ID: nht74-5.15

DATE: 02/28/74

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

TO: Mercedes-Benz of No. America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1973, asking whether each of the following tire labeling formats used by the Michelin Tire Corporation complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109:

1. "2 steel tread plies/2 rayon body plies";

2. "max load 1,310 lbs at 36 psi max press."

We find that the first label format fails to conform to the standard. Paragraph S4.3(a) requires the tire to be labeled with, "the actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual number of plies in the tread area, if different." The labeling format used by Michelin creates the impression, contrary to the stated requirements, that the number of plies in the sidewall and the tread area is the same, viz. "2". We consider the body plies, running from bead to bead and lying under the plies in the tread area, to be counted also as plies in the tread area. Thus, the number of plies in the tread area is "4", 2 steel and 2 rayon. Moreover, while we understand the words "body plies" to be essentially synonymous with "sidewall plies", we feel there is little justification for departing from the words of the standard, which uses the word "sidewall" in referring to plies.

We find the second labeling format, that dealing with maximum permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating, to conform to Standard No. 109. The words "permissible," "inflation," and "rating" are not essential to conformity as long as the appropriate values, clearly identified, are provided.

For your information, I point out that NHTSA test laboratories are without authority to interpret Federal motor vehicle safety standards or provide such interpretations to companies whose

products they test. Only interpretations issued in the form of correspondence signed by authorized NHTSA personnel or by notice published in the Federal Register are considered by this agency to be binding.

ID: nht74-5.16

DATE: 03/01/74

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

TO: Mercedes-Benz

COPYEE: C. KACHN; D. PRITCHARD

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1974, which requested interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, "Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems."

The wiped area as stated in S4.1.2, is to be evaluated as a percentage of areas A, B, and C "of the windshield." This means that areas A, B, and C are evaluated in "unwrapped view." rather than in the form of a projection of the Windshield's surface.

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

January 21, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Mr. Elwood Driver

Re: Ruling Standard 104

As discussed with Mr. Pritchard on January 18, 1974 Daimler-Benz AG. is seeking a ruling with respect to interpretation of S4.1.2 of paragraph 571.104, windshield wiping and washing systems.

S4.1.2 references in respect of the wiped area to SAE recommended practice J903a from May 1966. Definition of the wiped area on the windshield is outlined in this recommended practice under 2.4 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and constitutes tangential cut-off of the two-dimensional eye range contour.

You are undoubtedly aware that SAE recommended practice J903a has been superseded by SAE J903b, last revised in July 1968. In this practice the wiped area is evaluated in an unwrapped view in which the wiped pattern and the areas A, B and C have been incorporated.

571.104 as well as J903a do not state whether the areas A, B and C should be evaluated in relation to the A area in projected form or in unwrapped view as exercised in J903b.

An early ruling in clarification of the above mentioned problem area is highly appreciated.

G. M. Hespelar Manager Safety Engineering

ID: nht74-5.17

DATE: 03/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1973, inquiring whether a manufacturer would be an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer if he installs truck bodies or material handling devices (frequently final-stage manufacturing operations) but he expects that a later manufacturer will either extend the chassis frame or add a third axle. These additions are necessary to make the vehicle safe to operate.

In most cases, we would consider the manufacturer in question to be an intermediate manufacturer. Under the definitions of "completed vehicle," "intermediate manufacturer," and "final-stage manufacturer" (49 CFR 568.3), the manufacturer would be a final-stage manufacturer only if, at the time he completes his manufacturing operation, the vehicle requires no further manufacturing to perform its intended function, unless the further manufacturing involves only "readily-attachable components."

In the case you present, the vehicle cannot perform its intended function unless further modifications are made. That it be able to perform its intended function implies that it be able to do so safely. The answer ultimately depends, therefore, on whether the additions that will be made to the vehicle involve only readily attachable components. We would not generally consider either an extension of the chassis or the addition of a third axle to involve only readily attachable components.

Of course, in those cases where no further modifications are necessary for safe operation, the crane or body installer will be the final-stage manufacturer.

ID: nht74-5.18

DATE: 03/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mobile Auto Glass of Iowa, Inc.

COPYEE: MR. HUNTER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 30, 1974, concerning requirements for replacement glazing material in trucks and buses.

Glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which incorporates the American National Standards Institute Standard No. Z26.1-1966. Section S6 of Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for certification and marking.

Paragraph S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205 covers the specific question you asked. If you cut a section of glass to which this standard applies, for use in a motor vehicle or comper, you are required to mark that glass in accordance with section 6 of Standard No. Z26.1-1966 and to certify that it complies with the standard in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205, Standard No. Z26.1-1966 and section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me.

3 ENCLS.

ID: nht74-5.19

DATE: 02/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Office of the Attorney General; State of Kansas

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1974, concerning the application of the Federal odometer law to certain automobile operated by the Kansas State Department of Education. The cars in question are equipped with special odometers whose use normally requires the disconnection of the original equipment odometers.

The question posed by the Department of Education is whether this practice violates the Federal law and whether the Department must keep the special odometer in the car when selling it. Our reply is that the Department is not violating the Federal law, and that while it must make certain disclosures when it sells the cars, it need not leave the special odometers installed.

Sections 404 and 405 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1981) make it unlawful for a person to disconnect an odometer with the intent to change the number of miles it indicates (section 404) and for a person with the intent to defraud to operate a vehicle with an inoperative odometer (section 405).

With respect to section 404, it does not appear that the Department will be changing the indicated mileage. With respect to section 405, it is apparent that the Department has no fraudulent intent in operating the vehicles with the standard odometers disconnected. We therefore find that the Department's practice does not violate the odometer law and may be continued.

We suggest that in executing the disclosure statement required by Section 408 of the Act, the Department should indicate that the indicated mileage is in error. Although section 408 does not

require disclosure of the true mileage, we regard full disclosure to be in the public interest and therefore recommend that the Department also include the true mileage on the disclosure statement. By doing this, it will avoid any appearance of deceptive intent.

YOURS TRULY,

STATE OF KANSAS

Office of the Attorney General

January 30, 1974

Hon. Claude S. Brinegar Secretary of Transportation

Re: Our File No. AC=63-82-3 Kansas State Department of Education Building 120 East Tenth Street Topeka, Kansas 66612 office has been requested to issue an opinion regarding the Kansas State and Federal odometer laws as applied to forty three automobiles assigned to the Kansas State Department of Education. It appears that these automobiles perform a certain function which necessitates removal of the original odometer and substitution of another for precision measurement of mileage.

While we feel most capable of rendering an opinion regarding the Kansas law on the matter, I am requesting your assistance for an opinion based upon the recently enacted federal legislation regarding odometers in motor vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of Dr. Whittier's letter for your reference.

Let me thank you in advance for whatever assistance you can render.

Very truly yours,(Illegible Word) MILLER Attorney General

BY: JOSEPH P. O'SULLIVAN Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division

ID: nht74-5.2

DATE: 02/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1974, and an earlier letter received from Mr. J. K. Smith dated December 14, 1973, forwarding to us for approval revised draft defect notification letters in International campaigns IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081), IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078), IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125), IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) -- two drafts, IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207), IH 73521 (NHTSA 730208). You ask if the revised letters may be sent First Class mail as opposed to Certified mail.

We appreciate your efforts to comply with both the letter and spirit of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577), but we find that your revised owner notification letters do not comply with the regulations. We deal with each notification separately below.

IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081). The third paragraph of your letter appears to represent an attempt to comply with both @ 577.4(c) requiring a description of the defect, and @ 577.4(d), requiring an evaluation of the risk to traffic safety related to the defect. We find that this letter fails to adequately describe the defect as the phrase, "unwanted vehicle speed" is vague, and consequently meaningless. Any speed in excess of the driver's input would be "unwanted." We believe to adequately describe the defect, the amount of unwanted speed should be quantified, at least in general terms. If, as quite likely, this may differ from vehicle to vehicle, we believe the letter should contain an indication of the most adverse case. In evaluating the risk you state that the condition can result in vehicle crash if not corrected by the driver. However, you do not indicate how the driver can correct the problem, and the facts as you present them, a jammed throttle

linkage in a moving vehicle, seem to preclude any possibility that the driver can "correct" the condition apart from somehow stopping the vehicle. Without a clear explanation, we believe that the reference to the possibility of correction is misleading. We do not, therefore, consider your statement to be responsive to the requirement of @ 577.4(d)(1)(ii).

Section 577.4(e)(1)(ii) requires an estimate by the manufacturer of the day by which dealers will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect. Your letter states that most dealers have parts, but if they do not, that parts are "usually" available at parts depots within 72 hours. We question the latter part of your statement, particularly as it appears in each notification letter you submit. The estimate must be a specific day, based on the facts of each particular campaign. The requirement assumes, because notification campaigns usually involve other than normal service items and apply to large numbers of vehicles, that manufacturers will take special steps to ensure the availability of parts. Your statement would be appropriate only if repairs can be accomplished using parts normally stocked by dealers, and your company is taking no special steps to supply parts to dealers (or parts depots). Even if this is the case, we believe your letter should include that explanation for your customers.

IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078). We do not find this notification letter to comply with Part 577. I response to your question, the use of the words, "may exist" in the first sentence of the second paragraph is not permitted under @ 577.4(b), which calls for a precise statement. Your next sentence, indicating that the defect may not exist in each vehicle, is permitted under the regulations. Your description of the defect as some loss of "stopping ability" fails to comply with @ 577.4(c) for the same reason as the phrase "unwanted speed" in campaign IH73505. The loss of braking power should be quantified, as the worst possible case if it varies from vehicle to vehicle. Our comments made with reference to IH 73505 regarding compliance with @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) are equally applicable here.

IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125). This notification letter does not conform to Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.

IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) 2 proposals. We do not find the notification letter equating the defect with the violation of Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations to contain, for that reason, an appropriate description of the defect (@ 577.4(c)) and we do not discuss that draft further. With respect to the

the other draft, we do not find the description of the defect to be sufficient under @ 577.4(c). Specifically, there is no explanation why the gas cap is incorrect, and how it can cause an explosion. In addition, the letter does not comply with @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided in our evaluation of campaign notice IH 78505 (NHTSA 730081).

IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207). This notification letter does not conform to Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.

IH 73521 (NHTSA 730206). This letter does not conform for reasons similar to those provided for campaign IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078) and IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126). Specifically, to conform to @ 577.4(c), the degree of additional brake pedal effort should be quantified, and an explanation should be provided on why the use of "single wrap" brake hose can result in a loss of vacuum assist. Similarly, the letter does not conform to @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided for campaign IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081).

The regulations require notification letters which conform to Part 577 to be sent Certified mail. Consequently, the revised letters must also be sent Certified mail.

ID: nht74-5.20

DATE: 02/21/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Patrick; Anderson and McDonald

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 30, 1974, requesting information concerning odometer disclosure requirements.

The Federal odometer disclosure regulation requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to furnish to the transferee a written statement signed by the transferor containing the odometer reading at the time of transfer. If the transferor knows the registered mileage to be incorrect, he must include a statement in the disclosure document that the mileage is unknown.

In order for a transferor of a motor vehicle to be subject to the sanctions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, the mileage must be incorrectly disclosed with the transferor's knowledge of the inaccuracy.

As you requested, I am enclosing the relevant portions of the Act and the regulation. You also might be interested in the enclosed consumer affairs fact sheet. Responding to your request concerning information that has been provided to the auto industry in general, the National Automobile Dealers Association has been involved in an active campaign to make the auto industry familiar with the Federal odometer requirements. They may be able to provide you with the information you desire.

We would be pleased to answer any further inquiries you may have.

ENCLS.

PATRICK, ANDERSON AND MCDONALD

January 30, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: U. S. Department of Transportation Rules requiring disclosure of odometer reading and true mileage of automobiles

I have been retained by Jerry R. Freed to represent his son, Daniel E. Freed, in a civil suit brought in the Federal Court for the Northern District of Indiana against McHenry Olds-Cadillac, Inc., a new car dealer, and Walter R. Moon, d/b/a Moon Motor Sales, a used car dealer. (Civil No. 73-S-238).

This civil action was filed under Sub-chapter 4 Odometer Requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Costs Savings Act, Public Law 92-213, now incorporated in the U. S. Code at Title 15, and, more specifically, at Sections 1981 through 1990.

Prior to my entry into this case, Mr. Jerry R. Freed, received a letter in response to his many inquiries from the U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway and Safety Administration, Region 5, at Chicago Heights, Illinois. Enclosed you will find a copy of that letter suggesting further inquiry to you concerning further technical questions regarding this law.

The pertinent facts of this case are as follows:

1. On July 16, 1973, Clara Dale Bennett, bought a new car from McHenry Olds-Cadillac, Inc. and traded in an automobile showing 47,000 miles on its odometer.

2. On August 13, 1973, McHenry Olds-Cadillac, Inc. sold said used car to Moon Motors and presented to Moon Motors an odometer (mileage) statement purportedly signed by Clara Dale Bennett, a copy of which is attached hereto.

3. On August 24, 1973, Moon Motors sold said subject used car to Daniel Lee Freed and exhibited to Mr. Freed the attached odometer (mileage) statement purportedly signed by the original owner, Clara Dale Bennett.

4. Within a few days from this last sale, Daniel Freed noted that the odometer failed to log the miles properly, showing only tenths of a mile and no units or further miles.

5. Three disinterested parties in the used car business have estimated the actual mileage of the subject vehicle to be somewhere between 70,000 and 10,000 miles.

My specific question in regard to these facts is the following:

Is each transferor of an automobile required by(Illegible Word) S. Code Title 15, Section 1988, and the Department of Transportation Rules thereunder, to give a written disclosure of mileage based upon his own personal knowledge and with his own signature?

I would very much appreciate your opinion in regard to this fact pattern as well as a copy of the department's rules in regard to mileage disclosure and copies of any information disseminated to the Auto Sales Industry in general.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Rett F. Donnelly

Enclosures

cc: Gordon G. Lindquist, Regional Administrator U. S. Department of Transportation; Jerry R. Freed

590.6 DISCLOSURE FORM

ODOMETER (MILEAGE) STATEMENT

FEDERAL REGULATIONS REQUIRE YOU TO STATE THE ODOMETER MILEAGE UPON TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP. AN INACCURATE STATEMENT MAY MAKE YOU LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO YOUR TRANSFEREE, PURSUANT TO S 409 (a) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE INFORMATION AND COST SAVINGS ACT OF 1972, PUBLIC LAW 92-513.)

I, 47000 STATE THAT THE ODOMETER MILEAGE ON THE VEHICLE DESCRIBED BELOW IS

CLARA DALE, BENNETT (CHECK THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT, IF APPLICABLE)

I FURTHER STATE THAT THE ACTUAL MILEAGE DIFFERS FROM THE ODOMETER READING FOR REASONS OTHER THAN ODOMETER CALIBRATION ERROR AND THAT THE ACTUAL MILEAGE IS UNKNOWN.

MAKE: BUICK

BODY TYPE: 2H

YEAR: 67

MODEL: G487

VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 4948 77H941149

LAST PLATE NUMBER:

STATE:

YR.:

TRANSFEROR'S (SELLER'S) CURRENT ADDRESS:

CLARA DALE BENNETT

DATE OF THIS STATEMENT

ORIGINAL TRANSFEREE (BUYER)

ID: nht74-5.21

DATE: 04/11/74

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

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request for confirmation that the clamps and check valve that attach a vacuum hose assembly to a brake booster are not subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses.

A brake hose end fitting is defined as "a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." As described by you, the couplers are the clamps and the check valve is an engine component to which the hose has been attached by the clamp couplers. Therefore your interpretation is correct that the clamps and check valve are not subject to Standard No. 106.

Yours Truly,

BMW of North America, Inc.

March 19, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Mr. L. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Re: Marking of Brake Hoses

This is subject to FMVS's No. 106 Brake Hose Markings. In our brake system, BMW uses a vacuum hose assembly which leads from the intake manifold to the brake booster and which includes also a check valve. The components are assembled by BMW, the manufacturer, who, of course, also certifies the finished vehicle.

It is BMW's understanding that the vacuum hose, which is used for this assembly, has to be marked with the manufacturer's code, or with the manufacturer's marking as long as no code is available. The clamps which are used for this assembly as well as the check valve which meets the free flow requirements, don't need to be marked.

If our assumption is incorrect, we kindly ask that you inform us accordingly.

Office of O. Weinreich Director of Engineering Signed by M. Rein Staff Engineer

ID: nht74-5.22

DATE: 04/12/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Driver and Vehicle Administration; Michigan Department of State

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Some time ago you asked our regional office in Chicago for advice concerning the sufficiency of the odometer disclosure form developed by Michigan for use on its certificates of title and other motor vehicle transfer documents. This will serve to confirm the informal opinion you received from Dick Cook of the regional staff.

As pointed out in the letter sent you by General Motors, the Michigan form lacks certain informational items that are specified in the Federal odometer disclosure regulation. To comply fully with the regulation, the Michigan form would have to include space for the vehicle model and the last plate number. However, we do not regard the absence of these items to be serious enough to mandate a change in the Michigan form, in that the other information provided on the form appears sufficient to accurately identify the vehicle. A transferor who completes the present form and thereby fails to give the additional information would not be misleading the transferee and would therefore not be subject to civil action under the Act. It is our view that a transferor who completes the disclosure statement on the Michigan form would not need to submit an additional disclosure form.

ID: nht74-5.23

DATE: 04/03/74

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

TO: Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 1, 1973, letter and subsequent communication with Mr. Sidney Williams of the NHTSA Handling and Stability Division concerning the conformity of your trailers with Standard 121. You asked particularly about the diversion of service reservoir air for use in the air suspension unit, the location of the service reservoir check valve, and test conditions for extendable platform trailers. This will also acknowledge receipt of your March 14, 1974, petition for longer application and release time for special length trailers.

The NHTSA has not issued any prohibition on the use of service brake system air in auxiliary systems such as windshield wipers and air suspensions. You may tap air from the system as long as the system still meets all the requirements listed - in particular the ability of the reservoir, when pressurized to 90 psi, to release the vehicle's parking brakes at least once.

The check valve may be placed at the isolated tank to protect the trailer service reservoir as specified in S5.2.1.5, as you have detailed it in your schematic drawing.

With regard to extendable platform trailers, they should be certified in the most adverse configuration. No special configuration has been specified, and the NHTSA is free to test the vehicle at any length at which it is designed to operate.

The Fruehauf Corporation has also petitioned for relief from the application and release time requirement as it applies to extendable trailers. These petitions are under consideration and will be answered when that consideration is complete.