ID: nht73-2.30

DATE: 12/26/73

FROM: DARROLL P. YOUNG -- PRESIDENT YOUNG'S MACHINE COMPANY

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NHTSA U.S. DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1/8/74 FROM RICHARD B. DVSON -- NHTSA TO DARRELL P. YOUNG -- PRESIDENT YOUNG'S MACHINE COMPANY

TEXT: We are manufacturers of Diesel powered underground mine trucks. These vehicles utilize truck differential having hydraulic brakes. Most of the vehicles have two wheel drive, and in such cases have brakes only on the driving axles.

The maximum speed attainable under full power is approximately 12 miles per hour. The vehicles are not designed to operate on highways or public roads.

Kindly supply us with regulations number 121 and 105A in order that we may determine our responsibility as regards compliance with the above regulations.

Thank you very much.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht73-2.31

DATE: 08/17/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Trelleboros Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1973, in which you ask whether certain radial passenger car tires may be imported if they are tested to see that they meet DOT requirements (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109; 49 CFR @ CFR 571.109), and if the information required pursuant to paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109, which does not presently appear on the tires, is branded with a hot stamp on the tire sidewalls.

The NHTSA does not view with approval the importation into the United States of passenger car tires that were not originally designed and manufactured for importation into the United States. Although Standard No. 109 as presently written does not prohibit the branding of information required by the standard onto the tire, as long as the information becomes part of the actual sidewall material, it is difficult for us to understand how a manufacturer can, in branding the necessary information, readily assume that the information is in fact reflective of the tire's performance capability. To stipulate as you do that the tires will be tested to Standard No. 109 is not responsive to the issue, for in the case of the Standard No. 109 tests, which are destructive in nature, only sample testing is conducted, and the tires actually imported are not themselves tested. Consequently, the testing of tires by a manufacturer that he desires to brand and import into the United States will only provide reliable evidence of conformity if the manufacturer's testing is of uniform batches or lots.

A similar problem is presented by a manufacturer's branding onto the tire of the identification number required by Part 574. This number is required to be based on certain facts regarding the manufacture of the tire; the week and year of manufacture. Consequently, this information must be known to the manufacturer if his identification number is to be consistent with Part 574.

In summary, the NHTSA's position regarding the branding and subsequent importation of tires not originally manufactured for importation into the United States is that although the practice is not prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Standard No. 109, or the regulations regarding the importation of motor vehicle equipment (19 CFR 12.80), manufacturers who brand tires must base their representations of conformity to the standard and to the identification requirements on information which, in the exercise of due care, they know to be accurate. Because such conformity is not apparent from an examination of these tires or even from post-production testing you should be aware that the NHTSA may request documentation that supports any manufacturer's representations regarding conformity.

Sincerely,

Secretary of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau US Department of Transportation May 9, 1973

Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

We manufacture among others, person radial tires. Today they have not all letters and numerals, required by motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, S4.3 "Labeling requirements".

Question: Is it possible for us to export these tires to U.S.A. if we

- test them and find that they meet the DOT-qualifications

- brand the required text with a hot stamp on the sidewalls of the cured tires. Reason: The letters and numerals are not molded into the sidewalls.

Tire Research

Erik (Illegible Word)

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN US DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATTENTION LAWRENCE R SCHNEIDER CHIEF CONSUL WE REFER TO OUR LETTER DATED [Illegible Words] 1973 AND ASK YOU PLEASE TO GIVE US AN ANSWER THANKS IN ADVANCE STOP

ERIK SUNDELIN [Illegible Words] JUL 4 1973 1050

ID: nht73-2.32

DATE: 11/06/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; W. R. Fiste; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letter of October 17, 1973.

We have studied the comments contained in your letter carefully, and based on your extensive experience, have no reason to believe that your use of tubing made of solid neoprene rubber for the application in question constitutes a safety hazard.

Since there is limited movement involved, the use of "tubing" rather than "hose" is appropriate. The Bureau has not, as yet, established standards other than the general requirements of paragraph 393.43(a) for brake tubing used in applications which do not flex. Use of coiled nylon brake tubing for connections between towed and towing vehicles is permitted if the tubing meets the requirements for Type 3B nylon tubing set forth in SAE Standard J844.c.

We appreciate your interest in this safety matter and trust the above is responsive to your inquiry.

ID: nht73-2.33

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Independent Tire Dealer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 26, 1968, to Mr. Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel, concerning clearance lamp mounting on bodies installed on chassis-cabs.

It is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be mounted as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle. The cab mounted clearance lamps shown on your drawing CA1030-40, dated September 24, 1968, being mounted approximately 16 inches inboard of the extreme body width, do not appear to be as near as practicable to the extreme edges of the vehicle. Lamps mounted at the right and left extreme edges of the widest part of the body panel would meet the requirements. The mounting height of these lamps should be as high as practicable without causing objectionable glare in the rear view mirror. Retention of cab mounted clearance lamps is optional.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, comments of this Bureau are for information purposes only and in no way relieve any vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht73-2.34

DATE: 11/07/73

FROM: R.B. DYSON -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN G. WOMACK

TO: Missouri Automobile Dealers Assoc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1973, concerning the legality of disconnecting seat belt interlocks.

The interlock is a required item of safety equipment that must be operable on any new car when it is sold or offered for sale, pursuant to section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. After an interlock equipped car is sold, however, the purchaser may disconnect the interlock, without violating the Act, by virtue of section 108(b)(1), which exempts transactions after the first purchase of the vehicle.

If a dealer offers to disconnect an interlock as an inducement to the sale of the vehicle, it is our opinion that a violation of the act occurs even though the actual disconnection may take place after delivery of the vehicle. If, on the other hand, the subject of the interlock is not discussed during the sale and the buyer subsequently requests disconnection on the basis of his experience with the vehicle, the dealer would not violate the Act if he disconnected the interlock.

Although a dealer does not violate the act by suggesting that the buyer go somewhere else to have the interlock disconnected, I am sure you appreciate the troublesome consequences such advice may bring for the buyer if the resulting disconnection is carelessly performed.

YOURS TRULY,

October 10, 1973

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

As you can see from the enclosed article of the October 1, 1973 issue of Automotive News, it is reported by Congressman Dante B. Fascell, that he received a letter August 20, 1973 from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator of Motor Vehicle Programs, in which he states:

"Once an individual has purchased and taken delivery of the vehicle, intending to use it and not simply to resell it, it passes beyond the scope of the standards (safety belt interlocks). The owner could thereupon modify it, or have the dealer modify it, without threat of sanction under the act."

Dr. Gregory, many of my dealers have called wanting to know if the report by Mr. Carter is the truth. Can you tell me?

1. Is it a violation for my dealers after they make the sale to disconnect the interlock system or make it inoperative?

2. Is it against the law for a dealer to tell a purchaser of a 1974 car that he can go some where else and get it disconnected?

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

MISSOURI AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Ralph J. Kalberlon Executive Vice President Joe Machens President

cc: David Castles, Castles-Wilson Buick Casey Meyers-Casey Meyers Ford, Inc.

in the letterbox

Who can tamper?

On Page 1, of the Sept. 10 issue of AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, appears a story by J. Donald Williamson, "First Buyers Turned Off by Interlocks."

The second and third paragraphs of your story read as follows:

"Forbidden by law to remove or tamper with the new system, dealers resorted to their own ingenuity to allay customer gripes and many and varied were the suggestions.

"Generally, stringent objections were met by suggesting the customer might stop at a service station on the way home where mechanics not hampered by federal edict could render the system inoperative."

After studiously searching for an answer to this question we finally received a letter dated Aug. 22, from Congressman Dante B. Fascell in which he enclosed a letter dated Aug. 20, 1973, he received from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator of Motor Vehicle Programs. The third paragraph reads as follows:

"In the case of starter interlock safety belts, they are required, at the time of purchase, in all passenger cars manufactured on or after Aug. 15, 1973. Once an individual has purchased and taken delivery of the vehicle, intending to use it and not simply to resell it, it passes beyond the scope of the standards. The owner could thereupon modify it, or have the dealer modify it, without threat of sanction under the act."

It appears that the ruling from the U.S. Department of Transportation is directly contrary to the information conveyed in your story.

This matter is of such importance to all dealers we think it imperative that you retract our statement.

If by chance there is a subsequent ruling from the administrator, then we would be grateful if you would immediately furnish us with the latest release -- Edgar Jones, general manager, Nolan - Brown Motors, Inc., Miami.

Motors safety experts (AMC models were the only ones involved in the story).

As is pointed out in Reader Jones' letter, the law appears to permit a dealer to modify the interlock after the car is sold.

Dealers should keep in mind, however, that it is clearly the intent of the law that nobody tamper with the interlock. AMC people are obviously taking a supercautious stance.

Furthermore, a House bill currently under consideration would ban anyone, including the owner, from tampering with any safety item.

ID: nht73-2.35

DATE: 10/05/73

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- ASSOC. ADM., MVP, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY ELWOOD T. DRIVER

TO: State Motor Vehicle Administration

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have checked the sample ANSID-19.4 title and odometer disclosure forms which were submitted by you and Mr. Pfaff for review.

The odometer disclosure form complies with the disclosure regulation, 49 CFR Part 580. The odometer disclosure portion of the title document complies except for a blank for Last Plate Number and a reference to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act which points out the civil liabilities for failure to comply.

If we can be of any more assistance, please contact our office.

ID: nht73-2.36

DATE: 08/31/73

FROM: R. B. DYSON -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: New York State Police

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter on August 20, 1973, asking that law enforcement vehicles be excluded from a Federal prohibition against headlight flashers.

There is no such prohibition. While paragraph S4.6(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning in use, it also specifically states that "means may be provided to flash [automatically] headlamps . . . for signalling purposes." Therefore, manufacturers are not prohibited from equipping vehicles with headlamp flasher units upon customer request.

ID: nht73-2.37

DATE: 04/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Federal Trade Commission

COPYEE: SUBJ. N40-30; CHRON N40-30; CHRON N40-10; MR. VINSON

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1973, forwarding a complaint from Kenneth D. Peaslee. Mr. Peaslee ordered a 1973 Honda motorcycle, and was delivered one manufactured in December 1971. He asks if the dealer should make him a partial refund. The question is one that should be answered under Massachusetts laws and we are unable to advise him of his rights. There is no violation of any regulation administered by this agency.

I note that the Massachusetts investigator made the statement in his letter of March 15, 1973, which you enclosed that the Federal Government "stopped" a practice of model year misdating "among foreign auto importers." That statement is not really accurate. We require (49 CFR Part 567) that each motor vehicle be equipped with a label disclosing, among other things, the month and year of manufacture. The main purpose of this is to allow a determination of what Federal motor vehicle safety standards were applicable when the vehicle was manufactured. This dating may make it commercially more difficult for a manufacturer or dealer to represent the vehicle as being of a later model year, but such representations are not prohibited or otherwise regulated under our rules.

ID: nht73-2.38

DATE: 03/30/73

FROM: E.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: Bridgestone Tire Company of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of March 15, 1973, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, confirming the telephone conversation with Mr. John A. Dichl of this office.

You are correct that the 5-J alternative rim is not cited within Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 109 and 110 as an approved rim for use with the 195R14 tire size designation. Therefore, it is necessary for your organization to apply to this Administration for the addition of this alternative rim size to the standard. Persons requesting the addition of a new alternative rim size to the standard must conform to the Guidelines as set forth in Standard No. 110. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of these Guidelines. Your attention is directed to Items 4 and 5, wherein the actual laboratory test data is required indicating that the 5-J alternative rim size, in combination with the 195R14 tire size designation, complies with all the requirements of Standards No. 109 and 110. Within Standard No. 109, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization does not specify the year of the edition. You are correct to refer to the editions or practices issued prior to November 16, 1967.

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.

ENC.

ID: nht73-2.39

DATE: 03/26/73

FROM: E. T. DRIVER -- DIR., OFFICE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS, MVP; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: Monsanto Textiles Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1973, requesting assignment of a tire manufacturer's identification code number to Monsanto Company.

In a telephone conversation March 12, 1973, your Mr. E. Schary explained to our Mr. F. Koch that you are building experimental and development tires for test on vehicles that remain under your control. It is understood that the tires are not sold or leased to the general public. Under these conditions you are required to have a tire identification code number. These tires must, however, conform to Standard No. 109, and be certified as such by applying the DOT symbol to the sidewall. We understand you are acquainted with these requirements.

To bring you up to date with recent progress in development of new and amended regulations we are enclosing several of the latest(Illegible Word) pertaining to rule making. Please let us know if you have any other questions regarding the applicability of the tire identification code and whether we can be of further assistance.