ID: nht73-3.12

DATE: 01/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 10, 1973, in which you asked whether State "user laws" that prohibit the sale or operation of a motor vehicle without seat belts would be preempted by Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to the extent that the standard allows vehicles to be manufactured with other types of restraint.

The position of this agency is that section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), requires State laws or rules that have the effect of regulating vehicle design or equipment to be identical to any Federal motor vehicle safety standards governing the same aspects of performance, whether the State rules are phrased as regulating manufacture, sale, or operation.

ID: nht73-3.13

DATE: 01/22/73

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

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 3, 1973, to Mr. Schneider concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is whether the standard requires items of lighting equipment to be marked according to SAE Standard J759a. The answer is no. A manufacturer, at his option, may mark equipment items with the symbol DOT as a certification of compliance with Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 neither prohibits nor requires other marking of equipment. The NHTSA proposed in 1972 that equipment be marked in a manner somewhat similar to J759a but no definitive action has been taken on the proposal.

You also asked whether a clearance lamp could be mounted at 45 degrees to serve the functions of both a clearance and side marker lamp, and whether it must bear the SAE designation "PC" indicating its combination function. Your understanding is correct, that a combination lamp mounted at 45 degrees is permissible if it is successfully tested at that mounting angle for conformance to both clearance and side marker requirements. The designation "PC" is not a current requirement of Standard No. 108 but has been proposed as the required marking symbol in the rulemaking action referred to earlier.

ID: nht73-3.14

DATE: 01/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter dated October 2, 1972, you were advised by Andrew Detrick, Director, Office of Defects Investigation, that the defect reports required by 49 CFR Part 573 are required to be filed with this agency when a safety related defect has been determined in a class of vehicles regardless of whether or not these vehicles were sold to the general public. In his letter, Mr. Detrick had directed his inquiry as to why no defect report had been filed with respect as to why no defect report had been filed with respect to certain 1973 model year Chrysler Corporation vehicles which appeared to have a safety problem in their hall joint assemblies. In your letter of response dated October 23, 1972, you advised that although Chrysler had undertaken to repair some 11,998 vehicles upon which the ball joint assembly in question had been installed through a notice to dealers dated August 17, 1972, the corporation had made a determination that no defect report was required to be filed under 49 CFR 573 because all of these vehicles were either in the hands of the manufacturer or the dealer and had not passed to the first purchaser. This is contrary to the position taken by this agency. Subsequently, on November 3, 1972, you advised us that some 2,960 vehicles had not been repaired an undetermined number of which had passed into the hands of purchasers. With respect to these 2,560 vehicles you filed an untimely defect report on November 3 and issued a notification to the purchasers. No defect report, however, has been received regarding the remainder of the vehicles in this class.

This is to advise you that we do not agree with your legal interpretation to the effect that defect reports are only required if the vehicles have passed into the hands of the purchasers. In our view, the reports are required to be furnished to this agency within five days of the determination of the existence of a safety related defect with respect

to all vehicles subject to the defect that have been delivered to the distributor or dealer in addition to those which have been sold to the general public. Accordingly, Chrysler Corporation has failed and refused to file a timely defect report for the remainder of the vehicles in the defined class. You are hereby directed to file such report within five days of receipt of this letter.

In addition to the foregoing, we have been advised informally by Mr. Kittle of your staff that in the future Chrysler Corporation will file timely defect reports irrespective of whether or not the vehicles have passed into the hands of the purchasers. Please advise us in writing within ten days of the date of receipt of this letter of whether or not Chrysler Corporation intends to comply with the defect reports regulation by filing timely defect reports with respect to all vehicles subject to a safety related defect that have been delivered to a distributor or dealer in addition to those which have been sold to the general public.

We have fully considered the legal arguments, contentions and facts presented in mitigation of any legal(Illegible Word) this agency might seek, including injunctive sanctions or civil penalties, for Chrysler's not having filed a timely defect report regarding those of the 11,998 vehicles in question which had been delivered to the distributor or dealer and have rejected Chrysler's position. Accordingly, before we accept any offer in compromise regarding the amount of civil penalties to be imposed for the violation or violations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, we will await your response regarding the matters hereinabove mentioned.

ID: nht73-3.15

DATE: 01/22/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E.T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Independent Tyre Sales and Service Pty. Limited

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 4, 1972, regarding the importation of radial ply retreaded tires into the United States.

In order to import retreaded tires into the United States, they must comply with the Applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded(Illegible Word) Tires," (copy enclosed) was to become effective January 1, 1973.(Illegible Line) S5.1.1(d) and S5.1.1(e) of the standard will be deleted. A notice specifying the effective dates for the remaining provisions of the standard will be published in the(Illegible Words), and all retreaded tires manufactured after those dates must conform to the standard in order to be eligible for importation.

Regulation Part 574 entitled "Tire Identification and Recordkeeping" applies to all tires manufactured after May 22, 1971, including retreads, for use on motor vehicles. A copy is enclosed. Please note that identification markings must be applied to tires by the manufacturer or retreader(Illegible Words)(Illegible Line) Complete instructions for obtaining a code and for its use are described in the(Illegible Word). A sample application form showing the information needed for assignment of a manufacturer's code number is also enclosed.

It should be noted that Regulation Part 574 requires that the name and address of the tire purchaser be maintained by the manufacturer, or his designee, for a period of three years. The manufacturer is

also to provide distributors and dealers the means for recording the required information.

In addition to the above, there is a requirement that an agent be designated in accordance with section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and as set forth in the Procedural Rules, Subpart D - Service of Process: Agents, copy enclosed. The designation of agent should be mailed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, at this address.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht73-3.16

DATE: 01/24/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: The Cooper Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1973, which requests an advisory opinion as to whether, under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to use a serial tin which would mold onto the tire mold surface four numbers indicating the day of the week, the numerical week and the last digit of the year. The tin would be placed immediately after the third grouping of the tire identification number which is used as a descriptive code to identify significant characteristics of the tire and to identify the brand name owner if the tire is manufactured for a brand name owner.

The regulation was written with the possibility in mind that some manufacturers might want to identify their production by day as well as by week and year. Therefore, the regulation provided that the third grouping, which is optional, could contain as many as four spaces so that one of the spaces could identify the day of the week.

The method you propose using appears to include the day of the week in the fourth grouping of the tire identification, not the third grouping as was contemplated. However, the practicability of your suggestion is recognized and while the regulation speaks in terms of groupings, as you point out there are no overall dimensional limits and no specified spacing requirements between the third and fourth groupings. Therefore, there would be no prohibition

against your using an insertable serial tin system which would make up the last four symbols of the tire identification number and which would identify the day of the week, the week of the year and the year.

ID: nht73-3.17

DATE: 01/29/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 2, 1973, concerning Truck-Camper loading consumer information requirements.

You have asked whether you have correctly indicated the "rear end of truck bed" in a drawing of the short body pick-up truck that you attached. The answer is yes. As Mr. Vinson of our staff indicated to Mr. Nishibori when he telephoned on January 9, 1973, "rear end of truck bed" does not refer to a particular point with the tailgate in either a raised or lowered position. It means, in the words of the preamble of the reissued standard (37 F.R. 26605) "the point where the identified surface of the camper abuts the rearmost edge surface of the cargo area of the truck, presumably the tailgate in most configurations."

You also ask if you must meet the requirements of @ 575.6 on or after March 1, 1973. As a manufacturer of a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, you must pursuant to 575.6(a) furnish consumer information with each truck manufactured on or after March 1, 1973, at the time the vehicle is offered for sale. Material for examination by prospective purchasers, pursuant to 575.6(b) should be made available at dealer showrooms no later than the date that trucks manufactured on or after March 1, 1973, are first offered for sale by such dealers. The NHTSA has been petitioned to delay the effective date by 60 days and this request is under consideration.

ID: nht73-3.18

DATE: 01/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 4, 1973, in which you ask for our confirmation of your interpretation of Part 567 and Part 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations that would place the responsibility for certification on the user in those instances where he is the final-stage manufacturer.

Paragraph 567.5 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifies that(Illegible Words) final-stage manufacturer, . . . of a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages shall affix to each vehicle a label . . . ." Therefore, and users who are also manufacturers would be required to affix the label.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht73-3.19

DATE: 02/06/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert L. Scates

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1973, requesting information on requirements regarding the manufacture of truck-mounted campers. You specifically mention requirements dealing with wiring.

There are several Federal requirements applicable to campers. Campers are items of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and are required to conform to certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Briefly, each camper must meet requirements applicable to the glazing materials (glass and plastics used in windows, doors, and interior partitions) used in the camper (Federal) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", 49 CFR 571.205). Each slide-in camper must, in addition, have affixed to it a label that indicates among other things its loaded weight. (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, "Truck-Camper Loading", 49 CFR 571.126). All campers must also be certified in accordance with Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) as conforming to applicable standards. Each camper manufacturer must submit certain information concerning his company pursuant to NHTSA regulations, "Manufacturer identification" (49 CFR Part 566). You may obtain copies of NHTSA standards and regulations as explained on the enclosure.

We understand that certain states also have requirements, including requirements for wiring, that apply to campers. Information regarding these requirements should be obtained from State authorities. Trade associations that represent recreational vehicle manufacturers may be of help in obtaining this information.

ENC.

ID: nht73-3.2

DATE: 12/03/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1973, concerning the conformity of an emergency feature of Mercedes-Benz's interlock system to S7.4.3 of Standard No. 208.

The feature you describe would permit the engine starting system to be operated without belt use for a period of 3 minutes after an activation knob inside the engine compartment is depressed. If the vehicle stalls, the driver would have to leave his seat, open the hood, depress the knob, close the hood, and return to his seat, at which point the interlock would be deactivated for the 3-minute period. This bypass feature would apparently supplement other convenience aspects provided pursuant to S7.4.3.

After review of the Mercedes system we have determined that it would not result in bypassing the interlock in situations where that would not be permissible under S7.4.3 or S7.4.4. We therefore conclude that it is an allowable system and that it may be installed.

Yours truly,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

September 24, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator

Subject: Request for Interpretation of S7.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208

As previously reported to motor vehicle program engineers, Daimler-Benz AG., the parent company of Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., intends to install an engine-starting system operable without interference from the belt interlock system after the engine has stopped as provided in S7.4.3 of Standard 208. We are of the opinion that the by-pass device is in conformity with Standard 208, but we seek this interpretation of the referenced section for clarity. However, if the administration interprets S7.4.3 so as to not allow the below-described Mercedes by-pass system, then we request that this letter be considered as a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 208 to allow incorporation of such a system in order to deal with the problem of a simultaneous engine stallout at a busy intersection and failure in the interlock system logic sequence. Obviously, such an occurrence could create a hazardous situation for the operator and occupants of a vehicle.

The Mercedes-Benz by-pass device will be tied in with the three minutes free starting period and would operate as follows:

In case of simultaneous engine stall and failure in the logic of the interlock system, the driver will have to open the front hood from inside the vehicle, leave the vehicle, and activate the system by depressing an activation knob located in the

2 engine compartment. The hood is then closed and the driver returns to his position within the vehicle at which point the interlock logic system becomes inoperative for a maximum of three minutes thus permitting repeated starting of the engine even though the driver and front seat passenger are not belted.

We feel this system addresses an important problem which can be encountered in normal driving especially in urban centers and would be in conformity with the present requirements of the standard. Needless to say, there is some urgency to this request for interpretation considering the rapidly approaching introduction date for 1974 model Mercedes equipped with the interlock belt system. Your favorable attention to this request would be most deeply appreciated.

Very truly yours,

H. W. Gerth Assistant Vice President

ID: nht73-3.20

DATE: 02/07/73

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

TO: Michael J. Long

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1973, concerning acrylic headlamp covers.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Incorporates Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J580a, which prohibits the use of acrylic headlamp covers as original equipment. The requirements of SAE Standard J580a have also been incorporated in a number of State regulations, which are applicable to vehicles in use. Copies of Standard No. 108 and SAE Standard J580a are enclosed for your information.

A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Docket 69-19; Notice 3) on Standard No. 108 was issued on October 16, 1972. This Notice includes a provision for optional use of headlamp covers which conform to certain performance requirements. Such requirements are specified in paragraph S7.9 of the Notice (copy enclosed). Acrylic Industries Pty. Ltd. may be interested in commenting on this proposed revision of Standard No. 108. The closing date for comments is April 18, 1973.

If you have any questions on the enclosed documents, please do not hesitate to contact me.