ID: 1982-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (Confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1982, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays. You have asked whether the standard permits three-wheeled motorcycles to be equipped with a reverse gear.

Standard No. 123 applies only to motorcycles with handlebars, which are generally those machines with two wheels. As the standard is silent with respect to reverse gears, the agency considers that a manufacturer of a three-wheeled motorcycle with handlebars may provide and locate a reverse gear change mechanism wherever he deems appropriate.

This office can offer no comments on three-wheeled motorcycle safety in general. However, I suggest that you contact NHTSA's Office of Research and Development. Several years ago it conducted a study of three-wheeled vehicles, and as I recall, a configuration with two wheels in front and one behind was found to offer greater stability than the converse.

We shall delete your name and that of your company from the publicly available copies of this letter, in accordance with your wish for confidentiality.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1982

FROM: LINDA ANDERSON

TO: STEVEN OESCH-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MARCH 18, 1983 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO ANDERSON

TEXT: We have had two telephone conversations reviewing the regulations regarding child restraint seats as it pertains to the construction and testing of a play tray.

I have shared information with my partner, Laura Warren, and we have, of course, more questions in pursuing our goal of designing a safe play table for children secured in automobile restraint seats:

1. You have helpfully shared information regarding the individual from Strolee who pursued the same goal. What we are now questioning is whether Strolee, Inc., or Mr. Halper, did in fact have their play tray tested? Or did your letter to Mr. Halper end communication between Strolee and N.H.T.S.A.?

2. Would you have any other details considered public domain which might help us locate a patent on the Strolee tray?

3. One of our plans for a play tray would involve using velcro fasteners to be secured around the restraint belts covering the child's torso. Therefore, the restraint belts would have to be properly in place on the child before the play table could be fastened to it. Do you see any problem with this design in terms of the regulations, i.e., testing of the play tray? (We are, of course, assuming your discretion in investigating any of the above, since we are protecting our visionary unpatented plans while aiming at designing a safe product.)

4. Do the regulations ever change and what is the process? In my last meeting with my partner, we were looking at several restraint seats and noticed the label specifications glued to the seat explaining proper use of the seat.

Let's assume that a play tray was designed and sold by a source, such as ourselves, obviously unconnected with the large manufacturers of automobile restraint seats. A consumer would recognize that this product purchased separately from the seat was not an "armrest" or "shield" item as those sold by the seat manufacturer for use with the seat. In addition a label properly bonded to the play table could specify that the car seat restraint belts must function as the directions on the car seat itself specify before and during use of the play tray. Wouldn't we then be supporting the aim and goal of the regulations i.e., the proper use of car restraint seats? And in that case the present Regulation S 5.2.2.2., concerning the testing of the play tray or "contractible surface", would be unduly restrictive.

If a suitable regulation or variation applied to our proposed play tray, and similiar non-restraint accessory items, we might then produce a product which would support and enhance the use of the child restraint seat.

I'll be looking forward to your reply and I am grateful for your help so far. I would appreciate having a copy of any written reply sent to Laura Warren at the following address: 17 Byington Place Norwalk, CT C6850

The standards we discussed in our last phone conversation just arrived. Thank you very much.

ID: 1982-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Manson & Barish, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 22, 1982 NOA-30

Mr. Mel Weinstein, President Manson & Barish, Inc. 171 Fourth Avenue Bayshore, New York 11706

Dear Mr. Weinstein:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff requesting that your firm, which imports tires, be assigned to retreader's identification mark under the provisions of 49 CFR Part 574. As I understand it, you plan to import tires retreaded in Japan by six or seven different retreaders, and would like to put your own identification mark on all these tires.

Retreader identification marks are assigned only to retreaders, and not to importers. Therefore, I cannot take the action you have requested. I have enclosed the materials necessary to permit the Japanese retreaders to export their tires into this country, which would achieve the same results you sought.

Chapter 49 CFR 574.5 (copy enclosed) specifies that each retreader shall mold or brand into the sidewall of each retreaded tire it produces for sale in the United States, certain information including the the retreater's identification mark. Part 574.6 specifies that the retreader, not the importer, should apply to this agency to obtain the identification mark. The identification mark is used by the agency as a device to readily identify the manufacturer or retreader of a tire. Thus, S 574.6(b) requires that the manufacturer or retreader identify each of its plants in its application for the identification mark. A separate identification mark is assigned to each plant. It would not serve this intended purpose for the agency to assign an identification mark to an importer, such as yourself, which imports from six different retreaders.

Although you as an importer may not receive an identification mark, each of the Japanese retreaders may apply individually for such a mark. To facilitate any applications by those retreaders, I have enclosed six copies of the form required to receive an identification mark.

In addition to the identification mark required on each tire, the only other requirement with which the Japanese retreaders must comply before offering tires for sale in the U.S. is to designate an agent for service of process. The person or corporation designated as an agent must be a permanent resident of the U.S., as set forth in 49 CFR Part 551 (copy enclosed). Additionally, 49 CFR 551.45 requires that the designation must be in writing and dated with a signature in ink, and must be binding upon the retreader under the laws of Japan. When completed, these designations should be submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Once the agency has received this designation of agent from a retreader and that retreader has been assigned an identification mark, that retreader's tires may be offered for sale in the U.S. You, of course, could be the retreaders' designated agent.

Should you need any further information or assistance, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

September 28, 1982

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Steve Kratzke

Dear Mr. Kratzke,

As per our telephone conversation of September 24, 1982, the following is a request to be assigned a D.O.T. identification number, so that our firm can be qualified to import and distribute retreaded foreign tires.

To clarify our position and thoughts, please be advised that we import and export used tires and casing for retreading. We are currently interested in importing Japanese retreaded tires. We understand that the purpose of the D.O.T. identification number is to be able to identify the retreader in case of a recall, as well as a method of communication with the users of such tires.

It is our belief that for the purposes intended it would be beneficial for our company to be assigned the identification number rather than the retreader for the following reasons.

In the event of a recall, we will be able to be notified more readily than a foreign retreader.

It is in our best interest to be abreast of any current laws regarding D.O.T. standards and we are not sure that the same concern is available from a foreign source.

Considering that there is no fedaral standard for truck tire retreading at this point, we believe that it would make more sense to issue our company the D.O.T. identification number. Our company will then negotiate overseas in order to insure the standards that are used in the retreading of the truck tires.

As a member of NTDRA and ARA, it behooves our company to be in a position to oversee the quality of the retreading process and to have only those tires retreaded that would meet basic safety standards imported into the United States.

If we can be of any assistance to you in expediting a decision, please call on us.

We await your reply,

Sincerely yours,

Mel Weinstein, Pres.

MW:ms 11/22/82

ID: 1982-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 23 1982 NOA-30

Mr. F. Michael Petler Head, Administration Government Relations Department Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1100 Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Petler:

This responds to your October 27, 1982, letter asking for permission to place the certification labels for certain motorcycles produced by Suzuki Motor Co. in locations not previously permitted by Part 567, Certification.

You request alternative locations, because some motorcycles are equipped with fairings as standard equipment. These fairings would obscure the certification labels if the labels were to be installed in their required location. You propose, as an alternative, the installation of the labels on the down tubes in front of the engine on either the right or left side. In consideration of the problems of installing the certification labels in their normal positions on vehicles equipped with fairings and since the agency desires that these labels be easily readable, we grant your request to install your labels in these limited instances in the alternative locations that you suggested.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 27, 1982

Raymond A. Peck, Jr.

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Certification Label Placement

Dear Mr. Peck:

We have been asked by our parent company to request approval that would give Suzuki the option of affixing the certification label specified in 49 CFR 567.4(e) at a location on the motorcycle other than in the area of the intersection of the steering post with the handlebars for certain models, at the time of manufacture.

The reason for this request is that on motorcycles sold with a fairing as standard equipment it would not be possible to read the certification label if it were to be affixed in the usual location on the steering post.

On two previous occasions we have written for permission to affix this label to other areas of the motorycle frame in lieu of the location specified under Part 567.4(e), and in both instances our request was approved.

For the GS1100ES and for other fairing equipped models that will be produced in the near future, Suzuki wishes to be given the option of being able to affix the label to the down tube in front of the engine on either the right or left side of the motorcycle. The general location for the right side is shown on the enclosed drawing.

We would appreciate your consideration of our request at the earliest possible date so that production planning can proceed for the GS1100ES and other models that will be equipped with a fairing as standard equipment.

Sincerely,

SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD.

F. Michael Petler Head, Administration Government Relations Department

FMP:kp

Enclosure (1)

SUZUKI MOTORS CO., LTD. October 26, 1982

*Insert Diagram Here

ID: 1982-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fowler-Finch, Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 26 1982

NOA-30

Ms. Joann Stewart Account Representative Fowler-Finch, Inc. P.O. 63 New Lebanon Center, N.Y. 12126

Dear Ms. Stewart:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the automatic belt systems in 1979 and 1980-model Volkswagens qualify as a "passive restraint system" under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You need this information to determine if one of your insureds can obtain the discount your company offers for automobiles equipped with passive restraints.

The answer to your question is yes. The Volkswagen automatic belt system qualifies as a passive restraint. The agency has stated that a "passive restraint" is a system that requires no action by vehicle occupants in order to obtain protection. The Volkswagen passive belt automatically surrounds the vehicle occupant without any action on the occupant's part other than closing the vehicle door (i.e., the occupant does not have to touch the belt system). Therefore, the Volkswagen belts you mentioned in your letter are passive restraints, and whether the systems are offered as standard or optional equipment is irrelevant.

I hope this answers all your questions. If you require any further information, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 20, 1982

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTN: STEPHEN WOOD, ESQ.

Dear Mr. Wood:

I am an Account Representative for the Fowler-Finch Ins. Agency. One of my insureds has recently inquired about the discount available for automobiles equipped with a "Passive Restraint System". In checking with the insuring company they do not have a clear cut definition or description of what this system is, but only that it must meet the Published Federal Safety Standards. I have contacted the automobile dealer whom the insured has purchased both of his vehicles from and they suggested that I write to Customer Assistance, Volkswagen of America, Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, NJ. I have attached a copy of their return correspondence.

Now I am turning to you for the information which I need. In order to be able to offer this insured the credit for the Passive Restraint System the insuring company is requesting some form of written confirmation that this insured's vehicles Passive Restraint System does or does not meet these mandatory standards.

The vehicles which I am referring to are:

1. 1980 Volkswagen 2 door custom hatchback (v.i.n. # 17A0793616) 2. 1979 Volkswagen 4 door Deluxe hatchback (v.i.n. # 1793850401)

On the 1979 model, the Passive Restraint System was a standard feature; however on the 1980 model the insured requested it as an optional feature and was charged for it.

Would you please help me to determine if these are recognized as meeting the Published Federal Safety Standards? I have enclosed a self-addressed envelope for your convenience and anxiously await your prompt response.

Thank you very much for your help and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Account Representative Enclosure (1)

October 4, 1982

Ms. Stewart Fowler-Finch, Inc. P.O. Box 63 New Lebanon Center, NY 12126

Re: Your letter of September 22, 1982

Dear Ms. Stewart:

In reply to your letter I am enclosing an abstract of a computer printout which is annotated to indicate which codes show that the subject vehicles were equipped with the Volkswagen Passive Seat Belt System.

I am enclosing a copy of Std 208 taken from the CFR. This standard indicates the criteria which a passive belt system must meet to show conformance. Sections particularly applicable have been highlighted.

The government agency which establishes the standards and is responsible for enforcement is the proper party to contact with regard to any system meeting the standard. As I stated on the telephone, the address is:

Department of Transportation 400, 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Attn. Stephen Wood, Esq.

Standard 208 is a performance standard in that certain testing criteria must be met but specific hardware to meet this criteria is not specified. The Volkswagen Passive Belt System consists of a belt attached between a specific seat anchorage and the door and a knee bar installed in a specific vehicle model. the Volkswagen Rabbit. It is designed to allow entrance and exit from the vehicle without detachment of any part of the system. I have enclosed a portion of the owners manual which describes the operation of the system.

Volkswagen has produced vehicles with the Automatic Belt System since 1975. I trust that this may help answer your questions.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

G. Salser Engineer Technical Services

GS/v. No. Encl.

ID: 1982-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: CAPACITY OF TEXAS INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your letter of October 11, 1982, concerning regulations specifying the type of steering system required in vehicles. In particular, you asked if a mechanical link is required in the steering system or whether a hydraulic system is acceptable. As explained below, a manufacturer can use either a mechanical or hydraulic system to meet the requirements of the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to vehicle steering systems: Standard No 203, Impact Protection for the Driver Steering Control System, and Standard No. 204, Steering Column Rearward Displacement. Both standards, copies of which are enclosed, establish performance requirements to protect the driver from steering column-related injuries in a crash. Any type of steering system, either mechanical or hydraulic, can be used as long as it meets the applicable requirements of those standards.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400-7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

I have been investigating all regulations pertaining to the type of steering required in vehicles for (trucks, tractors) highway and off-highway use.

It is my understanding there is no type of regulations requiring a mechanical link in the system, and that a straight hydraulic system is acceptable.

I contacted Steve Oesch, from your department and he researched the issue and found no reference to the type of system allowed.

I would appreciate a letter from you confirming that there are no regulations or requirements that require any certain type of steering arrangement.

Thank you, Sincerely yours,

Gene Wright Vice-President, Manufacturing CAPACITY OF TEXAS, INC.

ID: 1982-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/07/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Performance Vehicles Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1982, to Mr. Fairchild of this office, asking how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration classifies the "Trihawk" three-wheeled motor vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) defines a motor vehicle, in pertinent part, as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . . ." (1391(3)). From the brochure you enclosed, the Trihawk appears to be manufactured for use on the public roads and, hence, is subject to the Federal safety standards, and to other regulations such as those requiring notification and remedy in the event the vehicle fails to comply with any applicable safety standard or incorporates a safety-related defect (1411 et seq.).

Agency regulations (49 CFR Part 571.3(b)) define a "motorcycle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." The standards applicable to "motorcycles," therefore, are those that the three-wheeled Trihawk must meet.

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

PERFORMANCE VEHICLES INC.

November 15, 1982

Roger Fairchild -- Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Fairchild,

Please recall our telephone conversation of 11/16/82. In that exchange we discussed the state of Illinois' view on the classification of our Trihawk motor cycle.

Enclosed you will find Trihawk sales brochures for your inspection.

This letter is written in request of you, on behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to state the classification of our vehicle with respect to existing F.M.V.S.S. and other applicable statutes.

Our hearing date is 12/13/82 in Springfield, I1. Please attend to our request at your soonest possible convenience, as our attorney needs preparation time with your document and others.

Please telephone me if there are any questions or problems with this request.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Richard M. Kleber -- Engineering Manager

ID: 1982-3.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1982

FROM: Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel

TO: M.B. Mathieson -- Director of Engineering, Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-29-90 from C. Karl to M. Shaw (OCC 4403); Also attached to letter dated 1-18-90 from R.E. Meadows; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl; Also attached to memo dated 11-28-8? from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's; Also attached to letter dated 11-27-90 from P.J. Rice to C. Karl (A36; Std. 217)

TEXT:

This responds to your September 13, 1982, letter concerning your "vandalock" system and Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Section S5.2.3.2 states that "the engine starting system of a school bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus. For purpose of this requirement, "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated by a person at the door without a special device such as a key or special information such as a combination." You state that your locking mechanism, which is a bolt device, doesn't meet the definition of "locked" since it requires neither a key nor special instructions. You further indicate that the engine will not start until the bolt is withdrawn.

We disagree that your bolt when in the closed position would not meet the definition of locked. The door would not be capable of opening from the outside without the use of special devices when the bolt was closed. Accordingly, the door would be considered locked.

However, nothing in Standard No. 217 prohibits the installation of locking doors as long as the vehicle cannot be started with the door in the locked position. As you noted, your vandalock system is designed to prevent the starting of a vehicle in such circumstances.

ID: 1982-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Don Vesco Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, asking about the legality of "covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover."

You reported that manufacturers of motorcycles and fairings are producing such covers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration views this practice as prohibited and will take appropriate steps to make it views known. The legal authority for this is based upon a requirement of the SAE incorporated by reference in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or, alternatively, paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard.

SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions), Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A paragraph in each version states that, "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens." SAE J580a applies to all sealed beam headlamps, while the scope of J580b is considerably narrower, including only those not covered by SAE J579c.

The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584a Motorcycle Headlamps. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of additional equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicitly permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.

For the reasons stated above, the agency has concluded that no headlamp may have a glass or plastic shield in front of it when in use, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is used.

As for the turn signals, no part of the vehicle may impair their visibility through horizontal angles 45 degrees to the right and left of the vehicle (for right and left turn signals respectively) measured at the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. An unobstructed illuminated area of outer lens surface of at least 2 square inches excluding reflex is necessary to meet this requirement. You will have to judge for yourself whether the turn signal requirements are met with your planned cover in place.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

SINCERELY,

DON VESCO PRODUCTS, INC.,

September 15, 1982

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

To whom it may concern;

We are a small manufacturing firm and we produce various motorcycle products. Our main product at this time is a motorcycle fairing as shown in the photo on this letterhead. I am in the redesign stage of this fairing and would like to produce a product with flush fitting turn signals and possibly a covered headlight. I cannot find any D.O.T. specifications on the covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover. Many motorcycle accessory companies are producing fairings with this feature and, at least two motorcycle manufacturing companies are producing motorcycles with this feature. I have enclosed a number of copies showing the headlamp coverings as now produced.

What I want to know is what specifications are required to add this feature, or, is there simply nothing stating that such a feature is permissible?

I also would like to know what specifications will be required to add a clear covering over normal D.O.T. approved turnsignals. I can find no ruling that in any way prohibits or even mentions any clear covering that does not interfere with the operating of the lamp or the visability. We have limited funds and cannot afford to tool up for a special flush fitting turnsignal. However, our experiments have added up to a 23% increase in fuel economy on our test motorcycle using the new design and we feel that the commuter can use any gain possible. A 23% increase in fuel economy with no mechanical changes and only aerodynamic improvements is significant.

Time is of the essense. We must have some information on this within the next 4 weeks. Thank you for your cooperation.

Matt Guzzetta, Vice-President

ID: 1982-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 5, 1982 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting reconsideration of the agency's letter of July 22, 1982, advising you that a certain Volvo truck Model F12 had exceeded the three-year limit for nonconforming vehicles temporarily imported for purposes of test or experiment.

I have reviewed this file and determined that the agency's earlier letter was based upon the erroneous assumption that Mack Trucks was the importer of the truck in question. The facts appear to be that the truck was imported not by Mack but by Volvo of America on May 4, 1978 under the declaration that it conformed to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and was so certified (19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii)).

However, on December 13, 1979 Mack Trucks informed us that it had purchased the vehicle from Volvo, both parties being aware that it did not meet Federal safety regulations, that Mack had "recently" learned that the vehicle had come into the country under a mistaken declaration, and that Volvo should have entered it under the testing exemption provided by 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). Since then the agency has treated Mack as if it were the importer of the vehicle.

We are sorry for this error. Volvo appears to be in technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by importing and selling a nonconforming motor vehicle, and by mistakenly declaring that it did conform. Because Volvo never filed an amended declaration form the testing exemption never came into effect; had one been in effect, Volvo could have leased the truck to Mack but its sale would have been a violation.

Mack's status is only that of a purchaser of a nonconforming truck imported by another person. The Act does not prohibit such purchase or regulate the use of such vehicles. Further, we find that the 3-year limit has never applied to this vehicle, and that Mack may make indefinite use of it and dispose of it as it wishes.

SINCERELY,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

August 5, 1982

Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel (NOA-30) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Vinson: Subject: Volvo F-12 Truck-Tractor VIN5122230 Imported for Test & Evaluation In May, 1978, Mack Trucks, Inc., purchased from the Truck Division of Volvo of America Corporation a Volvo model F-12 Truck-Tractor to be used as part of a competitive chassis engineering evaluation program in conjunction with the development of a new model series. This vehicle was not in compliance with all applicable safety standards and was, therefore, imported in accordance with 19CFR12.80(b) (1) (vii).

Under the provisions of 19CFR12.80(b) (2), Mack Trucks, Inc. was granted permission to operate the vehicle on the public road only until May 4, 1982. We have attached for your information all relevant correspondence pertaining to the importation and use of the subject vehicle to date.

Due to circumstances beyond our control, we have not been able to maintain our evaluation program schedule and are, therefore, requesting permission to operate the vehicle on the public highways until May 4, 1983. This should allow us to complete the program as planned.

In support of our request, we wish to offer the following relevant facts which prompted us to seek this extension or deviation:

(a) Economic conditions over the past several years, and the resultant down turn in our industry, have forced us to re-evaluate, and, in some cases, delay our new model programs. In light of this condition, we have not been able to utilize the subject vehicle on a continuing basis as initially planned.

(b) Since May, 1978, Mack has accumulated only 4,730 miles on the vehicle in question and we expect to add only another 1300 miles before May, 1983. As can be seen, this is very limited exposure on the public roads, particularly in light of the fact that part of the distance travelled was and will be on our own test track.

(c) Mack Trucks, Inc., as one of the largest exporters of heavy-duty trucks from the U. S., feels very strongly about retaining and expanding our overseas markets with suitable, indeed, superior products. At this point in our new model program, we are concentrating on an export version of our new COE vehicle which will compete in the world marketplace against such vehicles as the Volvo. It is, therefore, imperative that we complete a full and meaningful evaluation of the vehicle in question to develop a truly competitive product.

(d) With the probable introduction of heavy-duty Volvo trucks into the North American marketplace in the near future, due to the acquisition by Volvo of the White Motor Company, it becomes important for us to complete the evaluation and testing of this vehicle in order to appraise our competitiveness in the domestic market.

In view of the above facts, we request a deviation from the requirements of 19CFR12.80(b) (2) to allow us to use the subject vehicle on the highways until May 4, 1983. We would be only too pleased to discuss this matter further if you so desire in order to obtain a timely decision.

S. Robson Executive Engineer of Vehicle Regulations

CC: FRANCIS ARMSTRONG, DIR. OFC. OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT