ID: nht72-6.6

DATE: 11/07/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Urban Economics Research Group

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of August 31, 1972, to Mr. Bradford Crittenden, Regional Administrator, NHTSA, San Francisco, California, that has been referred to this office.

It appears from your letter that persons will not be able to ride in the device you plan to manufacture while the vehicle is in motion. If this is the case, the device would not be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards at this time.

If this is not the case, however, we will need more information, including pictures or drawings, if possible, in order for us to accurately determine whether federal requirements are applicable.

A manufacturer of such a device would be considered a manufacturer of automotive equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, copy enclosed. The device and mountings would be expected to be free of safety related defects.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht72-6.60

DATE: 11/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Plaskolite, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning an interpretation relative to the determination of(Illegible Word) of lamps.

Both of your interpretations are correct. The location of lamps and reflective devices is determined with the vehicle at its curb weight, which is the weight of a motor vehicle with standard equipment; maximum capacity of engine, fuel, oil, and coolant; and, if so equipped, air conditioning and additional weight optional engine.

The overall width is determined with "doors and windows closed" per the interpretation of 32 F.R. 8088, June 21, 1967.

The visibility requirements for lamps and reflective devices will therefore be determined with trunk lids, tail gates, hoods, and rear gates in the normal driving, or closed, position.

ID: nht72-6.61

DATE: DECEMBER 28, 1972

FROM: TATSUO KATO -- ENGINEERING REP, NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

TO: LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA

COPYEE: J. W. CARSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1973 FROM E.T. DRIVER, NHTSA, TO TATSUO KATO, NISSAN MOTOR CO.

TEXT: This is to request the answer to the following questions regarding MVSS 124 which we explained at a meeting held in the Office of NHTSA, on Friday, December 8, 1972.

1. We are using a two-barrel, down draft type carburetor with a linkage as shown in the attached schematic drawing (see Figure 1). We have designed the accelerator control system that has at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position, that is, whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force, the primary valve of the carburetor is closed by sources of energy of spring A and B and the secondary valve is done by spring A, B and C. Although in the event of failure of the spring C, the secondary valve is usually returned to the initial closed position by the lever L which is actuated by the torsion spring A and B as explained at the meeting, there is a possibility of slightly opening the secondary valve because of endplay by the tolerance of the production so that engine speed might slightly increase more than engine idle speed specified in our manuals.

Under the aforementioned situation, may be understand that the increase of engine idle speed resulting from the endplay caused by failure of the spring C will not be included in the scope of "Overspeed" which is stated in S2 of MVSS 124, that is, in the case of malfunctions, tolerance to the idle speed will be accepted by NHTSA.

If the tolerance is accepted, we would like to know the acceptable range (if possible, by rpm = revolution per minute of engine) of the increase of engine idle speed.

2. It is difficult to decide the components of accelerator control system which we have to consider a severence or disconnection which is specified in MVSS 124, S5.2, "The throttle shall return to the idle position from any accelerator position or any speed of which the engine is capable whenever any one component of the accelerator control system becomes disconnected or severed!'

Under the abovementioned situation, in case of our model PL610, we do not consider breakage of parts such as mounting brackets or mounting bolts as a portion of severence or disconnection, but we do only the portion with the mark X in the attached drawing. (see Figure 2). May we understand the definition of the portion of severence or disconnection as mentioned above?

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Attachments

CONDITION OF FULL THROTTLE

In case of breakage of Spring "C" secondary valve is returned - by Linkage L.

Condition of Secondary Valve with possibility of opening.

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 2 SIDE VIEW

Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 2 FRONT VIEW

Graphics omitted)

ID: nht72-6.62

DATE: 01/26/72

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: K. NAKAJIMA -- TOYOTA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL TO VIRVE AIROLA; LETTER AND BROCHURE DATED 04/14/89 FROM VIRVE AIROLA OF OY TUPPI AB TO NHTSA CONCERNING ITS FINLAND COMPANY'S RANGE OF PLASTIC TUBES AND HOSES PARTICULAR ITS AIR BRAKE TUBING

TEXT: This letter is in response to your request for interpretations of Section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR Part 566, manufacturer Identification as they affect foreign manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment.

You state that it is your understanding that under these provisions:

If a foreign covered equipment manufacturer supplies his products, including original and (Illegible Word) equipment, to a vehicle manufacturer outside the United States, and if this equipment manufacturer is not engaged in business in the United States in this regard:

(1) he is not necessarily required to establish his agent under the job;

(2) he is required to furnish the manufacturer identification information to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which he supplies his products.

Your interpretations of both provisions are correct. Section 110(c) requires that all manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, whether "covered" or not, which is offered for importation into the United States, designate an agent in the United States. However, if an equipment manufacturer produces equipment which is supplied only to foreign vehicle manufacturers, he will not be offering that equipment for importation into the United States, and he therefore need not designate an agent under the Act.

Part 566 requires that a manufacturer of "covered equipment" must submit the required information to NHTSA separately from the manufacturer to whom he supplies his products. As you suggest, this is true regardless of whether the equipment manufacturer is engaged in business in the United States, as long as the foreign vehicle manufacturer to whom the equipment manufacturer supplies his products is selling those products in the United States.

Please write if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht72-6.7

DATE: 09/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gorou Utsunomiya

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 8, 1972, enclosing sketches of motor vehicles and asking into which vehicle category under the motor vehicle safety standards they fall. The numbered paragraphs below correspond to those in your letter.

1. Figures 1, 2, and 3 illustrate trailers under the standards. Trailers are presently subject only to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment." Trailers equipped with air brakes and manufactured after September 1, 1974, will be required to conform to Standard No. 121, "Air Brake Systems." It is unlikely that many camping or recreational trailers will be subject to these requirements.

2. Figure 4 illustrates two pickup trucks equipped with slide-in campers. Pickup trucks must conform to all standards applicable to trucks. The campers must conform, as you state, to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials." Both pickup trucks and slide-in campers will be required to conform to a new Standard No. 126, "Truck-Camper Loading," when that standard becomes effective. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

3. In referring to the illustrations of the pickup trucks equipped with slide-in campers, you ask whether the requirements applicable to the trucks when combined with a camper are different from those applicable when the truck is not so equipped. The answer is no. The standards applicable to pickup trucks (those that are applicable to "trucks") are the same whether or not the pickup is equipped with a camper.

4. The requirements for pickup trucks and slide-in campers do not differ if both components are manufactured by the same company.

5. Wagon campers and motor homes are considered to be multipurpose passenger vehicles when constructed on truck chassis. The illustrations you enclose appear to us to represent vehicles manufactured on truck chassis.

ID: nht72-6.8

DATE: 02/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lathrop; Koontz; Righter; Clagett; Parker & Norquist

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1972, concerning the confidentiality of information on manufacturers' quarterly production figures that is submitted pursuant to section 573.5(b) of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573).

Manufacturers' quarterly production figures submitted pursuant to section 573.5(b) will be kept confidential if the manufacturer so requests. This will be true except in those cases where the NHTSA determines that disclosure is necessary to carry out the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

In the event it is decided to make public such information the NHTSA will, before release of the information, notify the manufacturer in question.

ID: nht72-6.9

DATE: 08/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1972, requesting information on a proper course of action to take concerning your placement of incorrect information on certification labels.

The placement of incorrect information of the type you describe (an overstatement of gross axle weight rating) may be a "safety related defect" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This would be the case if loading the vehicle to the specified rating would result in an unsafe operating condition.

Whether a defect exists is to be determined in the first instance by the vehicle manufacturer. If you determine that a defect exists, section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402) requires that you notify first purchasers by certified mail, describing the defect, its effect on safety, and measures to be taken to correct it. The determination that a defect exists can also be made independently by NHTSA, which would then order the manufacturer to send the required notification. Regulations issued by NHTSA (Defect Reports, 49 CFR Part 573) require manufacturers of vehicles having safety defects to submit certain information to NHTSA, and to compile a list of affected owners.

Replacing the improper labels, as you have suggested, would be an appropriate action to take to rectify this situation and satisfy the Certification regulations.

ID: nht73-1.1

DATE: 02/20/73

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

TO: Joe Motley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 28, 1973

Mr. Joe Motley 2704 Sparkman Drive, N. W. Huntsville, Alabama 35810

Dear Mr. Motley:

This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1972, regarding requirements applicable to manufacturers of ambulances. Ambulances are considered by NHTSA to be "multipurpose passenger vehicles", a vehicle type to which several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations are applicable. Manufacturers of ambulances, including those who convert other vehicle types to ambulances, are required to manufacture each ambulance in accordance with those standards and regulations applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles. The enclosed leaflet contains a short list and description of the standards and regulations, indicating which vehicle types are subject to each standard. The NHTSA is reponsible for both the promulgation and the enforcement of these standards.

We rely on persons such as yourself to report possible violations of our requirements, and we appreciate your writing to us. I have referred your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement, which will take steps to see that vehicles are manufactured in accordance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other NHTSA regulations.

Sincerely,

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-1.10

DATE: 07/23/73

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

TO: Mr. Gorou Utsunomiya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1973, regarding the application of section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403) to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107 "Reflecting Surfaces". You refer to language in a letter dated April 10, 1973, from this agency to Mr. Kazushi Sakashita of Toyo Kogyo., Ltd., in which we indicated that certification of replacement vehicle parts pursuant to section 114 is required only with respect to parts to which a safety standard specifically applies.

Standard No. 107 applies to motor vehicles -- passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses (paragraph S2 of Standard No. 107) -- and not to items of motor vehicle equipment. Consequently the certification of conformity to the standard required by section 114 is accomplished by the label affixed to each vehicle in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, "Certification". That label represents a certification of conformity to all standards, including Standard No. 107, applicable to the vehicle. There is no requirement that the individual components listed in S4 of the standard, i.e. the windshield wiper arms and blades, the inside windshield moldings, the horn ring and hub of the steering wheel assembly, and the inside rearview mirror frame and mounting bracket, be certified independently.

Yours truly,

June 11, 1973

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. Government of Transportation

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Re: Replacement Vehicle Parts.

Enclosed is a letter from NHTSA, which states:

"There are no requirements for the certification of replacement vehicle parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present, Standards Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act."

By the way, is MVSS 107 Reflecting Surfaces, a requirement under S. 114 of Safety Act, or not? Your answer to this question would be appreciated. Thank you.

Yours truly

Gorou Utsunomiya --

Branch Manager,

Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office

ID: nht73-1.11

DATE: 09/27/73

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

TO: Southwestern Transportation Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1973, requesting information on an NHTSA ruling that you understand prohibits tire companies from surrendering damaged tires to carriers for salvage purposes.

The NHTSA has not issued a ruling in the precise terms you describe. However, a recent amendment (copy enclosed) to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to passenger car tires, Standard No. 109, could be viewed as having that effect. That amendment prohibits the sale, the offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any tire designed for use on a passenger car that fails to meet the requirements of the standard, unless the tire is altered so that it cannot be used or repaired for use on a motor vehicle (including a trailer). Tire manufacturers may be understandably reluctant to claim that damaged tires will still conform to the safety standard, and when that is the case they cannot sell them unless they are altered so that their use as motor vehicle equipment is prevented. This may reduce their value for salvage purposes. There is no specific prohibition to their surrender for use as salvage, however, and they may have salvage value if a purpose, such as scrap, unrelated to motor vehicles, is intended for them.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

Southwestern Transportation company

July 18, 1973

Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

We recently received a claim from Firestone Tire & Rubber Company for damage to a passenger tire. Since they were claiming the full value of the tire, we questioned them concerning salvage. They replied by stating that the Department of Transportation ruled that tire companies could no longer surrender damaged tires to any carrier for salvage purposes.

As we are not familiar with this ruling, we would appreciate your furnishing us with a copy. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation.

Yours truly, C. C. King

MGR. OF FREIGHT CLAIMS