ID: nht71-3.32

DATE: 07/13/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 1971, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574).

You are correct in your interpretation of the regulation, the vehicle manufacturer is not required to forward tire data to the tire manufacturer. The vehicle manufacturer's responsibilities are limited to maintaining a record of the tires on or in the vehicle when shipped along with a record of the names and addresses of first purchasers of the vehicles equipped with such tires. The method of complying with these requirements is left to the vehicle manufacturer. In the event of a defect notification, the tire manufacturer will be under an obligation to notify the vehicle manufacturer describing the suspect tires.

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to write.

ID: nht71-3.33

DATE: 07/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Airstream Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 25, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning lamp locations proposed for your 1972 Airstream trailer.

Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 108, as amended October 31, 1970 and February 3, 1971, effective January 1, 1972, requires that clearance lamps be mounted to indicate the overall width and as near the top as practicable. Paragraph S4.3.1.5 permits optional mounting height of rear clearance lamps when the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle.

The front and rear clearance lamps mounted as shown on your drawing 10033, revision C, do not appear to meet these location requirements. These lamps could be mounted higher than shown and still indicate the overall width of the trailer at locations other than the upper right and left corners, perhaps as high as the front and rear windows.

In addition, the side reflex reflectors are to be located as far to the front and rear of the vehicle as practicable. Neither the front nor rear side reflex reflectors shown on the subject drawing appear to meet this requirement.

ID: nht71-3.34

DATE: 07/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 29 with its enclosures from the Staff Judge Advocate, Aberdeen Proving Ground. The Judge Advocate requests an "interpretation of the applicability of the [military] exception to recent motor vehicle brake fluid legislation," stating his specific interest in "the use of MIL-P-46046" brake fluid.

We are unaware of any "legislation" that affects the manufacture and use of MIL-P-46046 brake fluid. The NHTSA issued an amended brake fluid standard on June 24 but this does not affect the exception provided in 49 CFR @ 571.7(c) that "No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Force of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications." Thus continued use of MIL-P-46046 brake fluid by military personnel appears permissible as far as this agency is concerned.

ID: nht71-3.35

DATE: 07/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Bandag Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1971 to Mr. E. H. Wallace concerning the methods one of your dealers is using to place the identification number on tires he retreads. The manner in which your retreader in placing the identification number on the tires he retreads is not in conformity with(Illegible Word) 574 because the regulation requires, in Figure 2, that the "H" and the retreader's identification code be parallel with the rest of the tire identification(Illegible Word). The only thing that can be above, below, or to the left or right of the tire identification number is the "DOT" certification which is not applicable to retread tires until such time as the retread tire standard becomes(Illegible Word).

ID: nht71-3.36

DATE: 07/15/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. Schmeltzer for L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Engine Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 1971, concerning compliance of the Norton(Illegible Word) Commando Production Racer with the front side marker requirements of the Federal lighting standard, No. 108.

It is our understanding that the racer fairing is detachable only with considerable time and effort. For all intents and purposes the fairing can be regarded as a permanent part of the vehicle and thus an appropriate place to mount the side markers.

ID: nht71-3.37

DATE: 07/16/71

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

TO: Minnesota Automotive, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 29 asking whether the installation of MICO brake locks, as a supplemental parking brake system, is acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

We understand that the MICO brake lock is used only in hydraulic brake systems of trucks. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard currently in effect covering truck hydraulic brake systems, and installation of MICO brake locks by a dealer, prior to first sale of a vehicle, is permissible as long as the lock does not impair conformance of brake hoses and brake hose assemblies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. That the installation might impair conformance is inferred in the Chevrolet Dealer letter, DD-1412, May 19, 1971, which you enclosed.

A proposal has been issued (Docket No. 70-27) that would require trucks equipped with hydraulic brake systems to meet certain performance requirements, effective with trucks manufactured on or after October 1, 1972. If this proposal is adopted as a Federal standard, installation of the MICO supplemental brake system on a truck, by a dealer, prior to first sale of a vehicle would be allowable as long as the installation does not affect conformance of the required mechanical parking brake system with Federal requirements, or with Standard No. 106.

ID: nht71-3.38

DATE: 07/16/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 29, 1971, in which you ask who would be the manufacturer of a retreaded tire, when the tire is manufactured by a process, known as "cure out". You explain this process as one in which one retread shop will process a casing to the point where it would be placed in a mold for curing. The tire is then sent to a second shop for curing and subsequently returned as a finished product to the first retread shop.

You indicate that one of your members is now involved in a legal case, and the outcome apparently hinges on who is legally responsible for the performance of the tire.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.) and motor vehicle safety standards and regulations issued pursuant to the Act (49 CFR @ 551 et seq.) the manufacturer in the "cure out" process as described above, would be the second retread shop, the one which produces the finished product. It is he who would be required to assume responsibility for the compliance of the tire with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires", and it is also he who would be assigned a code mark pursuant to the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574).

2

However, the person we consider the manufacturer for purposes of the Act and regulations issued pursuant to the Act, may not be responsible for the tire in a civil suit, and our opinion is not intended to speak to the issue of liability in a civil action.

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

June 29, 1971

David Smeltzer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Would you please give me in writing an interpretation of who is the legal manufacturer of a retread produced under the so-called "cure out" process. To refresh your mind a "cure out" is that operation whereby one retread shop will process a casing to the point where it would be placed in a mold for curing. At that stage the partially processed retread is sent to a second retread shop for curing and subsequently returned as a finished product to the first retread shop.

One of our members is now involved in a legal case and apparently the outcome hinges on who is legally responsible for the performance of the retread when it is sold to a consumer.

A timely response from you would be appreciated.

Philip H. Taft Director

ID: nht71-3.39

DATE: 07/16/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY RICHARD B. DYSON

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1971, to Administrator Douglas W. Toms, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.2(h) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, and particularly of the sentence containing the phrase ". . . the retractor and webbing shall be suspended vertically . . ."

Of the two interpretations you submitted, your interpretation 2 is correct. The retractor-webbing combination is suspended vertically -- there is no restriction on the attitude of the retractor with respect to the webbing. Thus, the retractor may be suspended in the position it will be mounted in the vehicle relative to the webbing when the webbing is in use.

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

ID: nht71-3.4

DATE: 05/17/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Tanaka and Walders

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1971, in which you discussed the difficulties that may be caused by State enforcement procedures that require a manufacturer to obtain State approval of products covered by Federal standards before he may sell the products in the State. Your letter was an amplification of the JAMA petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 209, submitted April 3, 1971.

The NHTSA is giving careful consideration to the situation you have described. We intend to take action to alleviate the problem in the near future.

ID: nht71-3.40

DATE: 07/11/71

FROM: CLUE D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY J. ZEMAITIS

TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 18 and 21, 1971, concerning the application of the proposed requirements for glazing materials (Docket 71-1, Notice 1) as they would apply to heated rear windows and mirrors.

In your letter of June 18 you state that the heating lines used in the rear window continue almost to the bottom of the glass at the ends. You propose putting an abbreviated mark at the bottom left hand corner, with the full trade mark appearing at the bottom center, and ask whether this would(Illegible Word) with the proposed requirements. The answer to this question is no. Paragraph S5.5 of the proposed amendment would require the complete mark to be placed in either the lower left or right hand corner of the rear window.

Your letter of June 21 asks whether it is likely that there will be further amendment to Standard No. 205. You mention that you were told that the proposed amendment should have referred to interior vanity mirrors and not the normal rear view mirror. Finally, you state that if the proposed requirements apply to the normal rear view mirror, you will need to do additional development work.

The proposed amendment to Standard No. 205 is still under consideration, and no final determination has been made as to whether the proposal, or any part of it, will be issued as a final rule. With reference to your comments concerning the normal rear view mirror, S4.3 of the proposal clearly refers to glazing for use in all interior mirrors, including both the normal rear view mirror, and any other interior mirror, such as a vanity mirror. With reference to your comments concerning the need for additional development work, adequate lead times will be provided for in any final rule that is issued.

Copies of your letters will be placed in Docket No. 71-1.