ID: nht71-4.14

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Automobiles, Peugeot

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We appreciate the opportunity to further discuss the questions you raised during our visit of June 9 and 10. I will try to answer each question as fully as possible.

1. It would be unfortunate if the effect of our standards on domestic passenger car production in Europe is to raise costs to the point where significant numbers of people are forced to rely on cheaper and more dangerous vehicles such as motor driven cycles. However, we do not think this result likely in the light of the continuing demand for inexpensive passenger cars and in the absence of legislation by the European nations to compel adoption of the costlier safety features.

2. We are aware of the concern of foreign manufacturers with the effects of the standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will attempt to be as flexible as possible, consistent with its mandate to insure the safety of vehicles sold in the United States. The discretion allowed the agency to exempt vehicles from a standard is a matter that Congress will have to decide. At the present time, the exemption authority given the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by the 1966 Act has expired, and we are therefore unable to agree to any exemptions unless Congress chooses to recreate the exemption authority in some form.

3. In the development of standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration attempts to evaluate their effects on foreign as well as domestic manufacturers. As you are aware, it is sometimes not possible to reconcile all points of view on a standard, but we would urge you to make every effort to set forth your position on proposed rules during the comment period.

4, 5. Your comments on the proper height for bumpers and the problem of the license plate location have been considered in the context of the rulemaking on Standard No. 215. The amendment issued on June 22, 1971, should serve to lessen the height problem to some degree, and on the basis of present data we regard the height thereby established as reasonable for the overall vehicle population. The share of the license plate itself is determined by the individual states and is not within our authority.

6. The crash characteristics which you suggest for a vehicle's front end seem reasonable, but because they fall beyond the scope of the present rulemaking on Standard No. 215, any consideration of them will have to be deferred. Although we realize that the front seats can supplement the side structure of a car in a side impact, the question as to whether the seats should be retained was considered in the development of the final version of Standard No. 214, and it was determined at that time that the standard would provide a more reliable measure of side strength if the tests were conducted with the seats removed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is still of that opinion, although it would consider any additional information presented in support of a petition to amend the standard to allow retention of the seats.

7. On the subject of prospective standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is currently preparing a new version of the program plan for motor vehicle safety standards. The plan is intended to map the course of rulemaking for the next several years, and should serve to answer most of your questions on timing. We expect to announce the new plan in the very near future.

I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. If not, or if additional questions arise, do not hesitate to ask us.

ID: nht71-4.15

DATE: 09/20/71

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

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 29, 1971, requesting that we reconsider certain opinions provided to you in a letter dated June 4, 1971, which was in response to your letter of May 11, 1971. The opinions you wish us to reconsider concern whether certain tires used by Phillips for experimental purposes must comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The facts as you state them are that Phillips purchases new passenger car tires that have been certified as conforming to Standard No. 109, buffs them down, and then applies new tread, consisting of experimental rubber compounds, to them. You state that these experimental tires are tested by using them on the public roads, as well as by other methods.

In our letter to you of June 4 we stated that we consider these tires to be new pneumatic tires, and subject to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. He further stated that we considered the testing of them on public highways to be an introduction of these tires in interstate commerce, and that if the tires failed to conform to the standard, then such testing would be in violation of @ 109(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (11 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)). For the reasons given below, we affirm our earlier opinion. In addition, while not stated in our earlier letter, the failure by Phillips to certify these tires as conforming to Standard No. 109, pursuant to section 114 of the Act (13 U.S.C. @ 1403), Standard No. 109, and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) constitutes a violation of section 108(a)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(3)). Each violation of section 108(a)(1) and 108(a)(3) is subject to a civil penalty, as provided in section 109 of the Act, and to other sections as provided in section 110 (15 U.S.C. @@ 1373, 1399).

Your position appears to be that the tires in question are not covered by either Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 117 (Retreaded Pneumatic Tires) as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to the use of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase for a purpose other than resale. You claim that Phillips' activity with respect to these tires is merely to use them and, citing section 108(b)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1)), takes place after the first purchase for a purpose other than resale and is consequently not within the scope of section 108(a)(1). The tires, therefore, need not comply with the standards.

You make a concurrent argument as well, in which you state that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1) are "restricted to controlling the sale or resale of tires in commercial channels." You go on to state that if this were not true, the government would be forced to control the use and resale of the tires by the consumer. You feel that this argument is substantiated by the exemption in Standard No. 109 concerning the sale (your emphasis) of "reclassified tires."

Phillips' activity under the Act with respect to the tires in question is not that of a user or consumer, but that of a manufacturer. According to your letter Phillips purchases new passenger tires for the purpose of transforming them into experimental tires. In this regard Phillips is manufacturing a new and different tire, and the original tires are no more than raw materials which become part of the final product manufactured by Phillips. Whether or not Phillips ultimately sells or intends to sell the tires is unimportant in determining whether Phillips is a statutory manufacturer, as the definition of "manufacturer" under the Act (@ 102(3), 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(3)) does not require that the product be manufactured or assembled for sale.

Moreover, you are incorrect in your analysis of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(1) prescribes more than the manufacturing for sale, or the sale of motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment. In clear language it also prescribes the introduction of such components in interstate commerce, and prohibits the latter as well as the former activities after the effective date of a motor vehicle safety standard, unless the vehicle or item of equipment conforms to the standard. Contrary to the arguments in your letter, the use of such components on the public highways is an introduction of them in interstate commerce and subject to the prohibitions of section 108(c)(1). The exception to this, "after the first purchase . . . in good faith for purposes other than resale" (@ 108(b)(2)), is intended to exempt used

vehicles (and equipment) manufactured after a standard's effective date, as a continued reading of the section, which authorizes the establishment of used vehicle standards, indicates. It allows, for example, a vehicle or item of equipment that was manufactured after the effective date of applicable standards to be resold without requiring the seller to ensure that the vehicle or equipment is in the same condition with regard to the standards as when it was new. This section is not intended to allow individuals to manufacture vehicles or equipment for their own use on public highways without complying with applicable standards.

Your reference to the treatment of reclassified tires is not in point. The decision in that rulemaking action was to prohibit either the manufacture or the sale of these tires, and the latter course was chosen so that manufacturers would not be required to destroy noncertified tires that would be inexpensive and not unsafe for a narrowly prescribed use. In no way does this exemption reflect the limitation that you suggest on the authority of the NHTSA.

As we stated to you in our letter of June 4, 1971, the tires that you manufacture are not retreaded tires as the casings used in their manufacturer do not come from used tires. However, these tires are new pneumatic tires, and as such are subject to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

ID: nht71-4.16

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1971, concerning the Certification regulations, as amended April 14, 1971 (36 F.R. 7054). The questions you ask in your letter are dealt with individually below.

1. You request a ruling that, in the case of boat trailers, would allow the "type classification" of the vehicle (@ 567.4(g)(7)) to be stated as "trailer". The use of the word "trailer" in the case of boat trailers will satisfy the requirement.

2. You ask that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to exempt boat trailers from the requirement of specifying the GAWR (@ 567.4(g)(4)). You state as the basis for this request that the gross axle weight rating of a boat trailer is meaningless as it can vary depending upon the load distribution. We must deny your request. The purpose of requiring both GAWR and GVWR is to distinguish between the weight of a fully loaded vehicle and the weight on each particular axle of the vehicle. This distinction is important in the case of a single axle trailer, as the GVWR and GAWR may differ due to the distribution of the GVWR between the axle of the trailer and some component of the towing vehicle. By specifying values for both GVWR and GAWR that he deems appropriate, the manufacturer, rather than providing a meaningless figure, will be providing figures that represent an appropriate distribution of a load between the trailer and the towing vehicle.

3. You also ask whether, in cases where a tire size option exists, a GVWR can be stated on the label for each tire size. The question is presently under consideration as part of action being taken on petitions for reconsideration of the regulations that have been received. Accordingly, we will deal with this question in our action on the petitions pursuant to 49 CFR 553.37.

ID: nht71-4.17

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1971, to the Acting Chief Counsel, concerning several matters involving the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). In your letter you request an interpretation of whether @ 573.5(b) requires reports of quarterly production figures irrespective of whether or not the manufacturer has a safety-related defect campaign to report for that or any other quarter. The answer to this question is yes. As indicated in the denial of the petition for reconsideration (36 F.R. 14774), the requirement that production figures be reported is related to more than the particular quarter in which the information is submitted. Consequently, this information must be submitted for each quarter regardless of whether a defect notification campaign takes place during that or any quarter.

In your letter you also petition for certain modifications to the regulation. These are discussed separately below.

1. You petition that, if the quarterly production figures are required regardless of the existence of defect notification campaigns, we exempt "recreational vehicle manufacturers" from this requirement. This request is denied. Under present standards and regulations, as you know, recreational vehicles may be classified in any one of numerous vehicle categories set forth in 49 CFR 571.3. We cannot consider your petition without your specifying the types of vehicles for which you request the exemption and a justification for each particular type of vehicle, based upon the specific characteristics of the vehicle that you believe warrant our granting an exemption. I add, however, that we find your arguments concerning the burden of reporting production figures to be insubstantial. The ability of the NHTSA to monitor notification campaigns clearly outweighs, in our view, the burden of reporting vehicle production figures. Furthermore, we do not agree with the position you

take, that the proposed requirements of Docket 71-11, "Manufacturers Identification", regarding estimated yearly production figures can in any way serve as a substitute for actual production figures in terms of providing hard data on the effectiveness of notification campaigns, on the percentage of production campaigned, or in terms of monitoring manufacturers' estimates of the number of vehicles involved.

2. For the reasons stated in the denial of petition for reconsideration we deem your petition for additional notice on the requirements for reporting production figures (@ 573.5(b)) to be without merit, and it is accordingly denied.

ID: nht71-4.18

DATE: 10/06/71

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

TO: Strick Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1971, to Mr. Douglas Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, requesting an interpretation on the mounting of Identification lamps on your trailers.

We hesitate to agree with you that it is not practicable to mount the Identification lamps at the extreme height of the trailer. It would appear to be practicable to mount these lamps at the extreme height, even if a shield were necessary to prevent damage to the lamps during use.

If the identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the trailer, the clearance lamp mounting height is optional; therefore, clearance lamps could be mounted on the rear crossmember, as shown on your drawing SK-24139.

ID: nht71-4.19

DATE: 10/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of October 4, 1971, you asked whether under our Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) tandem axles should be considered as a unit in listing the gross axle weight rating, or should be listed separately with separate ratings.

He intend that each axle, including those part of a tandem arrangement, should be listed separately with a GAWR for each.

ID: nht71-4.2

DATE: 08/10/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles H. Hartman; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In the conference that was held on July 23, 1971, between Ford representatives and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration personnel concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (memorandum dated July 29, 1971, filed in Docket 69-7), your legal counsel raised a question concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's position with respect to enforcement of the standard.

The question raised was whether this agency would consider a motor vehicle not to conform to the standard if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tests showed noncompliance, but the manufacturer's analogous tests showed compliance, and the difference in results were due to the use of slightly different anthropomorphic test devices, with both sets of tests assumed to be run in accordance with the prescribed conditions and procedures of the standard. We agree that the question is an important one and that it may arise, because the complexity of the physical variables in crash testing with anthropomorphic devices makes it difficult if not impossible to refine the standard's specifications to the point where all relevant conditions are specified and all permissible variations eliminated.

In a case where tests conducted by the NHTSA show noncompliance with a standard, and the manufacturer's tests, valid on their face, appear to give complying results, the NHTSA conducts an inquiry to determine the reason for the differing results. If, after completing such an inquiry, the NHTSA were to conclude that the difference in results was entirely due to differences in the

test devices used by each, and further that the manufacturer's tests, including his test devices, were in complete conformity with the standard, then the agency would not consider that particular series of tests to be the basis for a finding of noncompliance against the manufacturer.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht71-4.20

DATE: 10/14/71

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

TO: Forse Cleanamation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1971, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this Office requesting information relative to the lighting requirements applicable to your E - Z Tow towing unit.

The E-Z Tow unit is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 since it is a "vehicle . . . drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." However, since it is designed to "tow" rather than to "carry" property, the E-Z Tow unit is not a "trailer" as defined for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Since it is an unclassified "motor vehicle," the lighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 are not applicable; therefore, you need only to comply with the lighting requirements of the States in which you sell or use the unit.

ID: nht71-4.21

DATE: 10/15/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Dow Chemical Europe, S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 24 to Francis Amstrong regarding the effective date of the new Federal motor vehicle brake fluid standard, No. 116.

The effective date of March 1, 1972, means that any vehicle manufactured on or after that date for sale in the United States must be equipped with brake fluid meeting Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116.

ID: nht71-4.22

DATE: 10/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Feldman Engineering and Manufacturing Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The material furnished you by Mr. Peskoe of this office, as listed in your letter of September 28 is complete to date.

This will also confirm that the Mini Brute all terrain vehicle is a "motorcycle" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.