ID: nht73-2.21

DATE: 04/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Arthur H. Davis

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter which we received April 5, 1973, which asks if you, as a dealer of tires, may register all new and retreaded tires sold to first purchasers on a single form and send that form to a tire registry service.

Under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) dealers selling cars to first purchasers must record the sale and forward the required information to the manufacturer or his designee. Therefore, you can only record all the tire sales from various manufacturers and retreaders on a registry service form if that registry service is the designee of all of the manufacturers and retreaders whose tires you sell.

For your information we have enclosed a copy of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (Notice No. 5) and a copy of an interpretation of the regulation dealing with the question of manufacturers' designees (Notice No. 10).

Thank you for your interest in auto safety.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

Sir

RE: D.O.T Registration

I am in the wholesale tire business. It has come to my attention twice that a dealer may register all this not only mine but all this on one simple registration form. That being Axican Systems hire.

Can a dealers register all new turn' and all retracks on the form that Axican Systems he use, mail it to Axican and be legally within the bainclouir of the federally law.

Sincerely,

(Illegible Word) --

RFD 2 Box 174A.,(Illegible Word). Mc 04401

ID: nht73-2.22

DATE: 02/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your petition for reconsideration of 49 CFR 575.103 dated January 12, 1973, you enclosed a copy of "International Camper's Manual for Truck-Camper Leading(Illegible Word) and asked whether its data content and format complied with the requirements, and especially @ 575.6.

Section 576.6 allows a document provided with a vehicle to "contain more than one table", but it "must clearly and unconditionally indicate which of the tables applies to the vehicle with which it is provided". Although pages 8 and 9 of the Guide explain how to use the tables, and page 6 refers the owner to the "capacity plate" for the proper weight rating, there appears to be nothing within the booklet itself that indicates which of the 16 tables applies to "the vehicle with which it is provided".

Other issues raised in your petition will be considered in the agency's response which will be published shortly.

Sincerely,

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY

MOTOR TRUCK DIVISION

January 12, 1973

Douglas W. Toms -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration -- 49CFR 575.103, Truck Camper Loading, Docket No. 71-7; Notice 5

Dear Mr. Toms:

International Harvester Company (IH) respectfully files this petition requesting the Administrator to amend the new Consumer Information Regulation as published in the Federal Register p. 26607 on December 14, 1972.

On August 15, 1972 the NHTSA issued a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Truck Camper Loading, with a mandatory effective date of January 1, 1973. On December 14, 1972 the NHTSA by issuance of 575.103 rescinded Standard No. 126 and enacted the new Consumer Information Requirements as a replacement for Standard No. 126.

IH is deeply concerned since it has put forth considerable time, effort and expense in developing and publishing information required to comply with the January 1, 1973 effective date of Standard No. 126. As a means of complying with Standard No. 126, production quantities of a 28-page IH Truck Camper Loading Guide (10 copies enclosed) were recently printed. We believe that this Camper Guide would be quite beneficial and effective in providing information to the consumer to assure proper selection of a compatible slide-in camper unit. In view of above, IH must support and favor the NHTSA's previous position of regulating requirements for truck camper loading information as a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard in preference to a Consumer Information Regulation.

It is apparent that revisions would have to be made to the above mentioned IH Camper Guide in order to comply with 575.103. We will not be able to implement these necessary revisions in time to meet the February 1, 1973 availability deadline as required by Docket No. 71-7, Notice 5. The amount of additional lead time needed by IH is, of course, dependent on the nature of the changes that would have to be made to the attached MVSS 126 Camper Guide to make it compliant with 575.103. Some of the obvious changes include certain references, definitions and effective dates that have been modified by NHTSA in the transition from MVSS 126 to 575.103.

There is one additional area in which some question exists. Heretofore IH has not been required to furnish consumer information under Part 575. We are therefore requesting an official interpretation from the NHTSA that the data content and format as presented in the attached IH Camper Guide - Part No. 1086777-R1 does in fact comply with 49 CFR Part 575. We are particularly concerned about Section 575.6.

As noted earlier IH will not be able to comply with the 3/1/73 effective date of 575.103 due to the time that would be required to revise and republish our Truck Camper Loading Guide. If the changes are of a minimal nature (i.e correction of references, definitions and dates) we will need approximately 60 days beyond the date that NHTSA responds to this Petition. If more extensive revisions are required, we anticipate that a minimum of six months lead time would be needed.

The following points will summarize the basic content of this Petition:

1. IH favors promulgation of subject requirements as Safety Standard No. 126 instead of a Consumer Information Regulation.

2. However, if NHTSA sees fit to implement as a Consumer Information Regulation IH is requesting a favorable interpretation that the basic content and format of the IH Camper Guide that has been developed to meet MVSS 126 would likewise satisfy the statutory requirements of 575.103. Consequently, if only minimal changes are required to the existing IH Camper Guide, the revised information can be made available within 60 days after the NHTSA response to this Petition is received by IH. If more substantive changes are required, it is estimated that approximately six months lead time will be required by IH.

IH would further point out that NHTSA's promulgation of 575.103 has, in fact, violated procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act in that interested parties were not provided opportunity to comment upon providing the subject information under Part 575 Consumer Information prior to final enactment of 575.103. Therefore, should NHTSA decide not to grant any of the alternative modifications requested herein, we request that the subject regulation be reissued as a Notice of Proposed Rule Making as stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act.

D. E. Schmidt -- Assistant Manager of Engineering

ID: nht73-2.23

DATE: 03/26/73

FROM: Francis Armstrong; Francis Armstrong; Office of Standards Enforcement

TO: File

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT:

March 26, 1973 Close-out of Investigatory File, CIR 584 N41-21RGa; CIR 584 Director, Office of Standards Enforcement File The Investigatory File, CIR 584, has been closed out inasmuch as the manufacturer utilitzed a driver test dummy during his certification tests. This alternate certification technique is permissible by FMVSS No. 204. A maximum rearward dynamic horizontal displacement of 5.1 inches was obtained on the standards enforcement Checker test vehicle, NHTSA No. 71518, during a 29.3 mph frontal barrier impact. This maximum displacement was only 0.1 inch greater than the maximum allowable and which occurred late (124 msec.) during the collision interval. The manufacturer's submitted data indicated that their test dummy impacted the steering control early (approximately 55 msec.) in the vehicle impact phase and thereby would restrict the steering control rearward displacement. It is therefore, concluded that the NHTSA vehicle would have met the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 204 if the alternate driver dummy technique had been utilized in the test. Francis Armstrong

ID: nht73-2.24

DATE: 05/02/73

FROM: JAMES E. WILSON -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- ATTORNEY, LEGAL DEPARTMENT NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NY0-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/30/73 FROM GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- NADA TO LAUREN SNYDER -- NHTSA; OBTAINED OCTOBER 17, 1973

TEXT: Dear Mr. Molovinsky:

This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1973, in which you asked whether it would be permissible for automobile dealers to modify vehicles as necessary for handicapped persons in such a manner that they might not conform to all the applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

Section 108(b) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (1), states that the prohibition against delivery of a nonconforming vehicle "shall not apply to the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle . . . after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." The question is when the "purchase" of a vehicle is completed so that a dealer or other person is free to modify it as he wishes. We have generally taken the position that the purchase is not completed until the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser. This of course raises the problem you have described in cases where the vehicle must be modified prior to delivery.

Our position, that the first purchase of a vehicle is not completed until the vehicle is actually delivered, is necessary, we believe, in the general situation to carry out the intent of Congress and maintain the effectiveness of the standards. The situation where a vehicle must be modified for the special needs of a handicapped person is distinguishable, however, from the general case in that the modification (1) is necessary for the buyer to use the vehicle, (2) takes the vehicle out of its

2 normal commercial configuration and thus identifies it to the particular buyer, and (3) is performed for purposes other than evasion of the requirements of the safety standards. In this limited case, therefore, we are willing to consider any violation a purely technical one that is justified by the public need, and will exercise our discretion not to take any enforcement action.

Sincerely,

ID: nht73-2.25

DATE: 03/15/73

FROM: B.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: WARREN M. HEATH -- DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TITLE: N41-34

TEXT: Dear Mr. Heath:

This is in reply to your letter of February 28th to Mr. Dougins W. Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the mounting of lamps and reflectors on mini-pickup trucks.

The December 8, 1972, letter from Commissioner M. Pudinski was placed in Docket 69-19; Motion No. 3. We inadvertently failed to knowledge this action to Mr. Pudinski.

The visibility requirements of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 100 are predicated on the normal driving or closed tail gate position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with tail gates down or[Illegible word] lids open or otherwise having the lights and reflectors obscurred by a particular load on the vehicle, is under the jurisdiction of the individual states, we do not anticipate rule making on this subject.

Sincerely,

ID: nht73-2.26

DATE: 02/26/73 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM -- DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES STAFF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

COPYEE: C.R. SHARP

TITLE: N40-30 [ZTV]

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lundstrom:

This is in reply to your request of February 1, 1973, for an interpretation of paragraph S5.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a. You have asked if "a master cylinder with a dam at the 25 percent capacity level" would meet the requirements of the standard.

The paragraph in question requires a "reservoir compartment for each service brake subsystem serviced by the master cylinder" with the further requirement that "loss of fluid from one compartment shall not result in a complete loss of brake fluid from another compartment". In our view, a master cylinder with a dam at the 25 percent level would be compartmentalized within the meaning of S5.4.1.

Sincerely,

ID: nht73-2.27

DATE: 04/04/73

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: PAUL K. WILSON -- TRUCK TRAILER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO DONALD W. VIERIMAA, NOA 30, REDBOOK A22, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/09/81 FROM DONALD W. VIERIMAA TO FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA, EXCLUSION OF THE TOWBAR OF A PERMANENT TRAILER DOLLY FROM THE FMVSS 108 LENGTH CRITERIA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wilson:

This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1973, asking whether a towbar dolly must be included in determining the overall length of semitrailers for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The answer is no. Standard No. 108 is a manufacturing standard, and semitrailers are not manufactured with dollies attached. 49 CFR S390.7, to which you refer, is a definition of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety which regulates the operation of certain motor vehicles, and since trailers often use converter dollies, it is understandable that that agency would deem a trailer with a dolly a "full trailer."

Yours truly,

[DIAGRAMS OMITTED]

ID: nht73-2.28

DATE: 03/30/73

FROM: GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- ATTORNEY, LEGAL DEPARTMENT NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALER ASSOCIATION

TO: LAUREN SNYDER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: RICHARD B. DYSON; FRANCIS H. BURNS; ED OGLE; JAMES R. GARFIELD

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/02/73 FROM JAMES E. WILSON -- NHTSA TO GALE S. MOLOVINSKY; N40-30; SECTION 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Snyder:

It has been brought to our attention that the Veterans Administration regulations pertaining to veterans requiring adaptive equipment on automobiles financed by the VA pursuant to VA Form 21-4502 compel dealers to furnish the car suitably modified before the veteran is permitted to accept delivery.

Since disabled veterans may require prosthetic service, the VA is concerned that no veteran accept delivery of a vehicle that he cannot operate. DOT regulations, however, prohibit dealers from modifying vehicles where safety standards may be affected. Because of the nature of the disability, veterans frequently need radical alterations of the accelerator, steering column, brake pedals, seat chassis and dashboard. A car which has been modified for an individual who has lost both feet or both hands, for example, could be considered unsafe because it would be unrecognizable and undriveable for an individual without knowledge of such adaptive equipment. Furthermore, such modifications might affect existing structural equipment required by the safety standards.

Dealers are uncertain as to whether or not safety standards are effected and therefore reluctant to unilaterally make equipment changes which might be in violation of the law. Although the dealer wishes to assist the veteran in securing operable, reliable transportation, he is caught between the conflicting policy directives of DOT and the VA. Of course, the disabled veteran suffers the most. I have discussed this problem with the VA and Mr. Dyson of your office and a consensus has developed that perhaps NHTSA could clarify policy to permit dealers to modify cars prior to delivery when ordered for specific physically impaired customers.

2

NADA supports DOT's efforts on behalf of our customers to insure that motor vehicles contain as many safety features as needed to reduce the possibilities of injury. It is not NADA's intention to seek modification or relaxation of any safety standard, but merely to affect a process wherein dealers may render their services to those Americans requiring adaptive equipment without fearing the consequences of violating the law as it now stands.

Mr. Burns of the VA's General Counsel's office and others at that agency are also eager to cooperate on this matter.

I look forward to cooperating with your office toward a speedy resolution of this situation.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht73-2.29

DATE: 10/15/73

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAVID J. HUMPHREYS -- RVI WASHINGTON COUNSEL RECREATIONAL VEHICLE INSTITUTE, INC.

TITLE: N40-30: SCF; STANDARD 302

TEXT: Dear Mr. Humphreys:

This is in reply to your letter of April 27, 1973, regarding the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials", to mattress covers. You ask whether "mattress covers", listed under Paragraph S4.1 of the standard, includes a cover "that is used generally to enclose a mattress for cleanliness or sanitary purposes or only the ticking which encloses the mattress filling or core or both items . . ."

We consider that mattress ticking and a cover enclosing a mattress for sanitary purposes are both "mattress covers" within the meaning of the standard, and both items must meet the requirements of the standard.

Thank you for sending us the copy of your memorandum, "Department of Commerce Standards Issued Under the Flammable Fabrics Act."

Yours truly,

ID: nht73-2.3

DATE: AUGUST 17, 1973

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFC. -- RICHMOND, VA.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1973, concerning the effect of our Standard 208 on State laws requiring vehicles to be equipped with seat belts.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), reads:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. . . .

Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208) permits passenger cars to be manufactured under any one of several options for occupant crash protection. One of these options is "complete passive protection", under which the vehicle must undergo a series of rigorous crash tests, in which instrumented dummies without belt restraints show force levels that would not create serious injury to a human occupant in most cases. Manufacturers are not required by the standard to have seat belts at any position that meets the requirements of this option.

The NHTSA considers that Section 103(d), quoted above, clearly renders void any State laws or regulations to the extent that they would require a vehicle to be equipped with seat belts at seating positions that comply with the complete passive protection option. Any State requirements that are not "identical" to these of an applicable standard are preempted by that section, under basic Constitutional principles of the supremacy of Federal law.

I am enclosing some information on the efficacy of air cushion restraints, as you requested. We are pleased to be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 31, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esquire -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Schneider: This is in reference to a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Dick Dyson in respect to the projected program of General Motors Corporation to market one hundred thousand automobiles equipped with "air bags" instead of safety belts.

As you know, a number of states have statutes requiring that all passenger cars or other motor vehicles registered after certain dates shall be equipped with safety belts. Chapter 357, Acts of Assembly of 1962, embodied in @ 46.1-309.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, requires all motor vehicles registered in this State designed and licensed primarily for private passenger vehicular transportation on the public highways, and manufactured for the year 1963 or subsequent years, to be equipped with safety lap belts or a combination of lap belts and shoulder straps or harnesses. In 1968 an amendment was added which requires that "Passenger motor vehicles registered in this State and manufactured after January 1, 1968, shall be equipped with lap belts or a combination of lap belts and shoulder straps or harnesses as required to be installed at the time of manufacture by the Federal Department of Transportation."

In view of the last quoted amendment, it seems clear that the safety belt requirements for such vehicles in this State are dependent upon the requirements of the Federal Department of Transportation. Further, I am aware of the premise of over-riding power in the case of conflict between State and Federal law. For the benefit of this and other states in further clarifying this situation, however, it is requested that you render an opinion on the question of validity of State laws requiring that vehicles be equipped with safety belts. In this, your attention is directed to Public Law 89-563, 89th Congress, S. 3005, September 9, 1966, and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. Any additional information on the efficacy of "air bags" as opposed to safety belts would be most helpful.

Respectfully yours,

A. R. Woodroof -- Assistant Attorney General