ID: nht73-2.36

DATE: 08/31/73

FROM: R. B. DYSON -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: New York State Police

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter on August 20, 1973, asking that law enforcement vehicles be excluded from a Federal prohibition against headlight flashers.

There is no such prohibition. While paragraph S4.6(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning in use, it also specifically states that "means may be provided to flash [automatically] headlamps . . . for signalling purposes." Therefore, manufacturers are not prohibited from equipping vehicles with headlamp flasher units upon customer request.

ID: nht73-2.37

DATE: 04/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Federal Trade Commission

COPYEE: SUBJ. N40-30; CHRON N40-30; CHRON N40-10; MR. VINSON

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1973, forwarding a complaint from Kenneth D. Peaslee. Mr. Peaslee ordered a 1973 Honda motorcycle, and was delivered one manufactured in December 1971. He asks if the dealer should make him a partial refund. The question is one that should be answered under Massachusetts laws and we are unable to advise him of his rights. There is no violation of any regulation administered by this agency.

I note that the Massachusetts investigator made the statement in his letter of March 15, 1973, which you enclosed that the Federal Government "stopped" a practice of model year misdating "among foreign auto importers." That statement is not really accurate. We require (49 CFR Part 567) that each motor vehicle be equipped with a label disclosing, among other things, the month and year of manufacture. The main purpose of this is to allow a determination of what Federal motor vehicle safety standards were applicable when the vehicle was manufactured. This dating may make it commercially more difficult for a manufacturer or dealer to represent the vehicle as being of a later model year, but such representations are not prohibited or otherwise regulated under our rules.

ID: nht73-2.38

DATE: 03/30/73

FROM: E.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: Bridgestone Tire Company of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of March 15, 1973, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, confirming the telephone conversation with Mr. John A. Dichl of this office.

You are correct that the 5-J alternative rim is not cited within Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 109 and 110 as an approved rim for use with the 195R14 tire size designation. Therefore, it is necessary for your organization to apply to this Administration for the addition of this alternative rim size to the standard. Persons requesting the addition of a new alternative rim size to the standard must conform to the Guidelines as set forth in Standard No. 110. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of these Guidelines. Your attention is directed to Items 4 and 5, wherein the actual laboratory test data is required indicating that the 5-J alternative rim size, in combination with the 195R14 tire size designation, complies with all the requirements of Standards No. 109 and 110. Within Standard No. 109, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization does not specify the year of the edition. You are correct to refer to the editions or practices issued prior to November 16, 1967.

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.

ENC.

ID: nht73-2.39

DATE: 03/26/73

FROM: E. T. DRIVER -- DIR., OFFICE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS, MVP; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: Monsanto Textiles Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1973, requesting assignment of a tire manufacturer's identification code number to Monsanto Company.

In a telephone conversation March 12, 1973, your Mr. E. Schary explained to our Mr. F. Koch that you are building experimental and development tires for test on vehicles that remain under your control. It is understood that the tires are not sold or leased to the general public. Under these conditions you are required to have a tire identification code number. These tires must, however, conform to Standard No. 109, and be certified as such by applying the DOT symbol to the sidewall. We understand you are acquainted with these requirements.

To bring you up to date with recent progress in development of new and amended regulations we are enclosing several of the latest(Illegible Word) pertaining to rule making. Please let us know if you have any other questions regarding the applicability of the tire identification code and whether we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht73-2.4

DATE: 01/24/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Chesapeake Marine Products

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 1972, requesting information as to how a distributor who assembles a boat trailer may certify the trailer under NHTSA requirements, when the weight ratings for the trailer when assembled differ from those anticipated by the fabricator, due to the distributor's use of components (tires and springs) of a greater weight-carrying capability than those envisioned by the fabricator.

The certification requirements applicable to the manufacture of boat trailers are found at section 567.4, "Requirements for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles". The fabricator may affix the required label to a trailer in certain cases (section 567.4(f) (ii); but in the case you describe, where the distributor assembles the vehicle in a manner not specifically anticipated by the fabricator, the assembler is the appropriate person, pursuant to @ 567.4(g)(1), to certify the vehicle and affix the certification label. The label should state the name of the assembler (the distributor) as the manufacturer and reflect the weight ratings of the vehicle as assembled.

ID: nht73-2.40

DATE: 02/23/73

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

TO: The Gates Rubber Company

COPYEE: BRAD MARKS; EDWARD B. FINCH -- FTC; MR. PESKOE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1973, inquiring what NHTSA would consider to be an appropriate generic name for Dupont's Fiber B.

The approval of generic names of cord materials is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission. We understand that agency has issued a temporary approval with regard to this material, and that a further petition is currently under review. For purposes of conformity to Standard No. 109 we will, of course, accept any generic name approved by the Federal Trade Commission.

If you desire further information regarding this matter, you may write to Mr. Edward B. Finch, Assistant Director for Textiles and Furs, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C. 20580.

ID: nht73-2.41

DATE: 02/22/73

FROM: E.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: N. H. Dachs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 30, 1973, relating to the safety standard for automobile accelerators.

On April 8, 1972, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. This standard established requirements for accelerator control systems, effective September 1, 1973. In addition to the standard, two amendments were issued; one in September 1972 and the other in January 1973. Copies of the standard, plus the amendments, are enclosed for your review and further information.

The NHTSA has not prepared or issued any reports relating to the safety standard; however, many comments were received in response to the proposed rule making action. These responses may be reviewed in the Docket Section, NHTSA, Room 5241, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

We trust that the above information will be useful to you. If we can be of any further service, please let us know.

ID: nht73-2.42

DATE: 02/09/73

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

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

COPYEE: PAUL UTANS; VINSON; LIMPERT; DRIVER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Paul Utans has asked us to provide you with an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a, Hydraulic Brake Systems, Mr. Utans asks for confirmation of his understanding

"that the indicator lamp shall remain activated ther without the application of any pedal force or with one application of a pedal force (with a range of 25 or 50 pounds, as the case may be) if a failure of the kind described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(c) exists in the service brake system."

This interpretation is only partially correct. Paragraph S5.3.3 states in pertinent part:

". . . each indicator lamp, once activated, shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition switch is in the 'on' position. An indicator lamp activated when the ignition switch is truned to the 'start' position shall be deactivated upon return of the switch to the 'on' . . . position . . . unless a failure of the kind described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(c) exists in the service brake system."

Paragraph S5.3.1(a) allows a brake pressure failure to be initially indicated either before or upon application of pedal force, but thereafter the light must remain activated while the ignition switch is in the "on" position. However, if the failure is present when the vehicle is first started, the indicator lamp must immediately be activated before any application of Pedal force, until the failure condition no longer exists.

This interpretation is subject to modification by response to petitions or reconsideration of Standard No. 105a, scheduled for publication around May 1, 1973.

ID: nht73-2.43

DATE: 12/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Peter J. Sferazza; Staff Council

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your request of November 28, 1973, I have enclosed a copy of Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, 49 CFR Part 580, which was issued under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, 15 U.S.C. @ 1988.

The transferor must disclose the mileage as it is recorded on the odometer, and in addition that he knows that reading to be inaccurate if such is the case. This means that a transferor would check the box indicating that the reading does not reflect the mileage, if he knew that the vehicle had traveled more than 100,000 miles. The buyer would then be on notice to ask why the reading was not accurate and to be told that the vehicle had more than 100,000 miles on it.

Enclosure

ID: nht73-2.44

DATE: 12/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Alexander F. Klein

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of December 3, 1973, indicates that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Region II office referred you to this office for an explanation of your rights under the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.

After January 18, 1973, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prohibited alteration, resetting, or disconnection of a vehicle odometer with the intent to defraud a purchaser. After March 1, 1973, regulations under the Act require each seller to make a signed, written disclosure of a vehicles recorded mileage to his purchaser. If he knows the odometer reading is inaccurate, he must also state that the actual mileage is unknown. This statement must be made before the vehicle is sold.

If these regulations were violated in your particular case, as Trooper Moran's investigation may indicate, a civil remedy is available to you under @ 409 of the Act for $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain your remedy, @ 409 provides that you may bring a private civil action in State or Federal court.

You may wish to consult an attorney about the possibility of bringing an action in your case. I am enclosing the relevant portion of the Act and the odometer regulation for your information.

ENCLS.

December 3, 1973

Ref: Martin Pincus D/B/A Four Ace Service 3718 Hempstead Tpke. Levittown, New York

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir;

I was informed by your Westchester office that you could be of assistance to me.

I purchased a 1968 Odsmobile from referenced dealer, june 4, 1973 for $ 1545.00 fifteen hundred fourty five dollars.

Due to the investigation of "Trooper J. Moran" of the State of New York motor vehicle department, it has been proven that the odometer was turned back prior to my purchase.

I would very much appreciate any assistance that you can give me in effect in reimbursement.

Respectfully,

Alexander F. Klein

November 30, 1973

State of New York County of Suffolk Town of Huntington

I, Alexander F Klein, was born on Sept. 7, 1924 in New York City, New York and presently reside at 43 Columbine Lane, Kings Park, New York. I am employed as an inspector for the Department of Defense.

On June 4, 1973 I purchased a used 1968 Brown Oldsmobile Toronado, 2-door, hard-top, Vehicle Identification Number 394878M611769 from Martin Pincus at Four Ace Service, 3718 Hempstead Tpke., Levittown, New York. At the time of purchase I requested a bill of sale and Mr. Pincus instructed a middle-aged woman in his office to write out the bill of sale. Mr. Pincus gave me a bill of sale recording the sale of the vehicle for $ 1,000 and signed by George M. Carbone. Mr. Pincus also gave me a "Used Motor Vehicle Warranty". When I purchased the vehicle the mileage registering device on the dashboard showed a mileage of 39,999 miles. On May 15, 1973 I left a $ 50 check deposit with Four Ace and on June 4, 1973 I gave Mr. Pincus a certified check for $ 1,450 for the remainder of the balance. An additional check for $ 45 for muffler repairs was also given to Mr. Pincus.

False statements made herein are punishable as a Class A(Illegible Word) pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal Law.

Sworn to before me this 30th day of November 1973.

John M. Moran Trooper

Signed:(Illegible Words)

Witness: John M. Moran