ID: nht70-1.40

DATE: 02/04/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Norton Villiers Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1970, enclosing ten copies of the Consumer Information for motorcycles produced by Norton Villiers Corporation.

Your submittal has on its face eliminated the problems that were called to your attention in our letter of January 9. The form in which the information is presented deviates, however, from the form prescribed by the regulations, sections 575.101 and 106. The most significant deviation is the omission of the explanatory statements that are required for both types of information. The figures included with each section of the regulations should be followed closely in your presentation of the information to purchasers.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht70-1.41

DATE: 02/05/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: G. F. Pierce Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1970, to Mr. W. S. Scott, and to your recent inquiry to Mr. James Gilkey, concerning your safety belt system.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 specifies the number of belt enchorages that must be provided and the performance and location requirements of these anchorages in passenger cars. This standard does not apply to seat belt assemblies.

Seat belt assembly performance requirements are specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

I am enclosing copies of Standards Nos. 209 and 210 for your reference.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht70-1.42

DATE: 02/10/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Christopoher W. Norton

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway Administration has asked me to reply to your letter of February 3 regarding importation of a Lotus Super 7, either(Illegible Word) form or already(Illegible Word). Since you state that the car "does not conform to current safety . . . regulations", you may be best advise(Illegible Words) Importation of a lot of individual motor vehicle equipment items is permissible, but if brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, glazing materials, seat belt assemblies, or wheel covers are provided, each must get the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The vehicle as assembled from kit items must meet other Federal standards applicable to the vehicle itself. You, as(Illegible Words) in the United States, would be regarded as the manufacturer and responsible for compliance with these standards, and subject to the(Illegible Word) or a civil penalty upon any(Illegible Words). I enclose for your information a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1968 and a booklet which describes the Federal standards. The full text of the standards is available, upon a yearly subscription basis of(Illegible Word) from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

In the event that the car were assembled in England by a prvite garage, it would probably regard(Illegible Words) manufacturer of the vehicle. Lotus itself would not be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from compliance with Federal standards since it manufactures more than 500 vehicles per year. Further, under(Illegible Words) we would not consider an assembler a manufacturer eligible to apply for the exemption.

The article you have read in the(Illegible Words) is incorrect. Any vehicle manufactured on or after January 1,(Illegible Word), and imported into the United States by a private individual(Illegible Words) to applicable Federal standards at time of entry or be brought into conformance within 90 days after entry. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare is responsible for enforcing the air pollution regulations. It is my impression however, that these regulations do not apply to an individual importing a vehicle for his own use and not for resale,

(Illegible Words)

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht70-1.43

DATE: 02/25/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. C. Turner; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1969, requesting an exception from Paragraph S3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 ("Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses"), to allow the use of Lemen and Plexiglas in certain specified locations in twenty-one (21) fire fighting vehicles to be delivered to the city of New York.

You state the purpose of your request is to provide better protection for occupants of these fire fighting vehicles from objects thrown at them when, for example, the vehicles are enroute to a fire. Further, you state the use of these materials would eliminate replacing safety glass, which can be broken when hit by small objects. Because you are requesting a change in an existing standard your letter has been treated as a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR @@ 353.31, 353.33. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.

It is not completely clear from your letter and the enclosed drawing where the interior or canopy partitions in which you wish to use Lexen and Plexiglas are located. Standard No. 205 presently permits the use of rigid plastics in interior partitions of fire fighting vehicles if these materials meet the requirements for plastics designated AS4 and AS5 (the latter can only be used when not requisite for driving visibility) in American Standards Association Test Z26.1-1966, July 15, 1966. We understand that Plexiglas meets these requirements and may therefore be used in this location. We also understand, however, that Lexen does not, failing specifically to meet certain chemical and abrasion resistance requirements applicable to AS4 and AS5 rigid plastics under the Standard. If our understanding regarding Lexen is correct, we believe its failure to meet these minimum requirements renders its unsuitable for use in areas of motor vehicles where a possible loss of transparency may affect the safe operation of the vehicle.

With reference to glazing in side and door windows of fire fighting vehicles, Standard No. 205 allows the use of glazing specified AS1, AS2, and AS10 in ASA Test-226.1-1966 and also allows the use of AS11 and AS3 glazing at levels not requisite for driving visibility. This glazing may be either laminated, tempered, or bullet resistant safety glass meeting the applicable requirements. Plastics meeting AS4 and AS5 requirements, while appropriate for certain locations such as partitions, are not considered appropriate for use in side and door windows as they do not possess chemical and abrasion resistance qualities necessary for exterior glazing and which the types of safety glass specified above possess. The occupant protection which you desire can be provided by using AS10 (and AS11 where appropriate) bullet resistant glass which contains both structural advantages over normally used safety glazing and satisfactory chemical and abrasion resistance for use in side and door windows.

ID: nht70-1.44

DATE: 03/10/70

FROM: D. W. TOMS -- DIR., NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY ROBERT BRENNER

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 13, 1970 to the Administrator, in which you requested an interpretation of Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, as applied to motor homes and chassis-mount campers. Specifically, you asked whether door components must conform to the requirements of the standard when the door is located across the width of the vehicle from a seating position.

The relevant language is in paragraph S4. of the standard:

"Side door components referred to herein shall conform to this standard if any portion of a 90-percentile two-dimensional manikin as described in SAE Practice J826, when positioned at any seating reference point, projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view."

This language clearly covers, and was intended to cover, the situation that you describe. The phrase "projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view" eliminates, in respect to the standard's application, any consideration of the lateral distance of the seating position from the door opening. The door components of vehicles you described in your letter must therefore conform to the standard.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht70-1.45

DATE: 03/17/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sofica

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret our delay in responding to your letter of December 2, 1969, which evidently became lost after it reached us.

In your letter you ask three questions. The questions, and our answers to them, are as follows:

1. If a European concern manufactures seat belts for installation in vehicles imported into the United States, is the vehicle manufacturer or the seat belt manufacturer responsible for compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 with respect to those seat belts? It is our view that both manufacturers are responsible for compliance with the standard. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale in the United States of a nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. A seat belt manufactured for installation on a motor vehicle to be sold in the United States is itself manufactured for sale in the United States. The manufacturer of the motor vehicle in which the nonconforming seat belt is installed would be in violation of section 108(a) because Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires certain motor vehicles to be equipped with seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard No. 209.

2. Is a foreign manufacturer of seat belts which will be imported into the United States required to test the belts at approved facilities in the United States to demonstrate that they conform to Standard No. 209? The answer is no. There is no requirement in the law or the standard that seat belts must be subjected to approved tests before they can be imported and sold. The manufacturer must certify that the belts conform to the standard. In order to do so, a manufacturer would ordinarily make tests of his products. This is particularly the case because compliance with some of the standard's requirements can be ascertained only by actual tests of seat belts. However, there is no requirement that any particular test be made at any specific test facility.

3. Must a European seat belt manufacturer designate an agent for service of administrative process under section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if he is merely supplying the belts for installation as original equipment in motor vehicles to be imported into the United States. It is our view that a foreign manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment who knows or has reason to know that his products will be imported into the United States, whether as original equipment on motor vehicles or otherwise, is obligated under section 110(e) to designate an agent for service of process in accordance with that section. Section 110(e) is not limited in its scope to manufacturers who actually import their products; it also applies to manufacturers who are "offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States". The quoted language seems broad enough to cover suppliers of motor vehicle equipment who know or should know that the vehicles in which their products are installed will be imported for sale into the United States.

Again, let me express my apologies for the delay in responding to your inquiry. If you have any further questions about your obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht70-1.46

DATE: 03/19/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Melvin Hart

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your petition of March 10 for temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 (Occupant Protection in Interior Impact). The petition raises several questions.

Standard No. 201 does not, as you appear to assume, pertain only to instrument panels. It also covers seat backs, interior compartment doors, sunvisors, and armrests. Please explain whether you are seeking an exemption from the entire Standard, or only from S3.1.

The comment on p. 6 of the petition, "two of the standards loom higher than the rest as problems", raises the question whether you are still requesting an exemption from Federal Standard No. 103 (Defrosting and Defogging Systems). If so, then you should submit a supplemental petition containing the information we requested on February 19 in returning to you your petition of February 13.

The signature "Melvin Hart Owner" does not fulfill the requirement (49 C.F.R. @ 355.5(b)(13)) that the application be signed "by an officer of the petitioner and state his authority and area of responsibility".

If you will explain the scope of your request for exemption from Standard No. 201, whether an exemption from Standard No. 103 is still needed, and your corporate position with Transer, Inc. we shall consider your petition further.

In closing permit me to suggest that it would be to your advantage to submit as much information as possible on the safety characteristics of the T6.A, including relevant drawings and photographs. An exemption is based in part upon a finding that it is "consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the [National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety] Act". Since an exemption is, in effect, a license to manufacture motor vehicles, the Administrator must more data than the written assurances of a manufacturer that it will produce a "safe" vehicle before he can find that the exemption is "consistent with the public interest". This is especially true concerning a new vehicle produced by a new company which his not manufactured motor vehicles before. If you would like to discuss the T6.A with our engineers we shall be happy to arrange such a meeting.

ID: nht70-1.47

DATE: 03/20/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: A.L. Clark

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1970, to Mr. Jones Forrester, Deputy Director, Office of Standards Praparation, that has ben referred to this office.

The information that you have attained from a firend, that a car built for you for your personal use and imported for purposes other than resale does not have to have a certification label, is correct. It should be noted, however, that the important criteria here is the matter of compliance with standards that are applicable on the date of manufacture.

Section 108(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-563, states:

"A motor vehicle . . . offered for importation in violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be refused admission into the United States under joint regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary; except that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary may, by such regulations, provide for authorizing the importation of such motor vehice . . . into the United States upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to insure that any such motor vehicle . . . will be brought into comformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this title, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States." A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.

To augment this Section of the Act, 19 C.F.R. 12.80 has been established. This regulation states in essence that no vehicle shall not be refused entry if it bears a valid certification label. In the event the vehicle does not have a valid certification label other provisions for inportation are provided. A copy of that regulation is also enclosed. Iso Automotovcicoli held an Iteriam Temporary Exception Number 68-6, Public Law 90-283, that expired on December 19, 1968. This exemption covers passenger cars manufactured by that firm up to that date.

This company subsequently filed another petition for temporary exemption and was granted Temporary Exemption Number 68-for thair Rivolta model only. Exemption(Illegible word) the Grifo model was withheld because it lacked certain technical information. We are currently in communication with Iso over this matter.

The steps that you should take to free the ear from bond would be for you to contact Iso Automotoveicoli and establish the date of manufacture. If that date is sometime prior to December 19, 1968, an affidavit should be presented to Customs. If on the other hand the car was manufactured after that date, you should seek their advices as to what could be done to bring the vehicle into conformity commensurate with any temporary exemption that might be granted in the mean time. The regulations do not provide any other recourse other than corportation or abandonent to the United States.

ID: nht70-1.48

DATE: 03/25/70

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

TO: The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 2, 1970, to the Federal Highway Administration, transmitting the August 1969, edition of the S.M.M.T. Tyre and Wheel Engineering Manual.

Your letter also expressed your intention of having the 1969 manual supercede the 1965/66 data book as referenced in Section 83 of Standard No. 109. As we stated in our letter of March 14, 1969, to Mr. Woodbridge, Chief Engineer of S.M.M.T., "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, within Section 83, lists the Tyre and Wheel Engineering Data Book dated 1965/66 of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited (S.M.M.T.), "as one of the references containing acceptable test rims. When Standards No. 109 and 110 were developed, the National Highway Safety Bureau accepted the S.M.M.T. 1965/66 Data Book tire and rim combinations based on established usage. We did not, nor do we at present intend to accept general updating of these referenced publications, either foreign or domestic, as valid reasons for amending Standards No. 109 and 110. Consequently, any new tire size designations or alternative rim sizes that you wish to list within Standards No. 109 and 110 will have to comply, on an individual basis, with the abbreviated guidelines as outlined in the October 5, 1968, Federal Register.

ID: nht70-1.49

DATE: 04/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Scandex Sakerhetaglas Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1970 in which you applied to the National Highway Safety Bureau for registration of glazing materials your company intends exporting to the United States for use in motor vehicles.

It is important that you understand that the National Highway Safety Bureau does not approve or certify that glazing materials meet the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applicable thereto (No. 205, copy enclosed). Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1405 ( a copy of the Act is also enclosed) requires the manufacturer to certify that his product complies with all applicable U.S. standards. You may certify that your company's glazing materials meet the standard by following the requirements of Section 114 of the Act or by following the certification alternative provided for in S3.4 of Standard No. 205. If you choose to use the alternative method provided for in the Standard you must apply for an approved manufacturer's code mark.

Although the Bureau does not certify glazing material as complying, it does conduct a compliance program to determine if the manufacturer's product does, in fact, comply with the applicable standards. Persons selling non-complying items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation (see Sections 108 and 109 of the Act).

In addition, your attention is directed to Section 110(e) of the Act which requires persons exporting motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment into the United States to designate an agent for service of process. See Subpart D-Service of Process: Agents, of the General Procedural Rules (copy enclosed).