ID: nht71-5.2

DATE: 11/17/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. W. Carson for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1971, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this Office, concerning the maximum candlepower for taillamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 108 (35 FR, 16840, October 31, 1970) is quoted as follows:

"S5.1 SAE Standards and Recommended Practices subreferenced by the SAE Standards and Recommended Practices included in Tables I and III and paragraphs S4.1.4 and S4.5.1 are those published in the 1970 edition of the SAE Handbook."

Subreferenced SAE Standard J575, as published in the 1970 edition of the SAE Handbook, is the "d" revision (SAE J575d, August 1967). SAE Standard J575d specifies a maximum of 15 candlepower for a single compartment taillamp, 20 candlepower for a 2-compartment taillamp, and 25 candlepower for a 3-compartment taillamp. These maximum candlepower values are, therefore, applicable requirements under Standard No. 108 (35 FR, 16840, October 31, 1970).

ID: nht71-5.20

DATE: 12/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 22, 1971, I have enclosed a copy of our letter of May 21, 1971, to Mr. George Jones of the Louisiana Tire Dealer and Retreader Association. Department of Transportation regulations require that we charge a duplicating fee of $ .50 per page for this service. Please, therefore, remit the sum of $ 1.50 to the undersigned, payable to the Treasurer of the United States.

In your letter you also enclosed a copy of an article that appeared in the September 1971 edition of the Modern Tire Dealer Magazine concerning the letter to Mr. Jones, and ask whether the article's conclusion that wheel testing is not a must," is accurate. This conclusion is correct. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.), manufacturers are not required to test the compliance of their products to applicable standards in any particular manner. The test procedures specified in any particular standard indicate only the manner by which the agency will test for compliance, and manufacturers are free to utilize any test procedure they wish as long as they can show that they exercised "due care to comply with the standard. The use of wheel tests, however, as our letter to Mr. Jones indicates, may have an effect on a manufacturer's ability to show he used "due care" should he be called on to make that showing.

ENC.

ID: nht71-5.21

DATE: 12/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 5, 1971 regarding the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. 574). The questions raised in your letter are repeated below with our answers immediately following each question.

1. Section 574.9 of the above states that anyone who leases a vehicle equipped with new tires for more than 60 days is classified as a tire dealer, and shall meet the requirements specified in Section 574.8. Under the above, what would be the "tire dealer's" responsibility if the customer exchanged these tires, without the knowledge of the leasor, and what should the leasor do re: compliance if the vehicle is returned and he notices that a substitution had been made?

Under these circumstances the leasor would only be responsible for the new tires that were on the vehicle when leased to his customer. It would be the responsibility of the tire dealer selling the replacement tires to the leasee of your vehicle to record the pertinent tire information and forward it to the manufacturer of the tires.

2. A company buys a truck as a "demonstrator" for its own use, but prior to the actual "use" of the vehicle, it is sold under a new title. If the seller of the demonstrator advises the local truck dealer of this sale (to include the customer data), has he satisfied all of his responsibilities under Part 574?

Under these circumstances the person who buys a truck and does not use it, but instead sells it, is considered a vehicle dealer selling a new truck. It would be your responsibility to assure that the dealer who originally sold you the truck notifies the vehicle manufacturer that the vehicle changed hands.

3. A leasor takes a vehicle back after a 12-month lease. After reconditioning it, he leases it to a different customer. The tires were still in good condition and were not removed. Under these circumstances, does the leasor have any responsibility to notify the vehicle manufacturer that the vehicle is now in different hands?

Under these conditions the leasor would be in the same position as a vehicle dealer selling a used vehicle with used tires and the reporting requirements would not apply.

4. It is our interpretation that under the provision of Part 574, the only time that a final stage manufacturer would be required to maintain tire records would be if he becomes the vehicle manufacturer and places new tires onto a vehicle for the first time. (This would be in the case of adding a tandem axle requiring additional tires, or the actual manufacture of a trailer to which he installed the tires.) Is this correct?

Your understanding is not correct. The final stage manufacturer is required to maintain or have maintained for him a record of tires on or in each vehicle he ships to a motor vehicle distributor or dealer, and maintain or have maintained for him a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires.

For your information, attached is a letter sent to major chassis manufacturers dealing with this subject for cases where the final stage manufacturer does not deal with the purchaser of the completed vehicle. The replies received from the chassis manufacturers have been, for the most part, cooperative.

a. In the case of a manufactured vehicle, we interpret Section 574.9 to mean that the records kept for three years need not conform with any special format, so long as the customer name and address is evident, and the customer can be contacted by the manufacturer in the event that the tire manufacturer initiated a recall campaign which included the group of tires placed on that vehicle. Is this a correct assumption?

Your understanding is correct, however the requirements for vehicle manufacturers are found in 574.10, not 574.9.

Enclosure

ID: nht71-5.22

DATE: 12/14/71

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

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to a request made on behalf of Phillips Petroleum Company by Veigh J. Nielson for an assigned identification mark for two of Phillips' plants which manufacture tires for research purposes.

As I informed you in my letter of September 20, 1971, if Phillips purchases a new tire, removes the tread material and then applies its own experimental trend containing various rubber compounds, Phillips is considered to be a new tire manufacturer. If Phillips applies its experimental tread to a used tire, it is considered a retreader of tires.

As a new tire manufacturer you are required to certify the tire as conforming to the new passenger car tire standard (No. 109) and comply with Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR 574). Accordingly, you are assigned the identification mark of "J1" for tires made in your Bartlesville, Oklahoma plant and "K1" for tires manufactured in your Stow, Ohio plant.

If you act as a retreader then Part 574 would not be applicable for the tires you retread because they are retreaded for your own use. (Enclosed is a copy of Docket No. 70-12, Notice No. 8 which makes the regulation inapplicable to retreaders who retread for their own use). As explained in my letter of September 20, you are, of course, required to certify that your new tires and your retreaded tires comply with the respective standards for new and retreaded tires if they are to be used on the public highways, by placing the symbol DOT on the tires in the prescribed location.

ENC.

ID: nht71-5.23

DATE: 12/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 15, 1971, requesting our interpretation of certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations:

1. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Occupant Crash Protection," as amended at 36 F.R. 4600 (March 10, 1971). If trucks over 10,000 pounds(Illegible Word) are equipped with a seat belt system(Illegible Word) in paragraph S4.3.2, the vehicles need not meet the requirements of paragraphs S5 and S6, which apply only when the complete passive protection system option of paragraph S4.3.1 is adopted. Of course, the seat belt system must conform to the seat belt assembly requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies."

2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components." Your interpretation of the standard's coverage is correct: there are no requirements in the standard for the installation of the latches and hinges.

3. Part 573, "Defect Reports," 36 F.R. 3064 (February 17, 1971). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations do not require manufacturers to repair defective motor vehicles. Manufacturers are therefore free to make whatever arrangements for repair of defects they wish. Of course, we hope that in making such arrangements the manufacturers will assume the responsibility of assuring that the repairs are made properly.

ID: nht71-5.24

DATE: 12/15/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Mobilefreeze Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1971, to Mr. Stan Haransky, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., concerning the mounting height of lamps and reflectors on your motor-cycle trailers.

A copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment" is enclosed for your information. The minimum mounting height for lamps and reflectors listed in Table IV of this Standard is 15 inches. We do not have the authority to exempt any motor vehicles from meeting these requirements.

Enc.

ID: nht71-5.25

DATE: 12/15/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Ambassador Trailers

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1971, to the Department of Transportation, concerning lighting requirements on your boat trailers.

A copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment" is enclosed for your information. The location of the lamps and reflectors shown on your drawing appears to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, providing they are mounted to meet the height requirements.

Since the width of your trailer is more than 80 inches, front and rear clearance lamps and rear identification lamps are also required as specified in Table I and located as specified in Table II. Combination front and rear clearance lamps are allowed in paragraph S4.1.1.9.

There are no other requirements for trailers specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Enc.

ID: nht71-5.26

DATE: 12/17/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Maxim Motor Division

COPYEE: STAN HARANSKY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 206. Your letter(Illegible Word) forwarded to us November 10, 1971, by Mr. Stan Haransky. Associate Director of the Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

You ask whether the standard would prohibit the manufacture of fire trucks without side doors on the cabs. According to your letter, the trucks are built without side doors in order to allow firemen to enter and exit the cabs quickly during emergencies.

Standard 206 does not require that any type of motor vehicle be equipped with side doors. The standard requires only that if a vehicle subject to it has hinged or sliding side doors, they must conform with the standard's performance requirements for hinges, locks and latches.

Please write if I can be of any further assistance.

ID: nht71-5.27

DATE: 12/21/71

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

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1971, in which you enclosed copies of drawings illustrating clearance and side marker lamps installed on several types of trucks and trailers in compliance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code and asked for our advice as to whether there are any conflicts with the Federal requirements.

There are several such conflicts, and our comments follow:

1. REQ BUL-3 SUPPLEMENT 1

(a) Page 2 - Standard No. 108 prescribes the general location of clearance lamps and side marker lamps without specifying tolerances. The first sentence of each of the paragraphs on clearance lamps and side marker lamps adequately reflect the Federal requirements. These general requirements of Standard No. 108 preempt the authority of a State to prescribe tolerance for alternate locations of the lamps and subsequent sentences in these paragraphs which do so are improper.

(b) Page 3 - Figure 3, Combination Clearance and Sidemarker Lamps, does not appear to properly illustrate the requirement that a clearance lamp be visible at an angle of 45 degrees to the right.

2. Truck tractors

(a) Statements appear frequently that front amber side marker lamps are "Not required on pre-1969 Tractors." This is incorrect; front amber side marker lamps are required on any truck tractor 80(Illegible Word) inches in overall width, manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

(b) Various figures illustrate truck tractors with red rear clearance and side marker lamps. It is unclear whether California requires truck tractors to be equipped with these lamps, or whether the figures illustrate acceptable counting locations if a vehicle is so equipped. Standard No. 108 provides that(Illegible Words) preemption provisions of the Vehicle(Illegible Words) to require them.

3. Clearance lamps

(a) The figures do not clearly illustrate whether the widest point of vehicles is the front fender or body (i.e. tank on tank trucks, flat bed on "dromedary" trucks and flat bed trucks, van on van body trucks, body on utility trucks). If the body is the widest point of the vehicle, amber clearance lamps must be mounted there, but if the widest point is at the front fenders, the clearance lamps must be mounted at that location. No alternate locations are permissible, though shown in your figures, and in any event, cab-mounted clearance lamps are inappropriate whether single or combined with another lamp.

(b) The widest point of a horse trailer is the fender, and clearance lamps must be mounted here, not on the body.

4. Logging dolly. Logging dollies are "pole trailers" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and are specifically excluded from Standard No. 108. Therefore, we have no comments on California's requirements.

5. Boat trailers

(a) Clearance lamps are not required if the trailer is less than 80 inches wide.

(b) A combination clearance lamp (amber to front, red to rear) is permitted, if it is located atop the fender, as an alternative to separate amber and red clearance lamps.

(c) The required location of the front amber side marker lamp for trailers (not shown on your figure) is "as far to the front as practicable," with a permissible location "as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue."

We are returning to you copies of the drawings you enclosed, marked to reflect our comments.

ID: nht71-5.28

DATE: 12/23/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of July 2, 1971, points out an apparent conflict within the upper torso seat belt anchorage location requirement of standard No. 210. The conflict is between the provision of S4.3.2 that the range of permissible locations is established with the seat back in its most upright position and the provision that the 2 dimensional manikin shall have its "H" point on the seating reference point. The manikin's "H" point may not be capable of being positioned on the seating reference point if the manufacturer has used a "nominal design riding position" other than the "most upright position" in establishing the seating reference point.

We agree that the conflict exists and intend to eliminate it by appropriate amendment in the Federal Register.

We will advise you upon issuance of the amendment.