ID: nht68-2.30

DATE: 10/23/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Edward E. Reich; NHTSA

TO: A.J.J. Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am pleased to reply to your letter of October 11, 1968, concerning the importation of a privately purchased foreign motor vehicle.

The Air Quality Act and Federal regulations issued pursuant to it do not apply to used motor vehicles or foreign model vehicles which are imported for personal use, rather than sale or resale. Section 212 of the Air Quality Act, defines a "new motor vehicle" as a "motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to the ultimate purchaser . . ." Therefore, if you in good faith purchased an automobile for purposes other than resale, the automobile would not be considered a "new motor vehicle" for purposes of the Act and would not be subject to Federal motor vehicle pollution control requirements. (A copy of the Air Quality Act and appropriate regulations are enclosed for your convenience.) Therefore, you may obtain entry of your vehicle by simply signing a Customs declaration to the effect that the vehicle is not subject to the provisions of the Air Quality Act.

It should be noted that the above relates only to Federal requirements under the Air Quality Act. It implies no opinion as to the possibility of a State law or regulation requiring that 1968 and subsequent model year motor vehicles must be equipped with air pollution control devices. We caution that entry of uncontrolled vehicles for operation in the United States carries the hazard that eventually such vehicles may be barred from use under State law unless suitably altered.

If it is your intention to register your automobile in the State of Hawaii, it may be in your interest to contact officials of that State for information concerning its registration requirements. The official you should contact is:

Mr. Robert S. Nekomoto, Supervisor Air Sanitation Section Health Engineering Branch Environmental Health Division Department of Health P. O. Box 3378 Kinau Hale, Honolulu, Hawaii 96801

Concerning your desire to obtain information regarding required safety devices necessary for importation into the United States, we are referring your letter to Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell of the Department of Transportation and you should expect an answer directly from him.

I hope you find this information helpful. If I can provide any further assistance, please let me know.

A.J.J. ENTERPRISES, INC.

October 11, 1958

Surgeon General Dept. of Health, Education. & Welfare

I am very much in need of informations on how I go about bringing in a special made car for my car rental in Waikiki, Hawaii.

I have spoken to Daihatsu Manufacturer in Japan and they will make me a Beach Buggie with a total weight of 960 lbs.

I have spoken to the Customs Department here in Hawaii and they said I need a letter from the Federal Highway Administration and Surgeon General, Department of Health.

Please supply me with the information I need.

Sincerely,

Alfred J. Johansen, President

ID: nht68-2.31

DATE: 11/26/68

FROM: R. M. O'Mahoney -- A'SST. CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER

TO: A.J.J. Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has forwarded your letter of October 11 for further reply.

You ask for information as to how you may import a Daihstsu beach buggy "with a total weight of 960 pounds" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Since, generally, a dune buggy is constructed "with special features for occasional off-road operation" it is classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The standards, however, do not currently apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a curb weight of 1,000 pounds or less. Curb weight means the weight of the vehicle with standard equipment, maximum capacity of engine fuel, oil, and coolant; and, if so equipped, air conditioning and additional weight optional engine. While I do not know the capacity of the planned fuel tank, I understand that one gallon of gas weighs 5-6 1/2 pounds.

If your overall weight figure of 960 pounds is the curb weight, or if the curb weight is 1,000 pounds or less the vehicle may be imported as one manufactured prior to a date applicable Federal standards were in effect. If the curb weight is over 1,000 pounds then the vehicle, if it has not been manufactured to conform, may be imported upon an undertaking to bring it into conformity within 90 days.

I enclose a copy of the importation regulations for your guidance, and should you require a copy of standards applicable to multupurpose passenger vehicles, will supply it on your request.

ID: nht68-2.32

DATE: 10/10/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Eugene B. Laskin; NHTSA

TO: Marti; O'Cara; Dalton and Bruckner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of September 16, 1968, addressed to Mr. George C. Nield of the National Highway Safety Bureau has been forwarded to my office for reply.

From the brief description presented in your letter, it would appear that the proposed Cushman motor vehicle would be considered a "passenger car" under the definitions included in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. At the present time, the standards do not apply to vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight. However, we are presently contemplating amendment of the Standards to include such vehicles in the near future as presented in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making published October 14, 1967. The rated horsepower of the engine is not relevant in determining applicability of the standards.

Enclosed is a copy of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making for your perusal.

ID: nht68-2.33

DATE: 12/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Consumers Union

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your several letters and the one from Mr. Posin in which an interest was expressed in learning about action planned by the National Highway Safety Bureau on a number of items which you have brought to our attention.

Your letters included a request for information that four named imported passenger cars comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 203 and 204, and your letter of September 13, 1963, and invited comment on several cases of alleged violation of the Standards that had been published in Consumer Reports.

I am unable to comply with your request for information by model about conformance with specific standards. To do so might cause damage to the National Highway Safety Bureau's enforcement program. As Consumer Reports has noted on many occasione, the Burcau lacks the funds and facilition to test every model of every make of motor vehicle sold in the United States to determine whether all such vehicles comply with applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This deficiency has hampered both the speed and extensiveness of the compliance program.

Consequently, we have been compelled, in our present enforcement program, to subject some makes and models to compliance testing and to omit others from the tests. Furthermore, the Bureau's resources do not permit it to test each vehicles selected for compliance testing to determine whether it complies with every Standard. The viability of this program of "spot checking" depends on secrecy as to which makes and models have been selected for testing and the exact tests each will undergo. The intentive for all manufacturers to comply with every Standard might be compromised if the manufacturers knew which vehicles(Illegible Line) must(illegible line).

Therefore, we cannot comply with your request for disclosure of the results of the Bureau's tests of four imported cars for compliance with Standards 203 and 204. When our present testing cycle is completed, we may be able to release the information you seek, if you care to renew your request at that time.

There are several specific points in your September 13 letter on which I am able to comment. My views on each of those points are as follows:

1. According to our information, the Dodge Polara mentioned in your letter was manufactured prior to January 1, 1968, the effective date of Standard No. 107. If you have information to the contrary, please supply it to us.

2. We are now studying the problem raised by the fact that, on some models of passenger care, the rear seat belts do not cross the "H" point at an angle(Illegible Word) near 45 degrees from the horizontal. Inquiries to one manufacturer and a limited amount of testing have indicated that the belt does make an angle close to 45 degrees when it is tested dynamically. From a safety viewpoint, of course, the important thing is that the proper angle exists during dynamic performance. For this reason, we are planning additional research with a view towards modification of Standard No. 210.

3. There of your comments deal with seat belts which are allegedly too long for snug adjustment. Standard No. 209 requires seat bolt assemblies to comply with the standards for seat belts promulgated by the National Bureau of Standards (31 F.R. 11528). Section 9.3(g) of the MBS standards requires each Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly to be "capable of snug adjustment by the occupant..." It does not specify the anthropometric dimensions of the hypothetical occupant. The seat belt assembly in common use today cannot be manufactured so that it can be snugly adjusted to fit the entire range of human body types, from the small thin child to the large obese adult. We are, therefore, planning further research to enable us to specify(Illegible Word) adjustment range which will be practicable and at the same time will cover as many body sizes and types as possible. I will appreciate it if you will assist us by sending the Bureau(Illegible Words) the individuals on whom you tested the belts referred to in your letter.

4. Our investigation of both the Peugeot outside mirror and the outside mirror mount on the Datsun has indicated that both comply with Standard No. 111. If you have any data which show that the contrary is true, please send them to us so that, if warranted, we can reopen our investigatory file on each of these mirrors.

5. Since the Peugeot headlamp control is not mounted on the instrument panel, Standard No. 111 does not require that it be identified to permit recognition.

6. As you probably know, Toyota has initialed a defect motification campaign in reference to the throttle following publication of this item in the September 1968 issue of Consumer Reports.

7. Your letter also asks me to comment on a report that a dealer has refused to alter an original-equipment seat belt on the ground that to do so would subject him to a $1,000 fine. Although the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not provide for fines, it does permit the imposition of civil penaltics of up to $1,000 for viclation on certain of its provisions. There are cases in which a dealer might be subject to civil penalty if he altered a motor vehicle or item of equipment so that it did not conform to applicable Standards. Whether, and in what circumstances, a dealer would run the risk of having a civil penalty imposed on him is a complex legal question. I cannot answer this question on the basis of the information you have supplied.

The remaining matters mentioned in your September 13 letter are currently under investigation by the Bureau. Consequently, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them at this time.

The information which you supply to us and which you print in Consumer Reports is particularly valuable in that it suggests areas where we should consider concentrating our limited resources. Wherever there is an indication of a defect or violation of standards which is brought to our attention, such as the items you mention, we attempt to accomodate our testing and review planning to include consideration of these items.

I think it might be valuable for us if you would be able to find the time to visit here with some of our staff and talk with Mr. H. M. Jacklin and his staff in the Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service. I think it would be very valuable for them and perhaps out of this could come some ideas for areas in which information available to you and available to us can be made mutually beneficial.

Thank you for your efforts to date. My apologies for the long delay in responding.

ID: nht68-2.34

DATE: 10/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Citroen Cars Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By your letter of October 8, 1968 you ask if the glazing material in the rear window of passenger cars can be 4 millimeters thick and be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 205; Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks, and Buses.

Standard No. 205 requires that glazing materials conform to the ASA Standard Z26.1-1966. The ASA standard Z26.1-1966 does not set forth how thick glazing material must be but requires the glass used to meet certain tests, depending on the type of vehicle the glass is being used in and the location of the glass in that vehicle.

ID: nht68-2.35

DATE: 06/04/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; william H. Risteen; NHTSA

TO: Clauson Manufacturing Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of May 20, 1968, to Mr. Bridwell, concerning pickup covers, has been referred to me for reply.

Pickup covers which you describe are considered to be in the same category an slide-in campers and are items of motor vehicle equipment for use in motor vehicles. As such pickup covers must meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials-Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses and Motorcycles.

ID: nht68-2.36

DATE: 10/11/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Tejas Campers

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1968, concerning glazing and lighting requirements in campers.

The amendment to Standard No. 205 to which you refer, Docket No. 23, is enclosed along with a copy of FHWA Ruling 68-1. The amendment does not allow AS2 tempered glass to be placed in forward facing windows of campers. Forward facing windows of campers must be AS1, AS2 laminated that meets the requirements of test no. 26 of ASA Standard Z26.1 - 1966, or AS3 laminated that meets the requirements of test no. 26 of ASA Standard Z26.1 - 1966. Rigid plastics may be used in other windows.

With respect to your question on vehicle lighting requirements, enclosed is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969. You will note from the standard that clearance lamps are not required on vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width. The specified requirements for side marker lamps and side reflex reflectors on vehicles of less than 80 inches in overall width are contained in paragraphs S3.1.1.6 and S3.1.1.8 and Tables III and IV of Standard No 108.

I have had your name added to our mailing list for all rulemakings related to multipurpose passenger vehicles and trailers and I have also enclosed information on subscribing to the Federal Register should you so desire.

ID: nht68-2.37

DATE: 05/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: E.B. Buske Manufacturing Company, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 19, 1968, to Dr. William Hadden, Jr., requesting comments on the proposed installation of lighting equipment and the certification label for tow trucks which are manufactured by your company.

With exceptions as listed below, the lighting equipment shows on the photograph enclosed with your letter appears to meet the location requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102.

1. The front clearance lamps do not appear to be located "as near as practicable to the upper left and right exercise edges of the vehicle." Clearance lamps located further outboard on the cab would meet the requirements of the standard.

2. Standard No. 108 requires that rear indentification lamps be located "on the rear" of the vehicle. Location of these lamps beneath the truck body (for protection) would meet the requirements of the standard.

3. No red reflex reflectors are shown on the rear of the truck. The red reflector tape may be used in addition to the red reflex reflectors, but not as a substitute for the reflex reflectors.

4. No red rear side marker lamps are shown on the truck.

The photograph you enclosed of your trust has been marked to indicate possible corrections for the above discrepancies. Also enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108.

The information you have provided in regard to certification does not fully meet the requirements of Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1965. For your further information, we are enclosing copies of the certification requirement and labeling requirements for chassis-cabs under the notice of ruling regarding chassis-cabs.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. The above comments are therefore for your information only, and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht68-2.38

DATE: 10/03/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of September 3, 1968, to Mr. Sason of the National Highway Safety Bureau, discussing the Chrysler Corporation's Super Lite, has been referred to this office.

The State of Vermont has contacted us in regard to this question. We understand that in Vermont, and in other States, Chrysler has taken legal action to prevent state prohibition or regulation of the Super Lite on the basis of Federal preemption under @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and Standard 108.

I enclose a copy of a letter, dated September 17, 1968, from Director Hadden to the Chrysler Corporation, in which he says:

"It should be noted, however, that, while the incorporation of this lamp in your 1969 automobiles would not be precluded by the Federal Standard, the various States may interpose restrictions as to the lamp."

In this office stated to the State of Vermont's Department of Motor Vehicles in response to an inquiry on the question: It is the opinion of the FH A that Federal lighting Standard No. 108 does not deal with the aspect of performance that relates to the Super Lite, and therefore there is no preemption of State regulations dealing with it.

We will be glad to give you whatever interpretive assistance you wish in this and other matters relating to the traffic safety laws, within the limits of our resources. We would also like to hear from you that legal developments are taking place in your state in this area.

ID: nht68-2.39

DATE: 09/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: White Trucks, Division of White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 22, 1963, to Mr. David A. Fay, concerning a clarification of the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As a truck-tracter manufacturer, your responsibility with respect to the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 may be set by installing on your truck-tractors the switches, wiring and trailer electrical connectors that will, when properly mated with the wiring and electrical plugs on the trailern that are designed to be used with your particular electrical circuitry, cause the trailer tail lamps and the truck-tractor tail lamps to be illuminated when the truck-tractor headlamps are illuminated. If your truck-tractors are subsequently used to tow trailers that are not equipped with properly mated electrical plugs, connectors or circuitry, then you are not burdened with the responsibility of providing, for the resulting tractor-trailer combination, electrical circuitry that will cause the trailer tail lamps to be illuminated then the tractor headlamps are illuminated.

The trailer electrical connector that is installed on the tractor may be the 7-wire connector conforming to SAE 3560a, a 6-wire connector, or a special connector as specified by your customers. In this respect, we agree that your cannot ascertain at the time you build your truck-tractor the type of wiring system or electrical plugs that will be used on the trailer or trailer combinations that might, in the future, be tored by the truck-tractors.

Thank you for writing.