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.

ID: nht70-1.44

DATE: 03/10/70

FROM: D. W. TOMS -- DIR., NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY ROBERT BRENNER

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 13, 1970 to the Administrator, in which you requested an interpretation of Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, as applied to motor homes and chassis-mount campers. Specifically, you asked whether door components must conform to the requirements of the standard when the door is located across the width of the vehicle from a seating position.

The relevant language is in paragraph S4. of the standard:

"Side door components referred to herein shall conform to this standard if any portion of a 90-percentile two-dimensional manikin as described in SAE Practice J826, when positioned at any seating reference point, projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view."

This language clearly covers, and was intended to cover, the situation that you describe. The phrase "projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view" eliminates, in respect to the standard's application, any consideration of the lateral distance of the seating position from the door opening. The door components of vehicles you described in your letter must therefore conform to the standard.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht70-1.45

DATE: 03/17/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sofica

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret our delay in responding to your letter of December 2, 1969, which evidently became lost after it reached us.

In your letter you ask three questions. The questions, and our answers to them, are as follows:

1. If a European concern manufactures seat belts for installation in vehicles imported into the United States, is the vehicle manufacturer or the seat belt manufacturer responsible for compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 with respect to those seat belts? It is our view that both manufacturers are responsible for compliance with the standard. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale in the United States of a nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. A seat belt manufactured for installation on a motor vehicle to be sold in the United States is itself manufactured for sale in the United States. The manufacturer of the motor vehicle in which the nonconforming seat belt is installed would be in violation of section 108(a) because Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires certain motor vehicles to be equipped with seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard No. 209.

2. Is a foreign manufacturer of seat belts which will be imported into the United States required to test the belts at approved facilities in the United States to demonstrate that they conform to Standard No. 209? The answer is no. There is no requirement in the law or the standard that seat belts must be subjected to approved tests before they can be imported and sold. The manufacturer must certify that the belts conform to the standard. In order to do so, a manufacturer would ordinarily make tests of his products. This is particularly the case because compliance with some of the standard's requirements can be ascertained only by actual tests of seat belts. However, there is no requirement that any particular test be made at any specific test facility.

3. Must a European seat belt manufacturer designate an agent for service of administrative process under section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if he is merely supplying the belts for installation as original equipment in motor vehicles to be imported into the United States. It is our view that a foreign manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment who knows or has reason to know that his products will be imported into the United States, whether as original equipment on motor vehicles or otherwise, is obligated under section 110(e) to designate an agent for service of process in accordance with that section. Section 110(e) is not limited in its scope to manufacturers who actually import their products; it also applies to manufacturers who are "offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States". The quoted language seems broad enough to cover suppliers of motor vehicle equipment who know or should know that the vehicles in which their products are installed will be imported for sale into the United States.

Again, let me express my apologies for the delay in responding to your inquiry. If you have any further questions about your obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, please do not hesitate to contact me.