ID: nht71-1.33

DATE: 04/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: WARREN M. BARNETT

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1971, requesting advice on the acceptability of your regrooving pattern for regrooved tires.

Enclosed is a copy of the Rules and Regulations on regrooved and regroovable tires as it appears in the Federal Register published January 24, 1969, under Section 369.7(a)(1) Requirements, "After regrooving, the new grooves generated into the tread material and any residual original molded tread groove which is at or below the new regrooved groove depth, shall have a (Illegible Word) of 90 linear inches of tread edges per linear foot of tire circumference."

There are no measurements on your drawings to assist us in determining if your zig-zag grooves and the three circumferencial grooves measure 90 linear inches. Three straight circumferential grooves would only provide approximately 72 linear inches.

The use of lateral cuts should substantially increase the tread edge measurements; providing the lateral cuts are from shoulder to shoulder to allow unobstructed fluid escape passages as required in Section 369.7(a)(5).

Thank you for your interest in tire safety.

Enclosure

ID: nht71-1.34

DATE: 01/16/71

FROM: CHARLES H. HARTMAN FOR DOUGLAS W. TOMS -- NHTSA

TO: LYNN E. TA TAKAGELL

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: (Illegible Words)

ID: nht71-1.35

DATE: 12/02/71

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON For Lawrence R. Schneider -- NHTSA

TO: G & D Communications Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 22, 1971, and your phone call to Michael Peskoe of November 15, 1971, requesting a copy of the Consumer Information regulations and asking what penalties may be imposed on manufacturers if their vehicles cannot perform as well as the figures they provide pursuant to the regulation. You stated in the above conversation that you have obtained the volume entitled "Performance Data for New 1971 Passenger Cars and Motorcycles" which contains a copy of the Consumer Information requirements. I have enclosed certain amendments to the Consumer Information regulations which will bring the regulations as they appear in this volume up to date.

With reference to your question regarding penalties for violations of the Consumer Information requirements, Section 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C.@@ 1397, 1398) authorize the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, and up to $ 400,000 for any related series of violations, against manufacturers whose vehicles cannot perform at least as well as the data they supply indicates. In addition, injunctive proceedings may be utilized pursuant to section 110 of the Act (15 U.S.C.@ 1399).

I trust this answers your question. We regret that it was over-looked in our first response to your letter.

ID: nht71-1.36

DATE: 04/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Air Force

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Secretary Volpe has asked me to reply to your letter of April 2. Section 108(b)(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 states that the "temporary importation of any motor vehicle" is permissible, and you ask "if any joint regulations have been established between the Secretary of the Treasury and your department establishing a maximum period of time or a definite period of time in which any vehicle may be imported into the United States, whether or not it meets the safety standards set forth."

Joint regulations (19 C.F.R. @ 12.80) were adopted in 1968 and I enclose a copy for your information. Obviously we have to objection to a vehicle remaining in the United States and used upon the public roads indefinitely if it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The word "temporary" within the meaning of section 108(b)(4) does, however, have differing meanings for vehicles which do not met Federal standards and which are imported under different circumstances. Section 12.80(b)(2)(iii) and (c) allow importers not otherwise exempted 90 days in which to bring a noncomplying vehicle into compliance and permit an extension of time if circumstances warrant. A non-resident of the United States is permitted by subsection (b)(2)(v) to import a noncomplying vehicle for a period of up to one year. Foreign diplomatic and military personnel are allowed by subsection (b)(2)(vi) to import their noncomplying vehicles for the duration of their stay and must declare that they will not sell their vehicles in the United States during that time. On the other hand, a noncomplying vehicle imported solely for purpose of show test, experiment, competition, or repairs, may be admitted indefinitely pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(vii) if it is not sold or licensed for use on the public roads.

These regulations do not apply to vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1963. We advise military personnel not to purchase vehicles produced after that date and manufactured for the European market as the conversion costs are prohibitive in many instances. We also advise them that vehicles which are alleged to have been converted to meet U.S. safety specifications in most instances do not. The best evidence of compliance with U.S. requirements is the certification of that fact, generally affixed by the original manufacturer to the door post on the driver's side of the vehicle. I enclose a booklet on the importation of motor vehicles for your guidance, and I will be happy to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: nht71-1.37

DATE: 06/15/71

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Hill; Lewis; Adams; Goodrich & Tait

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 10 to Francis Armstrong, Director of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of Vehicle Industries, Inc. Your client wishes to import dune buggy chasses, either in kit or assembled form, for sale to a distributor-dealer organization and subsequent resale by them to retail customers who will complete the final manufacture of the incomplete vehicle as a dune buggy. You have asked questions concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("safety standards") and other regulations.

Your letter indicates that you are familiar with our two Mini-Bike Interpretations and the criteria we use in determining whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act"). There have been no further additions to these Interpretations. We view a dune buggy as a "motor vehicle" primarily because it is licensable for use on the public roads. Conversely all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and some categories of mini-bikes are not considered "motor vehicles" because of State statutory prohibitions forbidding their registration for on-road use. Because a dune buggy is constructed with "special features for occasional off-road use" it is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" ("MPV") under the safety standards, and must, at the time of its manufacture, comply with all safety standards applicable to MPVs. Equipping a vehicle with speed restrictive components would not affect this opinion unless the equipment rendered the completed vehicle unlicensable for on-road use.

Until January 1, 1972, the product Vehicle Industries wishes to import, either in kit form or as an assemolage, is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Act. It is not a chassis-cab, as you suggested, because it has no cab. Since section 102(5) of the Act includes an importer in the definition of "manufacturer." Vehicle Industries is considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle equipment it imports, and responsible for compliance of that equipment with applicable safety standards.

Regulated equipment items for MPVs and corresponding safety standards are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), brake fluid (No. 116), glazing (No. 205), seat belt assemblies (No. 209), and wheel covers (No. 211). If the kit or assemblage contains any of these items, the item must comply upon inportation, and Vehicle Industries must provide certification to the distributor-dealer that the equipment item meets the appropriate safety standard. The certification obligation is imposed by section 114 of the Act as amplified by a notice published on November 4, 1967, copy enclosed. There are no other labeling or informational obligations. The requirements of this paragraph remain in effect after January 1, 1972, to any dune buggy chassis imported in kit form.

If the chassis is imported in assembled form, on and after January 1, 1972, Vehicle Industries as importer - manufacturer of an assemblage will be considered an "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" and the assemblage an "incomplete vehicle" as those terms are defined in 49 CFR Part 568, the regulations governing vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I enclose a copy of Part 568 for your guidance and call your attention to @ 568.4, requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Section 568.4(a)(7) will require Vehicle Industries to provide with the incomplete vehicle a list of those standards applicable to MPVs, together with one of three appropriate statements for each such standard. If Vehicle Industries has provided certification prior to January 1, 1972, covering an equipment item in the assemblage, for instance brake hoses, the appropriate statement on and after January 1, 1972 would appear to be set out in @ 568.4(a)(7)(i), that the vehicle when completed will comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hose and Brake Hose Assemblies, if the final assembler makes no change in the brake hoses or brake hose assemblies. You ask if these regulations may be followed as a "guideline" before January 1, 1972. Because the @ 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement is a representation of compliance, it is a de facto certification of compliance and, in my opinion, Vehicle Industries may provide such a @ 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement in advance of January 1, 1972, that includes a regulated equipment item, to satisfy the existing equipment certification requirement.

You have also asked if it is possible to "retail the unit in its present form with an item of equipment on it" that doesn't comply with the safety standards. The answer is no, if that item is directly regulated by a safety standard. However, if a safety standard applies to vehicle categories only - and most of them do - then an item encompassed in that safety standard need not comply until time of final assembly. For example, Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, applies to MPVs and passenger cars, and not to the equipment items specified therein. Consequently, the horn ring and steering wheel assembly hub of the assemblage need not have a finish in accordance with Standard No. 107, but these items must comply with reflectance requirements when the assemblage is completed as a dune buggy.

In closing, I want to call your attention to section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR @ 551.45, which require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment who offer their products for importation into the United States appoint a resident agent for service of process. I enclose a copy of @ 551.45 with the informational requirements underlined and request that you ask the Spanish manufacturer of the dune buggy chassis to file a designation of agent with us.

If you have any further questions I shall be happy to answer them for you.

Enclosures

ID: nht71-4.38

DATE: 11/02/71

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

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent telephone inquiry as to whether the recent amendment of Standard 215, Exterior Protection, requires that vehicles meet the photometric requirements of Standard 108 after being subjected to the Standard 215 impacts.

S5.3.1 of Standard 215 reads:

"Each lamp or reflective device, except license plate lamps, shall be free of cracks and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108."

S4.3.1.1 of Standard 108 reads in relevant part:

"Each lamp and reflective device shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice. In addition, no part of the vehicle shall prevent the device from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice." (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, although the actual photometric tests may be considered "bench tests", that is, tests whose procedures include removing the devices from the vehicle, the above provision of Standard 108 requires that the configuration of the vehicle external to the devices not prevent them from meeting the photometric requirements. The test procedures themselves require the devices to be placed

in their actual orientation on the vehicle. Therefore, the provision in Standard 215 that the lamps and reflective devices shall meet all the requirements of Standard 108 after the impacts includes the photometric requirements.

ID: nht71-4.39

DATE: 11/03/71

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

TO: Patton; Blow; Virrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1971, in which you made several requests with respect to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR Part 574) and Certification (49 CFR Part 567) regulations.

1. You suggested that the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation be amended to provide that where tires are not shipped on or in a vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's record keeping obligation be limited to three years from the date of sale. We will take this request into consideration, and let you know when a decision is made. It appears that since the minimum time would apply to all vehicle manufacturers, such a requirement should appear in a regulation other than Part 574.

2. You requested the deletion of the requirement that information on the certification label be placed "in the order shown." We have previously denied petitions relating to the order of information on the label (36 F.R. 19593), and this request is also denied. The requirement that the label information be placed in a definite order has been in effect for over two years, and has been found to enhance the readability and hence the usefulness of the label. Now that further numerical information is to be required on the label, we consider that it will be even more important that this requirement be maintained.

3. You requested "an interpretation that a multi-column label or a label in two parts each with an information column, will meet the requirements of [Part] 567," because of the space limitations on some trailers. As long as the information appears in the order specified in the regulation, the NHTSA has no objection to a multi-column label or a label in two parts.

4. Finally, you requested that a trailer manufacturer be allowed to use up his existing supply of labels, by affixing a supplementary label with the additional required information. As stated above, we have decided to adhere to the requirement that the information on the label be in the order specified, although it may be in more than one column or part. To the extent that the action requested would allow a manufacturer not to conform to that requirement, the request is denied. Although the deviation might appear small, it would seriously detract from the integrity and enforceability of the regulation to allow incidental nonconformity without amending the requirement. The other vehicle manufacturers have undoubtedly already incurred costs similar to those cited by your client, and it would be distinctly unfair not to enforce the regulation evenhandedly as to all parties.

ID: nht71-4.4

DATE: 08/16/71

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

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributor Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 28 requesting a clarification of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108. This paragraph requires the installation of auxiliary lighting equipment, if the required lighting equipment is prevented from conforming to photometric output and visibility values by motor vehicle equipment such as snow plows, street sweepers, etc. You ask, in essence, whether auxiliary lamps must be provided in two situations: when the motor vehicle equipment is sold with but not attached to the vehicle, and when no equipment is sold with the vehicle but the vehicle is equipped with a hoist upon which equipment may be mounted.

With respect to the first situation, compliance should be determined with the equipment attached which(Illegible Word) the vehicle at the time it is sold. As for the second situation, compliance of a vehicle which is equipped at time of sale with hoists or mounting brackes only, and for which equipment will be provided at a time subsequent to sale, should be determined with the vehicle in its as-sold condition.

ID: nht71-4.40

DATE: 11/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1971, to Mr. Lewis Owen of this Office concerning an interpretation regarding your Truck-Lite No. 127 License plate light.

The requested interpretation concerns the 8 degree incident light angle specified in SAE J587, "License Plate Lamps," as follows:

"When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg to the plane of the plate."

Since the 8 degree incident light angle is also a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, all license plate lamp designs must conform to it. It is our position that the angle be measured from the optical center of the lens; therefore, the Electrical Testing Laboratories' position is valid. That is, the incident light angle of your lamp, without the paint shield and when mounted as it will be installed on the vehicle, is below the 8 degree minimum requirement.

ID: nht71-4.41

DATE: 11/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1971, in which you asked whether the second and third options of Standard 208 require anthropomorphic test devices to be placed for the frontal crash tests only in the front designated seating positions, and not in the rear positions.

The answer is yes. The second and third options pose no requirements for testing that require dummies in the rear positions, hence dummies should be placed only in front positions. In the period from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1973, they should in fact be placed only in the front outboard positions.

You also suggested that "if Option 1 is used, a test device must be at each designated seating position." This statement is true, in a strict sense. But the general requirements for the periods before August 15, 1975 (S4.1.1 and S4.1.2) explicitly allow the "mixing" of options, so that if belts are provided for the rear seating positions they may be considered as fulfilling option two or three, without dummies positioned there for the crash tests. In other words, dummies must be positioned in the rear seating positions only if and when the manufacturer elects to fulfill option one for the rear positions.