ID: nht74-4.38

DATE: 01/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Tire Distributors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 19, 1973, concerning a standardized form for tire registration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is aware of the problem that some dealers face in having to complete a multiplicity of tire registeration forms. Therefore, we issued on March 8, 1973, a proposal for a universal registration form such as you have suggested. We have received comments on our proposal from interested parties, and are currently revising it for issuance as a final rule in the spring of this year.

As to your specific question, whether you may adopt your own "universal" form, there is nothing in our regulations which would preclude your doing so. While Section 574.7 requires manufacturers, brand name owners, and retreaders to provide a means by which the registration data may be recorded and Section 574.3 requires distributors and dealers to submit the required information to the manufacturers, there is no requirement that the dealers utilize the manufacturers' forms. I have enclosed a copy of our proposed rule concerning universal tire registration forms. You should be aware that the proposal is now going through revisions based on comments received and the final rule may differ in some respects.

ENC.

ID: nht74-4.39

DATE: 01/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Consumer Protection

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for bringing the Ryder Rental odometer problem to our attention.

The odometer provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act apply only to tampering that leads to the under-representation of mileage. We recommend that over-representation cases be referred to the State consumer protection office. In this case, cf course, Mr. Sharkey registered his complaint there in the first instance.

December 27, 1973

Rules Docket Odometers U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Attached is a consumer complaint alleging that the odometer on a Ryder Rental Truck was grossly deficient. Since the discrepancy was over 100 miles on a 353 mile trip, it could indicate tampering and you might wish to check into the matter further under 14 USC @ 250 and your accompanying regulations.

Sincerely,

David C. Keehn, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices

Mr. Stephen C. Sharkey 67 County Street Apartment 2 (Illegible Word), Masschusetts 02771

Dear Mr. Sharkey:

Your letter concerning a purported overcharge on a truck rented from Ryder System, Inc., has been referred to me for reply.

The Commission is currently looking into the business practices of the automobile and truck rental industry. The problem you described is among those that the staff has under consideration.

As you may be aware, the Federal Trade Commission is authorized to act in the interest of the general public to require the discontinuance of unfair or deceptive practices. Our authority does not, however, extend to intervening or acting(Illegible Words) in individual cases. Accordingly, we regret that we cannot be of direst assistance to you in this matter. Nonetheless, your complaint will be added to the pending file, and such action will be taken as is warranted by the public interest.

To resolve your difficulties, you may wish to communicate directly with the company. If so, you should write to Mr. James A. Ryder, Chairman of the board, Ryder System, Inc., 2701 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 33133. A copy of your letter to Mr. Ryder may be sent to Darian B. Andersen, Esquire, Law Department, Ryder System, Inc., 3600 N.W. 82nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33166. For your reference, we have enclosed a copy of your original letter to us.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the Commission's attention.

Sincerely yours,

Alan N. Schlaifer Attorney Division of Marketing Practices

ID: nht74-4.4

DATE: 06/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Lieberman; Tratras & Markowitz

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1974, enclosing a check for $ 1,000 and a suggested defect notification letter on behalf of your client, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company.

The notification letter you enclose fails to conform in significant respects to 49 CFR Part 577, Defect Notification. The regulation presumes the notification will be sent by the manufacturer, as required by statute, and requires statements conforming to sections 577.4(a) and 577.4(b) to comprise the opening and second statements of the notification. We consider the format you have used, that of sending the letter in the name of an attorney for the company, to be inconsistent with this requirement. The first three sentences of the sample letter should thus be stricken. Moreover, section 577.4(b) (1) requires the vehicles or equipment which contain the defect to be identified in the second statement. Trailers are vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and not "equipment." We will accept as sufficient identification the year, model number if any, and the words "utility trailer" in meeting section 577.1(b) (1). The reference to equipment is inappropriate in that it implies that the defect is in the lighting (which is equipment) rather than in the vehicle.

Your letter also fails to evaluate the risk to traffic safety as required by section 577.4(d). In most cases, the potential result of a failure to install required lighting is vehicle crash, and the notification should thus conform to section 577.4(d) (1).

We consider the second and third sentences of your second paragraph and the second sentence of your next to last paragraph ("This notification is intended . . .") to be disclaimers and prohibited by section 577.6. Each should be stricken.

The sample notification letter must be revised as set forth above to conform to Part 577. In addition, the defect report (49 CFR Part 573) is required to be submitted within 5 days of the determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, and not within 5 days of the mailing of notification letters. Your report should thus be submitted forthwith.

We will hold your check until you have submitted a notification letter and defect report in accordance with our requirements. At that time we will deposit the check and inform you that the case is closed.

ID: nht74-4.40

DATE: 01/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated November 29, 1973, requesting our comments on your enclosed second-draft customer notification letter, on your second-draft press release, and on your proposed dealer notification letter.

Thank you for your prompt response to our previous suggestions. Your present draft conforms to most of the requirements set forth in our Defect Notification regulation (49 CFR Part 577). However, several further changes appear necessary.

First, the second sentence of the fifth paragraph states incorrectly that failure may occur only in rear impact collisions causing loads in excess of eight or nine hundred pounds. Actually, failure is more likely to occur in frontal impacts than in side or rear impacts. Failure may occur whenever the load on the belts exceeds about eight hundred pounds. Such loading can result from impacts from any angle. Frontal impacts are more likely to produce such loads because the principal restraint provided by the belts is against the relative forward motion of the child which the vehicle deceleration of a frontal impact produces. In the case of a rear impact, belt loading results from "rebound." Consequently, belt loading at a given rear impact speed will be considerably lower. Side impacts, of course, produce both direct and indirect loading.

Second, paragraph two of your draft does not quite comply with 49 CFR sections 577.4(b), 577.5, and 577.6. The first sentence of your second paragraph must read: "The Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co. has determined that the car seat adapter portion of Stroll-O-Chair Model 71s manufactured before (date) does not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213." Because the wording of the statement is specified precisely, we must insist that it be followed as closely as the particular facts of each case allow.

The second sentence of the paragraph appears to follow section 577.4(b) (2). However, such a determination must have some basis other than your initial compliance testing, which we understand to be the only basis for your persent statement. In our view, a section 577.4(b)(2) statement would be appropriate only if you had a firm basis for believing that some adapters are materially different from others. Passing results from your own compliance testing are not enough. Otherwise every defect notification letter would contain a section 577.4(b)(2) statement except where the manufacturer violated section 108(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, prohibiting false or misleading certification. Such cases are rare indeed compared to routine compliance test failures such as yours.

Third, the second (last) sentence of paragraph six of your draft may be misleading. We suggest adding the phrase "manufactured after (date)" after "all model # 71 car seats" to make it apparent that everyone receiving a defect notification letter has the older rivet system.

Fourth, although the injuries which could occur in the event of adapter failure are many, and are readily apparent, section 577.4(d)(2) requires a general statement of the types of possible injury. One sentence which mentioned impact injuries from contact with the dashboard and other parts of the vehicle interior and which also noted the likelihood of ejection from the vehicle would suffice if placed at the end of paragraph five of your draft.

Fifth, you should probably include a reminder or suggestion that the customer have his small child use adult safety belts during the time he does not have the adapter. Even small children who should ride in approved car seats are better off belted than unbelted. Such a warning could be included in your final paragraph. We consider it a precautionary statement under section 577.4(c)(4).

Finally, section 577.4(e)(1) requires an estimate of the time reasonably necessary to perform the labor to correct each noncompliance. Because you propose to have each adapter sent to your factory, either directly or through a dealer, it might also be helpful to estimate the total length of time the customer is likely to be without the seat adapter.

We have but two minor suggestions for the press release. First, your initial sentence should specify that the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is 213. Second, you should include the date on which you made your production method change. This is especially important because the designation "model # 71" encompasses both complying and noncomplying seats. Our consumer information staff is now drafting our own complementary press release. We will contact you about a joint issuance date.

We have no objection to your distributor notification letter.

ID: nht74-4.41

DATE: 01/11/74

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

TO: Corner Sterling & Machell Avenues

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1973 to "U.S. Bureau of Safety" expressing your view that "the automobile industry should . . . have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the (power) window meets any resistance."

I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window Systems which has applied to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with power windows manufactured since February 1, 1971. The objective of the standard is to minimize the likelihood of injury or death occurring when a person is caught between a closing window and its frame, channel, or seat. The NHTSA determined that the most cost-effective way to accomplish this objective was by prohibiting operation of power windows when the ignition key is either in the ignition "off" position or removed. As you will see from the enclosure, consideration was given to mechanisms that would reverse the direction of the window.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ENC.

December 11, 1973

Dr. Irvin Jacobs, M.D.

The circumstance and comment in your letter of November 21, 1973, regarding automatic window closing operation is noted. The matter is deemed to be in the jurisdiction of the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Therefore, we are forwarding your letter with a copy of this acknowledgement to DOT for their attention and an appropriate reply.

JOHN J. KLOCKO Chief, Materials Handling Technology Center

cc: FMSMUSS-118 U.S. Dept. of Transportation

November 21, 1973

U. S. Bureau of Safety Washington D. C.

Gentlemen:

Recently one of our young patients was brought in after having his head caught in the window of a car door after the automatic window closing operation had been started. Fortunately, this was not a serious accident; however, it could have been.

It seems the automobile industry should be prevailed upon to have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the window meets any resistance.

Sincerely,

IRVIN JACOBS, M.D.

ID: nht74-4.42

DATE: 01/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1973, asking whether motor vehicle new or used car dealers are prohibited from selling vehicles mounted on regrooved or recapped tires. You indicated in a phone conversation with Michael Peskoe of this office that your concern is with motor vehicles generally, and not passenger cars alone.

New passenger cars are required to be sold with tires meeting the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109; 571.110). New vehicles other than passenger cars are not presently required by NHTSA regulations to be sold with particular tires, but requirements in this regard have been proposed (36 F.R. 14273; August 3, 1971).

This agency has no requirements regarding the sale of used motor vehicles equipped with recapped or retreaded tires. However, buses subject to Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations are prohibited from operating with recapped, retreaded, or regrooved tires on their front wheels (49 CFR @ 393.75(d)).

Trucks and truck tractors subject to Motor Carrier Safety requirements may not be operated with regrooved tires on the front wheels which have a load carrying capacity equal to or greater than that of 8.25-20 8 ply-rating tires (49 CFR 393.75(e)). For more information regarding the applicability of these requirements you should contact, Regulations Division Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C. 20590.

P2

The sale of regrooved tires is subject to regulations issued by this agency (49 CFR Part 569). The recent opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals (NAMBO v. Brinegar, D.C. Cir., Case No. 71-1268; July 26, 1973) appears to allow the sale of regrooved tires under these regulations in certain circumstances. We believe the opinion is unclear in this regard, and as a result we have determined to seek additional judicial review to further clarify the matter.

ID: nht74-4.43

DATE: 01/15/74

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

TO: Farrar & Farrar

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1973, regarding rules and regulations pertaining to tire ply bonding and adhesion strength, and to tire ratings as related to number of plies.

There are no Federal regulations that contain specific requirements for ply bending and adhesion strength, per se, in tires. However, a measure of tire structural strength is provided by the plunger energy test included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, copy enclosed. The high speed and endurance tests also form a part of the tire evaluation process. Poor bonding and adhesion of plies could cause premature separation and failure in these tests.

There is no categorization in the Federal standard that relates tire mating to number of plies, except that labeling of tire sidewalls is required to express values for load rating, maximum inflation, and number of plies. The enclosed booklet entitled "Consumer Tire Guide" shows in its tables of tire load limits how ply ratings have been related to load ratings in tire industry practice. Recent trend in the industry has been to phase out the ply rating system and to substitute in its place the "load range" system denoted by markings with letters.

With regard to test methods and procedures used in tire analysis, we recommend your examination of the following standards of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and the American National Standards Institute (AMSI).

ASTM 885-72 "Tire Cords, Tire Cord Fabrics and Industrial Filament Yarns made from Man-made Organic Base Fibers" 1973 Edition or ANSI-L 14.231-1973 (2nd Edition) approved August 10, 1973.

ASTM D 2969-71T "Tire Cords, Tire Cord Fabrics, Filaments, and Strands made from Wire"

ASTM D 2970-71T "Tire Cords, Tire Cord Fabrics, and Industrial Yarns made from Class"

ENCLS.

ID: nht74-4.44

DATE: 01/17/74

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

TO: Gillig Brothers

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

The Defect Information Report involves: 1600 coaches manufactured during a period dating from January 1, 1972, through December 13, 1973, with Ross HPS71 and HF64 power steering gear boxes. Possibility that the lower steering shaft bearing has failed due to a lack of lubricating and/or the failure to maintain proper alignment with the gear box.

The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) identification number has been assigned to the campaign 73.0247. 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 first purchasers does not meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577, "Defect Notification." Specificantly, it does not evaluate the risk to traffic safety in the manner set forth in section $ 77.4(d). (If vehicle crash is the potential result of steering (Illegible Word) as appears likely, your letter should reflect the requirements of 577.4(d)(1).) The letter also fails to conform to

2 section 577.4(e)(3), requiring a statement of the measures to be taken to repair the defect when the manufacturer does not bear the cost of repair. Specifically, it is not clear from the drawing you enclose which parts may have to be replaced. For each part section 577.4 (e)(3)(i) required the name, part number, and suggested list price to be included. You are also required to specify the day after which parts will be generally available (section 577.4(e)(3)(iii). If parts are presently available, the letter should so state.

For your information, your December 1973 quarterly report which you sent to this office does not meet the requirements of Part 573 (49 CFR). This regulation requires the submission of quarterly reports not more than 25 working days after the close of each calendar quarter, that is, the end of March, June, September, and December. Also, each report shall contain the total number of manufacturer's vehicles by make, model, and model year produced or imported during the quater whether or not they are involved in a recall campaign. Therefore, the NHTSA requests that in the future quarterly reports be composed in accordance with Part 573.

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 Maxx Eliott of this office at (202) 426-2840.

ENC. PART 577 -- DEFECT NOTIFICATION

ID: nht74-4.45

DATE: 01/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Rogue Racing

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dr. Gregory asked me to respond to your January 3, 1974, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposal to modify the definition of Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle would affect importation of The Thing.

The proposed modification would reclassify vehicles like The Thing as passenger vehicles, but it would not prohibit their importation. Volkswagen would have to incorporate several additional safety features in The Thing to meet the higher standards for passenger cars.

We have not made a final decision on the proposed redefinition. Volkswagen as the manufacturer of The Thing might be able to give you a better evaluation of The Thing's future than we have at present.

Sincerely,

January 3, 1974

Dr. James B. Gregory

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A recent article in the January issue of Four Wheeler magazine states that NHTSA plans to modify the definition of multi-purpose vehicles to exclude the Volkswagen 181 (The Thing). As a manufacturer and wholesaler of accessories for the Thing, we are very concerned how the change in definition will effect the importation of the Thing and/or the safety specification which must be met before the Thing may be sold in this country. We would appreciate any information which is now available, and any future information concerning specification required for the Thing. Thank you.

Joshua E. Bruner

ID: nht74-4.46

DATE: 01/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Lewis S. Hollins, Esq., Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dr. Gregory has asked me to respond to your client's request for approval of the "Hollins system" interlock device. In an earlier version, the system was the basis of a petition for an alternative to Standard 208's seatbelt interlock system. That petition was denied by the NHTSA (38 FR 9830, April 20, 1973, and 38 FR 16072, June 20, 1973) as was a petition for reconsideration of our decision (38 FR 33110, November 30, 1973).

Standard 208 establishes performance requirements, but the NHTSA does not approve or disapprove specific equipment designs. Any design can be used to satisfy Standard 208 which fulfills the performance requirements. We have considered Mr. Hollins' proposal and, as set our in the Federal Register, have determined that his requested changes to the performance requirements are not justified. We feel that our consideration of Mr. Hollins' petition has been full and complete, and that further petitions on this subject will be repetitious within the meaning of 49 CFR @ 553.35(c).

SINCERELY,

December 26, 1973

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

Re: Docket No. 69-7 OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION Notice 30

Based upon the substance of the text of Notice 30, my client Jesse R. Hollins, entirely without prejudice and as evidence of his desire to be cooperative, has indicated his willingness to alter his system so that:

(a) The Hollins warning system will not function when the engine is operating and the transmission is in "Park" for vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, or in "Neutral" for vehicles equipped with manual transmissions (S7.3).

(b) The Hollins system will be augmented so as to provide for the interlock feature for the outboard (right) front passenger's seat (S7.4).

I am accordingly so authorized to submit the above to you as an amendment and request prompt acknowledgment and approval of the Hollins system.

This request is submitted within the prescribed 30 days from the date of publication of Docket No. 69-7; Notice 30 in the Federal Register (Vol. 38 No. 230) Friday, November 30, 1973.

Ten copies are enclosed herewith.

Sincerely

LEWIS S. HOLLINS