ID: nht70-1.22

DATE: 10/27/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Mr. Toms of October 15, 1970, in which you asked whether General Motors could provide one consumer information document to fleet purchasers of motor vehicles, rather than putting a booklet in each car as is done in the usual case.

The answer is yes. 49 CFR 575.6(a) requires that the information be provided "to that purchaser", "at the time a motor vehicle is delivered" to him. It does not require that the information be in the vehicle, or that there be one booklet per vehicle.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht70-1.23

DATE: 03/04/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Trelleborg Rubber Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of February 4, 1970, to the National Highway Safety Bureau concerning the labeling requirements for motor vehicle tires manufactured prior to August 1, 1968.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 requires that all motor vehicle passenger car tires manufactured after January 1, 1968, conform to the requirements as cited. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments for your reference.

Section 54.3 specifies the labeling requirements. You will note 54.3.1 permits the sale of tires manufactured during the period January 1, 1968, to August 1, 1968, which have a label or tag affixed that incorporates the specified information. Inclusion of information on the invoice does not relieve the manufacturer from affiding the proper labeling on each tire.

ID: nht70-1.24

DATE: 04/17/70

FROM: Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hans J. Loeffler

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to our letter of April 5 and confirms your understanding that any Porsche automobile manufactured prior to January 1, 1968, need not confirm to Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be admitted into the United States.

If you wish to import a vehicle manufactured prior to that date, you may be asked to execute Form Ne-7 (Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) at the port of entry. You should supply the vehicle data requested and check box 1, the declaration that "The merchandise was manufactured on a date when there was no Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect which was applicable to it". I enclose a copy of this Form for your information.

ID: nht70-1.25

DATE: 06/20/70

FROM: Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have read with great interest your letter of June 10 and its enclosures. You appear to be seeking an assurance that "we, the C&CR Organization Committee, are complying with all Federal rules and regulations in regard to highway safety", and information ensuring "that the race vehicles involved are satisfactory to [National Highway Safety Bureau] specifications and regulations".

The first part of your inquiry really requires a response from us to [Illegible Words] of your entry rules, which states that the entrant shall "Satisfy any additional requirements imposed by the U.S. Federal Government since cross-country travel will take place on interstate highways". There are no conditions which must be met prior to operation of experimental vehicles on the interstate system. Nor are there any Federal requirements applicable to the Committee as promoter or sponsor of a competition conducted in part on the interstate system. State and local laws, if any, would have to be followed of course.

In response to the second part of your inquiry the Federal "specifications and regulations" concerned are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The Committee has no responsibility under the Act for ensuring compliance with the Federal safety standards. This responsibility rests with the vehicle's original manufacturer, and with any person modifying a vehicle prior to its first sale in a manner affecting compliance with the safety standards. It is evident that standard production motor vehicles (such as the Chevelles presented to the Committee by General Motors) which originally

[Page 2 Is Missing.]

ID: nht70-1.26

DATE: 10/20/70

FROM: R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: L. C. Lundstrom; GM

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT: The Director has asked me to reply to your letter of September 29, 1970, concerning the compliance of certain motor vehicles, which General Motors intends to import, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

Each rear door of these vehicles has, in addition to a "conventional" locking mechanism, a special locking mechanism which is described in your letter as:

"an additional lever located on the rear edge of each door which, when placed in its 'lock position', will only allow the door to be opened from outside the vehicle even if the conventional locking knob on the upper portion of the door inside the vehicle is in the unlocked position. The additional lever is covered when the door is closed."

You ask whether the rear doors on these vehicles comply with @4.1.3 of Standard No. 206, which requires that each door "shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle."

A somewhat similar problem was discussed in the preamble to the April 27, 1968 amendment (33 F.R. 6465) to the Standard. As stated there, @4.1.3 does not preclude the installation of a special locking mechanism in addition to the required locking mechanism. However, the required locking mechanism must be able to be engaged or disengaged regardless of whether any additional locking mechanism is engaged or disengaged. If the special locking mechanism does not interfere with the operation of the required locking mechanism on the doors in question, therefore, it will not constitute a failure to comply with the standard.

Please write if I can be of any further assistance.

ID: nht70-1.27

DATE: 10/28/70

FROM: ROGER H. COMPTON -- NHTSA OFFICE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: E. W. BERNITT -- VICE PRESIDENT SAFETY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION JEEP CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bernitt:

This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1970, to Mr. Charles A. Baker of this office in which you requested an interpretation of the phrase "effective projected illuminated area."

Class A turn signal lamps are required by Section S3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which references SAE Standard J588d in Tables I and III for these lamps. The requirements for the illuminated area of a turn signal lamp are specified in J588d as follows:

"The effective projected illuminated area measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp must not be less than 12 sq. in. for Class A and 3 1/2 sq. in. for Class B."

In the 45 degree visibility requirements, this standard further states "To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, . . .".

Our interpretation of effective projected illuminated area follows: The effective projected illuminated area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflector, which is not obstructed by an opaque object such as a mounting screw, mounting ring or an ornamental bezel or trim.

The above interpretation allows the area of rings or other configurations (raised portions) molded in the lens to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output.

Sincerely,

ID: nht70-1.28

DATE: 02/11/70

FROM: CLUE. D. FERGUSON -- OFFICE OF VEHICLE STRUCTURES, MOTOR VEH. PROGRAMS, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY F.C. KOCH

TO: Mr. Eddie E. Barnes

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the number of safety belts in your 1969 Chevrolet nine-passenger station wagon.

The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires that seat belt assemblies be installed in each forward-facing designated seating position in passenger cars. The standard does not apply to side-facing or rear-facing seats. The manufacturer is not required to install safety belts for such seats: however, in the interest of safety, most manufacturers usually install lap belts for the seating positions most commonly used.

A Notice of Proposed Rule Making was issued on September 15, 1969, which would extend the applicability of Standard No. 208 to apply also to side-facing and rear-facing seats. The comments of those who responded to the Notice have been analysed and the final rule is now being developed.

I am enclosing a copy of our present Standard No. 208 and a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for your reference.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht70-1.29

DATE: 02/04/70

FROM: D.W. TOMS -- DIR., NHTSA

TO: Motorcycle Scooter & Allied Trades Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: MARKETING OF COMPETITION MOTORCYCLES

This is in response to your letter of November 19, 1969, in which you ask for an advisory opinion "as to the measures which an importer or distributor should take in order to assure compliance with regulations of the Federal Highway Administration in the marketing of motorcycles for competition use".

Specifically, you note:

"[The importation regulations appear] to require that the importer shall declare that motor vehicles imported for competition purposes will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads. Hence there is some uncertainty whether this declaration connotes an implicit responsibility which survives sale to a purchaser not for resale".

The declaration to which you refer, 19 CFR @ 12.80(b)(2)(vii), is the declaration that the vehicle is being imported for purposes of competition and that it will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads. If we discover that a vehicle covered by such a declaration has been sold or licensed for use on public roads, we would then have to determine whether the declaration was a false one. In making this determination we would look to those factors which show that, at the time he made the declaration, the importer knew or had reason to know that the vehicle would be put to on-road use. If, for example, prior dealings with the vehicle's purchaser had made the importer aware of the purchaser's intent to divert vehicles to markets for so-called "street legal" motorcycles, it is very likely that we would conclude that a declaration that the vehicle will not be sold or licensed for use on public roads was false at the time it was made. In these circumstances, our conclusion would not be altered by the fact that, at the time he sold the vehicle, the importer supplied the buyer with a document specifying that the vehicle was intended only for purposes of competition. In short, we would look behind the sales agreement to the realities of the transaction as the parties knew them.

Similarly, if relevant facts disclose that the importer seeks to evade his responsibilities by active promotion and sale to competition cycle purchasers of motor vehicle equipment which will make the competition machine "street local", and purchasers of competition machines are in fact buying such equipment for immediate conversion purposes, then a reasonable conclusion could be reached that a non-complying motor vehicle was being imported and offered for sale by the importer regardless of the declaration made at time of entry. In this sense there is "an implicit responsibility which survives sale to a purchaser not for resale".

You also raise the following point: "It is understood that motorcycle manufacturers and importers should not equip competition motorcycles with devices and accessories that would render them lawful for use and registration for use on public highways. It would be normal industry practice, however, to catalog accessory items and parts which could be applied to competition machines by the ultimate purchaser. Since many competition motorcycles have a 'sister' model manufactured for highway use, the sale of such items is necessary. Thus a question of the propriety of this practice is raised."

The mere cataloguing of parts equally applicable to both a competition motorcycle and a similar "sister" non-competition model does not appear to raise a question of propriety so long as other facts do not indicate that a significant number of purchases of these parts are made with the intention of conversion of competition motorcycles to street use.

Finally you note:

"Competition motorcycles are generally marketed through retail dealers in motor vehicles. Hence, the question arises as to whether this practice might continue without opposition by the Federal Highway Administrator."

You have also requested a ruling "that sale of competition motorcycles be permitted through franchised dealerships". You should clearly understand that the National Highway Safety Bureau his no desire to alter existing methods of motor vehicle marketing; it does not intend to "oppose" and it has no power to "permit" the sale of motor vehicles.

It does, however, have the power to classify a competition motorcycle as a "motor vehicle" if these vehicles are, in fact, being operated on the public roads to a significant extent, and if it believes that such a classification would reduce the toll of traffic injuries and deaths. But the mini-bike interpretation (34 F.R. 15416), referenced by you, states that marketing through retail dealers in motor vehicles is only one criterion which will be considered in any question of classification. Therefore importers and distributors of competition motorcycles which are sold through franchised dealerships are best advised in marketing these vehicles to follow the other criteria which the mini-bike interpretation sets forth.

ID: nht70-1.3

DATE: 09/17/70

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

TO: Univeral Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Office of Trade Regulation Rules of the Federal Trade Commission has forwarded your letter of July 30, 1970, concerning tires marked "Radial" that have casing cord angles that vary as much as 15 degrees from 90 degrees.

Paragraph 33 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 -- New Pneumatic Tires, Passenger Cars -- defines a radial ply tire as a "pneumatic tire in which the ply cords which extend to the bends are laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the trend".

The Bureau does not consider cords laid at 75 degrees to the centerline of the trend as "Radial" tires and tires marked as much would not be in compliance with the tire standard.

Persons importing tires that do not comply with the standard would be violating section 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1397).

For your information enclosed is a copy of the Passenger Car Tire Standard and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

ID: nht70-1.30

DATE: 01/06/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 29, 1969, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this Office, concerning an interpretation of paragraph S3.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The requirements and provisions of paragraph S3.3 are applicable to combinations of the required lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment as specified elsewhere in the standard. These requirements and provisions do not preclude the use of a non-required (ornamental) Class B reflex reflector in a combination rear lamp. I should also point out that effective January 1, 1970, the standard requires Class A rear reflex reflectors on all vehicles, including passenger cars. As you have proposed, such required Class A reflectors may be mounted separately from the combination rear lamp.