ID: nht74-5.29

DATE: 03/14/74

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

TO: L and R Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 15, 1974, letter asking whether your installation of spotlights through the left A-pillar of passenger cars is subject to Standards 201 and 216.

Standard 201 does not apply to the instrument panel area on the driver's side from the left door to a longitudinal plane 3-1/4 inches to the right of the steering wheel. The left A pillar is within this excluded area.

Your drilling operation may affect roof strength and I have enclosed a copy of Standard 216, our standard on roof crush resistance. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, it is the responsibility of the person who manufacturers or alters a vehicle to determine whether his vehicle meets the requirements.

Your business is subject to these requirements, however, only if you qualify as an alterer of motor vehicles under 49 CFR 567.7, which is enclosed. The mounting of a spotlight by drilling the A-pillar is a "non-readily attachable" alteration. Such an alteration would be subject to the @ 567.7 requirement only if you mount it "before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale."

2 ENCLS.

CC: HONORABLE JOHN TOWER HONORABLE LLOYD BENTSEN

ID: nht74-5.3

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: CIMS COS.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1974, requesting information on the labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117. The agency has recently amended Standard No. 117 in accordance with the Court of Appeals decision in National Tire Dealers' and Retreaders' Association v. Brinegar. The standard as amended requires only that retreaded tires be permanently labeled with maximum load. All the other information required -- size, tubeless or tube-type, maximum inflation pressure, and radial and bias/belted designations -- may appear on affixed labels. The amendment does allow the use of one permanent label to apply all of the required information

JANUARY 15, 1974

Mr. L. R. Schneider, Chief Counsel NHTSA

Subject: - FMVSS # 117 & RECENT ACTION OF U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

We are aware of the recent United States Court of Appeals action concerning the permanent labeling requirements of Retread Std. 117, and assume that NHTSA will promptly issue a notice to help clarify the requirements.

It is our understanding that; -- Effective February 1st, 1974, each retread tire must have the following information permanently molded into or on one sidewall of the tire:

---Maximum Load Pressure*

---Actual Number of Plies*

* (Required information can be retained from the casing, or added in the retreading process if missing or buffed off.)

Further, -- that the following labeling information is required and must appear on the finished retreaded tire, either- or by use of a permanent or temporary type labeling method:-

-- The Tire SIZE

-- TUBELESS or TUBE-TYPE

-- RADIAL or BIAS/BELTED designation

-- MAXIMUM INFLATION PRESSURE

Our concern in this matter is a sincere interest to help eliminate confusion. We are a major supplier to the Industry of retread tire identification systems and have had considerable contact with Retreaders concerning the labeling requirements of #117.

Evaluating the recent action, we conclude that the Retreader can use one permanent labeling method to comply with both the required permanent and temporary labeling requirements. Many Retreaders have indicated to us their interest in using one permanent labeling method to eliminate the additional burden and cost of using both a permanent and temporary labeling method.

Assuming the use of a permanent labeling method is acceptable for both requirements, a clear statement of this in your notice would be of considerable help to all Retreaders and the Industry.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Paul J. Kruder, President

cc: Mr. M. Kushnick

ID: nht74-5.30

DATE: 04/03/74

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

TO: MAZDA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1974, which requests a review of your new accelerator system to determine compliance with Standard No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems."

The NHTSA does not provide a technical review of a manufacturer's product nor certify that a particular design meets the requirements of a standard. That is the manufacturer's responsibility. We will interpret or clarify the meaning of the standard in response to specific questions.

We understand your question to be whether two springs surrounding a spring guide and separated by a washer meet the stipulation in S5.1 of Standard No. 124 for ". . . at least two sources of energy . . ." This arrangement of springs would be considered "two sources of energy" within the meaning of the standard.

As you requested, the technical description has been held confidential as a "trade secret" and we are returning it to you herewith.

ENC.

ID: nht74-5.31

DATE: 04/12/74

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

TO: Harley-Davidson Motor Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your defect notification campaigns NHTSA No. 73-0094, concerning fork lower brackets, and NHTSA No. 73-0215, concerning frame reinforcement and tail lamp wiring.

It has been brought to our attention that some dealers have not been able to obtain all the parts required for campaign 73-0094, and to a lesser degree, campaign 73-0215. Although it appears that Harley Davidson is attempting to provide parts as rapidly as production permits, this parts shortage has the unfortunate effect of tending to discourage owners from having their vehicles corrected. It is reasonable to assume that some owners may have abandoned their attempts to get their vehicles corrected after having been repeatedly told for several months that parts are not available.

Part 577.4 (49 CFR) of the Defect Reports Regulation requires that whom the manufacturer offers to repair the defect through his dealers without charge to the purchaser, the notification letter shall include the manufacturer's estimate of the day by which his dealers will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect. The letters which you have sent(Illegible Words) first purchasers did not contain a firm date for parts availability as required by Part 577, although they did imply that the necessary parts were available when ordered by a dealer. Since, in actuality, parts were not always available, it becomes necessary to inform owners of the date by which the necessary parts will be available.

It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification letters for both campaigns and include in each letter your estimate of the day by which dealers will be supplied with the necessary parts, as required by Part 577. Copies of both letters must be sent to this office and a copy of the applicable letter shall be sent to each owner who has not yet had his vehicle corrected.

If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. J. Reinhart or James Murray at this office (202) 426-2840.

ID: nht74-5.32

DATE: 04/12/74

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

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 13, 1974, request for confirmation that the intake manifold connector and the brake booster check valve used in connecting the engine intake manifold and the vacuum power brake booster are not subject to Standard 106, Brake hoses.

A brake hose end fitting is defined in Standard 106 as "a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." As pictured in your schematic, the couplers are the clamps, and the intake manifold connection and brake booster check valve are engine components to which the brake hose has been attached by the clamp couplers. Therefore your interpretation is correct that neither component is subject to Standard 106.

SINCERELY,

March 13, 1977

Elwood T. Driver Director, Office of Operating Systems National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Docket 1-5; Notice 10 Amendment to MVSS 106 Brake Hoses

Chrysler Corporation requests confirmation of the informal interpretation provided to us by a member of your staff concerning the recently amended requirements of MVSS 106 (39 F.R. 7435) as they apply to the hook-up between the engine intake manifold and the vacuum power brake booster. To make this hook-up one end of a section of vacuum brake hose is slipped onto the intake manifold connector and the other end is slipped onto the brake booster check valve as shown in the attached schematic of this system. The hose is held secure at each end by a spring type hose clamp.

In accordance with that conversation it is our understanding that the vacuum hose used to connect the intake manifold to brake booster is a brake hose within the meaning of the standard. However, since this hose is secured by clamps, it is not a brake hose assembly under the standard and, therefore, the intake manifold connector and the brake booster check valve are not subject to the requirements of MVSS 106. This is in keeping with the amendment to the definition of brake hose assembly deleting the reference to "clamps."

In view of the short time period allowed for compliance with the new requirements, prompt confirmation of our interpretation is requested.

R. O. Sornson Manager Environmental and Safety Relations (Graphics omitted)

BRAKE BOOSTER CHECK VALVE

VAC BRAKE HOSE

VAC HOSE CLAMP

INTAKE MANIFOLD CONNECTOR

ENGINE MANIFOLD

ID: nht74-5.33

DATE: 04/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bruce J. Motyka

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 11, 1974, asking for suggestions regarding problems you have experienced with your pickup truck-camper unit.

It appears from your letter that no violations of Federal requirements have occurred. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 and its companion Consumer Information requirement (49 CFR @ 575.103) about which we wrote to you through Senator Percy's office did not become effective until January 1, 1973, well after the time you bought your vehicle. Moreover, it is not correct to characterize the dealer who sold you the unit as a "final-stage manufacturer." Under NHTSA requirements a pickup truck is a completed vehicle, and a person who installs a slide-in camper into the cargo area of a truck does not become a manufacturer. While this is not the case with chassis-mount campers, it is with respect to slide-in campers.

I suggest that if you wish to proceed further you consult an attorney, who would be able to best assess your chances of success in civil litigation. The dealer's employee who told you that the "GVW plate meant nothing" was mistaken. The weight ratings provided on the plate represent the manufacturer's representation of the maximum safe weight of a fully loaded vehicle.

You might wish to examine the labels attached, pursuant to Standard No. 126 and 49 CFR @ 575.103, to later models of both the pickup truck and camper you purchased. It is possible that those models and the ones you purchased are not substantially different. If that is the case the information on the labels can provide an indication of the extent that the weight ratings were exceeded by installation of the camper unit in question.

While I regret we cannot be of further assistance I wish you success in your efforts to solve this problem.

YOURS TRULY,

March 11, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration

Re: January 22, 1974 N40-30 (MPP)

Dear Mr. Schneider;

I would like to thank you for the information which you sent in response to my inquiry to Senator Charles H. Percy.

The information was quite informative, and answered many questions that I have had for some time. I was very happy to learn that the Federal Government has instituted various standards to protect the consumer from unscrupulous automobile and truck dealers.

There are still several points which are not clear to me, and in order for you to understand my problem I must start at the beginning.

During January 1972 I decided that the time had come to invest in a camper unit of some type. For a period of one month I shopped around quite diligently comparing various units and prices.

On January 26, 1972 I finally decided that a neighborhood Dodge Dealer had a camper unit that was ideal for my needs and was in the price range that I could afford.

For simplification, attached to this letter is a supplemental sheet giving truck and camper information.

After taking delivery of the unit on January 31, 1972 I noticed that the truck appeared to be under great strain from the weight of the camper.

One month later the engine was idling roughly, the transmission was not shifting properly, the engine was burning oil. I took the unit on a short weekend trip to a nearby lake and could hardly believe the lack of control I had on the highway due to high winds. On several occasions I honestly thought that at 50 M.P.H. the unit would tip right over and kill someone.

I returned to the selling dealer and asked if they improperly matched the camper to the truck. I was assured that everything was OK and that it would take a little getting used to.

As time went on the mechanical problems increased and the overall truck handling performance decreased.

During the first six month's of ownership, I made an estimated 70 trips to the dealership to correct various mechanical problems.

I also began reading various books on truck weights and truck capacities, since I was convinced that the mechanical problems were directly attributed to an overweight camper unit. It was determined at this time that the camper unit exceeded the G V W maximums for this truck. Armed with this information I paid a vist to Mr. Warren Johnson, General Manager of the Northwest Dodge Dealership. Mr. Johnson told me that the G V W plate meant nothing and that there was nothing at all wrong with the truck.

Since I did not believe Mr. Johnson, I then paid a vist to the Dodge Motor Car Division Zone Office located in Elk Grove Village, Illinois. The Dodge zone office people understood my problem but told me there was nothing that they could do. They explained that the Dodge Corporation sold a 1972 Dodge D100 Pick-Up to Northwest Dodge, their dealer. Northwest Dodge purchased a Rover Camper from Coachmen Industries. I was told that Northwest Dodge was the final stage manufacturers and that they would be responsible.

Still having severe mechanical problems with the unit, I went to another Dodge dealer and asked their service department to check the unit over and tell me what was wrong. This Dodge dealer told me and also put in writing that the unit was overweight. The D100 1/2 ton pick-up could not safely handle the weight of the camper.

I might interject at this point that I received a recall notice from Dodge during the early part of 1972, asking me to return the unit to the selling dealer to have the bolts tightened on the truck bed. This I did, but the selling dealer charged me $ 20.00 to fullfill the obligation of the recall notice.

Other problems which I have had with the unit which might be of interest to you:

1. Broken right front coil spring.

2. Transmission does not shift properly.

3. Engine overheats.

4. Chipped exhaust valve (1 cylinder).

5. Four leaking shock absorbers.

6. Uneven tire wear.

7. Engine burns oil.

8. Two tires developed "bubbles" on sides due to excess weight.

10. Cracked exhaust valve (another cylinder) and two bent pushrods.

11. Two rear leaf springs out of shape. The two rear leaf springs instead of retaining a "U" shape, point completely downward. This is completely opposite their normal shape.

12. Splits in the metal on the bed of the truck.

In addition to all of these problems so far I now have a new problem. I recently took the unit to a State of Illinois safety test lane. This is a requirement in the State of Illinois before license plates are issued. Well naturally the unit was declared unsafe.

It is quite obvious now that Northwest Dodge purchased a one half ton Dodge D100 Pick-Up from the Dodge people. They also purchased a Rover Slide On camper unit from Coachmen Industries and put the two units together, qualifying Northwest Dodge as a Final Stage Manufacturer. It seems that Northwest Dodge violated Federal standards. What can be done about it now?

Can the Department of Transportation force Northwest Dodge to correct what they did? Can you force the dealership to reimburse me for the hundreds of dollars that I have been required to pay? Shouldn't Northwest Dodge be forced to beef up the truck to Federal specifications? Would it be wise or profitable to institute a civil action against Northwest Dodge for fraud? How can a consumer be treated this way by a dealership? It seems that there is no concern for the consumers safety at all!

I hope that I have given you enough information to properly evaluate the situation. Any information, assistance, or help that you can provide will be sincerely appreciated. You people are the experts and I would be gratefull for any solutions that you can provide.

Sincerely,

Bruce J. Motyka

Enclosure

Bruce J. Motyka

General Information

Date of purchase: January 26, 1972

Date of delivery: January 31, 1972

Description of unit: 1972 Dodge-D100 1/2 ton Pick-Up 318-V8 Engine Power Disc Brakes Automatic Transmission Power Steering G78 X 15(Illegible Word) car tires Rover Slide on Camper Model #708-3M

Purchased from: Northwest Dodge, Incorporated 1439 S. Lee Street Des Plaines Illinois 60018

G V W Weight Plate attached to truck: Make Dodge Model D10 V.I.N. D14AE23503564 T.O.N. R0912043 G V W as M F G D 05200 MAX FRONT CAP 2800 MAX G V W 05200 MAX REAR CAP 2945

Equipment I D: 1972 Dodge D100 Wheel Base 131 Rear Springs 1350 Front Springs 1300

Camper Unit: 1972 Rover Slide on Camper Model #: SM708 Serial #: 708721251 Unloaded Shipping Weight: 990

Vehicle Weighed: Front 2,800 LBS Rear 3,985 LBS

Total 6,785

Truck camper weighed by licensed certified weigmaster.

Truck camper loaded with gas, water, food, camping supplies, clothes and two adult males.

ID: nht74-5.34

DATE: 04/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Ellis I. Kahn; Law Offices

COPYEE: MR. PESKOE; MR. FAY; MR. SHIFFLET

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: (Illegible Text)

ID: nht74-5.35

DATE: 04/16/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: ITT Semiconductors

COPYEE: R. HITCHCOCK; MR. HERLIHY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 25, 1974, question whether the belt warning system in 1974 or any future model year passenger car is required to activate if a passenger sits on a pre-buckeled belt in a passenger car whose engine is operating and the driver subsequently places the transmission gear selector in a forward position.

In 1974 and 1975 passenger car models, the (nonsequential) warning system would be required to activate in this situation only if the passenger weighed at least 47.3 pounds and the belt was not extended at least four inches from its stowed position, in a warning system based on belt extension.

It has been proposed that this requirement be extended one year through the 1976 models and that a new sequential belt warning system may be used at the front seating positions after September 1, 1976.

The requirements for the new proposed system are set out in the document you reference, Docket No. 74-14; Notice 1, a copy of which is enclosed. It would require that the seat belt be operated after the passenger has been seated.

ID: nht74-5.36

DATE: 04/16/74

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

TO: Domi Racer Distributors, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request to know if aircraft hydraulic hose is suitable for motor vehicle use under Standard 106, Brake hoses.

Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, presently applies to hydraulic brake hose for use in passenger cars, and therefore sale of aircraft hydraulic hose for use in motorcycles is presently legal. However, Standard 106 has been recently amended to require extensive performance testing and labeling of all motor vehicle brake hose manufactured after September 1, 1974. Sale of an aircraft hose manufactured after that date which has not been certified to conform to Standard 106 would violate @ 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. This means that the hose must be properly tested for conformity to the standard, and labeled according to the standard, before it can be sold as motor vehicle hose.

Domi Racer

DISTRIBUTORS, Inc.

MESSAGE

TO NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM. SUITE 214 EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1010 DIXIE HIGHWAY CHICAGO HEIGHTS, ILL 60411

DATE 3-19-74

GENTLEMEN; WE HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO YOUR OFFICE BY THE LOCAL BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY.

OUR PRINCIPAL POINT OF CONCERN AT THE MOMENT IS FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FOR HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES TO BE IMPRINTED WITH AN SAE SPECIFICATION. WE ARE PRESENTLY MARKETING A HYDRAULIC HOSE FOR MOTORCYCLE USE WHICH CARRIES A MILITARY AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATION H-8794, ALSO FAA APPROVED.

SPECIFICALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF AN FAA APPROVED HOSE WOULD NOT BE SUITABLE FOR USE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS AS IT IS A MUCH STRONGER PART THAN THE STANDARD ITEM IT REPLACES.

SINCERELY, J. K. WHITE

REPLY

ID: nht74-5.37

DATE: 04/26/74

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

TO: Conco Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to Mr. W. J. Reinhart, dated March 26. In this letter you requested that the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) reconsider the necessity of your revising the notification letters which were mailed by you in conjunction with your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 74-0038).

We have determined that your notification letter must be revised and that you must provide this office, and those owners who did not correct their vehicles, with a copy, sent certified mail, of the revised letter. It is not sufficient under Part 577 for you to state that a "safety hazard" exists "due to a decrease in visibility of the vehicle." This statement fails to conform to section 577.4(d) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577). That section provides that the risk to traffic safety presented by the defect be evaluated in terms of whether or not vehicle crash is the potential occurrence. We believe it obvious within the context of Part 577 that the potential result of the failure of any vehicle to conform to the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108 is vehicle crash. The factors you cite, that the vehicles have limited use, go only to whether it is likely they may be involved in crashes, not whether crash is the potential or possible result. In this regard, we note that your own description of the likelihood of crash does not preclude the possibility that crash can occur.