ID: nht69-1.36

DATE: 05/20/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey; Bureau of Forestry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 13, 1969, in which you ask if there is any way you might legally use the Dodge Power Wagon Model M 300.

This Bureau does not control the end use of the vehicle after sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Public Law 89-563, Section 108, states in part, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in Interstate Commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard." A copy of Public Law 89-563 is enclosed.

In short the Chrysler Corporation, under this law cannot manufacture for sale after the date a standard takes effect, a vehicle for use under the circumstances in which you describe unless the vehicle conforms to the applicable standard.

The vehicle, to which you make reference, can be classified in two different categories as follows:

1. Multipurpose passenger vehicle, which means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off the road operation or:

2. Truck, which means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.

Although other standards are applicable to the above classifications, the collapsible type steering column is not. We are enclosing a copy of "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with Amendments and Interpretations thru August 6, 1968," in which you will find the applicable standards.

Regulations concerning control of anti-pollution emission devices are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation, but of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. By copy of this letter, Mr. William H. Megonnell, Acting Associate Commissioner for Abatement and Control, National Air Pollution Control Administration, DOT, 801 North Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22200, is being requested to forward such information as he deems appropriate.

We trust this reply will be of assistance to you.

ID: nht69-1.37

DATE: 08/19/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Norton Villiers Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPREATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 17, 1969, responding to our letter to you of July 8, 1969, which requested that Norton Villiers Ltd. designate an agent pursuant to Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1399(e)), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (49 CFR 351.45). A copy of the regulations was enclosed in our July 8 letter, and another copy is enclosed herein.

In your letter, you ask whether the requirement for designation of agent needs to be complied with by the importers of the products of Norton Villiers Ltd. as well as by Norton Villiers Ltd. itself. In addition, you ask whether it is mandatory for Norton Villiers Ltd. to designate only one agent or whether it would be appropriate for Norton Villiers Ltd. to designate two agents, one for West Coast and one for East Coast matters.

In response to your first question, there is no requirement under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 that a corporation located permanently within the United States designate an agent for service of process purposes. Such a company, however, may be designated by Norton Villiers Ltd. as its agent under the regulations. With respect to your second question, the regulations require Norton Villiers Ltd. to designate one agent. However, if Norton Villiers Ltd. wishes to designate two agents, there is no prohibition to its so doing. If two agents are designated however, each must be designated in conformity with the regulations and each must serve in the capacity of agent for Norton Villiers Ltd. throughout the entire United States, without division as to function according to geographical situation.

I hope you find the above information helpful.

ID: nht69-1.38

DATE: 03/24/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This refers to your letter of February 14 concerning the problems faced by some members of the boat trailer manufacturing industry in complying with the Administration's certification regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 367).

As I understand the problem, it is that manufacturers of boat trailers sometimes ship the trailers to their dealers as "knocked down" components, in the form of kits containing all the parts necessary to construct a boat trailer and instructions for the trailer's assembly. I also understand that the kits are not packaged, but are held together by steel bands or similar devices.

In the circumstances described above, it is my opinion that a manufacturer of boat trailers would not violate the certification regulations if he affixed the certification label required by section 367.4 of the regulations to a component of the trailer so that, when the trailer is assembled in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, the label will appear on the forward half of the left side of the trailer such that it is easily readable without moving any part of the trailer.

If a trailer is shipped in assembled form, of course, the certification label must be affixed to it in the location specified by section 367.4(d).

If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to ask me for it.

ID: nht69-1.39

DATE: 08/01/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Bedell Trailer Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1969, in which you enclosed a certification label you are now using and in essence ask why it will not be satisfactory after August 31, 1969.

Manufacturers were put on notice, by publication in the Federal Register, Volume 32, No. 215, dated November 4, 1967, that the National Highway Safety Bureau had under study an appropriate program which would lead to specific regulations applicable to certification. It was requested that manufacturers submit, among other things, a sample of the certification label or tag they were using.

As a result of that study, a proposal was promulgated and published in the Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 205, dated October 9, 1968. Interested parties were given the opportunity to express their views and after due consideration a rule was published on January 24, 1969, Federal Register, Volume 34, No. 16.

Shortly thereafter peitions for reconsideration of the Certification Regulation were received. The "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration," Federal Register, Volume 34, No. 81, states in part, "Objection was made to the specification of the language of the conformity statement." This specification has been determined to be necessary, however, in order to eliminate the burden of seeking approval of proposed labels, as many manufacturers found advisable under the previous rule, and to inform both regulated persons and the public of the requirement of the "Act".

It is regretted that the Certification Regulation, that becomes effective with vehicles manufactured after August 31, 1969, makes the labels in your inventory obsolete, however, we feel that manufacturers have had ample prior warning of a pending specific regulation.

ENCLOSURES F-6, F-34, F-54, F-59 and F-60

ID: nht69-1.4

DATE: 09/02/69

FROM: C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Garis, Trezza, Ithurburn and Keely

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 6, 1969, to the National Commission on Products Liability has been referred to the National Highway Safety Bureau for reply.

Vehicle skidding is a function of many parameters within the tire-pavement interface. The most adverse tire-pavement interactions occur when pavement is covered with water. Under certain wet pavement conditions, complete loss of traction or hydroplaning occurs. The two possible hydroplaning phenomena which may occur are viscous hydroplaning or dynamic hydroplaning. Both of these conditions of hydroplaning to a degree may be controlled by the proper selection of pavement texture and tread-depth of tires.

The detection of hydroplaning as the causation of accidents is most difficult to establish and although we have many accident studies in progress, I would seriously doubt that hydroplaning can be successfully isolated from the common form of skidding.

The tire manufacturers recognize hydroplaning and they do provide adequate water escape passages as well as tread depth to copy with this problem. However, the tire is only a subsystem within the tire-pavement system of hydroplaning.

For further information on this subject, I suggest that you contact the National Aeronautics and Space Administration who's research history on hydroplaning dates to 1958.

ID: nht69-1.40

DATE: 08/26/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David E. Wells; NHTSA

TO: Challenge-Cook Bros. Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 12, 1969, concerning the responsibility of manufacturers who assemble work bodies such as concrete mixers to chassis-cabs produced by another company. You stated:

"We understand that in the case of installing concrete mixers of our manufacture on a chassis vehicle, our certification will cover only those Safety Standards relating to our own equipment and its installation, plus modifications, if made by us to the chassis vehicle in the area where Safety Standards apply."

As a final-stage assemblier you are responsible for any standards applicable to the completed vehicle to which conformity has not been certified by the chassis-cab manufacturer, and for any standards conformity to which is affected by the addition of the body. The chassis-cab manufacturer is required to affix a label listing the standards the chassis-cab conforms to. If the list includes all relevant standards, and you have no specific knowledge that the chassis-cab may not conform (as, for example, where it has been damaged in transit), then your statement above is essentially correct.

The relevant rulings are contained in the Federal Register notices of January 3, 1968, together with the certification regulations published July 9, 1969. Copies are enclosed.

ID: nht69-1.41

DATE: 07/09/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Tank Truck Service

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters dated April 7 and June 3, 1969, in which you request clarification of the Certification Regulations that become effective with vehicles manufactured after August 31, 1969.

You are correct in your interpretation that the certification should be attached to the door post or the other locations in the cab of a vehicle that are specified in section 367.4(c). You should note, however, that the label is not a "body certification", as you describe it, but certifies that the entire vehicle conforms to applicable safety standards.

With regard to your suggestion that the label should be placed on the body rather than the chassis of the vehicle, since in the case of your vehicles the body is likely to last longer, it has been determined that uniformity of location is of primary importance for enforcement purposes. The life of various components varies, as you know, from one vehicle to another. These regulations do not cover the situations in which used components are recombined with new ones.

Thank you for your cooperation.

ID: nht69-1.42

DATE: 06/17/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Gruman Allied Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter dated April 9, 1969, addressed to Robert M. O'Mahoney, which has been referred to this Bureau.

The location you have selected on the windshield wiper motor bracket, as shown in your enclosed drawing number 69028, sheet 2, is approved as an alternative to the specified locations. We note, however, that you intend to use binding-head screws as your method of attachment. This method does not appear to fulfill the requirements of permanency and destruction on removal in section 367.4(b) of the Certification Regulations, 49 CFR Part 367.

As issued January 24, 1969 (34 F.R. 1148) the above section reads: "The label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without the use of tools and without destroying it." A proposal issued on April 29, 1969 (34 F.R. 7032) would amend the section to read: "The label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying it." The requirements of permanency and destruction on removal remain in both versions.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

ID: nht69-1.43

DATE: 06/02/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Parsons Mobile Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter dated March 18, 1969, in which you state, "[We] differ from all other motor-home manufcturers in that we use an existing chassis body combination, which has already been certified by General Motors Corporation. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, all certification and safety requirements are being cut or exceeded at this time."

Your letter and the materials that you enclosed with it indicate that you alter a completed vehicle in a way that affects components necessary for compliance with safety standards, and change the vehicle type from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle within the meaning or regulations issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 CFR @ 371.3). In as doing you the evidently acting as a manufacturer within the(Illegible word) of section 102(5) of the Act, and must comply with the Certification Regulations that apply to motor vehicle manufacturer (49 CFR Part 367. pp. 38-40 of the enclosed pamphlet). Copies of the Act and pertinent regulations are enclosed.

The information requested in our letter to you dated February 14, 1969, is still relevant. Could we please have your response to that inquiry as soon as possible.

We trust this reply will be of assistance to you in your desire to comply with existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations.

ID: nht69-1.44

DATE: 08/13/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Dowell H. Anders; NHTSA

TO: Great Dame Trailers Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1969, in which you asked whether the name of your company may be placed on the certification label affixed to vehicles manufactured by another company.

The question of "private brand" manufacturing was raised at various stages of rulemaking in respect to the certification regulations. It was decided that the certification label on a vehicle must show the name of the actual manufacturer. This information is important in the enforcement of standards and regulations under the Act. The Vehicle Safety Act, moreover, places primary responsibility for conformity to the standards, and for certification of conformity, on the manufacturer, and the regulations are designed to implement that intent. You should note, however, that as a distributor of the vehicles in question you share the responsibility for compliance with the standards to the extent of your knowledge, and participate in the certification by passing it along to dealers or other distributors.

We are pleased to be of assistance.