ID: nht68-2.21

DATE: 06/07/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Von Hamm-Young Mercantile Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of February 19, 1968, and April 1, 1968, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, regarding your wish to import a Nissen President passenger car which you state does not conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

A passenger car which does not conform to the Federal standards may enter the United States under one of the seven situations set forth in @ 12.80(b)(2) of the enclosed regulations. If it is impossible to conform the President either before or after entry, you could import a non-conforming example if it were manufactured before January 1, 1968, or if it were manufactured after that date and used solely as a static display.

ID: nht68-2.22

DATE: 06/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Customs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I attach a copy of PL 90-283 which amends the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1955 by authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to temporarily exempt limited production motor vehicles from compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards after he has made certain specified findings. Vehicles of foreign manufacture so exempted and offered for importation will no longer bear "a valid certification as required by section 114" allowing such vehicles unrestricted entry pursuant to 19 C.F.R. @ 12.60(b)(1)(i), of the joint Treasury-Transportation Regulations.

You will see from the attached Interim Procedures which have been adopted by the Federal Highway Administration that, in lieu of section 114 certification, exempted vehicles will bear a permanently affixed label or tag and a temporarily affixed label both stating the fact of temporary exemption and listing the standards for which exemption has been granted. To allow exempted vehicles unrestricted entry I suggest that 19 C.F.R. @ 12.80(b)(1) be amended to add new subparagraph (iii) which would read as follows:

"(iii) (for vehicles only) it bears information as required by regulations issued under section 123 (PL, 90-283) of the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (a label or tag permanently affixed to such vehicle stating that it has been exempted from certain safety standards and listing the safety standards from which it has been exempted, together with a label containing the same information affixed to the windshield or a side window of such vehicle)."

We anticipate that the Final Procedures to be adopted later this year will require a vehicle to bear information substantially the same as that required by the Interim Procedures.

I would appreciate it if you would commence whatever action is necessary under Customs regulations to amend the Joint Regulations.

ID: nht68-2.23

DATE: 06/28/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Grove Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 3 to the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau. I apologize for your not receiving a reply earlier but the letter was inadvertently misplaced.

Your letter was evidently dictated prior to publication in the Federal Register of the chassis-cab regulations and ruling enclosed. I hope the enclosed ruling answers the questions you have with regard to the "hydra-tilt roll back loading bed" your company manufacturers. In your letter you state that approximately 10 percent of the "hydra-tilt roll back loading beds" your company manufacturers are mounted on the customer's truck chassis by your company. Under these conditions you would be considered a person who combines "the chassis-cab with a body or other structures [and] will be responsible for (1) compliance of the combines assemblage with any motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the end use of the combined assemblage in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis-cab, compliance with which has not already been certified by the chassis-cab manufacturer, and (2) compliance with all applicable standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis-cab to the extent that the addition of a body or other structure to the chassis-cab affects the chassis-cab's previous conformance with applicable standards." (See 33 F.R. 29).

For the roll back beds you sell to distributors for mounting, the distributors would be considered the assemblers and would be responsible for compliance as described above.

Also enclosed is a copy of a notice published in the Federal Register concerning certification requirements under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. To date these are the only specific requirements for certification.

In your letter you also describe three types of motor vehicles you manufacture. They are (1) a hydraulic yard crane; (2) an RT Series hydraulic crane, for use on off-highway construction jobs; and (3) a truck mounted hydraulic crane.

Based on the material submitted we would conclude that of the three types of vehicles described, the hydraulic yard crane and the RT hydraulic crane would not be considered motor vehicles primarily for use on the public highways. The third type of vehicle described, the crane carries, would be considered motor vehicles and subject to National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued thereunder.

Enclosed you will find a compilation of the present motor vehicle safety standards and an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 47 proposed standards. Your name has been added to the Bureau's mailing list and you will be receiving word of future actions taken concerning the motor vehicle safety program.

ID: nht68-2.24

DATE: 05/28/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Lester L. Wolff; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 3 to the Treasury Department which was forwarded to the National Highway Safety Bureau for reply. Your letter enclosed correspondence from Your constituent Sidney Fischer of Oyster Bay.

Mr. Fischer asked the following two questions:

"(1) Whether a car (new or used) must have the manufacturer's or distributor's safety sticker on it in order to be brought into the United States."

I enclose a copy of 19 C.F.R. @ 12.80 which governs importation of motor vehicles subject to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Generally, any passenger car manufactured after December 31, 1967, whether new or used at time of importation must bear the manufacturer's permanently affixed certification of compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards if it is to be admitted into the United States. Exceptions are provided under certain instances for vehicles which were not manufactured in conformity prior to entry (@ 12.80(b)(ii) or will be brought into conformity after entry (@ 12.80(b)(iii) and @ 12.80(c)).

"(2) If such sticker is not on the car and is required for entry by customs, could he get an abstract of the safety requirements that the Customs Inspector would use in order to determine the admissibility of the vehicle?"

The manufacturer's permanently affixed certification is not required for entry under @ 12.80(b)(ii) or (b)(iii). But there is no "abstract of safety requirements" used by Customs to determine admissibility of the vehicle. Vehicles conformed prior to entry will be admitted upon production of a statement in the form required by @ 12.80(b)(ii).

Vehicles to be conformed after entry will be admitted upon an undertaking by the importer to bring the vehicle into conformance and the giving of a @ 12.80(c) bond to secure this promise.

Because of the difficulties of conforming a vehicle after its manufacture, if Mr. Fischer intends to buy a passenger car manufactured after December 31, 1967 he may save himself much worry by assuring himself prior to purchase that a vehicle bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance.

ID: nht68-2.25

DATE: 06/14/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: John J. Sparkman; United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to the matter raised in your note of May 21 and the accompanying correspondence from Mr. Jimmy R. Knight concerning his attempt to import a Volkswagen.

Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) provides in part that no person shall import into the United States any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date that any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless that vehicle conforms with such standard. Section 108(b)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part that a motor vehicle offered for importation in violation of the provision discussed in the previous sentence shall be refused admission under joint regulations issued by the Treasury Department and the Department of Transportation, except that regulations may be issued permitting the importation of such a motor vehicle upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear appropriate to the Secretaries of the Treasury and Transportation to insure that any such motor vehicle will be brought into conformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States. In implementation of section 108(b) (3) of the Act, Part 12 of the Customs Regulations was jointly issued and published in the Federal Register on January 10, 1968 - a copy is included as Attachment I. Prior to publishing Part 12 in final form, a notice of proposed rule making was published in the Federal Register and, at the same time, a news release was issued by the Federal Highway Administration detailing the requirements of the proposed regulation - a copy of the news release is included as Attachment II. Thereafter, upon publication of the final rule, a Department of Transportation news release was issued again detailing the requirements of the final rule - a copy of the DOT news release is included as Attachment III. Further, the requirements of Part 12 were communicated to the Department of Defense and the Department of State and those departments were urged to give the regulations the widest possible dissemination. Finally, the Customs Department printed an addition to its information booklet on the importation of automobiles into the United States in which the need to conform to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards was specifically stated - a copy of the Customs publication is included as Attachment IV. Thus, the existence of the importation regulations contained in Part 12 relating to motor vehicles and the need to conform to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for such vehicles were given the widest possible publicity.

Under the Act, certification of conformity with Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a function of the manufacturer. It is the manufacturer, not the Federal Highway Administration, who certifies that his product conforms to applicable standards. In keeping with the requirement of self-certification in the Act, section 12.80(c) of the Customs Regulations provides that a person, after obtaining entry of a nonconforming vehicle under section 12.80(b)(2)(iii) of the Customs Regulations, must file, within the time stated, a verified statement that such motor vehicle has been brought into conformity, the person who has brought the vehicle into conformity and a description of the nature and extent of the work performed or return the vehicle or forfeit the bond. These provisions are applicable to Mr. Knight's situation. Mr. Knight's problem is that he cannot or will not state that the Volkswagen in question has been brought into conformity. This problem, in turn, apparently stems from the fact that no one but the manufacturer of the motor vehicle can state to what degree the Volkswagen was not in conformity in the first instance. It would seem, therefore, that the only practicable solution to Mr. Knight's problems is for him to contact the manufacturer of the motor vehicle to find out the extent to which the vehicle does not conform to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Armed with the information, Mr. Knight, or persons knowledgeable in automotive mechanics, will know whether the vehicle can be made to conform and what needs to be done to being the vehicle into conformity. We are forwarding to Mr. Knight a complete set of applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards together with a copy of this letter. Further, we are including a copy of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as Attachment V.

We trust the above satisfactory answers the inquiry and if we can be of any further service to you in this regard, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

ID: nht68-2.26

DATE: 10/29/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Hogan & Hartson

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 17 asking several questions about the importation of motor vehicles and equipment items attached to them after entry and prior to sale.

The Joint Regulations (19 C.F.R. S12.80) are clear as to the points you raise. Subsection(b)(2)(iv) allows the entry of a vehicle bearing a not-yet-valid certification plate upon the filing of a declaration that:

"Such vehicle is a new vehicle being imported for purposes of resale which does not presently conform to all applicable standards because readily attachable equipment items are not attached, but that there is affixed to its windshield a label stating the standard with which and the manner in which such vehicle does not conform end that the vehicle will be brought into conformity by attachment of such equipment items before it will be offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale."

The regulations require separate labels for each vehicle since it is the individual vehicle, and not the lot, which does not conform.

(Illegible word) @ 12.08(c) indicates, a release under the bond is required only when declaration is filed pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(iii) and not subsection (b)(2)(iv).

ID: nht68-2.27

DATE: 07/26/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The City of New York Police Department

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 21 asking how an owner can be penalized for violating vehicle equipment standards, and, in addition, whether or not taxicab owners may remove head restraints, which will be required on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, so as to install a sliding glass panel separating a taxicab driver from his customer required by New York police regulation.

As to the first question, in general, the standards have very little application to vehicle owners at this time. In the future, through State-Federal cooperation with reference to vehicles in used standards, it is possible that some sanctions as to owners will be applied. At the present time the principal effect on owners has to do with imported cars. An owner may not import a vehicle into the United States which does not conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of its manufacture, whether it is new or used.

Your second question is answered in part by my answer to your first question. At this time there is no prohibition against an owner of a vehicle removing an item of safety equipment which the manufacturer must install to conform with the standards. We are aware that some owners, particularly taxicab owners, may remove such required items as seat belts. We view this as unfortunate since it removes a built-in protection for driver and passenger.

The removal of head restraints to accommodate a different kind of safety device presents a more difficult question. If the absence of any sanction prohibiting the removal of the head restraint the question, from a safety point of view, is whether or not the danger from whiplush injuries in rearend collisions, which are, as you know, frequent occurrences in city traffic; is a greater danger than the threat of assault from the taxicab passengers. Certainly the ideal would be to provide both kinds of protection for the driver, and it would seem that it would be possible for manufacturers to provide a design that would afford both sorts of protection.

We have had informal conversations from the City of New York's Washington office concerning what we understood(Illegible Word) proposed city ordinance governing the glass panel separating drivers and passengers in taxicabs. Your letter mentions a "police regulation." Could you supply us with more complete information as to what the City of New York's requirements are and whether they are by city ordinance, State laws, or police regulation? Appropriate citations or copies of applicable laws or regulations would be appreciated.

POLICE DEPARTMENT -- CITY OF NEW YORK

June 21, 1968 Robert M O'Mahoney Counsel Transportation Department.

I have your letter of June 11th with the booklet on Federal motor vehicle safety standards, for which I thank you very much.

I inquire now, relative to these standards:

1. Illustrate how an owner can be penalized for vidating the vehicle equipment standards. The literature on the market concerning violations by the dealer and the manufacturer is clear but what set of circumstances would bring an automobile owner into a breach of the vehicle equipment standards.

2. In New York City taxicabs require (by police regulation) a sliding panel isolating the taxi driver from his customer. When future taxicabs come from the assembly line, with the headrest included, there will be interference with the glass panel. Question: are the taxicab owners permitted to remove the headrest in this type of a case or do your standards forbid removal thereof?

Thank you once again Bob for your reply to my first communication and I hope you can furnish us the information desired in this letter.

ID: nht68-2.28

DATE: 09/19/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Auto Sport Importers

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of August 22 you have asked the following questions:

"If an automobile which is constructed by a small manufacturer, who does not produce his own chasis, but only the coachwork thereon is introduced into the U.S.A. by a U.S. distributor and in marketed under the name of the coachbuilder, who would be responsible for certification:

a) The manufacturer of the chassis who has already certified this chassis?

b) The coachbuilder or final assembler, under whose name the car is sold?

c) The U.S. distributor who is engaged in selling the vehicle.

It is my understanding from the facts you presented at the meeting of August 19 that you plan to purchase Triump chasses for direct shipment from England to Italy where a coachbuilder will mount bodies, the assembled vehicle then being shipped to the United States for sale. My answers to your questions will be framed accordingly.

(a) chassis manufacturer. Since the Triumph chassis is that of a vehicle currently imported into the United States for sale, it is probable that the chassis conforms to Federal motor vehicle safety standards involving components of the chassis. Put the chassis manufacturer has no formal certification responsbility under section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 when the manufacturer and sale of the chassis occur outside the United States. Any "certification" he provides is strictly a matter of contract between the parties.

(b) coachbuilder or final assembler. Section 114 of the Act requires every "manufacturer or distributor" of a motor vehicle to furaish certification of the vehicle's conformance at the time of delivery of the vehicle to a distributor of dealer. This certification is to be permanently affixed to the vehicle and must be precent for the vehicle to be admitted into the United States. Accordingly the final assembler is the proper party to certify compliance.

(c) U.S. importer-distributor. No further certification by the importer or distributor is necessary for a motor vehicle imported into the United States which bears the certification of its manufacturer.

"2. If a chassis and engine is once certified by the original manufacturer, and providing the secondary manufacturer or coachbuilder does not modify this chassis, must the secondary manufacturer or the U.S. distributor recertify this chassis and engine or only the coachwork thereon?

(a) By whom must the mark or plague signifying certification be affixed?

It is the responsibility of the vehicle assembler to affix an appropriate certification of compliance of the completed motor vehicle with all applicable standards, no matter what "certification" or other assurances of compliance it may obtain from the chassis manufacturer.

August 22, 1968

Taylor Vinson, Attorney National Bureau of Highway Safety

We enjoyed meeting with you in Washington on Monday, August 19th and appreciated the courtesy shown to us by Frank Armstrong, Director of the Office of Program analysis; Eugene Laskin, Acting Director of the Office of Standards of Preparation; Joseph O'Gorman, chief of the Compliance Division and you as Attorney for the Department.

It is now apparent how necessary it is to have your first hand interpretation of all the new Federal legislation since our project is unique.

We will utilize chassis and engines from one manufacturere and especially designed bodies from another manufacturer. Naturally, the producers of the chassis and engines are concerned about their liability under present U.S. laws and regulations. These manufactures have therefore insisted upon a clear, written interpretation from your department before signing any contracts with us, or before proceeding any further with this project.

Pursuant to your suggestion at our meeting of August 19, 1958, we now suboit a request for a written answer to the following questions:

1. If an automobile which is constructed by a small manufacturer, who does not produce his own chassis, but only the coachwork thereon is introduced into the U.S.A. by a U.S. distributor and is marketed under the name of the coachbuilder, who, would be responsible for certification:

a) The manufacturer of the chassis who has already certified this chassis?

b) The coachbuilder or final assembler, under whose name the car is sold?

c) The U.S. distributor who is engaged in selling the vehicle.

liable for complience with the U.S. Safety Regulations?

liable for compliance with the U.S. Safety Regulations?

2. If a chassis and engine is once certified by the original manufacturer, and providing the secondary manufacturer or coachbuilder does not modify this chassis, must the secondary manufacturer or the U.S. distributor recertify this chassis and engine or only the coachwork thereon?

(a) By whom must the mark or plague signifying certification be affixed?

As you know, these questions have already been answered by you at our personal meeting, but we must have these statements in waiting for European chassis manufacturers. They are concerned as to their position legally and their responsibility in the U.S. so far as your office is concerned.

Again, may I thank you for your promot and sincere attention to this matter and to others which we discussed at our meeting in Washington.

Michael Wolf

ID: nht68-2.29

DATE: 11/14/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Timmons Metal Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 7, 1968, to Dr. William Haddon, Jr., Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning additional side marker lights on tilt cab chassis.

In order to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, an amber side marker lamp should be counted on each side of the chasis cab as far forward as practicable. Additional amber side market lamps are not required on the truck body, providing the overall length of the vehicle is less than 30 feet. This is a general clarification only, since we are not sure of the exact configuration of the vehicles in question. A picture or drawing with the necessary overall dimensions would be needed for specific comments.

This Burenu does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment of 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 lacks the requirements of standard No. 108.

ID: nht68-2.3

DATE: 06/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning the State Board of Education's requirement for school bus warning signal lamps.

The warning signal system as described in your letter does not meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969. A copy of this Standard is enclosed for your reference. A minimum of four red signal lamps is required and they shall be designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July, 1964, a copy of which is also enclosed. Four additional amber lamps are permitted. The red and amber system and the red only system shall be installed in accordance with paragraph S3.1.3.2 and S3.1.3.3, respectively, of Standard No. 108.