ID: nht73-2.9

DATE: 09/10/73

FROM: Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cannon's Cycle Center Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Robert Aubuchon of this agency has asked us to respond to our recent inquiry whether the Solex motor bicycle is a "motor vehicle" under our regulations, and, if so, how we would categorize it. You are also interested in knowing how our views affect South Carolina's proposed redefinition of bicycle.

Since the Solex is manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, it is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, specifically a "motorcycle". As such, it must meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "motorcycles", and be so certified by its manufacturer. The only such standard currently in effect is No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, but standards on controls (No. 122) and braking (No. 123) will become effective January 1, 1974 and September 1, 1974 respectively.

While the proposed South Carolina redefinition of "bicycle" appears to encompass the Solex, the State by so doing could neither relieve the manufacturer from the obligation of complying with Federal motorcycle safety standards, nor impose requirements different from Standards Nos. 108, 122, and 123 as to those aspects of performance covered by the Federal standards.

I hope this answers your questions.

ID: nht73-3.1

DATE: 12/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Adolph Kunasicwicz

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your request for information concerning the existence of penalties for removal of the required certification label from a motor vehicle has been forwarded to us by the Federal Trade Commission.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that a certification label, which under NHTSA regulations includes the name of the manufacturer and the date of manufacture, be permanently affixed to the motor vehicle. Although removal of this lable does not carry a criminal penalty of either fine or imprisonment, a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 is specified in certain situations.

ID: nht73-3.10

DATE: 01/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1972, concerning the definition of "head impact area" in 49 CFR 571.3(b).

Your question is whether the lower portion of the dashboard depicted in your letter is within the head impact area. Without knowing the interior dimensions of the vehicle, we cannot give you a definite answer. We can, however, describe the circumstances under which the lower part of the dash might be within the head impact area.

Under paragraphs (a) through (c) of the definition, the test device is pivoted forward about specified centers until it contacts the vehicle. These contact points, which together comprise the head impact area, are divided into two groups, those above the lower line of the windshield glass (paragraph (b)), and those below (paragraph (c)). Although the measurement of the head impact area is a continuous process, the separation of the contact points into two groups was accomplished by paragraphs that are not parallel in structure. This has caused some confusion.

The intent of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition might have been expressed in a single paragraph, reading as follows:

With the pivot point to "top-of-head" dimension at each value allowed by the device and the interior dimensions of the vehicle, pivot the measuring device from a vertical position forward and downward through

all arcs in vertical planes to 90 degrees each side of the vertical longitudinal plane through the seating reference point, until the head form contacts an interior surface or until it is tangent to a horizontal plane 1 inch above the seating reference point, whichever occurs first.

In our opinion it would be appropriate for you to employ this procedure to determine whether any part of the lower dash pad in your drawing falls within the head impact area. The goal of your evaluation would be to determine whether it is possible for the test device to be pivoted downward so that it contacts the lower pad without first contacting the upper pad. If at a particular point the device contacts the upper pad, and if the device is at its minimum length of 29 inches and its pivot point is on the seating reference point, then the area of the lower pad directly beneath that contact point would not be contactable and would not be a part of the head impact area. If, however, there is a point at which the head form in its downward arc would miss the upper pad and contact the lower pad, the lower pad would at that point be within the head impact area. It is quite possible that some points on the lower pad would be within the head impact area, while others would not.

ID: nht73-3.11

DATE: 01/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Eastman Chemical Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1972, requesting an opinion as to whether certain identification marks and certification statements Eastman Chemical plans to use in marketing Uvex plastic sheet will conform to Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", as amended November 11, 1972 (37 F.R. 24035), and to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which requires the certification of motor vehicles and equipment as conforming to applicable standards. You submit two sample markings: one for use by Eastman when it sells that material to further manufacturers, whom you refer to as "fabricators", and one for use by persons other than Eastman. Similarly, you submit two certification statements, one for use by Eastman, and the other for use by its customers.

Based upon our previous dealings with Eastman regarding this product, it does not seem to us that a person other than Eastman Chemical can be considered the "fabricator" of Uvex sheet. The term "fabricate", which is used along with "laminate and temper" to distinguish prime glazing material manufacturers from other manufacturers, is used in the standard in its ordinary dictionary meaning, which we consider to be "manufactures" or "creates". Accordingly, we have assumed Eastman to be the prime manufacturer of the material in answering the questions you raise.

The markings which you indicate will be used by Eastman will conform to the requirements of paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 205 (assuming the letters and numbers conform to the size requirements of Section 6 of ANS Z26). If the material is to be used as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper Eastman would be required, after April 1, 1973, to conform to paragraph S6.2 as well, by including in the mark Eastman's assigned DOT code number.

The label stamp you will supply to your customers will conform to the requirements of S6.4.

With respect to the statements you plan to use for certification purposes, we believe them to be unnecessarily ambiguous, and therefore to be of doubtful legal effect in meeting the certification requirement. It is the responsibility of Eastman to certify the conformity of the product to the standard. The basis for that certification is the manufacturer's entire process from design to final production. Tests which show that the material conforms are only one factor in the situation, and reference to them in the certification statement is inappropriate. We feel similarly with respect to your statement that you certify the material as meeting "high manufacturing standards". We recommend you certify with the statement, "This material conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." In cases where the material will be altered by other manufacturers, they can, where possible, allow this label to remain in place, or affix a new label with the same statement.

ID: nht73-3.12

DATE: 01/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 10, 1973, in which you asked whether State "user laws" that prohibit the sale or operation of a motor vehicle without seat belts would be preempted by Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to the extent that the standard allows vehicles to be manufactured with other types of restraint.

The position of this agency is that section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), requires State laws or rules that have the effect of regulating vehicle design or equipment to be identical to any Federal motor vehicle safety standards governing the same aspects of performance, whether the State rules are phrased as regulating manufacture, sale, or operation.

ID: nht73-3.13

DATE: 01/22/73

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

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 3, 1973, to Mr. Schneider concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is whether the standard requires items of lighting equipment to be marked according to SAE Standard J759a. The answer is no. A manufacturer, at his option, may mark equipment items with the symbol DOT as a certification of compliance with Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 neither prohibits nor requires other marking of equipment. The NHTSA proposed in 1972 that equipment be marked in a manner somewhat similar to J759a but no definitive action has been taken on the proposal.

You also asked whether a clearance lamp could be mounted at 45 degrees to serve the functions of both a clearance and side marker lamp, and whether it must bear the SAE designation "PC" indicating its combination function. Your understanding is correct, that a combination lamp mounted at 45 degrees is permissible if it is successfully tested at that mounting angle for conformance to both clearance and side marker requirements. The designation "PC" is not a current requirement of Standard No. 108 but has been proposed as the required marking symbol in the rulemaking action referred to earlier.

ID: nht73-3.14

DATE: 01/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter dated October 2, 1972, you were advised by Andrew Detrick, Director, Office of Defects Investigation, that the defect reports required by 49 CFR Part 573 are required to be filed with this agency when a safety related defect has been determined in a class of vehicles regardless of whether or not these vehicles were sold to the general public. In his letter, Mr. Detrick had directed his inquiry as to why no defect report had been filed with respect as to why no defect report had been filed with respect to certain 1973 model year Chrysler Corporation vehicles which appeared to have a safety problem in their hall joint assemblies. In your letter of response dated October 23, 1972, you advised that although Chrysler had undertaken to repair some 11,998 vehicles upon which the ball joint assembly in question had been installed through a notice to dealers dated August 17, 1972, the corporation had made a determination that no defect report was required to be filed under 49 CFR 573 because all of these vehicles were either in the hands of the manufacturer or the dealer and had not passed to the first purchaser. This is contrary to the position taken by this agency. Subsequently, on November 3, 1972, you advised us that some 2,960 vehicles had not been repaired an undetermined number of which had passed into the hands of purchasers. With respect to these 2,560 vehicles you filed an untimely defect report on November 3 and issued a notification to the purchasers. No defect report, however, has been received regarding the remainder of the vehicles in this class.

This is to advise you that we do not agree with your legal interpretation to the effect that defect reports are only required if the vehicles have passed into the hands of the purchasers. In our view, the reports are required to be furnished to this agency within five days of the determination of the existence of a safety related defect with respect

to all vehicles subject to the defect that have been delivered to the distributor or dealer in addition to those which have been sold to the general public. Accordingly, Chrysler Corporation has failed and refused to file a timely defect report for the remainder of the vehicles in the defined class. You are hereby directed to file such report within five days of receipt of this letter.

In addition to the foregoing, we have been advised informally by Mr. Kittle of your staff that in the future Chrysler Corporation will file timely defect reports irrespective of whether or not the vehicles have passed into the hands of the purchasers. Please advise us in writing within ten days of the date of receipt of this letter of whether or not Chrysler Corporation intends to comply with the defect reports regulation by filing timely defect reports with respect to all vehicles subject to a safety related defect that have been delivered to a distributor or dealer in addition to those which have been sold to the general public.

We have fully considered the legal arguments, contentions and facts presented in mitigation of any legal(Illegible Word) this agency might seek, including injunctive sanctions or civil penalties, for Chrysler's not having filed a timely defect report regarding those of the 11,998 vehicles in question which had been delivered to the distributor or dealer and have rejected Chrysler's position. Accordingly, before we accept any offer in compromise regarding the amount of civil penalties to be imposed for the violation or violations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, we will await your response regarding the matters hereinabove mentioned.

ID: nht73-3.15

DATE: 01/22/73

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

TO: Independent Tyre Sales and Service Pty. Limited

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 4, 1972, regarding the importation of radial ply retreaded tires into the United States.

In order to import retreaded tires into the United States, they must comply with the Applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded(Illegible Word) Tires," (copy enclosed) was to become effective January 1, 1973.(Illegible Line) S5.1.1(d) and S5.1.1(e) of the standard will be deleted. A notice specifying the effective dates for the remaining provisions of the standard will be published in the(Illegible Words), and all retreaded tires manufactured after those dates must conform to the standard in order to be eligible for importation.

Regulation Part 574 entitled "Tire Identification and Recordkeeping" applies to all tires manufactured after May 22, 1971, including retreads, for use on motor vehicles. A copy is enclosed. Please note that identification markings must be applied to tires by the manufacturer or retreader(Illegible Words)(Illegible Line) Complete instructions for obtaining a code and for its use are described in the(Illegible Word). A sample application form showing the information needed for assignment of a manufacturer's code number is also enclosed.

It should be noted that Regulation Part 574 requires that the name and address of the tire purchaser be maintained by the manufacturer, or his designee, for a period of three years. The manufacturer is

also to provide distributors and dealers the means for recording the required information.

In addition to the above, there is a requirement that an agent be designated in accordance with section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and as set forth in the Procedural Rules, Subpart D - Service of Process: Agents, copy enclosed. The designation of agent should be mailed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, at this address.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht73-3.16

DATE: 01/24/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: The Cooper Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1973, which requests an advisory opinion as to whether, under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to use a serial tin which would mold onto the tire mold surface four numbers indicating the day of the week, the numerical week and the last digit of the year. The tin would be placed immediately after the third grouping of the tire identification number which is used as a descriptive code to identify significant characteristics of the tire and to identify the brand name owner if the tire is manufactured for a brand name owner.

The regulation was written with the possibility in mind that some manufacturers might want to identify their production by day as well as by week and year. Therefore, the regulation provided that the third grouping, which is optional, could contain as many as four spaces so that one of the spaces could identify the day of the week.

The method you propose using appears to include the day of the week in the fourth grouping of the tire identification, not the third grouping as was contemplated. However, the practicability of your suggestion is recognized and while the regulation speaks in terms of groupings, as you point out there are no overall dimensional limits and no specified spacing requirements between the third and fourth groupings. Therefore, there would be no prohibition

against your using an insertable serial tin system which would make up the last four symbols of the tire identification number and which would identify the day of the week, the week of the year and the year.

ID: nht73-3.17

DATE: 01/29/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 2, 1973, concerning Truck-Camper loading consumer information requirements.

You have asked whether you have correctly indicated the "rear end of truck bed" in a drawing of the short body pick-up truck that you attached. The answer is yes. As Mr. Vinson of our staff indicated to Mr. Nishibori when he telephoned on January 9, 1973, "rear end of truck bed" does not refer to a particular point with the tailgate in either a raised or lowered position. It means, in the words of the preamble of the reissued standard (37 F.R. 26605) "the point where the identified surface of the camper abuts the rearmost edge surface of the cargo area of the truck, presumably the tailgate in most configurations."

You also ask if you must meet the requirements of @ 575.6 on or after March 1, 1973. As a manufacturer of a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, you must pursuant to 575.6(a) furnish consumer information with each truck manufactured on or after March 1, 1973, at the time the vehicle is offered for sale. Material for examination by prospective purchasers, pursuant to 575.6(b) should be made available at dealer showrooms no later than the date that trucks manufactured on or after March 1, 1973, are first offered for sale by such dealers. The NHTSA has been petitioned to delay the effective date by 60 days and this request is under consideration.