ID: nht74-3.2

DATE: 07/02/74

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: J.M. CRAIG -- GATOR TRAILER CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Craig:

This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1974, describing your pontoon boat trailer and asking if it is permissible to offer a ". . . clamp on light bar at the rear along with front side marker amber lighting for installation forward on the pontoon boat itself?" As you point out "This would mean that the user would have to install the lighting each time a rig is put on the highway."

Your proposed installation arrangement does not appear to be in conformance with paragraph S4.3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which requires that lighting and reflective devices be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. If the cargo partially obscures the[Illegible Words] the required lighting devices on the trailer.[Illegible Words] regulations would govern any additional, temporarily attached lighting devices on the cargo.

We trust this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht74-3.20

DATE: 11/04/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Car and Truck Renting and Leasing Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 25, 1974, letter and our subsequent discussions which raise the question whether the construction of a truck using the power train (rear axle, suspension, drive line, and engine) of a damaged 1972 truck and all or part of a new glider kit constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle, subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121 after March 1, 1975.

Re-use of components from an existing vehicle in the construction of another vehicle may or may not result in the manufacture of a new vehicle. The NHTSA has established that the addition of new components (such as a truck body) to the chassis of a used vehicle does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. Conversely, the addition of used components to a new chassis constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle, subject to the safety standards in effect for that vehicle class on the date of manufacture. This criterion has been relied on in the area of chassis-cab multistage manufacture.

Typically a "glider kit" is a truck chassis on which a cab and front axle system are mounted, which is purchased to permit the re-utilization of a power train from another vehicle. Since a glider kit typically incorporates a new chassis (as well as a new cab and front suspension), the NHTSA finds that the use of such a glider kit in the construction of a motor vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. To conclude otherwise would mean that a vehicle composed entirely of brand new components except the rear axle and perhaps the engine, would qualify as a used vehicle.

If answer to your question on the use of a portion of the kit: if the kit's chassis portion is used, we would consider the resultant vehicle to be a new motor vehicle. Conversely, use of only the cab portion would not be the manufacture of a new motor vehicle.

A new motor vehicle must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If it is not manufactured in two or more stages, the applicable standards are those in effect for the vehicle type as of the date of completion of the vehicle (15 U.S.C.@ 1397(a)(1)) (49 CFR 567.4). If the vehicle has been manufactured in two or more stages in accordance with part 568-(Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, 49 CFR Part 568), it may be certified as of any date between the date of manufacture of the "incomplete vehicle" and the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle. For example, a truck-tractor constructed of a 1972 power train and a glider kit on some date prior to March 1, 1975, may be certified as of the date that it reaches the "incomplete" stage although its completion (such as by fifth-wheel installation) occurs after March 1, 1975.

The manufacturer responsible for certification under part 567 (49 CFR Part 567) will in many cases be the person who combines the used components with the glider kit. However, if he has manufactured only an "incomplete vehicle" as that term is defined in Part 568, he would provide documentation with the vehicle required under @ 568.4.

Although a glider kit manufacturer may use several serial numbers (e.g., body, engine) the NHTSA only requires one vehicle identification number to appear on the certification plate (@ 567(4)(g)(6)). The manufacturer may use the serial number on the glider kit or may create his own vehicle identification number. It is my understanding that the States have established various practices for the registration of a vehicle which is partially constructed from a formerly registered vehicle. These practices vary greatly and you should check with the individual States regarding them.

ID: nht74-3.21

DATE: 10/10/74

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

TO: Joseph Lucas North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 30, 1974, enclosing sample brake hose assemblies and requesting approval of Girling's labeling and banding techniques to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, for labeling brake hoses and brake hose assemblies.

The NHTSA interprets a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. From this discussion, you should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of specific design.

ID: nht74-3.22

DATE: 10/07/74

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

TO: Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 13, 1974, question whether building a motor vehicle from a used power train (rear axle, suspension, drive line, and engine) and a new "glider kit" constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle, subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121 after March 1, 1975. Typically, a "glider kit" is a truck chassis on which a cab and front axle system are mounted, which is purchased to permit the re-utilization of a power train from another vehicle.

Re-use of components from an existing vehicle in the construction of another vehicle may or may not result in the manufacture of a new vehicle. The NHTSA has established that the addition of new components (such as a truck body) to the chassis of a used vehicle does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. Conversely, the addition of used components to a new chassis which has never been certified in a vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle, subject to the safety standards in effect for that vehicle class on the date of manufacture. This criterion has been relied on in the area of chassis-cab multistage manufacture.

Since a glider kit typically incorporates a new chassis (as well as a new cab and front suspension), the NHTSA finds that the use of such a glider kit in the construction of a motor vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. To conclude otherwise would mean that a vehicle composed entirely of brand new components except the rear axle and perhaps the engine and transmission, would qualify as a used vehicle.

You noted that our decision could eliminate the use of glider kits because Standard No. 121 certification would prevent re-use of rear axles which do not meet 121-level performance requirements. We believe that our determination will contribute to motor vehicle safety by introducing more 121-type vehicles on the highway and will not interfere with the use of glider kits in the long term. Glider kits can be made to meet Standard No. 121 as soon as 121-type rear axles become available on the used market. Until that time, the rear axles of present vehicles may be utilized as replacement parts in used vehicles which are not required to meet Standard No. 121.

ID: nht74-3.23

DATE: 10/02/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Home Systems Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 21, 1974, asking whether the terms "loaded vehicle weight" or "rated cargo load" include the liquid for both water potable tanks and waste holding tanks in the case of motor homes and multipurpose passenger vehicles. You indicated in a phone conversation with Mike Peskoe of this office on September 4, 1974, that the purpose of your question is to determine whether the weight of this liquid would be included in a manufacturer's computation of gross vehicle weight rating. You also ask for definitions of "loaded vehicle weight" and "rated cargo load."

It is not required that a determination of gross vehicle weight rating include the weight of a full amount of liquid in both the potable and the waste holding tanks on the assumption, stated in your letter, that in actual use the holding tank is empty when the potable tank is filled, and the liquid is drawn gradually from one tank to the other. It should be placed in the potable tank for determining GVWR, for this more closely reflects a new vehicle configuration.

The term "loaded vehicle weight" is not defined in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations nor are we aware of its use therein. A related term, "maximum loaded vehicle weight," is defined in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110), but this definition is not applicable to your question. "Rated cargo load" is also not specifically defined, but is used in the requirements for gross vehicle weight rating in 49 CFR 567 and as a test condition in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. (Illegible Word) It is intended to mean the manufacturer's good faith rating of the weight of a vehicle's full cargo.

ID: nht74-3.24

DATE: 10/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Northland Equipment Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 19, 1974, which refers to our letter of July 17, 1974, to the Distributors' Association regarding the use of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating by a final-stage manufacturer who adds an additional axle to the vehicle. Our position in that letter was that a gross vehicle weight rating which was so unrelated to vehicle capacity that it suggests a motive such as avoidance of an applicable standard could be construed as a false and misleading certification or a potential safety related defect. You point out that this result works a hardship on persons who customarily add axles because they are unable to determine an appropriate gross vehicle weight rating to use for Certification purposes.

The NHTSA's concern, and indeed the thrust of the Certification requirements, is that vehicles as manufactured will conform to all applicable safety standards when carrying expected loads. However, we are not unmindful, and do not wish to give the impression of ignoring, practical problems connected with compliance with the requirements. Our hope is that the industries involved could collectively resolve their mutual problems, preferably without, but possibly with, assistance from Government regulation. We would certainly consider any concrete proposals for amending the regulations applicable to incomplete and intermediate vehicle manufacturers to resolve this problem, as long as such proposals do not abrogate the primary purposes of the requirements. The use of the incomplete vehicle manufacturers weight ratings is not satisfactory in this respect. We would welcome any future communications you or the various associations might have with respect to possible solutions to this problem, and will be happy to meet with you at your request.

ID: nht74-3.25

DATE: 09/27/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Solomon; Religan & Blake

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 9, 1974, inquiring as to the compliance of the AADA-65 odometer disclosure form with the Federal odometer requirements.

Your letter suggests that this agency has "approved" the Form AADA-65 as complying with the provisions of the odometer regulation. We are, however, unaware of any past correspondence between this office and either the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association or Norwick Printers of Oklahoma concerning the validity of a disclosure statement.

The Form AADA-65 enclosed in your letter fails to comply with our regulation in several respects. The statement referring to the mileage indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer must be phrased to indicate that the disclosure document was executed at the time of the vehicle's transfer, not at some later time. In addition, the statement must be written in such a manner that it is clear it is to be completed by the transferor alone. To satisfy these criteria the statement should read

"I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described above, at the time of transfer to , is as follows:"

The portion of the document provided for disclosure of the odometer mileage and a statement as to its accuracy is also deficient on the AADA-65 form. Instructions are necessary on this part of the form to ensure that it is completed in a consistent manner by all persons. The number of miles indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer must appear. Also, if the seller wishes he may indicate on the form that the actual mileage is over 100,000 miles. In addition, the statement concerning the accuracy of the vehicle's reflected mileage must be more complete than the one included in the AADA-65 form. Completion of the disclosure document in accordance with these directions may be accomplished as follows:

"(Complete line 1; and, where applicable, complete line 2 and check line 3:)

1. miles

2. total cumulative miles (if over 100,000).

3. [ ] I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown."

You expressed some confusion concerning the circumstances under which a statement should be made that the actual odometer mileage is unknown. The intended purpose of the disclosure statement is to inform the purchaser of a vehicle as to the accuracy of the mileage registered on the odometer. In order to accomplish this purpose it has been determined that where the seller of a vehicle has good reason to believe that the mileage registered on the odometer differs from the vehicle's true mileage he must so inform the buyer in positive terms. In the situation where the transferor is uncertain whether the mileage is accurate, he must determine whether there is a credible basis for an assumption that the mileage is either correct or incorrect. If he has good reason to believe that the mileage is inaccurate, even though he is not positive, he should check the statement saying that the mileage indicated on the odometer is incorrect. A statement from a prior transferor that the odometer mileage is incorrect constitutes sufficient basis for a like statement upon subsequent transfer of the vehicle.

ID: nht74-3.26

DATE: 09/25/74

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

TO: O'Bannon & Gonce

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your request I have enclosed a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR @ 571.109) as it appears in the current edition of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The table listing load and inflation values for the G78-15 tire size designation is Table I-J of Appendix A. Except for the addition of test loads at 16 and 18 psi, the load and inflation information for the G78-15 tire size designation has not changed since the first publication of the information on April 18, 1968 (33 FR 5949), a copy of which is also enclosed.

ID: nht74-3.27

DATE: 09/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales Inc.

TITLE: TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 12, 1974, inquiring as to whether or not a vehicle with unitized construction, developed as a truck and converted to carry passengers may be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Your description of the vehicle in question indicates that it does qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The reference to "truck chassis" in the MPV definition was intended to include vehicles that were designed and developed as trucks but have been produced in a version for carrying passengers. Since the delivery van referenced in your letter was developed as a truck, its modification to enable the carrying of passengers places it in the MPV category.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A. INC.

August 12, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We would like to request your interpretation of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as defined in @ 571.3 Definitions of PART 571-FMVSS Subpart A.

Our concern is with the meaning of "truck chassis" and whether or not we can classify the following vehicle in the MPV category under the above-cited definition.

Among our car lines we have a delivery van, a diagram of which is attached. This van has a unitized body construction, but it was developed for cargo transportation. In other words, it could be classified as a truck. If we were to install enough seats in this van to enable it to carry ten passengers or less, could this vehicle as modified be classified in the MPV category?

Your interpretation of the above will be greatly appreciated.

THANK YOU.

K. Nakajima

Director/General Manager

Factory Representative Office

ATTACHMENT (Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

Wheelbase: 2200 mm

ID: nht74-3.28

DATE: 09/24/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: B.F. Goodrich Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to respond to the draft defect notification letter submitted by B. F. Goodrich at a meeting with NHTSA personnel on September 4, 1974. While we provided you with some preliminary comments at that time, our position regarding your notification is as stated in this letter.

We believe your letter fails to comply with 49 CFR, Part 577, "Defect Notification" in several respects. Some of our comments are also directed at what we view as a lack of clarity in your letter arising, it seems to us, from some disorganization in the text.

The first sentence in your second paragraph does not follow satisfactorily the requirements of @ 577.4(b)(1). This requirement should be met by simply stating, "The B. F. Goodrich Tire Company has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in its Space Saver Spare tire."

Section 577.4(c) requires the notification to describe the defect by including specified information. We believe your letter confuses the items of information and presents them in an order which clouds an understanding of the safety problem. As we understand your presentation of the facts, the item of motor vehicle equipment affected (@ 577.4(c)(1)) is the tire; the malfunction that may occur (@ 577.4(c)(2)) is an explosion of the tire; and the operating or other conditions that may cause the malfunction to occur (@ 577.4(c)(3)) are damaged beads, excessive air pressure, and beads not seated properly on the rim. With respect to this letter requirement, we find the reference to the "combination" of factors in your second paragraph, and your fourth paragraph, in which you state that "some or all" of the causal conditions listed can produce the defect, to be inconsistent and too imprecise to conform to the requirement. In addition to describing factors which can singly cause an explosion, if certain combinations of factors must exist in order for the defect to occur these combinations should not be stated generally as you have done, but should be specifically described. Moreover, we indicated to you at the September 4 meeting that we disagree that broken beads and excessive pressure must exist in combination in order for an explosion to occur.

Most importantly, we cannot agree upon your characterization of the bolting of the tire to the wheel before inflation as a precaution the owner can take to reduce the chance that the malfunction will occur under @ 577.4(c)(4). Both literally and by implication your second and fourth paragraphs read that if the tire is bolted to the vehicle before inflation, an explosion will not occur. The malfunction, however, is an explosion of the tire, not only those explosions which cause injury. While we agree that bolting the tire to the vehicle before inflation can potentially reduce the chance of injury, it should be characterized only in this fashion. Therefore, both on page 1 of your letter and in the instructions which you begin on page 3 for persons who have need of the tire before its inspection by Goodrich, you must make it absolutely clear that bolting the tire to the vehicle has no effect whatever on whether the tire will explode, but that bolting will serve only to reduce the chance of injury if an explosion occurs.

We have the following points with respect to the remaining provisions of your letter. On page 2, in the first complete paragraph, beginning "In the majority of usage situations . . . etc" we find the use of the word "majority" confusing. The implication to us is that in a minority of situations the danger is not reduced at all. This should be clarified.

The third complete paragraph on page 2 is also confusing. There is no apparent connection between its first and second sentences. If you are attempting to say that despite what earlier labels may say that the instructions provided in this letter should be followed, then this can be stated more clearly.

The use of the word "solely" in the fourth paragraph on page 2 is a disclaimer, prohibited by section 577.6, and should be stricken.

On page 3, we believe the requirements of section 577.4(e)(1) call for more detail than you have provided in the third paragraph on page 3. We suggest you include a description of the inspection and test cycle. As we indicated to you on September 4, the second and third paragraphs could be combined for clarity. Finally, the second sentence in your second paragraph on page 3 should be reworded to indicate more clearly that the date you have inserted is the date by which repair facilities will have necessary parts and instructions. In its present wording the meaning of the sentence is unclear.

Apart from these deficiencies, we believe your letter conforms to 49 CFR Part 577. At the same time, we believe your letter unnecessarily obscures the safety problem, and hope that, apart from literal compliance with Part 577, this is eliminated in the letter sent to purchasers. You should note that our determination of the conformity of the letter to Part 577 does not in any way indicate our agreement with Goodrich's analysis of the safety defect. We will continue to look into this matter, as appropriate, in order to determine whether Goodrich's analysis of the defect, and its consequent remedy, are fair and accurate statements of the safety problem. You should be aware that if subsequent events do show that attributing the safety defect to a mounting problem does not adequately describe the defect, further notification may be required.

Yours Truly,

PROPOSED DRAFT

9/4/74

DEAR CUSTOMER:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The B.F. Goodrich Tire Company, a division of The B.F. Goodrich Company, has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety is caused when its Space Saver Spare tire is improperly mounted or subsequently remounted on the rim and is not properly seated on the rim. When the wheel is not securely bolted to the axle at the time the tire is inflated, the combination of broken tire beads and excessive air pressure can cause the tire to burst or erupt in which case serious personal injury or death can result.

Since the introduction of the Space Saver Spare in 1967, approximately 1,000,000 tires have been produced and provided to automobile manufacturers. During this period a total of nineteen injury cases, including two fatalities, have been reported.

Bursting or eruption of the Space Saver Spare tire assembly which has the potential of causing injury can only occur when some or all following three conditions are present:

1) A broken tire bead caused by improper mounting or remounting of the tire exists.

2) The tire is not securely bolted to the axle of the vehicle before inflation is started.

3) Excessive air pressure, from a high pressure air supply is forced into the tire.

In the majority of usage situations when the caution and warning labels are followed in a step by step fashion, the danger or potential of injury or serious accidents is greatly reduced. It is extremely important that at all times the Space Saver Spare tire is inflated with the approved canister (inflator) provided for road use of the tire.

Your Space Saver Spare tire was designed to be carried in a deflated condition, while being stored in the trunk of your vehicle. Its unique folding sidewall configuration permits the saving of considerable space in your trunk.

Many Space Saver Spare tires have been furnished with caution and/or warning labels. When the spare tire assembly is securely bolted to the axle of your vehicle before inflating with the canister bottle, and the tire is only inflated with the canister inflator, maximum safety will be achieved.

The above statements are made solely to comply with the notice procedures of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 49 CFR, Part 577.4, and does not constitute an admission of liability or wrong doing on the part of the B.F. Goodrich Company, but is made to the public at large for the general purpose of improving highway safety.

Our review of the use of the Space Saver Spare has proven that unless specific instructions for installing and inflating the tire are followed, it could burst or erupt.

The B.F.Goodrich Tire Company is presently completing arrangements for conducting an inspection and inflate/deflate test cycle of your Space Saver Spare. Final details along with distribution of anticipated replacement components will be completed by

Date

Enclosed with this letter you will find a listing of all B.F.Goodrich Regional Service Departments. You are urged to contact the Service Department located most conveniently to your area, by collect phone call, and make arrangements to take your Space Saver Spare tire assembly to a designated service facility for inspection and test cycling. Inspection, test cycling and any necessary tire replacement will be provided at no charge to you. Since inspection and test cycling can take approximately one hour, we urge you to call the phone number listed above in order to make an appointment thereby avoiding long delays on your part.

If, prior to the time the inspection and test cycle have been completed you have need of your Space Saver Spare tire, it is important that follow these procedures:

1) Before inflating, bolt spare on car axle making sure that all lugs are securely fastened.

2) Rotate spare tire/wheel assembly so that the valve is down

3) Use only the canister inflator to inflate the tire. Inflate by holding canister bottle on tire valve approximately one minute after sound of gas flow stops.

4) This tire is designed for emergency use only. Return it to the spare tire position in the trunk of your vehicle as soon as possible.

5) When the Space Saver Spare is in use, do not exceed 50 MPH.

6) Do not remove Space Saver Spare tire from the wheel. Tire is not remountable. Do not use wheel cover on Space Saver Spare wheel as it may not be retained.

NOTE: If the canister inflator has been used, a replacement canister should be obtained.

Present this letter and enclosed form "Authorization for Space Saver Spare Inspection - Test Cycle" as authority for no charge inspection, test cycle and replacement of any malfunctioning compon

This is an important safety matter to you. We urge that you take action as described in this letter.

(Signed)