ID: nht70-1.35

DATE: 01/26/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: Request for Interpretations By Suzuki

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1969, requesting confirmation of your interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations, and further asking whether or not certain other areas of vehicle performance are presently regulated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.).

In your letter you state that your request results from the fact that Suzuki is considering the production of a multipurpose passenger vehicle for expert into the United States sometimes in 1970, and attach a sketch of this vehicle. The vehicle represented by the sketch, however, appears to be a truck, and not a multipurpose passenger vehicle. "Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in the regulations (49 CFR 371.3(b)) as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry(Illegible Word) persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." "Truck" is defined to mean (49 CFR 371.3(b)) "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or(Illegible Word) equipment." The distinction between a truck and multipurpose passenger vehicle, therefore, is whether the vehicle is designed primarily to carry persons or property. The sketch you enclose is of a vehicle designed to carry property, and for this reason I have answered your questions with reference only to trucks. Your questions are repeated below, with our replies following them:

Subject No. 1 - Glazing Requirements - Rear Windows

1. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top with no rear window if an outside mirror was installed on the right side of the vehicle."

You are correct in saying you may use a fabric soft top with no rear window. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 specific glazing materials for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, motorcycles, trucks and buses. It does not require a rear window or the use of glazing material therein. If a rear window is installed, however, the referenced United States of America Standards Institute "American Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," AGA Standard 325.1-1966, July 15, 1955, specifies the types of material which must be used.

There are no National Highway Safety Bureau requirements for mirrors on trucks.

2. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, with an open section in the back, utilizing no installation of glazing material, but just an open area which would permit viewing to the rear using the inside rear view mirror."

Your understanding is correct. As stated before, Standard No. 205 does not require the use of glazing material.

3. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, using a rear window such as found in the tops of convertible automobiles, in which the rear window's composition has utilized a ASA plastic material conforming to 325.1-1966 regulations.

"If this is correct we would appreciate being informed which plastic materials can be utilized."

That is incorrect. The criterion for "a rear window such as found in convertible automobiles" is inappropriate for trucks. The only plastics which may be used in trucks are S4 and S5, rigid plastics, and then only "where other means to afford visibility of the highway" are provided.

4. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, using a rear window such as found in the tops of convertible automobiles, in which the rear window's composition has utilized a ASA safety glass material conforming to 325.1-1966 regulations.

"If this is correct we would appreciate being informed which safety glass materials can be utilized."

As indicated in our comment to number 3 above, the criterion for rear window glazing used in convertible automobiles is inappropriate for trucks. ASA Standard 325.1-1966 allows the use of Items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11 glass in the rear window of trucks. Item 3 or 9 glass may only be used, however, "where other means to afford visibility of the highway" are provided.

Subject No. 2 - Gross Vehicle Weight

"It is our understanding that, at present, there is no requirement that a manufacturer attach a label to the vehicle stating the gross vehicle weight of . . . [trucks] in the weight category of 2,000 lbs. or less."

Your understanding is correct. The National Highway Safety Bureau does not presently have a requirement for gross vehicle weight labeling.

Subject No. 3 - Fuel Tank Requirements

"It is our understanding again that there is no present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard retaining to gas tanks on . . . [trucks]. I understand that there may be future standards implemented in the near future regarding this subject."

Your understanding is correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, "Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler(Illegible Word) and Fuel Tank Connection-Passenger Cars", applies to only passenger cars at this time. Docket No. 3-2 (F.R. 14232), currently under consideration, contemplates extending the requirements of Standard No. 301 to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and motorcycles.

Subject No. 4 - Vehicle Noise Level "It is our understanding that, at the present time, there is no special noise level requirements pertaining to . . . [trucks]. We would appreciate your comments as to any future standard presently under discussion regarding this subject."

Your understanding is correct. There are no Federal requirements or proposals at present concerning vehicle noise level, There are states and municipalities, however, that have requirements concerning this subject.

Subject No. 5 - Speedometer Error

"There are several questions we have regarding this subject.

1. Is there a stipulation regarding allowance of percentage of speedometer error.

2. Would it be considered the manufacturer's responsibility for speedometer error in case the user or person was to change the tire size."

There are presently no Federal requirements concerning speedometers. A substantial speedometer error resulting from a reasonable tire size change might be considered a safety related defect for which the manufacturer would be responsible.

Subject No. 6 - Special Label for Non-Conforming Vehicle Entry Into The United States

"I would like to confirm the following information regarding the placement of a special label to be placed on the inside of the vehicle's windshield so that it is readable from the outside of a vehicle being imported into the United States. This would be placed on a vehicle that does not have the This would be placed on a vehicle that does not have the required Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard items readily attached in their respective place on the vehicle.

"It is my understanding, for instance, that if the outside rear view mirror was not attached to the vehicle, but packaged in a box to prevent damage or pulferage while in transit to the United States, that in such a case a label would be required to be attached to the vehicle stating essentially the following message.

THIS VEHICLES DOES NOT CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD # 111 BECAUSE THE OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR HAS NOT BEEN ATTACHED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF SHIPMENT. THIS VEHICLE WILL BE BROUGHT INTO CONFORMITY BY ATTACHMENT OF THE OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR BEFORE IT IS OFFERED FOR SALE TO THE FIRST PURCHASER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESALE.

"If we have interpreted this requirement correctly would you please advise us of the full requirements for this label. It is also our understanding that at the time of importation of these vehicles the importer would be required to submit in duplicate the Federal Highway Administration Form Number HS-7."

Your interpretation of the above is correct. A label such as you have described, used in conjunction with the certification label required in 49 CFR 367, would meet the requirements. Your understanding regarding the HS-7 form is also correct.

We trust this will clarify the situation for you.

ID: nht70-1.36

DATE: 01/22/70

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

TO: Pacer Performance Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 31, 1969 requesting information about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and their applicability to wheels manufactured by Pacer. We have enclosed a copy of the April, 1969, edition of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, along with amendments relevant to your inquiry.

You have requested information as to how you can comply with Standards No. 109 and 110. These Standards, as you will notice, are applicable to new passenger car tires add to wheels and tires mounted on new passenger cars, so that if a wheel manufactured by Pacer is placed on a passenger car before the car is sold to the first purchaser, the wheel and the tire must conform to the requirements of Standards No. 109 and 110. To comply the tire and rim must meet the performance requirements of Standard 109, and the rim must be able to retain a deflated tire during a stop from 60 miles per hour, as required by paragraph S4.4.1(b) of Standard No. 110. There are no other requirements applicable to wheels and rims as such.

The National Highway Safety Bureau issues no certificate of compliance, although it maintains surveillance over product safely through its own testing program. The Gregon manufacturer to whom you refer may have requested the Bureau's opinion as to whether a particular wheel design would violate Standard No. 211, a standard applicable to wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps as items of motor vehicle equipment which prohibits certain tyres of hazardous projections on wheels. In response to such requests, the Bureau has occasionally issued interpretations of Standard No. 211, but these are in no way equivalent to a certificate of compliance.

I trust this information will be helpful to you. Should you have additional questions, please advise us and we will try to provide further clarification.

ID: nht70-1.37

DATE: 01/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 20, 1970, with which you enclosed copies of tables that you have developed for insertion into your consumer information booklets for prospective purchasers. These tables contain the required vehicle descriptions that were missing from your booklets, as I noted in my letter of December 11, 1969.

I am glad that you have decided to alter your existing booklets to conform as closely as possible, under the circumstances, to the regulations. With reference to your discussion of the advantages of various formats, I would simply say that at this time the matter is one of conformity to the regulations, and refer you to the advice in an earlier letter that the vehicle descriptions, in terms in which the vehicles are commonly described to the public, are required to be placed in proximity to the tables. The Bureau is willing to consider these and any other comments you might make as suggestions for further rulemaking to improve the required formats.

I assume that in subsequent printing runs of Chrysler booklets you will print each vehicle description in close proximity to the pertinent table, so as to bring the booklets into full conformity. The Bureau and its legal staff are prepared to assist you at any time if you have further questions.

ID: nht70-1.38

DATE: 01/29/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Eshelman Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1969, in which you responded to our inquiry concerning consumer information on vehicles sold by your company.

You stated that your Golden Eagle cars are "made from new model Chevrolets without any mechanical change," and that the "consumer information and the warranty book as supplied by General Motors are passed along to the consumer with the vehicle." You also stated that you place a label next to the CM certification label, quoting language similar to that specified in the Certification Regulations for the distributor who alter a vehicle, 49 CFR @ 367.6. We are enclosing a copy of the Certification Regulation; please note that the abovementioned distributor statement, if it is applicable, requires the month and year of alteration to be stated immediately after the name of the distributor.

The question whether the procedure you have outlined in respect to certification is acceptable depends on whether the alterations that you perform on the Chevrolets are sufficiently minor to place you in the category of "distributor" rather than "manufacturer". In order to make this determination, we need and would like to receive more detailed information on the work that you do on the vehicles.

The question whether the practice you describe, of passing on the General Motors consumer information, is acceptable depends on whether the information is actually correct for the vehicle as you alter then. The weight of the final vehicle, for example, is an important factor in the vehicle's performance in all three areas of acceleration, braking, and tire reserve load. We should mention that you are fully responsible, subject to the penalties specified in section 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for ensuring that the correctness of the consumer information that you provide with your vehicles is not adversely affected by the work that you do on them, whether you are ultimately placed in the category of manufacturer or distributor.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht70-1.39

DATE: 02/02/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Holan; Division of Ohio Brass Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 19, 1970, in which you asked whether section 371.13, Labeling of Chassis-Cabs, requires chassis-cab manufacturers to indicate the date of manufacture b month, day and year, or whether mouth and year alone is sufficient.

The wording of the section is "date of manufacture", without further elaboration. While in most contexts this phrase refers to a specific day, the present scheme of labeling and certification lands as to the conclusion that the month and year will be sufficient to satisfy the intent of the regulation.

The main regulator purpose of the requirement is to make it clear which standards are applicable to the chassis-cab and therefore to the complete vehicle under our rulings. A similar purpose is fulfilled by the date-of-signature require out in the Certification Regulations, 49 CFR Part 367, and there the requirement is simplicitly stated as month and year only. It is the practice of the National Highway Safety Bureau to make standards effective on the first day of month and therefore it is unnecesary to require manufacturers to incur the extra expense of a daily lable change.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht70-1.4

DATE: 08/03/70

FROM: JOSEPH R. O'GORMAN FOR FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA

TO: Evans, Gentither and Meermans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 USC 1381 et. seq., the National Highway Safety Bureau issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 (FMVSS-109). This standard set forth strength, bead unseating, endurance, high speed and labeling requirements for passenger car tires manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, for use on cars manufactured after 1948. This standard does not apply to other types of tires. A copy of FMVSS-109 is enclosed. A manufacturer self-certifies that the tire meets the minimum requirements of the standard by molding the symbol "DOT" into the tire. Subsequent identification of the tire as a "second" would not negate the certification.

The National Highway Safety Bureau is currently testing many brand/size tires to verify their conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The tests are conducted at independent laboratories under contract to the Government. Results of these tests are released to the public in a monthly summary.

The test results do not reflect the Bureau's position on the matter. Favorable test results should not be interpreted as necessarily establishing that a specific tire is in conformity with the standard; similarly, unfavorable test results should not be interpreted as establishing nonconformance.

Copies of individual test reports can be obtained, for a fee of $ 3.00 per publication, from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Should sufficient data be left remaining on the tire in question for proper identification, you may wish to avail yourself of this service.

There is an organization which could possibly furnish you with the name of an individual capable of analyzing the causes of tire failures. Their name and address is; American Council of Independent Laboratories, Incorporated, 1714 West Capitol Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007.

I trust this information will be useful to you, and I appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance.

ID: nht70-1.40

DATE: 02/04/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Norton Villiers Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1970, enclosing ten copies of the Consumer Information for motorcycles produced by Norton Villiers Corporation.

Your submittal has on its face eliminated the problems that were called to your attention in our letter of January 9. The form in which the information is presented deviates, however, from the form prescribed by the regulations, sections 575.101 and 106. The most significant deviation is the omission of the explanatory statements that are required for both types of information. The figures included with each section of the regulations should be followed closely in your presentation of the information to purchasers.

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

ID: nht70-1.41

DATE: 02/05/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: G. F. Pierce Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1970, to Mr. W. S. Scott, and to your recent inquiry to Mr. James Gilkey, concerning your safety belt system.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 specifies the number of belt enchorages that must be provided and the performance and location requirements of these anchorages in passenger cars. This standard does not apply to seat belt assemblies.

Seat belt assembly performance requirements are specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

I am enclosing copies of Standards Nos. 209 and 210 for your reference.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht70-1.42

DATE: 02/10/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Christopoher W. Norton

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway Administration has asked me to reply to your letter of February 3 regarding importation of a Lotus Super 7, either(Illegible Word) form or already(Illegible Word). Since you state that the car "does not conform to current safety . . . regulations", you may be best advise(Illegible Words) Importation of a lot of individual motor vehicle equipment items is permissible, but if brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, glazing materials, seat belt assemblies, or wheel covers are provided, each must get the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The vehicle as assembled from kit items must meet other Federal standards applicable to the vehicle itself. You, as(Illegible Words) in the United States, would be regarded as the manufacturer and responsible for compliance with these standards, and subject to the(Illegible Word) or a civil penalty upon any(Illegible Words). I enclose for your information a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1968 and a booklet which describes the Federal standards. The full text of the standards is available, upon a yearly subscription basis of(Illegible Word) from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

In the event that the car were assembled in England by a prvite garage, it would probably regard(Illegible Words) manufacturer of the vehicle. Lotus itself would not be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from compliance with Federal standards since it manufactures more than 500 vehicles per year. Further, under(Illegible Words) we would not consider an assembler a manufacturer eligible to apply for the exemption.

The article you have read in the(Illegible Words) is incorrect. Any vehicle manufactured on or after January 1,(Illegible Word), and imported into the United States by a private individual(Illegible Words) to applicable Federal standards at time of entry or be brought into conformance within 90 days after entry. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare is responsible for enforcing the air pollution regulations. It is my impression however, that these regulations do not apply to an individual importing a vehicle for his own use and not for resale,

(Illegible Words)

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht70-1.43

DATE: 02/25/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. C. Turner; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1969, requesting an exception from Paragraph S3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 ("Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses"), to allow the use of Lemen and Plexiglas in certain specified locations in twenty-one (21) fire fighting vehicles to be delivered to the city of New York.

You state the purpose of your request is to provide better protection for occupants of these fire fighting vehicles from objects thrown at them when, for example, the vehicles are enroute to a fire. Further, you state the use of these materials would eliminate replacing safety glass, which can be broken when hit by small objects. Because you are requesting a change in an existing standard your letter has been treated as a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR @@ 353.31, 353.33. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.

It is not completely clear from your letter and the enclosed drawing where the interior or canopy partitions in which you wish to use Lexen and Plexiglas are located. Standard No. 205 presently permits the use of rigid plastics in interior partitions of fire fighting vehicles if these materials meet the requirements for plastics designated AS4 and AS5 (the latter can only be used when not requisite for driving visibility) in American Standards Association Test Z26.1-1966, July 15, 1966. We understand that Plexiglas meets these requirements and may therefore be used in this location. We also understand, however, that Lexen does not, failing specifically to meet certain chemical and abrasion resistance requirements applicable to AS4 and AS5 rigid plastics under the Standard. If our understanding regarding Lexen is correct, we believe its failure to meet these minimum requirements renders its unsuitable for use in areas of motor vehicles where a possible loss of transparency may affect the safe operation of the vehicle.

With reference to glazing in side and door windows of fire fighting vehicles, Standard No. 205 allows the use of glazing specified AS1, AS2, and AS10 in ASA Test-226.1-1966 and also allows the use of AS11 and AS3 glazing at levels not requisite for driving visibility. This glazing may be either laminated, tempered, or bullet resistant safety glass meeting the applicable requirements. Plastics meeting AS4 and AS5 requirements, while appropriate for certain locations such as partitions, are not considered appropriate for use in side and door windows as they do not possess chemical and abrasion resistance qualities necessary for exterior glazing and which the types of safety glass specified above possess. The occupant protection which you desire can be provided by using AS10 (and AS11 where appropriate) bullet resistant glass which contains both structural advantages over normally used safety glazing and satisfactory chemical and abrasion resistance for use in side and door windows.