ID: nht71-5.60

DATE: 09/14/71

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

TO: Cabot Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of March 10 and July 1, 1971, requesting an exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 for experimental tires that you manufacture by buffing off the tread of new tires and then recapping the tires with different compounds. You state that you use these tires for testing carbon blacks by testing the tires on the public highways and on private test tracks.

We do not consider tires manufactured by the method you describe to be retreaded tires within the scope of Standard No. 117 because they are not manufactured from used tires. However, we do consider them to be new pneumatic tires, and subject to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. We regret that an earlier letter to you of April 7, 1971, may have been misleading in that regard.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) provides that no person shall --

"manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . . any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard."

We consider the testing of these tires on the public roads to be an introduction of them in interstate commerce, and prohibited by section 108(a)(1) unless the tires conform to Standard No. 109. The tires need not be manufactured for sale to the general public

in order for violations of section 108(a)(1) to occur. However, if the testing of these tires is confined to the laboratory or to private roads, the prohibition of the section 108(a)(1) will not apply to them.

A copy of the Act and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 is enclosed for your information.

Enclosures

ID: nht71-5.61

DATE: 09/15/71

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

TO: E. R. Buske Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of September 3, 1971, to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety concerning the mounting of lamps on a body backplate has been referred to this Office for consideration and reply.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that lamps meet the applicable SAE Standards (including the photometric specifications) when tested as mounted on the vehicle. (See SAE J575c, Paragraph J.) The maximum angle from a line perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle that a lamp can be mounted and meet the applicable requirements depends upon the design and configuration of the lamp. We therefore recommend that you contact the manufacturer of your lamps for this maximum angle information.

ID: nht71-5.62

DATE: 11/11/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Tire Review

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 10 and October 6, 1971, concerning the size requirements for retreaded tires as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117. Your letter of August 10 enclosed a draft article that you requested we examine.

I have enclosed a copy of the Administration's action on the petitions for reconsideration that were received in response to the standard as published April 17, 1971 (36 F.S. 7315). This action amends the size requirements of 25.12 of the standard by allowing a minus 3 per cent deviation from the section width specified in Table 1 of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 in addition to the plus 10 per cent deviation previously allowed. With reference to your draft article, its discussion of the size requirements, apart from the changes made by the amendments, is accurate.

The copies of Appendix A or Standard No. 109 that you were furnished on August 20 have been supplemented, and a copy of the additional material is also enclosed.

WE ARE PLEASED TO BE OF ASSISTANCE.

ENCLS.

ID: nht71-5.63

DATE: 10/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 11, 1971, concerning the application of GVWR and GAWR (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) to semitrailers.

Your position is that the term "gross vehicle weight rating" is not meaningful when applied to semitrailers because the amount of cargo a semitrailer can carry depends upon the tractor that pulls it. You request that a different expression, "rating based on load-carrying capability" be used "for purposes of certification" (assumedly on the certification label). If that alternative is found unsatisfactory you request our concurrence with the following: "For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the king-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length." You also mention that gross vehicle weight rating has particular industry meaning and note that confusion "will certainly arise when state and Federal governmental authorities are using the same term to mean two different things."

As we indicated in our meeting with you of November 4, 1971, we do not agree that the concept of GVWR is meaningless when applied to a semitrailer. The definition of GVWR, "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle" (49 CFR @ 568.3), can be applied to a semitrailer without considering the load-carrying ability of a tractor. The fact that certain tractors should not be attached to a particular semitrailer loaded to its GVWR does not mean that the trailer cannot be so rated.

With regard to your first question, "rating based on load-carrying capability," while we do not grant your request that this language be substituted on the label, we believe that a GVWR based on operational load-carrying capability, as long as the weight of the vehicle is included, would be within the definition of GVWR in

49 CFR 568.3. Similarly, your other statement, "For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the king-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length" is likewise consistent with the definition of GVWR. With reference to your claim concerning confusion of State and Federal regulation, we believe that if problems in this regard are properly presented to a State government, any ambiguities can be satisfactorily resolved.

You also ask, with reference to Gross Axle Weight(Illegible Word) whether speed limitations can be included on the certification label. The regulation does not allow such weight limitations to be included within the listing of the required information, although it may be placed on the vehicle in any other location.

ID: nht71-5.64

DATE: 10/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of September 8, 1971, you ask whether final-stage manufacturers may use the new vehicle certification label required as of January 1, 1972, before that date.

Your members may use the new label before January 1, 1972. Since the two vehicle weight ratings are not required until that date, there is no legal objection either to leaving the appropriate space blank, or to typing the phrase "NOT REQUIRED UNTIL 1/1/72" in the space provided.

ID: nht71-5.65

DATE: 12/17/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 18, 1971, requesting for twenty-six of your trucks a temporary exemption from Standard No. 206. You reported that these trucks represent the final units to be produced in two soon-to-be-discontinued cab styles.

We regret that we are unable to consider your request, since our authority under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) to grant such exemptions expired in April of this year.

Beginning January 1, 1972, the manufacture of any truck not in compliance with the standard will be prohibited. Section 108(a) of the Act provides that

"(no) person shall manufacture for sale . . . any motor vehicle . . . manufactured on or after the date any applicable . . . standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397)

The prohibition is enforceable by civil penalties under section 109 (15 U.S.C. 1398) and injunction under section 110 (15 U.S.C. 1349). In addition, in the event that a noncompliance were determined to be a safety-related defect, notification of the defect would have to be furnished under section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402) to purchaser of the vehicle.

LET US KNOW IF WE MAY BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE.

ID: nht71-5.66

DATE: 12/15/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your telegram of December 9, 1971, in which you asked whether the effective dates of Standards 206, 207, 208, and 210 are postponed to January 1, 1974 for firefighting vehicles as a result of the adoption of the effective date provisions of 49 CFR 571.8 (36 F.R. 13926, July, 28, 1971).

Our answer is that since all of the amendments making the listed(Illegible Words) to trucks were issued prior to the September 1, 1971 reference date used in 571.8, these standards are effective on the dates established at the time of their issuance. Versions of Standards 208 and 210 became effective for trucks on July 1, 1971, and amended version of these standards, as well as Standards 205 and 207 become effective January 1, 1972.

Sincerely,

ID: nht71-5.67

DATE: 08/23/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 12 asking for a clarification of the effect of the recent firefighting vehicle amendment (36 F.R. 13926) on Federal standards published prior to September 1, 1971 but effective after that date. Specifically you ask whether Standard No. 302 Flammability of Interior Materials, published on January 8, 1971 applies to firefighting vehicles on September 1, 1972, or September 1, 1974.

The firefighting vehicle amendment is effective September 1, 1971 and has no effect upon standards or amendments to standards issued before that date. Thus Standard No. 302 applies to firefighting vehicles as of September 1, 1972.

Sincerely,

ID: nht71-5.7

DATE: 11/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971, in which you requested an opinion as to the requirements of Standard No. 208 that will apply to your vehicles after January 1, 1972. It appears from the information you provided that all of your vehicles have gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds. They will therefore be subject to the requirements of section S4.3 of the standard. Under this section, you may equip them with either of two restraint options - a passive restraint system, or a seat belt that conforms to the Federal seat belt standard (Standard No. 209). The vehicles will also have to have seats that conform to Standard No. 267, and seat belt anchorages that conform to Standard No. 210.

Copies of each standard are enclosed for your reference.

ENCLS.

ID: nht71-5.8

DATE: 11/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 9, 1971, in which you expressed concern over the requirement in our Certification regulations (36 F.R. 19593, October 8, 1971) that all vehicles, including those manufactured in two or more stages, have a vehicle identification number on their certification label.

You stated that your major concern was that the manufacturers would be "confused", and "would further add to the problems of vehicle identification experienced by the Motor Vehicle Administrators." Your letter did not, however, specify how or why our regulations would "add to the problems." With reference to a telephone conversation of November 4 with Mr. Dyson of our Chief Counsel's Office, you declined a request that you supply specific suggestions for modification of the regulation, on grounds that "this could be ultimately viewed as presumptive on our part."

I would like to clarify some points concerning this requirement. The requirement of placing a vehicle identification number on each certification label has existed since our first Certification regulations went into effect on September 1, 1969, and the amended regulations that become effective January 1, 1972 (to which you refer) contain no change whatever in that requirement. The reason why the VIN came to your attention as a separate proposal was that our March 17, 1970 notice, in which we proposed changes in the way we regulate multistage vehicles, had omitted the requirement, largely through oversight. The legal requirements for public notice required us to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, in order to retain the VIN on the labels, where it has been since September 1969.

We have not attempted in this motor vehicle safety regulation to regulate the form of the vehicle identification numbers on vehicles other than passenger cars. We have, in effect, left the situation exactly as it has been since September 1, 1969, when the Certification regulations first went into effect: we require that each vehicle have on its permanent label a "vehicle identification number." We chose then (as we have since) to leave the form of the number to the manufacturer, in the first instance, subject to whatever State regulations might be in force, and in accordance with whatever guidelines he might choose to follow. While this policy has not solved the problems of the motor vehicle administrators, it is not at all clear to us how it could have added to them.

As you know, we are working closely with State officials on the problem of standardizing vehicle identification numbers, in connection with our highway safety program standard on motor vehicle registration. We would like very much to have your ideas on how we can deal with these problems through our Traffic Safety Programs.