ID: nht74-3.34

DATE: 08/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Viola Back

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1974, inquiring as to penalties available for violation of the odometer requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

The Act requires, in part, that a written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer.

Violation of the disclosure requirement may subject the violator to civil liability where his actions were intended to defraud the purchaser. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy, section 409 of the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal Court.

There is no provision in the Act specifying that the transferee must obtain a disclosure statement from his transferor. The obligation to execute this disclosure document lies with the transferor alone.

For your information, I have enclosed relevant portions of the Act and the odometer disclosure requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let us know.

ENC.

JULY 15, 1974

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

IN REFERENCE TO OUR FEDERAL ODOMETER LAW, EFFECTIVE MARCH 1973, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, WHAT PENALTY, A LICENSED MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER FACES, FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF SUCH LAW, I.E., HE NEITHER GIVES A PURCHASER OF A VEHICLE SOLD BY HIS DEALERSHIP, A SIGNED ODOMETER FORM, OR, RECEIVES ONE, FROM ANY TRADE-IN, OR OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF VEHICLES, FROM OTHERS.

VIOLA BECK

ID: nht74-3.35

DATE: 05/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hawk Motor Homes, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1974, enclosing a sample certification label and requesting that we approve as an alternate location the inside wall left of the driver's seat beneath the driver's side window, to the left of the dash.

The labels you supply state in day, month, and year the dates of complete and incomplete vehicle manufacture, and the date by which applicable standards are determined. The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) call for these dates to be stated only by month and year. While we prefer that the regulation be followed specifically, and thus that month and year only be specified, we will accept the format you have submitted which includes the day. The other information on the labels conforms to the Certification requirement.

With respect to your request for an alternate location, we approve the alternate location you request.

SINCERELY,

Hawk Motor Homes, Inc.

March 27, 1974

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Attention: Frank Berndt

Re: N40-30 (JB)

CIR-954

In accordance with our telephone conversation on March 25th, we are enclosing herewith two sample labels for approval. Would you kindly affix your approval to one of the labels and return to us in the self-addressed stamped envelope also enclosed herewith.

It is our intention to have these labels attached to the wall immediately left of the driver's seat and directly underneath the window to the rear of the dash board. Kindly indicate whether or not this location is acceptable. Also note the diagram enclosed.

Very truly yours,

by Fred H. Hogan -- President

ID: nht74-3.36

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Heavy & Specialized Carriers Conference of American Trucking Associations

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 23, 1974, request for an explanation of the meaning and use of the term "Gross axle weight rating" (GAWR) in Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The concept of GAWR and "Gross vehicle weight rating" (GVWR) are interrelated, and the two terms are defined as follows:

"Gross axle weight rating" or "GAWR" means the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

"Gross vehicle weight rating" or "GVWR" means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

In both cases it is the manufacturer who specifies the values, and he is free to specify whatever values he himself decides are correct. Both the NHTSA in its compliance tests, and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety on the road, will judge the vehicle on the basis of the values assigned. Therefore it is in the interest of the manufacturer to assign values which accurately reflect the load-bearing ability of the vehicle and its suspension.

The sum of the GAWR's must at least equal the specified GVWR to avoid overloading the axle systems, and the GAWR sum may, of course, exceed the GVWR. Typically the manufacturer balances the commercial advantage of specifying a higher GVWR against the expense of higher GAWR's.

The GAWR is measured at the tire-ground interfaces which means that the tires, wheels, brakes and suspension components are included in the determination. Typically an axle assembly is rated by its manufacturer, who takes into account the braking ability of the axle to stop the load. Although this factor should always have been taken into consideration, the advent of Standard 121 may cause axle and brake manufacturers to reassess the values they have assigned to brake systems in the past.

YOURS TRULY,

Heavy & Specialized Carriers Conference Of American Trucking Associations

April 23, 1974

Thomas Herlihy Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Please accept our sincere thanks for the meeting held at your offices on April 9, 1974 in which we discussed the impact of MVSS No. 121 on the heavy and specialized carrier industry. To further "introduce" you and your staff to our industry, I am enclosing a copy of our current Membership Directory and a recent issue of our monthly magazine TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER.

At the meeting we discussed briefly the intended meaning of the "24,000 pound gross axle weight rating" appearing in your proposed amendment in the March 1, 1974 FEDERAL REGISTER and you indicated that the intent was to use the current axle rating system as opposed to the MVSS No. 121 axle rating system in which braking ability would play a major limiting role. As a quick review of the enclosed magazine will reveal, this technical factor is of the utmost importance to our members who are the nation's primary users of this type of equipment.

We would appreciate a reply indicating the correct usage and application of this "24,000 pound gross axle weight rating" as it appears in that FEDERAL REGISTER item. If there are any questions concerning this inquiry, please feel free to call on us.

And again, please accept our sincere appreciation for the meeting last week.

Douglas A. Hughes

Director of Transportation

Enclosures

ID: nht74-3.37

DATE: 05/07/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Gracey; Maddin; Cowan & Bird

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of April 2, 1974, to Mrs. Winifred Desmond has been referred to this office for reply. In your letter you discuss what you consider to be an omission in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, viz., requirements for manufacturers to provide sufficient parts for the repair of vehicles in the hands of purchasers when those vehicles are found to contain safety related defects.

You are correct in stating that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require manufacturers to provide sufficient parts for the repair of defective vehicles in the hands of purchasers. The statute limits manufacturers' responsibilities, as you point out, to notification of owners.

The NHTSA has, however, taken some regulatory steps which relate to the availability of repair parts. The "Defect Notification" regulations (49 CFR Part 577) require manufacturers to estimate and specify in the defect notification letter the day by which repair parts will be available (49 CFR @@ 577.4(e)(1)(ii), 577.4(e)(2)(iii), 577.4(e)(3)(iii)). While this does not require repair parts to be available, it at least prohibits manufacturers from keeping purchasers in the dark on the availability of repair parts. Knowingly incorrect statements in response to this requirement can subject a manufacturer to civil penalties and other sanctions.

There are pending in the Congress amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (S. 355, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973): H.R. 5529, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)) that would in general require manufacturers to repair vehicles found to contain safety related defects without charge to the vehicle purchaser. If such legislation is enacted it would eliminate the problem of the availability of repair parts where safety related defects are found to exist.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht74-3.38

DATE: 05/09/74

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

TO: Alfa Romeo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 5, 1974 to Mr. Schneider. You state that you are unable to obtain the ASTM E-249 test tire (4 ply rayon) referenced in the ASTM Method used to determine skid numbers, and you ask whether you may use the ASTM E-501 test tire (belted bias).

Your obligation as a manufacturer is to insure that your certification of compliance is not false and misleading in a material respect, and that you exercise due care in manufacturing to conform to the federal motor vehicle safety standards. A manufacturer is not required to follow specifically the test procedures of the standards, but to ascertain that his product will conform to the standard's requirements when it is tested by these procedures. In determining (Illegible Word) number, therefore, you are not required as a matter of (Illegible Word) to use the ASTM E-249 tire if you can reach the required result with equivalent procedures.

We understand that the original E-501 tire provided a slightly higher reading on dry pavement than the E-249 tire and that it is being redesigned so that the two tires give equivalent readings. We anticipate that, when the tire has been approved by ASTM for use in determining and number pursuant to ASTM Method E-274, we will propose a corresponding amendment to our definition of skid number, presently used in 49 CFR @@ 571.105-75, 571.121, 571.122, and 575.2.

ID: nht74-3.39

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rozner and Yorty

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on seat belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempts state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)).

The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of seat belts and reclining seats.

Yours truly,

ROZNER AND YORTY

March 26, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Re: Three point restraint on reclining passenger seat

Gentlemen:

I represent a passenger who was injured while she was sleeping in a bed-like reclining passenger seat. She slid out the back. She had a conventional seat belt on, but it did not help.

Are there any regulations either in the past or the future that would apply to this situation, either State or Federal? Have there been any studies on this subject or any interest in this subject. I shall appreciate whatever help you can give me.

Very truly yours,

William A. Goichman

ID: nht74-3.4

DATE: 08/05/74

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

TO: JACK R. GILSTRAP -- GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

TITLE: N40-30 [ZTV]

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/17/74 FROM JACK R. GILSTRAP TO RICHARD B. DYSON-NHTSA, RE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 12/26/73 FROM WARREN M. HEATH TO JACK R. GILSTRAP

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gilstrap:

This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1974, asking whether S4.6 of Standard No. 108 prohibits a bus manufacturer from installing wining that could later be connected by the purchaser to normally steady-burning clearance lamps, enabling them to be flashed to signal a crime in progress. The vehicle modifications here concerned are the installation both of certain wiring by General Motors and dual filament bulbs in each clearance lamp by the Southern California Rapid Transit District.

Paragraph S4.6 requires that signalling lamps specified in Standard No. 108 shall flash when activated, and that "all other lamps" shall be steady-burning. Paragraph S4.1.3 in part prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

We construe the phrase" all other lamps" in S4.6(b) to mean lamps that are required by Standard No. 108. Supplemental lamps on ambulances and police cars, for example, that flash in normal use are not included in the standard. Similarly , it would appear that when the clearance lamp you discuss is operated as a warning lamp it becomes an item of lighting equipment outside the coverage of Standard No. 108. Therefore the fact that it flashes when activated would not violate the intent

2 of S4.6(b). Similarly, the wiring that is installed by GM is not considered additional equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment.

The modifications you described, therefore, are not prohibited by Standard 108.

Yours truly,

ID: nht74-3.40

DATE: 05/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Open Road Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 21, 1974, regarding Open Road's defect notification letter in NHTSA campaign #73-0043. We indicated to you by letter of March 21, 1974, that notification letters in future campaigns must be modified to conform to @ 577.4(e)(3) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577) if you continue to make repairs contingent upon the purchaser's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision found in Open Road's "Authorization for Repair and Alteration" form. You state in your letter that the sole purpose of the indemnity and hold-harmless provision is to protect your company from claims from third parties for unauthorized repairs.

While it is true, as you point out, that the indemnity and hold-harmless provision is not part of the notification letter, that fact is not germane to our conclusion that your letter must conform to @ 577.4(e)(3) if you continue only to make repairs contingent upon the owner's agreement to the provision in question. We are pleased to know that the provision's sole purpose is to protect the company against claims from unknown owners for unauthorized repairs, and we do not object to repairs being contingent upon the owner's agreement to such a provision. But if that is the case we would insist that the provision be more narrowly drafted so that its intent is clear. If that is done Open Road may continue to send notification letters that conform to @ 577.4(e)(1). The responses we have had from owners of Open Road vehicles subject to defect notification and our own review of the provision are persuasive in our view that at present this limited intent is not clear.

Notwithstanding your reference to the meeting Open Road officials had with Robert Carter and Andrew Detrick of NHTSA, at no time was approval given to Open Road's notification letter with knowledge that repair would be made only following the owner's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision.

ID: nht74-3.41

DATE: 05/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Andrew T. Hosoodor

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1974, concerning the defect notification campaign involving your 1972 Open Road motor home. You object to Open Road's insistence that you sign an authorization for repair and alteration form which contains a rather comprehensive indemnity and hold-harmless provision.

The NHTSA is without authority to compel the making of any repairs to potentially defective vehicles in the hands of purchasers. Manufacturers are free to make repairs subject to conditions, or to not make them at all. The NHTSA has issued regulations regarding the content of defect notification letters (49 CFR Part 577) but does not consider these regulations to apply to the campaign in question as the campaign was initiated before the regulations become effective.

We have corresponded with Open Road regarding this matter, which was first brought to our attention by another purchaser whose objections were similar to your own. That purchaser signed a modified authorization form with Open Road, who has provided us with a copy which we enclose for your information. Open Road has informed us that the sole purpose of the indemnity and hold-harmless clause to which you object is to protect Open Road from third party claims for unauthorized repairs. A copy of Open Road's letter to use with that representation is enclosed should you wish to undertake further negotiations with the company.

We have notified Open Road that future campaign notification letters must be revised if the company insists on the continued use of the indemnity and hold-harmless provision in its present form. Copies of this correspondence with Open Road are also enclosed.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

ENC.

ID: nht74-3.42

DATE: 05/14/74

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

TO: Dave's Tire & Fuel Oil Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of March 21 and April 22, 1974, in which you ask whether a tire sold as a "blemish" must be guaranteed for workmanship, material, and road hazards.

There are no Federal requirements that manufacturers guarantee blemish (or non-blemish) tires. Such guarantees are within the discretion of each manufacturer. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) requires all new passenger car tires to meet minimum safety performance levels for high speed performance, endurance, strength, bead unseating, physical dimensions and tradewear indicators. These requirements apply similarly to both blemish and non-blemish tires.

We have enclosed for your information a copy of the Federal Trade Commission's Tire Advertising and Labeling Guides which contain in Guide 11 requirements for the labeling of blemish tires.

ENC.