ID: nht73-2.4

DATE: 01/24/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Chesapeake Marine Products

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 1972, requesting information as to how a distributor who assembles a boat trailer may certify the trailer under NHTSA requirements, when the weight ratings for the trailer when assembled differ from those anticipated by the fabricator, due to the distributor's use of components (tires and springs) of a greater weight-carrying capability than those envisioned by the fabricator.

The certification requirements applicable to the manufacture of boat trailers are found at section 567.4, "Requirements for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles". The fabricator may affix the required label to a trailer in certain cases (section 567.4(f) (ii); but in the case you describe, where the distributor assembles the vehicle in a manner not specifically anticipated by the fabricator, the assembler is the appropriate person, pursuant to @ 567.4(g)(1), to certify the vehicle and affix the certification label. The label should state the name of the assembler (the distributor) as the manufacturer and reflect the weight ratings of the vehicle as assembled.

ID: nht73-2.40

DATE: 02/23/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Gates Rubber Company

COPYEE: BRAD MARKS; EDWARD B. FINCH -- FTC; MR. PESKOE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1973, inquiring what NHTSA would consider to be an appropriate generic name for Dupont's Fiber B.

The approval of generic names of cord materials is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission. We understand that agency has issued a temporary approval with regard to this material, and that a further petition is currently under review. For purposes of conformity to Standard No. 109 we will, of course, accept any generic name approved by the Federal Trade Commission.

If you desire further information regarding this matter, you may write to Mr. Edward B. Finch, Assistant Director for Textiles and Furs, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C. 20580.

ID: nht73-2.41

DATE: 02/22/73

FROM: E.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: N. H. Dachs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 30, 1973, relating to the safety standard for automobile accelerators.

On April 8, 1972, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. This standard established requirements for accelerator control systems, effective September 1, 1973. In addition to the standard, two amendments were issued; one in September 1972 and the other in January 1973. Copies of the standard, plus the amendments, are enclosed for your review and further information.

The NHTSA has not prepared or issued any reports relating to the safety standard; however, many comments were received in response to the proposed rule making action. These responses may be reviewed in the Docket Section, NHTSA, Room 5241, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

We trust that the above information will be useful to you. If we can be of any further service, please let us know.

ID: nht73-2.42

DATE: 02/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

COPYEE: PAUL UTANS; VINSON; LIMPERT; DRIVER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Paul Utans has asked us to provide you with an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a, Hydraulic Brake Systems, Mr. Utans asks for confirmation of his understanding

"that the indicator lamp shall remain activated ther without the application of any pedal force or with one application of a pedal force (with a range of 25 or 50 pounds, as the case may be) if a failure of the kind described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(c) exists in the service brake system."

This interpretation is only partially correct. Paragraph S5.3.3 states in pertinent part:

". . . each indicator lamp, once activated, shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition switch is in the 'on' position. An indicator lamp activated when the ignition switch is truned to the 'start' position shall be deactivated upon return of the switch to the 'on' . . . position . . . unless a failure of the kind described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(c) exists in the service brake system."

Paragraph S5.3.1(a) allows a brake pressure failure to be initially indicated either before or upon application of pedal force, but thereafter the light must remain activated while the ignition switch is in the "on" position. However, if the failure is present when the vehicle is first started, the indicator lamp must immediately be activated before any application of Pedal force, until the failure condition no longer exists.

This interpretation is subject to modification by response to petitions or reconsideration of Standard No. 105a, scheduled for publication around May 1, 1973.

ID: nht73-2.43

DATE: 12/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Peter J. Sferazza; Staff Council

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your request of November 28, 1973, I have enclosed a copy of Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, 49 CFR Part 580, which was issued under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, 15 U.S.C. @ 1988.

The transferor must disclose the mileage as it is recorded on the odometer, and in addition that he knows that reading to be inaccurate if such is the case. This means that a transferor would check the box indicating that the reading does not reflect the mileage, if he knew that the vehicle had traveled more than 100,000 miles. The buyer would then be on notice to ask why the reading was not accurate and to be told that the vehicle had more than 100,000 miles on it.

Enclosure

ID: nht73-2.44

DATE: 12/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Alexander F. Klein

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of December 3, 1973, indicates that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Region II office referred you to this office for an explanation of your rights under the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.

After January 18, 1973, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prohibited alteration, resetting, or disconnection of a vehicle odometer with the intent to defraud a purchaser. After March 1, 1973, regulations under the Act require each seller to make a signed, written disclosure of a vehicles recorded mileage to his purchaser. If he knows the odometer reading is inaccurate, he must also state that the actual mileage is unknown. This statement must be made before the vehicle is sold.

If these regulations were violated in your particular case, as Trooper Moran's investigation may indicate, a civil remedy is available to you under @ 409 of the Act for $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain your remedy, @ 409 provides that you may bring a private civil action in State or Federal court.

You may wish to consult an attorney about the possibility of bringing an action in your case. I am enclosing the relevant portion of the Act and the odometer regulation for your information.

ENCLS.

December 3, 1973

Ref: Martin Pincus D/B/A Four Ace Service 3718 Hempstead Tpke. Levittown, New York

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir;

I was informed by your Westchester office that you could be of assistance to me.

I purchased a 1968 Odsmobile from referenced dealer, june 4, 1973 for $ 1545.00 fifteen hundred fourty five dollars.

Due to the investigation of "Trooper J. Moran" of the State of New York motor vehicle department, it has been proven that the odometer was turned back prior to my purchase.

I would very much appreciate any assistance that you can give me in effect in reimbursement.

Respectfully,

Alexander F. Klein

November 30, 1973

State of New York County of Suffolk Town of Huntington

I, Alexander F Klein, was born on Sept. 7, 1924 in New York City, New York and presently reside at 43 Columbine Lane, Kings Park, New York. I am employed as an inspector for the Department of Defense.

On June 4, 1973 I purchased a used 1968 Brown Oldsmobile Toronado, 2-door, hard-top, Vehicle Identification Number 394878M611769 from Martin Pincus at Four Ace Service, 3718 Hempstead Tpke., Levittown, New York. At the time of purchase I requested a bill of sale and Mr. Pincus instructed a middle-aged woman in his office to write out the bill of sale. Mr. Pincus gave me a bill of sale recording the sale of the vehicle for $ 1,000 and signed by George M. Carbone. Mr. Pincus also gave me a "Used Motor Vehicle Warranty". When I purchased the vehicle the mileage registering device on the dashboard showed a mileage of 39,999 miles. On May 15, 1973 I left a $ 50 check deposit with Four Ace and on June 4, 1973 I gave Mr. Pincus a certified check for $ 1,450 for the remainder of the balance. An additional check for $ 45 for muffler repairs was also given to Mr. Pincus.

False statements made herein are punishable as a Class A(Illegible Word) pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal Law.

Sworn to before me this 30th day of November 1973.

John M. Moran Trooper

Signed:(Illegible Words)

Witness: John M. Moran

ID: nht73-2.45

DATE: 01/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 8, 1973, asking us to confirm your understanding of paragraph S4.3.1 of Standard 210.

It is our opinion that each of the three drawings attached to your letter correctly indicates the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware" for the respective belt anchorage systems.

Yours truly,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

January 3, 1973

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This is to ask whether our understanding of MVSS 210 S4.3.1 is correct according to your interpretation.

We understand "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware" stipulated in MVSS 210, S4.3.1, exists at the point, as illustrated in the enclosed figures, when the retractor spool is considered to be the hardware.

CASE 1

Seatbelt webbing is directly in contact with the retractor spool when the webbing is extended to fit the 95 percentile male.

In this case, the nearest contact point exists at the point of contact of webbing and spool as shown in Figure 1.

CASE 2

Seatbelt webbing is directly in contact with the retractor spool through the underlying webbing when the webbing is extended to fit the 95 percentile male.

In this case, the nearest contact point exists at the point of contact of the most outside webbing and the next webbing as shown in Figure 2.

CASE 3

Seatbelt webbing is extended through the guide which meets the anchorage strength requirement of S4.2.

In this case, the nearest contact point exists at the point of contact of webbing and guide as shown in Figure 3.

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Liaison Office in USA

Enclosure

FIG 1

(Graphics omitted)

FIG 1

FIG 2

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-2.46

DATE: 12/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hyattsvile Auto Glass

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 29, 1973, request to know if urethane bonding material must be used in the installation of windshields in new motor vehicles not yet sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

Standard 212, Windshield mounting, is a performance standard for new motor vehicles. We do not require the use of specific bonding materials such as urethane, but only that the vehicle conform to Standard 212, whatever material is used. The New York suit you mentioned may involve a question of due care in the installation of the windshield, separate from the question of meeting a Federal minimum performance standard.

YOURS TRULY,

IHyattsville Auto Glass

NOVEMBER 29, 1973

ROBERT DYSON ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HWY. SAFETY STANDARDS

DEAR MR. DYSON:

AFTER TALKING WITH YOU BY TELEPHONE ABOUT A STATEMENT MADE BY GENERAL MOTORS IN ONE OF THEIR BULLETINS ON THE USING OF URETHANE TO INSTALL WINDSHEILDS, I WAS TOLD OF A GLASS SHOP IN NEW YORK THAT IS BEING SUED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T USE URETHANE IN THE INSTALLATION OF A WINDSHEILD OF A 1974 MODEL VEHICLE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT SAFETY STANDARD 212 ONLY PERTAINS TO NEW VEHICLES NOT HAVING BEEN SOLD, AS WAS EXPLAINED IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 20, 1972. IS THERE ANY REGULATION THAT SAYS THAT A WINDSHEILD BEING INSTALLED IN A NEW 1974 MODEL VEHICLE (ONE NOT SOLD TO A FIRST PURCHASER) HAS TO BE INSTALLED WITH URETHANE BONDING MATERIAL? OR ARE WE STILL ALLOWED TO USE THE BONDING MATERIAL OF OUR CHOICE AS LONG AS IT CONFORMS TO STANDARD 212?

I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE YOU CAN GIVE US BECAUSE OF THE APPARENT HAZARDS AND LENGTH OF CURING TIME WE DON'T WANT TO USE URETHANE UNLESS WE ARE REQUIRED TO BY YOUR DEPARTMENT.

AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE ASSISTANCE YOU HAVE GIVEN US IN THIS AS IN PREVIOUS MATTERS.

SINCERLY YOURS

ROBERT WOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS

ID: nht73-2.47

DATE: 12/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Streamline Division

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in acknowledgement of your Defect Information Report, in accordance with the defect reporting regulations, Part 573.

The Defect Information Report involves: 41 - 1973 SL, Regency, Imperial, and Crown Imperial Travel Trailors. Possibility that the 3/8" copper tube lines from the gas manifold to all appliances may have a defect thereby causing gas leakage, which may allow for a possible fire hazard.

The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identification number has been assigned to the campaign 73-0224. The first quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by February 5, 1974.

Please refer to the above number in all future correspondence concerning this campaign.

In addition, the letter which you have sent to the first purchasers does not meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 (copy enclosed) in the following respects. It does not contain the specific statements required by sections 577.4(a) and (b)(1). Your reference to a "possible" safety hazard, moreover, is not permitted under paragraph 577.4(b)(1). We do not consider your letter to adequately describe the malfunction, as required by sections 577.4(c)(1) and (c)(2). You do not, for example. Indicate the effect or possible consequence of an "improper flare" on

a gas line. Nor do you state any precautions the owner can take to reduce the likelihood of the malfunction occurring as required by 577.4(c)(4). Your letter fails completely to evaluate the risk to traffic safety as required by section 577.4(d). Finally, we consider your reference to "no reported related failures" to be a disclaimer prohibited by section 577.6.

It is necessary for you to revise this letter as we have indicated and to provide this office and the owners with a copy of the revised letter.

Failure to comply with this regulation can result in the imposition of civil penalties and injunctive sanctions.

If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. James Murray or Marx Elliott of this office (202) 426-2840.

Enc.

ID: nht73-2.48

DATE: 12/21/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 8, 1973, request for an interpretation of the warning signal requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

S5.1.5 of that standard states:

A signal, other than a pressure gauge, that gives a continuous warning to a person in the normal driving position when the ignition is in the "on" or "run" position and the air pressure in the service reservoir system is below 60 psi. The signal shall be either visible within the driver's forward field of view, or both audible and visible.

A warning that "the air pressure in the service reservior system is below 60 psi" is intended to mean that a warning device's sensor could be located in the system you described in your letter between the source of air pressure and the check valve(s) required by S5.2.1.5. As you pointed out, this location would sense pressure below 60 psi anywhere from the compressor through the entire service reservior system. A single warning installed before the check valves in a split service brake system would fulfill the requirements of S5.1.5 as long as it is positioned to sense pressure below 60 psi in any part of the split service reservior system.

P2 Your interpretation of the signal requirements is correct. The signal must be both audible and visible, or it must be visible within the driver's forward field of view. A simple audible signal is insufficient, as is a simple visible signal which is not within the driver's forward field of view.

Yours Truly,

November 8, 1973

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Mr. Dyson:

We have several questions relating to FMVSS 121, S5.1.5, warning signal.

Our interpretation of S5.1.4 and S5.1.5 is that a gauge and a signal are required on each service reservior system. Neither a gauge nor a signal are required on the "wet tank" which is between the service tanks and the compressor and is separated from the service tanks by check valves. It seems to us that a signal on the "wet tank" in lieu of on the service tanks might be more effective in warning the operator of the system malfunction. Our reasoning is as follows: If there is no signal on the "wet tank", a failure of any of the components shown in red on the attached sketch would not be known to the operator until the pressure in the service tanks dropped below 60 psi. With a signal on the "wet tank", the operator would immediately be aware of a failure in any of the components from the compressor through the service system.

Will a warning signal on the wet tank in lieu of a signal on each service tank meet the requirements of FMVSS 121? If not, would NHTSA consider such an amendment?

Also, a major brake manufacturer has supplied us with their written interpretation of FMVSS 121, S5.1.5. Their interpretation would allow warning signals to be visible or audible or both. This is in conflict with our understanding of S5.1.5 which says ". . . the signal shall be either visible. . . or both audible and visible." Which is correct?

Thank you for your early reply.

W. G. Milby Project Engineer

cc: Ben Newberry Dave Phelps

(FLOW CHART OMITTED)