ID: nht72-6.2

DATE: 03/23/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Daystar Motor Homes Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4 asking for copies of regulations applicable to a "motor home" you wish to manufacture.

I enclose a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the basic statute setting forth your obligations as a manufacturer, and the authority for all applicable regulations. A publication titled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and Other Regulations" is available from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402. The price of $ 8.00 includes a subscription of up to one year of supplements. The Federal standards and regulations also appear in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 19 for the important regulations), generally available at law libraries. Amendments and proposals are published, when issued, in the Federal Register.

If you have any questions after obtaining and receiving these materials I will be happy to answer them for you. A "motor home" for your information, is defined as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" under the Federal standards.

ID: nht72-6.20

DATE: 07/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: University of Puerto Rico

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1972, raising certain questions concerning the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573).

You ask whether the amendments made by sections 4(a) and (c) of Public Law 91-265 took effect on November 28, 1970 or later. Section 4(d) of that law specified, as you note, that these sections take effect 180 days after the enactment of the Act, unless the Secretary of Transportation determined that a later date was in the public interest. No such determination was made, and the sections took effect 180 days after the Act's enactment. However, our computation shows that 180 days after May 22 is November 18, not November 28.

You ask if Owners Lists (49 CFR 573.6), including vehicle identification numbers, can be obtained by NHTSA and transmitted to your organization. The NHTSA would not consider it appropriate to require manufacturers to submit owner's lists to it for purposes not involved in the enforcement of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We would not consider the study you wish to perform to be within this purpose.

You also ask if we can furnish you copies of Quarterly Reports (49 CFR 573.5) at least as they relate to cars sold in Puerto Rico. Quarterly reports submitted by manufacturers, except for the production figures submitted pursuant to section 573.5(b), are considered to be public documents and are available for public inspection. Due to the large number of reports we receive, however, we can furnish copies only if the precise reports desired are specified. The reports do not disclose the geographical location of the vehicles involved.

With reference to your request for the latest version of the leaflet, "Motor Vehicle Safety Defect Recall Campaigns," I have enclosed the volume which provides information for the complete year 1971, and a new volume dealing with January-March 1972.

ID: nht72-6.21

DATE: 07/25/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 23, 1972, concerning the Certification and related regulations (49 CFR Parts 567. 568). You indicate in your letter that many school bus bodies are exceeding by small amounts the weight ratings specified for the chassis by the incomplete manufacturer, and that increasing the capability of the chassis results in expenditures which you believe are not justified by the additional safety achieved. You indicate also that you believe that section 567.5 requires the final-stage manufacturer to use the incomplete vehicle ratings for his ratings, except when differing tire sizes are specified in accordance with 567.4(h).

You appear to be misinterpreting the regulations. There is no requirement that a final-stage manufacturer use the ratings provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The final-stage manufacturer is free to raise them for purposes of certification, as long as the values he chooses are consistent with the definitions of GAWR and GVWR. If he does raise them, however, he can no longer rely on the assurances of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer as to conformity with the standards, but will be responsible, subject to the Vehicle Safety Act's penalties, for (1) conformity of the vehicle with all applicable standards, and (2) ensuring that no safety problem has been created. If the final-stage manufacturer will not assume this responsibility, in our opinion he cannot reasonably maintain that the limitations imposed by the incomplete manufacturer's ratings are unjustified.

In short, you are free to choose and combine your components as you see fit, as long as you use due care to ensure that the vehicle conforms to the standards and contains no safety-related defects. Observing the component manufacturer's maximum load ratings is usually the easiest way to do this.

ID: nht72-6.22

DATE: 02/15/72

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

TO: Wells Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of February 2 you refer to paragraph S4.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and its reference to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, Headlamp Beam Switching, April 1964. You ask "whether there is anything in your Docket related to Rule #108 to bring it up to either J564b or J564c."

Perhaps you misread S4.5.1, but it does allow conformance with J564b as an alternative to J564a. No proposal has been issued requiring or allowing conformance with J564c.

ID: nht72-6.23

DATE: 11/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1972, asking among other things, whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts the recent California law requiring motorcycles made on or after January 1, 1972, to be wired so that their headlamps are lit whenever the engines are running. In light of the answer to this question, it is not necessary to deal with the other ones.

It is the opinion of this agency that the California law in question is presented in accordance with section 103(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and is therefore void. Standard No. 108. 49 CFR @ 571.108, establishes requirements for motorcycle headlighting, along with special wiring requirements for motorcycles and other vehicles. It is our position, therefore, that the California requirement is within the scope of the aspects of performance covered by Standard No. 108. Since it is not identical to a federal requirement, it is rendered void by operation of the Act.

ID: nht72-6.24

DATE: 11/16/72

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

TO: Nippondenso Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1972, telling us that you have tested turn signal flashers in accordance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108a, which you believe is a more severe test than Standard No. 108, and asking our views as to whether you should retest in accordance with Standard No. 108.

The important question is not whether one standard establishes a more severe test than another, but whether a flasher meets all performance requirements applicable to it on the date of its manufacture. The legal obligation of a manufacturer is to insure that it does. The requirements currently applicable to flashers are those of Standard No. 108.

It is true that Standard No. 108a has been "repealed" and No. 108 "reinstated". The reason for this action is a judicial decision that the NHTSA did not provide adequate public notice and opportunity to comment on the flasher requirements in Standard No. 108a. However, the NHTSA has proposed that the flasher performance requirements of Standard No. 108a be re-adopted, and is offering the public an opportunity to comment. I enclose a copy of the notice for your information.

ID: nht72-6.25

DATE: 05/31/72

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

TO: Rhode Island Consumers' Council

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of March 15, 1972, which was forwarded to us by the Federal Trade Commission, concerning problems experienced by Mr. Ronald Dandeneau regarding a repossessed vehicle he purchased which was equipped with tires marked "NA." Mr. Dandeneau claims he was told by a tire dealer that such tires are considered unserviceable, cannot be repaired, and are unsafe.

The sale of these tires by the tire manufacturer (we understand that the practice is not limited to Uniroyal) is not prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Federal standard applicable to passenger car tires. The Federal standard applies only to tires before their first sale to a consumer, and does not apply to used tires such as these.

We understand that tires marked "NA" are tires that have been adjusted previously, but for reasons that are not considered to affect the safety of the tire. Examples of such reasons are a lack of roundness and uniformity. While these conditions may produce riding qualities which some people find unsatisfactory, we presently have no evidence that such tires cannot be repaired or that they are unsafe.

ID: nht72-6.26

DATE: 05/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: CITROEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1972, in which you posed questions about the operation of the seat belt warning system under Standard 208 and about the intent of the headlamp adjustment requirement under Standard 215.

Your questions on Standard 208 deal with the requirement in S7.3.3 that the warning system in a vehicle with an automatic transmission must not operate when the engine is operating and the gear selector is in the "Park" position. In answer to your first question, if the two conditions for non-operation exist, the warning system must not operate, regardless of the position of the hand brake lever. If either condition does not exist, e.g., the transmission is in "Park" but the engine is not operating, it would be permissible to have the system operate, and its operation could be controlled by the hand brake so long as the hand brake circuitry does not interfere with the mandatory operation of the system under S7.3.1 and S7.3.5.

If the shift lever is in the neutral position, as stated in your second question, you are free to choose whether to have the system operate or not, since S7.3 does not require either operation or non-operation when the transmission is in neutral.

In response to your last question on Standard 208, an "operating engine" is an engine that is rotating. It is permissible to have a system in which the warning operates when the transmission is in "Park" and the ignition is "On", but the warning must shut off when the engine begins to operate.

Your question on Standard 215 is whether the headlamps must be adjustable after the tests "so as to permit restoration of normal lighting" or whether it is sufficient for the lamps to be adjustable +4 degrees vertically and horizontally whether or not this restores normal lighting. Our reply is that the requirement is intended to provide for the safe operation of the lamps after impact and that the lamps must therefore be adjustable in a manner that restores normal lighting.

ID: nht72-6.27

DATE: 06/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Customs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On June 14, 1972, you and Mr. Aubuchon of our Office of Standards Enforcement discussed the proper method of entry under 19 CFR @ 12.60 for incomplete motor vehicles and for chassis. This letter represents our opinion in this matter.

A vehicle consisting of a chassis-cab on wheels, or a chassis, intended for completion after entry, should be entered as motor vehicle equipment, and identified on the HS-7 importation form in the box titled Description of Motor Vehicle Equipment. No other homes need be checked or hood required.

We understand that you will circularize our opinion, and would approciate your furnishing a copy of such opinion to the Office of Standards Enforcement, Attn: 41-22 Cus.

ID: nht72-6.28

DATE: 12/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Goldwater and Flynn

COPYEE: ROBERT F. STONE -- REGION II

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Robert F. Stone of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regional office has asked us to respond to the questions you raised in your telephone conversation with him on December 4.

As I understand it, your three questions are:

1. Has the Secretary established standards for vehicles in use?

2. What are Federal sanctions if the first purchaser of a domestically-manufactured motor vehicle removes safety equipment, and if he subsequently sells the vehicle lacking such equipment?

3. Is the answer to question 2 any different if the vehicle is a used one of foreign manufacture imported in full compliance with 19 CFR @ 12.80?

The answers provided you by Mr. Stone are essentially correct. No standards have been established for vehicles in use. The first purchaser of a motor vehicle for purposes other than resale or any subsequent purchaser, may remove any item of Federally-mandated safety equipment on the motor vehicle, regardless of the vehicle's place of manufacture, and he may sell the vehicle as altered, without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

SINCERELY,