ID: nht72-6.23

DATE: 11/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1972, asking among other things, whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts the recent California law requiring motorcycles made on or after January 1, 1972, to be wired so that their headlamps are lit whenever the engines are running. In light of the answer to this question, it is not necessary to deal with the other ones.

It is the opinion of this agency that the California law in question is presented in accordance with section 103(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and is therefore void. Standard No. 108. 49 CFR @ 571.108, establishes requirements for motorcycle headlighting, along with special wiring requirements for motorcycles and other vehicles. It is our position, therefore, that the California requirement is within the scope of the aspects of performance covered by Standard No. 108. Since it is not identical to a federal requirement, it is rendered void by operation of the Act.

ID: nht72-6.24

DATE: 11/16/72

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

TO: Nippondenso Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1972, telling us that you have tested turn signal flashers in accordance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108a, which you believe is a more severe test than Standard No. 108, and asking our views as to whether you should retest in accordance with Standard No. 108.

The important question is not whether one standard establishes a more severe test than another, but whether a flasher meets all performance requirements applicable to it on the date of its manufacture. The legal obligation of a manufacturer is to insure that it does. The requirements currently applicable to flashers are those of Standard No. 108.

It is true that Standard No. 108a has been "repealed" and No. 108 "reinstated". The reason for this action is a judicial decision that the NHTSA did not provide adequate public notice and opportunity to comment on the flasher requirements in Standard No. 108a. However, the NHTSA has proposed that the flasher performance requirements of Standard No. 108a be re-adopted, and is offering the public an opportunity to comment. I enclose a copy of the notice for your information.

ID: nht72-6.25

DATE: 05/31/72

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

TO: Rhode Island Consumers' Council

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of March 15, 1972, which was forwarded to us by the Federal Trade Commission, concerning problems experienced by Mr. Ronald Dandeneau regarding a repossessed vehicle he purchased which was equipped with tires marked "NA." Mr. Dandeneau claims he was told by a tire dealer that such tires are considered unserviceable, cannot be repaired, and are unsafe.

The sale of these tires by the tire manufacturer (we understand that the practice is not limited to Uniroyal) is not prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Federal standard applicable to passenger car tires. The Federal standard applies only to tires before their first sale to a consumer, and does not apply to used tires such as these.

We understand that tires marked "NA" are tires that have been adjusted previously, but for reasons that are not considered to affect the safety of the tire. Examples of such reasons are a lack of roundness and uniformity. While these conditions may produce riding qualities which some people find unsatisfactory, we presently have no evidence that such tires cannot be repaired or that they are unsafe.

ID: nht72-6.26

DATE: 05/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: CITROEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1972, in which you posed questions about the operation of the seat belt warning system under Standard 208 and about the intent of the headlamp adjustment requirement under Standard 215.

Your questions on Standard 208 deal with the requirement in S7.3.3 that the warning system in a vehicle with an automatic transmission must not operate when the engine is operating and the gear selector is in the "Park" position. In answer to your first question, if the two conditions for non-operation exist, the warning system must not operate, regardless of the position of the hand brake lever. If either condition does not exist, e.g., the transmission is in "Park" but the engine is not operating, it would be permissible to have the system operate, and its operation could be controlled by the hand brake so long as the hand brake circuitry does not interfere with the mandatory operation of the system under S7.3.1 and S7.3.5.

If the shift lever is in the neutral position, as stated in your second question, you are free to choose whether to have the system operate or not, since S7.3 does not require either operation or non-operation when the transmission is in neutral.

In response to your last question on Standard 208, an "operating engine" is an engine that is rotating. It is permissible to have a system in which the warning operates when the transmission is in "Park" and the ignition is "On", but the warning must shut off when the engine begins to operate.

Your question on Standard 215 is whether the headlamps must be adjustable after the tests "so as to permit restoration of normal lighting" or whether it is sufficient for the lamps to be adjustable +4 degrees vertically and horizontally whether or not this restores normal lighting. Our reply is that the requirement is intended to provide for the safe operation of the lamps after impact and that the lamps must therefore be adjustable in a manner that restores normal lighting.

ID: nht72-6.27

DATE: 06/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Customs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On June 14, 1972, you and Mr. Aubuchon of our Office of Standards Enforcement discussed the proper method of entry under 19 CFR @ 12.60 for incomplete motor vehicles and for chassis. This letter represents our opinion in this matter.

A vehicle consisting of a chassis-cab on wheels, or a chassis, intended for completion after entry, should be entered as motor vehicle equipment, and identified on the HS-7 importation form in the box titled Description of Motor Vehicle Equipment. No other homes need be checked or hood required.

We understand that you will circularize our opinion, and would approciate your furnishing a copy of such opinion to the Office of Standards Enforcement, Attn: 41-22 Cus.

ID: nht72-6.28

DATE: 12/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Goldwater and Flynn

COPYEE: ROBERT F. STONE -- REGION II

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Robert F. Stone of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regional office has asked us to respond to the questions you raised in your telephone conversation with him on December 4.

As I understand it, your three questions are:

1. Has the Secretary established standards for vehicles in use?

2. What are Federal sanctions if the first purchaser of a domestically-manufactured motor vehicle removes safety equipment, and if he subsequently sells the vehicle lacking such equipment?

3. Is the answer to question 2 any different if the vehicle is a used one of foreign manufacture imported in full compliance with 19 CFR @ 12.80?

The answers provided you by Mr. Stone are essentially correct. No standards have been established for vehicles in use. The first purchaser of a motor vehicle for purposes other than resale or any subsequent purchaser, may remove any item of Federally-mandated safety equipment on the motor vehicle, regardless of the vehicle's place of manufacture, and he may sell the vehicle as altered, without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht72-6.29

DATE: 01/31/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Universal Fire Apparatus Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1971, in which you state that you place a fire pump and body on a chassis which you purchase, and ask whether you are required to place a certification label or vehicle alteration label on the vehicle.

It is unclear to us to what you refer by vehicle alteration label. However, based on the very limited information you have provided it appears that you are in final stage manufacturer under section 568.3 of the regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in two or More States" (49 CPR Part 568). As such you are required, pursuant to Section 568.6 to complete the vehicle so that it conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, and to certify compliance to those standards by affixing a certification label in the manner set forth in section 567.5 of the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).

Copies of both the Certification regulations and regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More States" are enclosed.

If you have further questions please write.

ID: nht72-6.3

DATE: 10/06/72

FROM: EUGENE B. LASKIN FOR FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA

TO: Clay Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 5, 1972, in which you enclose a copy of your brochure describing a "Honey Wagon" and ask what our requirements are.

The "Honey Wagon" described in your brochure appears to be manufactured primarily for off-road use. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply to off-road use vehicles.

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

ID: nht72-6.30

DATE: 07/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: McLaughlin Equiqment Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1972, concerning the remounting of old school bus bodies on new chassis. You indicate that this practice is occuring in North Dakota, enclose an advertising brochure of a company that performs the service, and also enclose a copy of a letter from Mr. Robert B. Klure of the Divco-Wayne Corporation which discusses possible safety problems that may result from this practice. You have asked us to outline actions and procedures that can be taken by the NHTSA or your office to curtail this practice.

The NHTSA considers the mounting of an old school bus body on a new chassis to be manufacturing of a vehicle, which must conform to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the day of the manufacture of the chassis, or of the completed vehicle. The failure of a school bus manufactured in this fashion to conform to applicable standards would be a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1)), and could subject its manufacturer to civil penalties and other sanctions. In addition, such vehicles must be certified as conforming to all applicable standards, and the failure of a manufacturer to certify can also result in the imposition of similar sanctions.

It appears from the discussion of safety problems in Mr. Klure's letter that the mounting of old school bus bodies on new chassis creates safety problems that the NHTSA might consider to be safety related defects. If a finding is made by NHTSA that such a defect exists, the manufacturer would be required to notify owners of the defect, and the NHTSA would probably urge the manufacturer to conduct a recall campaign.

In either case the NHTSA will take steps to see that all manufacturers are complying with NHTSA requirements. You can assist us by providing the names of companies which you believe are engaging in this practice. This information should be sent to Mr. Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standards Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Adminsitration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

ID: nht72-6.31

DATE: 06/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: All Brake & Drive Unit Service Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of February 14 and April 20, 1972. I apologize for our delay in answering your inquiries. You state that your G.M.C. truck dealership installs fifth wheels, saddle gas tanks, mirrors, marker lamps and tractor protection brake equipment and you inquire what your obligations are with respect to the Manufacturer Identification and Certification regulations (Parts 566 and 577 respectively).

Installation of fifth wheels would make you a "final-stage manufacturer", as defined in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, because you perform "such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle", other than the addition of "readily attachable components, such as mirror or tire and rim assemblies". Installation of the other items you listed would generally not make you a final-stage manufacturer, since installation of these items does not fulfill the above criteria.

As a final-stage manufacturer, you are required under Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit the information specified in @ 566.5. Your submittal of January 18, 1972, satisfies this requirement.

As a final-stage manufacturer, you are also required under Part 567, Certification, to affix a certification label on the vehicle you manufacture. In addition, Part 573 requires the submission of quarterly reports regarding vehicle production and defect notifications (49 CFR @ 573.5) and of copies of all other notices, bulletins and communications sent to more than one dealer or purchaser regarding any defect in such vehicles, whether or not safety-related.

I am enclosing copies of Parts 566, 567, 568, and 573 for your information. These should also answer your questions as to the format of the required submittals.