by the individual states and is not within our authority.

6. The crash characteristics which you suggest for a vehicle's front end seem reasonable, but because they fall beyond the scope of the present rulemaking on Standard No. 215, any consideration of them will have to be deferred. Although we realize that the front seats can supplement the side structure of a car in a side impact, the question as to whether the seats should be retained was considered in the development of the final version of Standard No. 214, and it was determined at that time that the standard would provide a more reliable measure of side strength if the tests were conducted with the seats removed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is still of that opinion, although it would consider any additional information presented in support of a petition to amend the standard to allow retention of the seats.

7. On the subject of prospective standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is currently preparing a new version of the program plan for motor vehicle safety standards. The plan is intended to map the course of rulemaking for the next several years, and should serve to answer most of your questions on timing. We expect to announce the new plan in the very near future.

I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. If not, or if additional questions arise, do not hesitate to ask us.

ID: nht71-4.15

DATE: 09/20/71

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

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 29, 1971, requesting that we reconsider certain opinions provided to you in a letter dated June 4, 1971, which was in response to your letter of May 11, 1971. The opinions you wish us to reconsider concern whether certain tires used by Phillips for experimental purposes must comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The facts as you state them are that Phillips purchases new passenger car tires that have been certified as conforming to Standard No. 109, buffs them down, and then applies new tread, consisting of experimental rubber compounds, to them. You state that these experimental tires are tested by using them on the public roads, as well as by other methods.

In our letter to you of June 4 we stated that we consider these tires to be new pneumatic tires, and subject to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. He further stated that we considered the testing of them on public highways to be an introduction of these tires in interstate commerce, and that if the tires failed to conform to the standard, then such testing would be in violation of @ 109(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (11 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)). For the reasons given below, we affirm our earlier opinion. In addition, while not stated in our earlier letter, the failure by Phillips to certify these tires as conforming to Standard No. 109, pursuant to section 114 of the Act (13 U.S.C. @ 1403), Standard No. 109, and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) constitutes a violation of section 108(a)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(3)). Each violation of section 108(a)(1) and 108(a)(3) is subject to a civil penalty, as provided in section 109 of the Act, and to other sections as provided in section 110 (15 U.S.C. @@ 1373, 1399).

Your position appears to be that the tires in question are not covered by either Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 117 (Retreaded Pneumatic Tires) as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to the use of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase for a purpose other than resale. You claim that Phillips' activity with respect to these tires is merely to use them and, citing section 108(b)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1)), takes place after the first purchase for a purpose other than resale and is consequently not within the scope of section 108(a)(1). The tires, therefore, need not comply with the standards.

You make a concurrent argument as well, in which you state that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1) are "restricted to controlling the sale or resale of tires in commercial channels." You go on to state that if this were not true, the government would be forced to control the use and resale of the tires by the consumer. You feel that this argument is substantiated by the exemption in Standard No. 109 concerning the sale (your emphasis) of "reclassified tires."

Phillips' activity under the Act with respect to the tires in question is not that of a user or consumer, but that of a manufacturer. According to your letter Phillips purchases new passenger tires for the purpose of transforming them into experimental tires. In this regard Phillips is manufacturing a new and different tire, and the original tires are no more than raw materials which become part of the final product manufactured by Phillips. Whether or not Phillips ultimately sells or intends to sell the tires is unimportant in determining whether Phillips is a statutory manufacturer, as the definition of "manufacturer" under the Act (@ 102(3), 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(3)) does not require that the product be manufactured or assembled for sale.

Moreover, you are incorrect in your analysis of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(1) prescribes more than the manufacturing for sale, or the sale of motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment. In clear language it also prescribes the introduction of such components in interstate commerce, and prohibits the latter as well as the former activities after the effective date of a motor vehicle safety standard, unless the vehicle or item of equipment conforms to the standard. Contrary to the arguments in your letter, the use of such components on the public highways is an introduction of them in interstate commerce and subject to the prohibitions of section 108(c)(1). The exception to this, "after the first purchase . . . in good faith for purposes other than resale" (@ 108(b)(2)), is intended to exempt used

vehicles (and equipment) manufactured after a standard's effective date, as a continued reading of the section, which authorizes the establishment of used vehicle standards, indicates. It allows, for example, a vehicle or item of equipment that was manufactured after the effective date of applicable standards to be resold without requiring the seller to ensure that the vehicle or equipment is in the same condition with regard to the standards as when it was new. This section is not intended to allow individuals to manufacture vehicles or equipment for their own use on public highways without complying with applicable standards.

Your reference to the treatment of reclassified tires is not in point. The decision in that rulemaking action was to prohibit either the manufacture or the sale of these tires, and the latter course was chosen so that manufacturers would not be required to destroy noncertified tires that would be inexpensive and not unsafe for a narrowly prescribed use. In no way does this exemption reflect the limitation that you suggest on the authority of the NHTSA.

As we stated to you in our letter of June 4, 1971, the tires that you manufacture are not retreaded tires as the casings used in their manufacturer do not come from used tires. However, these tires are new pneumatic tires, and as such are subject to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

ID: nht71-4.16

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1971, concerning the Certification regulations, as amended April 14, 1971 (36 F.R. 7054). The questions you ask in your letter are dealt with individually below.

1. You request a ruling that, in the case of boat trailers, would allow the "type classification" of the vehicle (@ 567.4(g)(7)) to be stated as "trailer". The use of the word "trailer" in the case of boat trailers will satisfy the requirement.

2. You ask that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to exempt boat trailers from the requirement of specifying the GAWR (@ 567.4(g)(4)). You state as the basis for this request that the gross axle weight rating of a boat trailer is meaningless as it can vary depending upon the load distribution. We must deny your request. The purpose of requiring both GAWR and GVWR is to distinguish between the weight of a fully loaded vehicle and the weight on each particular axle of the vehicle. This distinction is important in the case of a single axle trailer, as the GVWR and GAWR may differ due to the distribution of the GVWR between the axle of the trailer and some component of the towing vehicle. By specifying values for both GVWR and GAWR that he deems appropriate, the manufacturer, rather than providing a meaningless figure, will be providing figures that represent an appropriate distribution of a load between the trailer and the towing vehicle.

3. You also ask whether, in cases where a tire size option exists, a GVWR can be stated on the label for each tire size. The question is presently under consideration as part of action being taken on petitions for reconsideration of the regulations that have been received. Accordingly, we will deal with this question in our action on the petitions pursuant to 49 CFR 553.37.

ID: nht71-4.17

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1971, to the Acting Chief Counsel, concerning several matters involving the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). In your letter you request an interpretation of whether @ 573.5(b) requires reports of quarterly production figures irrespective of whether or not the manufacturer has a safety-related defect campaign to report for that or any other quarter. The answer to this question is yes. As indicated in the denial of the petition for reconsideration (36 F.R. 14774), the requirement that production figures be reported is related to more than the particular quarter in which the information is submitted. Consequently, this information must be submitted for each quarter regardless of whether a defect notification campaign takes place during that or any quarter.

In your letter you also petition for certain modifications to the regulation. These are discussed separately below.

1. You petition that, if the quarterly production figures are required regardless of the existence of defect notification campaigns, we exempt "recreational vehicle manufacturers" from this requirement. This request is denied. Under present standards and regulations, as you know, recreational vehicles may be classified in any one of numerous vehicle categories set forth in 49 CFR 571.3. We cannot consider your petition without your specifying the types of vehicles for which you request the exemption and a justification for each particular type of vehicle, based upon the specific characteristics of the vehicle that you believe warrant our granting an exemption. I add, however, that we find your arguments concerning the burden of reporting production figures to be insubstantial. The ability of the NHTSA to monitor notification campaigns clearly outweighs, in our view, the burden of reporting vehicle production figures. Furthermore, we do not agree with the position you

take, that the proposed requirements of Docket 71-11, "Manufacturers Identification", regarding estimated yearly production figures can in any way serve as a substitute for actual production figures in terms of providing hard data on the effectiveness of notification campaigns, on the percentage of production campaigned, or in terms of monitoring manufacturers' estimates of the number of vehicles involved.

2. For the reasons stated in the denial of petition for reconsideration we deem your petition for additional notice on the requirements for reporting production figures (@ 573.5(b)) to be without merit, and it is accordingly denied.

ID: nht71-4.18

DATE: 10/06/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Strick Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1971, to Mr. Douglas Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, requesting an interpretation on the mounting of Identification lamps on your trailers.

We hesitate to agree with you that it is not practicable to mount the Identification lamps at the extreme height of the trailer. It would appear to be practicable to mount these lamps at the extreme height, even if a shield were necessary to prevent damage to the lamps during use.

If the identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the trailer, the clearance lamp mounting height is optional; therefore, clearance lamps could be mounted on the rear crossmember, as shown on your drawing SK-24139.