ID: nht68-1.33

DATE: 10/23/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: National Association of Independent Insurers A.J.J. Enterprises Inc. NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht68-1.34

DATE: 06/01/68 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lester D. Johnson; NHTSA

TO: Elford A. Cederberg; House of Representatives

COPYEE: DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1968, concerning the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to a Morgan 4/4 convertible automobile imported by Mr. Edvis Fine of Mount Pleasant, Michigan.

Based on the information contained in your letter, it appears that the vehicle in question has not been manufactured in conformity with the safety standards prescribed by the Department of Transportation. Therefore, the vehicle is not permitted entry into the United States unless entry is made under bond and Highway Safety Form 7 (copy enclosed) is completed by the importer. This requirement is provided for in section 12.80(b), Customs Regulations, a copy of which is also enclosed for your convenience.

If your constituent wants to take delivery of the vehicle so that it can be brought into conformity, the foregoing requirements must first be complied with. To avoid certain storage charges, it will be to Mr. Fine's advantage to make entry for consumption or export the vehicle as soon as possible. Normally, storage charges begin to necrue on the sixth day, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, after date of arrival of the importing carrier in the port.

The Bureau of Customs cannot advise your constituent what modifications or additions are necessary to bring the vehicle into conformity. This information can be obtained from the Department of Transportation and a copy of your letter has been forwarded to that office for direct reply.

Sincerely yours,

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

May 28, 1968

Lester D. Johnson Commissioner Bureau of Customs

Dear Mr. Johnson:

On January 12, 1968, my constituent, Mr. Lewis Fine of Mount Pleasant, Michigan, placed an order with Metro Motors of Windsor, Ontario, for a British-made Morgan 4/4 convertible automobile. The car was shipped from England on or about April 19, 1968, and the order, a copy of which is enclosed, was plainly marked "for export to the USA." Mr. Fine is having difficulty getting his car into the United States, having been told that he would have to sign your Form No. NS7 stating that he would bring the car up to Government standards within ninety days and the Canadian dealer would have to post bond guaranteeing compliance. It is my understanding that the car is already equipped with the following equipment:

1. 1600 CC Ford Cortina Engine

2. Electric windshield washers and wipers

3. Front and rear bumpers

4. 3 Point seat belts

5. Hydraulic and mechanical brakes

6. 72 spoke wire wheels and hubs (not the knock on type)

7. Two rear view fonder mirrors

8. Four two-way flasher and back-up lights

I shall appreciate it if you will review this file and advise me what further stops are necessary in order for Mr. Fine to get this car into the United States.

Sincerely yours,

Elford A. Cederberg

Enclosure

ID: nht68-1.35

DATE: 01/23/68

FROM: Howard A. Haffron; signature by Dowell H. Anders

TO: Thomas S. Foley; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 8 to Congressional Liaison, Department of Transportation, in which you enclosed a letter of December 20 from your constituent James B. Mitchell of Spokane. Mr. Mitchell protests regulations then proposed and new adopted, promulgated jointly by the Department of Transportation and the Department of Treasury, which cover importation of motor vehicles subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

These regulations, in essence, implement section 108 of the Act and state that motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (such as passenger cars including sports cars, but not including competition racing cars) cannot be imported into the United States unless they conform to all applicable standards prior to entry or are brought into conformity after entry. Consequently, any Ferrari manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, and intended primarily for use on the public roads will be admitted to the United States if it conforms to all applicable standards or, in the alternative, if it can be brought into conformity within 90 days after entry or such other period as the district director of customs of the port of entry may allow for good cause shown.

ID: nht68-1.36

DATE: 02/07/68

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

TO: Contemporary Classics Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Customs Bureau has forwarded to the Department of Transportation your recent letter commenting on the joint regulations proposed on November 30 and governing the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. These regulations have now been issued in final form with changes made pursuant to comments received.

These regulations permit the entry of a racing car designed for use on a competition circuit. They do not prohibit the entry of antique, vintage, classic, and all other motor vehicles provided they were manufactured prior to January 1, 1968. The regulations follow the Act in denying entry to a motor vehicle designed primarily for use on the public roads which does not conform to, or cannot be brought into conformity with, applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I enclose for your information a copy of the Act and call your attention to section 108(b)(3) and (b)(4), under which the regulations were issued. I also enclose a copy of the regulations which became effective on January 10.

S. 2029, passed by the Senate in November and pending in the House, is a bill which, if enacted, will provide a procedure under which manufacturers of 500 or less motor vehicles per year may apply for relief from compliance upon a showing that conformance would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship, and that no undue hazard to the public would result. The Department supports the objectives of this legislation.

ID: nht68-1.37

DATE: 01/11/68

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

TO: United States Auto Club

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Secretary Boyd has asked that we reply to your letter of November 27, 1967. Your letter raises questions concerning joint regulations to be issued by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Transportation governing the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment subject to motor vehicle safety standards.

You are correct in your understanding that the Act was not intended to apply to vehicles prepared for auto racing or race tracks and not intended for use on the public streets or highways.

The question you raised concerning the use of the words "by bona fide auto vehicle manufacturers" has also been raised by others who have commented on the proposed regulations. Accordingly, you will note that the regulations, a copy of which is attached, have been changed so as to eliminate this phraseology and make it clearer that vehicles intended for "competition" and which "will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads" may be admitted. This provision will not require an affidavit on the part of the importer but merely a declaration to this effect.

We believe that the regulations, as amended, will provide for the unhampered entry of foreign built race cars for the Indianapolis 500 race and other USAC sanctioned events.

ID: nht68-1.38

DATE: 04/30/68

FROM: DAVID A. FAY -- NHTSA OFFICE OF STANDARDS ON ACCIDENT AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PERFORMANCE SERVICE

TO: J.E. MARTENS -- CHIEF AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEER AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Martens:

Thank you for your letter of February 28, 1968, addressed to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, "Reflecting Surfaces."

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107 specifies reflectivity requirements for only the inside windshield molding itself -- not for the screws or fasteners used to attach the molding.

Sincerely,

ID: nht68-1.39

DATE: 02/20/68

FROM: H. S. BEAGLE -- ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

TO: EDWIN L. SLAGLE -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: J. R. SCHAEFFER -- ETL; A. R. CHICK -- ETL

TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 205 -GLAZING MATERIALS

REF.1: ELECTRICALLY HEATED SAFETY GLASS FOR DEFOGGING

REF.2: TEST PROCEDURE PER USA STANDARD 226.1-1966

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2/21/68 FROM EDWIN L. SLAGLE OF D.O.T. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU TO H. S. BEAGLE OF ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES INC.

TEXT: The above subject reference No. 2 provides, in part, that safety glazing material be tested for regular (parallel) luminous transmittance (method unspecified), which value shall be not less than 70 per cent both before and after irradiation (ultraviolet are exposure). The word "parallel" means that the light beam used in making this measurement should be essentially collimated. This condition may be obtained by using a light source sufficiently distant from the test specimen that the rays are essentially parallel.

Our photometric laboratory has been performing this test satisfactorily for many years, using the apparatus shown in the attached photographs numbered 1 through 4, as follows:

Photo #1 - A general view, no glass in place, showing diaphragm plate and source of collimated beam above. Light source, positioned 48 inches above photo cell and shielded, is an incandescent monoplane tungsten-filament lamp calibrated for operation at the specified color temperature of 2854 degrees Kelvin.

#2 - Close up of diaphragm plate with 1-1/4-inch opening, positioned 3/4 inch above the color corrected photovoltaic cell. Cell is visible through diaphragm opening.

#3 - Set-up with glass specimen in place. Glass specimen shown has electrically conductive lines on one surface.

#4 - Close up of glass specimen on diaphragm plate.

In performing this measurement the test specimen is moved laterally across the diaphragm (aperture) to find and record the minimum transmittance value.

2

It is our belief that this test method is as suitable for evaluating the luminous transmittance of electrically heated safety glass as it is for the same glass not so treated. As a matter of fact, it has been so employed in the past with respect to imported glass of the electrically heated type.

However, to avoid possible future problems concerning the acceptability of our test method, we are submitting this matter for your consideration at this time. The urgency of it is related to the long loud time with respect to production of electrically heated safety glass to provide for defogging of rear windows in motor vehicles.

We therefore respectfully ask for your written approval of the test method, as herein described, as being acceptable for purposes of evaluating the luminous transmittance of electrically heated safety glass for compliance in this regard, with the requirements of MVSS No. 205.

The earliest possible response to this request would be most sincerely appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure: photographs

ID: nht68-1.4

DATE: 01/25/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In our telephone conversation of January 8, 1968, and your letter of January 9, 1968, you requested:

". . . . an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on one sidewall, except the basic label. (Basic label Information - DOT-153) It is also our feeling that the labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards."

This letter confirms my statement in our telephone conversation that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 may be met if the information required in S4.3 of this standard is molded on one or both sidewalls of the tire in lieu of a label until August 1, 1968, after which this information is required on each sidewall.

Sincerely,

THE ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY

January 9, 1968

Roger H. Compton, Director Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Dear Mr. Compton:

Re: Replies to 1) Our December 5, 1967, Letter Addressed to Mr. L. K. Bridwell

2) Confirmation of Telephone Call (December 15, 1967) Placing Labeling on One Side of Tire by Stencils Molded into the Tire in Lieu of labels

My letter of December 5, 1967, last paragraph, stated as follows:

"We request an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on one sidewall, except the basic label. (Basic Label Information - DOT-153) It is also our feeling that labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards."

On December 15, 1967, our Mr. John A. Diehl called Mr. Schwentker and received a verbal reply by telephone from you that The Armstrong Rubber, Company could proceed without labels if the required information of S4.3 MVSS Standard 109 was molded on one sidewall of the tire in lieu of labels.

We appreciate your position and understand that your staff is not complete. However, we would like to receive a reply in writing or by means of a notice in the Federal Register that the course which you approved and which we are following can be used by all tire manufacturers.

Sincerely,

R. L. Donnelly Secretary

ID: nht68-1.40

DATE: 02/21/68

FROM: EDWIN L. SLAGLE -- DOT NHSB DIRECTOR MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PERFORMANCE SERVICE

TO: H. S. BEAGLE -- PRESIDENT ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2/20/68 FROM H. S. BEAGLE OF ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. TO EDWIN L. SLAGLE OF D.O.T. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU;

TEXT: Dear Mr. Beagle:

Thank you for your letter of February 20 in which you request clarification as to the proper test procedures to be employed in determining compliance of electrically heated automotive glazing with the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 - Glazing Materials.

Since neither Standard No. 205 nor the USASI Standard Z26.1 - 1966, which is referenced in Standard No. 205, specifies special procedures with regard to electrically heated glass, the same procedures required for non-electrically heated glass are appropriate.

Although at present rear window defrosting and defogging are not required, I would be most pleased to review with you your experience as to the effectiveness of this type of glass in meeting requirements such as have been established under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103.

Sincerely,

ID: nht68-1.41

DATE: 06/10/68

FROM: WILLIAM HADDON -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TO: HARRY F. BARR -- VICE PRESIDENT ENGINEERING STAFF GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTER GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Barr:

The interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 regarding cable type and bar type brake controls for driver training vehicles described in your letter of May 24 are quite correct. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 does not apply to the installation of add-on driver training brake controls following retail sale of a new car. In the case of installation of add-on driver training brake controls in new cars prior to retail sale, the following apply:

a. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 does not apply to the add-on brake control itself; however, the installation of such controls must not affect compliance of the regular hydraulic brake system to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105.

b. Following installation of a mechanical-type add-on brake control, the installing dealer is responsible for determining that compliance of the regular brake system is not impaired by verifying that the add-on control does not interfere with normal driver access to and application of the regular brake pedal.

Although endorsing your understanding of the requirement imposed by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, I am not endorsing these brake devices or passing on their safety from a crash standpoint.

I appreciate your interest in driver education and training and your efforts to further traffic safety through this program.

Sincerely,