ID: nht70-1.28

DATE: 02/11/70

FROM: CLUE. D. FERGUSON -- OFFICE OF VEHICLE STRUCTURES, MOTOR VEH. PROGRAMS, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY F.C. KOCH

TO: Mr. Eddie E. Barnes

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the number of safety belts in your 1969 Chevrolet nine-passenger station wagon.

The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires that seat belt assemblies be installed in each forward-facing designated seating position in passenger cars. The standard does not apply to side-facing or rear-facing seats. The manufacturer is not required to install safety belts for such seats: however, in the interest of safety, most manufacturers usually install lap belts for the seating positions most commonly used.

A Notice of Proposed Rule Making was issued on September 15, 1969, which would extend the applicability of Standard No. 208 to apply also to side-facing and rear-facing seats. The comments of those who responded to the Notice have been analysed and the final rule is now being developed.

I am enclosing a copy of our present Standard No. 208 and a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for your reference.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht70-1.29

DATE: 02/04/70

FROM: D.W. TOMS -- DIR., NHTSA

TO: Motorcycle Scooter & Allied Trades Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: MARKETING OF COMPETITION MOTORCYCLES

This is in response to your letter of November 19, 1969, in which you ask for an advisory opinion "as to the measures which an importer or distributor should take in order to assure compliance with regulations of the Federal Highway Administration in the marketing of motorcycles for competition use".

Specifically, you note:

"[The importation regulations appear] to require that the importer shall declare that motor vehicles imported for competition purposes will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads. Hence there is some uncertainty whether this declaration connotes an implicit responsibility which survives sale to a purchaser not for resale".

The declaration to which you refer, 19 CFR @ 12.80(b)(2)(vii), is the declaration that the vehicle is being imported for purposes of competition and that it will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads. If we discover that a vehicle covered by such a declaration has been sold or licensed for use on public roads, we would then have to determine whether the declaration was a false one. In making this determination we would look to those factors which show that, at the time he made the declaration, the importer knew or had reason to know that the vehicle would be put to on-road use. If, for example, prior dealings with the vehicle's purchaser had made the importer aware of the purchaser's intent to divert vehicles to markets for so-called "street legal" motorcycles, it is very likely that we would conclude that a declaration that the vehicle will not be sold or licensed for use on public roads was false at the time it was made. In these circumstances, our conclusion would not be altered by the fact that, at the time he sold the vehicle, the importer supplied the buyer with a document specifying that the vehicle was intended only for purposes of competition. In short, we would look behind the sales agreement to the realities of the transaction as the parties knew them.

Similarly, if relevant facts disclose that the importer seeks to evade his responsibilities by active promotion and sale to competition cycle purchasers of motor vehicle equipment which will make the competition machine "street local", and purchasers of competition machines are in fact buying such equipment for immediate conversion purposes, then a reasonable conclusion could be reached that a non-complying motor vehicle was being imported and offered for sale by the importer regardless of the declaration made at time of entry. In this sense there is "an implicit responsibility which survives sale to a purchaser not for resale".

You also raise the following point: "It is understood that motorcycle manufacturers and importers should not equip competition motorcycles with devices and accessories that would render them lawful for use and registration for use on public highways. It would be normal industry practice, however, to catalog accessory items and parts which could be applied to competition machines by the ultimate purchaser. Since many competition motorcycles have a 'sister' model manufactured for highway use, the sale of such items is necessary. Thus a question of the propriety of this practice is raised."

The mere cataloguing of parts equally applicable to both a competition motorcycle and a similar "sister" non-competition model does not appear to raise a question of propriety so long as other facts do not indicate that a significant number of purchases of these parts are made with the intention of conversion of competition motorcycles to street use.

Finally you note:

"Competition motorcycles are generally marketed through retail dealers in motor vehicles. Hence, the question arises as to whether this practice might continue without opposition by the Federal Highway Administrator."

You have also requested a ruling "that sale of competition motorcycles be permitted through franchised dealerships". You should clearly understand that the National Highway Safety Bureau his no desire to alter existing methods of motor vehicle marketing; it does not intend to "oppose" and it has no power to "permit" the sale of motor vehicles.

It does, however, have the power to classify a competition motorcycle as a "motor vehicle" if these vehicles are, in fact, being operated on the public roads to a significant extent, and if it believes that such a classification would reduce the toll of traffic injuries and deaths. But the mini-bike interpretation (34 F.R. 15416), referenced by you, states that marketing through retail dealers in motor vehicles is only one criterion which will be considered in any question of classification. Therefore importers and distributors of competition motorcycles which are sold through franchised dealerships are best advised in marketing these vehicles to follow the other criteria which the mini-bike interpretation sets forth.

ID: nht70-1.3

DATE: 09/17/70

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

TO: Univeral Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Office of Trade Regulation Rules of the Federal Trade Commission has forwarded your letter of July 30, 1970, concerning tires marked "Radial" that have casing cord angles that vary as much as 15 degrees from 90 degrees.

Paragraph 33 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 -- New Pneumatic Tires, Passenger Cars -- defines a radial ply tire as a "pneumatic tire in which the ply cords which extend to the bends are laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the trend".

The Bureau does not consider cords laid at 75 degrees to the centerline of the trend as "Radial" tires and tires marked as much would not be in compliance with the tire standard.

Persons importing tires that do not comply with the standard would be violating section 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1397).

For your information enclosed is a copy of the Passenger Car Tire Standard and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

ID: nht70-1.30

DATE: 01/06/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 29, 1969, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this Office, concerning an interpretation of paragraph S3.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The requirements and provisions of paragraph S3.3 are applicable to combinations of the required lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment as specified elsewhere in the standard. These requirements and provisions do not preclude the use of a non-required (ornamental) Class B reflex reflector in a combination rear lamp. I should also point out that effective January 1, 1970, the standard requires Class A rear reflex reflectors on all vehicles, including passenger cars. As you have proposed, such required Class A reflectors may be mounted separately from the combination rear lamp.

ID: nht70-1.31

DATE: 01/09/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Dr. N. Kinon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1969, concerning electrically heated windshields.

At present, we do not have a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which deals specifically with electrically heated windshields. This does not mean, however, that various states may not have restrictions covering this matter. Standard No. 205 stipulation both visibility and structural performance requirements for glazing surfaces used in automobiles as well as in other vehicles. If the product you manufacture meets the requirements of Standard No. 205, then it is acceptable under our existing regulations.

We assume from previous conversations with Mercedes Benz that this electrically heated windshield would be offered as an optional piece of equipment. We understood that it would be used as a supplement to the standard blower-type defrosting system. If this is actually the case, then the electrically heated windshield would not have to meet the performance requirements of Standard No. 108, but the blower-type unit would have to pass the defrosting test.

We recognize that the automotive industry has shown an increasing interest in using electrically heated glass to defrost windows. At present, several manufacturers offer electrically heated glass in the rear window (backlight) as an optional piece of equipment. Assuming that this product helps defrost glazing surfaces, we recognize that it has a safety potential that should be effectively utilized.

On the other hand, we also recognize that this product could interfere with visibility, depending upon the wire size pattern and location. This is an area which needs further study.

ID: nht70-1.32

DATE: 01/19/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Technical Research Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter, dated November 11, 1969, in which you seek an interpretation as to how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) 103 and 104 are applicable to cars equipped with right-hand drive or a central steering wheel.

For motor vehicles equipped with right-hand drive, the windshield areas to be defrosted and wiped by FMVSSs 103 and 104 respectively, are mirror images of those areas required for vehicles equipped with left-hand drive.

More information is required before a reply can be given on vehicles equipped with a central steering wheel. Defrosting and wiping areas requirements would naturally vary depending on the number and location of the front seat passenger seating positions in the vehicle equipped with a central steering wheel.

We trust that we have been of assistance to you.

ID: nht70-1.33

DATE: 01/19/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 16, 1969, concerning the relationship between performance requirements of Standard No. 108 and the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards in Standard No. 108.

Public Law 89-563 requires that the motor vehicle safety standards be stated in terms of what is to be accomplished rather than in terms of specific designs, and that they be objective, reasonable, practicable, and meet the need for motor vehicle safety. In addition, the law required that the initial safety standards be based on existing standards.

Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 was based on the existing SAE standards as specified in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108. In some instances, these specified SAE standards in turn subreference other SAE standards that are design oriented, particularly the subreferenced standards on bulbs, bulb sockets and sealed beam headlamp units.

As provided by an interpretation (copy enclosed) issued on August 12, 1968, entitled, "Bulbs and Bulb Sockets," bulbs conforming to Table I of subreferenced SAE J573 and bulb sockets conforming to subreferenced SAE J567 need not be used in lamp assemblies meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108. Therefore, as an example, tail lamps need meet only the requirements of SAE J585c (including color test in accordance with SAE J578a) when tested in accordance with the specified Sections of subreferenced SAE J575c.

The above interpretation does not apply to sealed beam headlamps. Paragraph S3.1.1 and Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 specify that headlamps shall be designed to conform to SAE J579a and J580a. These specified standards in turn subreference SAE J573b and J571b. The dimensional requirements of SAE J571b serve a need for safety in that replacement sealed beam units are readily available, and standardization of inspection equipment and procedures is possible.

In summary, the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards are applicable except as specifically provided by the enclosed interpretation.

With reference to the last paragraph in your letter, it is recognized that a manufacturer of motor vehicles may, as part of his contractual relationship with a supplier, require that the supplier certify conformance of the items provided by the supplier. Currently Public Law 89-563 does not require Ichikoh to certify conformance to Standard No. 108 of the lighting equipment it provides. However, an amendment to the standard has been proposed which would make the standard directly applicable to certain items of lighting equipment. This proposal would require Ichikoh to certify conformance, but only if Ichokoh were shipping such items directly to distributors and dealers in the United States. I enclose a copy of this proposal for your information.

ID: nht70-1.34

DATE: 01/21/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Z. Taylor Vinson; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of January 14 you discuss providing a right hand drive automobile to an "individual wish 'Diplomatic Status'". Since the car does not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards you ask if American Motors could "Sell such a vehicle for operation in the United States and could we deliver the vehicle and omit the safety plate."

Because section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits the sale of vehicles which do not comply(Illegible Line) delivery of this right hand drive automobile could not take place in the United States. If the sales contract is executed in England and the vehicle delivered in Canada, to name one possibility, there would be no objection to importation of the vehicle pursuant to the term of 10 C.F.R. @ 12.80(b)(2)(vi), assuming diplomatic eligibility of the importer. I enclose a copy of the importation regulation for your information. There is no requirement for affixation of the certification label under these circumstances. I am not aware of any law which would prohibit operation of a right hand drive vehicle in this country.

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.