ID: nht73-4.30

DATE: 06/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Z. Taylor Vinson; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Gerhard Pilz of Mercedes-Benz of North America telephoned me on June 20, 1973, and stated that because of emission requirements, the 1974 model consumer information provided for acceleration and passing ability will differ between vehicles sold in California and those in the rest of the United States. He asked whether the following format (as I understood it) would be acceptable as a modification of Figure 1:

SUMMARY TABLE

Low Speed Pass Feet; Seconds

(California vehicles Feet; Seconds)

I replied that I saw no legal objection to it.

ID: nht73-4.31

DATE: 07/12/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gaylord Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 26, 1973, to Mr. Vinson of this office, enclosing the proposed Panther certification label, and asking whether it conforms to our requirements. The label is arranged as a narrow horizontal strip with two lines of type.

The label contains the required statements in the required order, and thus fulfills the requirements.

ID: nht73-4.32

DATE: 07/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Armco Recreational Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, referencing a phone conversation with Mr. Vison of my staff. You would prefer to import motorcycles with the lighting equipment unattached and ask whether it is permissible to import them under "Box 4", i.e. 19 CFP 12.80 (b)(2)(iv).

This provision allows importation of certified vehicles that do not conform "because readily attachable equipment items are not attached", provided that a label is attached "stating the safety standard with which and the manner in which such vehicle does not conform and that that vehicle will be brought into conformity by attachment of such equipment items before it will be offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale." Since important of vehicles without required safety equipment is allowed and you intend to attach such a label to the motorcycles you import, there is no legal objection to your proposed plan. Accordingly, the California and Wisconsin interpretation of Federal requirements is incorrect if it is as you describe it.

ID: nht73-4.33

DATE: 07/17/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 11, 1973, asking for a waiver of 49 CFR @ 575.6(c) with respect to consumer information that Volvo of America would like to supply to prospective purchasers of 500 passenger cars beginning July 30, 1973.

There is no provision in the Consumer Information Regulations empowering the Administrator to waive the 30 day requirement and therefore we are unable to grant this request. We do not view the lack of this authority as unjust, given the purpose of the requirement "so that there may be an evaluation and dissemination to the public of this information if deemed appropriate" (34F.R.11501).

We received your material on July 12, and the 30 day period will expire on August 11.

ID: nht73-4.34

DATE: 07/19/73

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

TO: Kysor of Cadillac

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1973, concerning the applicability of section S5.1.4, Pressure gauge, of Standard No. 121, to an electronic gauge that displays the air pressure under normal conditions only when the driver pushes a switch but that provides continuous display at pressures below 70 p.s.i.

Section S5.1.4 requires a pressure gauge to be "readily visible." Used in this context, "readily visible" means visible whenever the driver wants to see it. It does not mean that the air pressure level should be continuously visible. As we understand your system, the driver could determine the air pressure at any time by pushing the "air pressure" button. We have concluded that this operation satisfies the intent of S5.1.4 and that your system would be permissable under that section.

The low pressure warning signal is required by section S5.1.5 and must be separate from the pressure gauge. You state that you provide a flashing red light and an audible alarm, in addition to providing continuous readout of air pressure below 60 p.s.i. This would appear to conform to S5.1.5.

ID: nht73-4.35

DATE: 06/28/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crown Coach Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1973, concerning Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release." You raise two questions regarding the standard: the first concerns the incompatibility of the standard with buses designed to transport convicts or other persons under physical restraint; the second, the possibility that the standard may preclude the use of a push-button release mechanism for emergency exits which you apparently presently use in many buses you manufacture.

We have received other communications regarding the incompatibility of Standard No. 217 with buses designed to transport convicts and are presently considering requests that these buses be exempted from the standard.

With respect to the use of push-button emergency exit release mechanisms, Standard No. 217 does not specify the design of emergency exit release mechanisms but, rather, specifies requirements which these release mechanisms, regardless of design, are required to meet. These requirements essentially specify the magnitude and direction of release forces necessary to operate the emergency exit release mechanism. If these requirements do preclude the use of a push-button release mechanism you wish to use, the appropriate procedure for you to follow is to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard, in accordance with NHTSA regulations (49 CFR @@ 553.31 et seq., copy enclosed). We recommend that you include detailed information on the type of release you wish to use as part of any such petition.

ENC.

Crown COACH CORPORATION

June 1, 1973

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Attention Office of Legal Counsel

We at Crown Coach Corporation are currently in the process of bidding on several bus units for GSA for the Atomic Energy Commission. We also are in the process of working on future bids for Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and the California State Department of Corrections. Some of these vehicles must have maximum security as they transport people who are dangerous criminals and we are of the belief that an exemption should be granted on Motor Vehicle Standard #217. If we are forced to comply with this Standard, we may as well not install any security measures on the vehicles because with the least effort all the prisoners would push out the side windows and escape.

We have been building maximum security vehicles for approximately 18 to 20 years, and last year we delivered our first two units to the U. S. Government.

We currently have two maximum security vehicles approximately four to five weeks away from completion for the U. S. Bureau of Prisons.

Our question would be can we consider these maximum security vehicles as exceptions, as they are not being used as a passenger bus in the true sense of the word in that they are not transporting people for hire. It is my understand from communications that we have had with GSA, at our request, several weeks ago that this question was put before you people in regard to the above questions.

A further question. There are several manufacturers of buses, including Crown, who use bus sash that are not push-out type sash. This type is not mentioned in #217. We currently are producing buses with this type sash for the Federal Government, and for sightseeing purposes and charter use for use within the United States, including Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands. We are using large fixed by-pass sash where we exceed the number of square inches escape opening as set forth in Standard #217, Section S5.2 "Provision of Emergency Exits".

2

Our by-pass sash have an emergency button that is operated to obtain the required increased emergency exit opening at each window. We have three different sizes of sash, depending on the customer's requirements, all of which exceed your requirements in S5.2 for emergency exits opening without the kickout feature.

We would like to request your opinion on the above questions and if we are not clear we would be more than pleased to answer any questions you have and send photographs or drawings showing the type of product that we are talking about, and the individual items upon request.

We will be looking forward to an early reply to the above as this affects a current bid for a considerable number of buses for the U. S. Government, and can also mean further savings to the U. S. Government on maximum security vehicles and other types.

Kay Partman Vice President-Engineering

ID: nht73-4.36

DATE: 07/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Tire Retreading Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 12, 1973, to Dr. Ed Wallace, concerning Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires. In your letter you suggest the following: that the standard be amended to prohibit the retreading of casings having "damaged bead wire", that labels be allowed to be placed on any portion of the completed tire, and that the required labeling, "bias/belted", be changed to allow the labeling of the word "belted".

With respect to your request to prohibit the retreading of casings having damaged bead wire, you state that the standard contains a "loophole" because it prohibits the retreading of casings having "exposed" bead, but does not prohibit the retreading of casings having "damaged" bead. We do not agree that this is a loophole, even though the standard has no explicit prohibition along those lines. The retreading of a casing that is damaged in any significant way would constitute the manufacturing of a defective tire, and the manufacturing retreader would be subject to the defect notification provisions (Section 113; 15 U.S.C. @ 1402) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. It is true that the explicit prohibitions of the standard offer clearer guidance than the defect provisions. The problem is that "damage" is too vague a concept to define a tire condition -- in fact, it really is little more than a synonym for defective. We would give serious consideration, however, to a petition listing specific bead conditions which you believe should be the subject of new requirements in the standard. You should also note that damages caused by a defective tire, although it conformed to Standard No. 117, could still subject its manufacturer to civil liability in a private action (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)).

You further request that we allow the label (presumably the label containing the items of consumer information required pursuant to S6.3.1) to be placed on the tread area of the tire. The NHTSA responded to this request in the notice responding to petitions for reconsideration published July 15, 1972. In that issuance we stated our position that affixing the label to the sidewall would more likely ensure that the label would be retained on the tire until its installation on a vehicle. We also indicated that the standard did not prohibit the placing of an additional label on the tread, which location, it was argued, facilitated storage.

Your final request is that the requirement that the words "bias/belted" be labeled onto that type of tires be amended to require only the word "belted". You indicate that most new tire manufacturers use the word "belted". The NHTSA does not believe the word "belted" to be sufficiently explicit, as radial tires are also "belted" and the possibility of confusion is quite obvious. However, we are aware that Standard No. 109 does not require the labeling of the words "bias/belted", and we plan to take steps with respect to Standard No. 117 so that no additional labeling will be required for a retreaded tire that retains its original casing labeling.

Sincerely,

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

June 12, 1973

Ed Wallace National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

While we recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 117 has only been in effect a few days, we have already come across a few problems as presented to us by our members. One of the problems does have a safety related consideration and we believe it should be acted upon immediately. Two other suggestions are more in the way of an administrative change to 117 and while they should be accomplished as soon as possible, they are not quite as urgent as the safety related item.

The safety related item would be an addition to paragraph S5.2.1. A new sub-paragraph (b) should be added, with these words: "On which a bead wire is damaged." The reason for this suggestion is that we have found some retreaders who are looking a little too closely at the actual wording of the regulation and not following commonly accepted practices of good inspection. A few retreaders are accepting for retreading casings having a damaged bead, yet the bead is not exposed. The suggested change will close that loophole.

The second change we recommend is that the wording with regard to the placement of the label be modified to permit the placing of the label on any outside portion of the completed tire. The reason for this request is that no matter where the label is placed, it disappears soon after the tire is mounted on a vehicle. Standard practice finds any affixed label serves its intended uses best when placed on the tread area.

A third suggestion is one we have noted before. This concerns differences in the labelling requirements in Standard 109 as compared to Standard 117. I refer specifically to the words "bias belted" which appear in 117 and do not appear in 109. We believe one standard or the other should be changed to correspond with what we actually find on a tire. As you know, many manufacturers of bias belted tires indicate that fact by using the word "belted" even thought it is not required by Standard 109.

We believe the above changes could be accomplished administratively without the necessity of going through the normal procedure for changes to the regulations.

Philip H. Taft Director

ID: nht73-4.37

DATE: 07/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: IMPORTATION OF Subaru TRUCK AND VAN

This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1973, to the Administrator, in which you discuss Subaru's desire to import three non-conforming vehicles for off-road use and ask for confirmation that they are not "motor vehicles" as defined by PL 89-503. Mr. Flinn of Subaru informed Mr. Vinson of my staff by phone on July 16 that the purpose of importation of the three vehicles is to determine the general marketability of these vehicles as a class. Your letter states that the three vehicles will be shown to purchasers of earlier models of Subaru vehicles who are using them in plants. Mr. Flinn further indicated that conforming models might be imported if a market were shown for on-road use. Our reply is based upon your letter and Mr. Vinson's conversation with Mr. Flinn.

The information at hand is insufficient to support an interpretation that the Subaru 360 truck and van are not "motor vehicles." They appear to us clearly manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. However, we have no objection at this time to importation of these three vehicles pursuant to block #7 on the HS-7Form (i.e. 19 CFR @ 12.80 (b)(2)(vii)) by which Subaru declares that it is importing them for purposes of show, test, experiment, etc., and that it will not license them for use on the public roads. The question of disposition of these vehicles at the end of the evaluation period can be dealt with at that time.

ID: nht73-4.38

DATE: 07/30/73

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

TO: Glen Tillotson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1973, concerning problems that you foresee for your company under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. The primary problem you describe is the need to test brakes on vehicles that you produce in very small quantities.

The standards promulgated by this agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act do not impose a mandatory level of testing on regulated manufacturers. If we purchase a manufacturer's product, test it, and find that it fails an applicable standard, to avoid liability for noncompliance, the manufacturer must then establish that he exercised due care in assuring himself that the product conformed to the standard. The most common method by which manufacturers assess their product's conformity with a standard is by testing the products in accordance with the procedures of the standard. A manufacturer may, however, contract to have this testing done by an outside laboratory, may rely on adequate information provided him by a supplier, or use other reasonable means to make sure that his products comply.

ID: nht73-4.39

DATE: 07/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Barry Kulik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1973, concerning the method of testing the sensitivity of seat sensors under sections S7.3 and S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

The relevant characteristics of the "person" referred to in these sections are found in the weight and dimension table of Section S7.1.3 of the standard. Our testing laboratory will, in all likelihood, be using test dummies purchased from the various commercial dummy manufacturers, whose weights and dimensions conform to S7.1.3 of the standard. Human volunteers could be used, but the dimensional controls are difficult to maintain and we do not regard liver persons as a practical means of testing sensors under the standard.