ID: nht71-5.43

DATE: 11/30/71

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

TO: Dr. J. G. Lundholm Jr.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1971, to Secretary Volpe, in reference to our occupant crash protection program.

I am enclosing a copy of the proposed amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Occupant Crash Protection, which would allow an ignition interlock system as an option to front seat passive systems from August 15, 1973, to August 15, 1975. I am also enclosing an explanatory press release.

In regard to your question number one, we require that the interlock system be acquentially linked to the seat switch, such that a person would have to fasten the belt, after being seated, each time he attempted to start the car.

With regard to your questions numbers two and three, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 gave us authority to set safety requirements for new motor vehicles. Under this authority, we cannot prevent an owner from tampering with or modifying his vehicle once purchased. Such authority would indeed require additional Congressional legislation. However, the Highway Safety Act of 1966 permits us to establish standard which serve as guides for individual state safety programs. It is possible for the states to(Illegible Words) such anti-tampering regulations. We will certainly be considering such actions once we determine the magnitude and effect of tampering in vehicles which have been produced to meet the Federal standards.

In regard to your question number four, I am not presently aware of any plans by insurance companies to require seat shoulder belt usage in order to be(Illegible Word) for collision coverage in case of an accident.

You are certainly correct in that the present shoulder belt designs often make it difficult to have a properly adjusted shoulder belt and still be able to have a reasonable degree of freedom of movement during normal vehicle operation. We are attacking this problem on two fronts. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination -- Passenger Cars, requires that most critical controls, such as the steering wheel, headlamp switch, etc., be within reach by a person restrained by a lap and shoulder belt system. The present version of this standard does not include the parking brake or its release mechanism. The second action, which we are taking, is to propose a requirement that shoulder belt systems in cars manufactured after August 15, 1973, shall be equipped with inertia reel retractors that allow freedom of movement except in a crash situation.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your intense interest in our motor vehicle safety programs. It is very helpful to our efforts to improve highway safety when concerned citizens, such as yourself, take the time to bring their comments and suggestions to our attention.

November 2, 1971

Honorable John A. Volpe Secretary, Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Automobile Safety/Air Bags

I have been waiting to write you until I had time to think a bit more about your recent decision to defer the requirement for installation of air bags in the front seat of cars from August 1973 to August 1975.

I have followed the development activities of the air bags and am aware of certain shortcomings such as their present inability to protect occupants from side collisions and "second collisions." It is my understanding that the noise problem (while very loud) was tolerable, especially preferable to death if the air bag saved the person's life. I also have no doubt that suitable sensors can be developed (if they are not already available) which do not trigger accidentally.

I must add that I feel DOT has been negligent in not pushing the development of the passive air bag system with greater effort so that your decision could not be partially based on the lack of development of the device. With over 50,000 human lives being lost each year, too much is at stake for such a situation to exist. As a former resident of Massachusetts, I remember (and I am sure you remember) the "Boston Strangler" which I believe accounted for some eight lost lives and caused considerable furor. The entire Boston community was alarmed. You seem to pay less attention to the loss of 50,000 lives by failing to provide a passive restraint system but instead provide what I believe is a seat/shoulder belt system that can easily be by-passed with some wiring jumpers.

Now for some constructive comments: I am aware that the new alternatives to the air bags are the seat/shoulder belts with a switch built in the seat so the car will not start unless the seat belt/shoulder strap is fastened. I believe that the seat/shoulder belt system is an excellent system (even better than air bags) if you can require that all persons use them at all times.

In order to understand better your new ruling, I would appreciate receiving answers to the following specific questions:

1. What means are being taken to prevent a person from merely by-passing (or shorting out) the seat switches which would simply negate your recent decision?

2. Are you now or do you plan to push for a federal law that prevents tampering (by-passing) the seat switch and which will make it mandatory that the front seat occupants wear these devices at all times while the car is in motion?

3. Does the federal government (DOT) have the perogative to issue an anti-tampering regulation, or does it require a federal law passed by Congress, or will it require each state to take separate action?

If this is a law or regulation that must be passed by each state, what measures are you encouraging the states to take in order to continue to receive certain federal highway funds?

4. Do you know of any plans by insurance companies to require occupants to wear seat/shoulder belts in order to be reimbursed for collision coverage in case of an accident?

Due to the very small acceptance by the public of seat/shoulder belts installed in cars since 1968, I believe that unless you take some very specific actions such as mentioned in items 1-4 above, the public will continue to refuse to employ the belt system and you likely will not make your agency goal of cutting automobile fatalities in half by 1980.

Now that you have taken the seat/shoulder belt route, I encourage you to see that the automobile manufacturers correct certain present obvious deficiencies in these systems which you should never have allowed to exist. The deficiencies are as follows:

In many cars (I regularly use rental cars) I cannot reach the emergency brake release after latching the shoulder belt, nor can I reach the open car door to close it. I quite often leave the car door open while I figure out the particular belt system and get it properly adjusted. I have a 1968 Delta 88 Oldsmobile in which neither of these deficiencies exist so it is certainly possible to design around this problem. I believe the inability to

reach the emergency brake release can be considered a safety hazard since one might find it necessary to perform a modulated stop if the dual braking system should suffer a catastrophic failure.

I would appreciate receiving detailed information on what specific actions you have taken to overcome the deficiencies listed above.

I also would appreciate receiving a copy of the latest regulations that spell out the requirements of the various seat/shoulder belt or passive restraint systems.

I will continue to support a strong and broad-based automobile/highway safety program. The tremendous loss of life, suffering, and monetary losses of car accidents are so large that anything short of a most serious effort on your part to correct this national problem would be totally unfair to all citizens.

Dr. J. G. Lundholm, Jr. 8106 Post Oak Road Rockville, Md. 20854

cc: The President The White House Washington, D.C.

The Honorable Charles Mathias United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable J. Glenn Beall, Jr. United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Gilbert Gude U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. Ralph Nader Washington, D.C.

Mr. Judson B. Branch Chairman of the Board Allstate Insurance Companies Allstate Plaza Northbrook, Ill. 60062

Mr. Douglas W. Toms Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Consumers Reports P. O. Box 1111 Mt. Vernon, N.Y. 10550

ID: nht71-5.44

DATE: 09/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 16 and September 1971, regarding the computation of the severity index under Standard No. 208. I apologize for our delay in replying.

Your question is whether the severity index for an acceleration time history with two(Illegible Word), one caused by initial impact and the other caused by rebound, is computed on the basis of both peaks. Our reply is that both peaks must be used, even though the accelerations may be in opposite directions and separated by a measurable interval. The severity index computation is based on the entire event from onset of acceleration until the end of motion.

SINCERELY

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

September 14, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Our letter to you dated June 16, 1971.

On June 16, 1971, I wrote a letter to you requesting clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

To date, I have not received your reply.

As we have developed a passive restraint system to meet Standard 208, your clarification is quite necessary for the evaluation of our own system.

I would very much appreciate your reply as soon as possible.

K. Nakajima Director/General Manager

attachment

June 16, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to request clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 -- Occupant Crash Protection.

Figure 1 (attached) is an example of head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in a front passenger seat which were recorded during a 30 mph barrier crash test for the evaluation purpose of passive restraint systems. These time histories indicate two acceleration peaks. The first peak occurs when the device in a passenger seat is restrained at the time of impact to the barrier by a passive restraint system which is installed in the front of the device. About 0.1 seconds after the first impact, the second peak follows when the device rebounds to strike the front seat back.

The Severity Index is calculated at 840 for the first impact to the front restraint system and calculated at 343 for the second impact to the front seat back. Therefore, the Severity Index of these two combined impacts is 1183.

Several questions on obtaining the Severity Index have arisen from the two impacts. We interpret these two

P2 impacts to be independent phenomena from each other because of the following reasons:

a. The impact areas on the vehicle's interior are different between the first and second impact.

b. The directions of the acceleration of the device are opposite, and the impact areas of the device are different. The first impact is to the front of the head, and the second impact is to the rear of the head.

c. A zero acceleration period is observed between the first impact and the second impact.

d. The time interval of these two peaks is about 0.1 seconds which seems to be enough time for the human brain to recover from the effect of the first impact.

Therefore, we believe that the evaluation of the Severity Index on the acceleration time histories should be done separately and should not be added together. In other words, the restraint system, the performance of which is shown in Figure 1, meets the requirement of Section 6.2. Is our interpretation correct?

Also, please advise us of the minimum time interval of these two impacts or the other bases of judgement which can be evaluated separately.

Your consideration is greatly appreciated.

K. Nakajima General Manager

Attachment

The first head impact to a passive restraint system. S.I. = 840

The second head impact to the front seat back.

S.I. = 343

Longitudinal accel.

Transverse accel.

Vertical accel.

Figure 1. Head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in the front passenger seat at 30 mph barrier impact.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht71-5.45

DATE: 09/16/71

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

TO: Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1971, concerning the recent amendment of Standard 108 concerning turn signal and hazard warning flashers (36 F.R. 17343, August 28, 1971).

You noted that test-condition temperatures are listed without tolerances, and asked what tolerance is acceptable for testing.

In the case of motor vehicle safety standards, the testing that a manufacturer may perform or have performed on its products is not an end in itself, but is done to enable the manufacturer to certify that the products meet the required performance levels under the specified conditions. Thus, the requirement that a product meet or exceed certain values at 75 degrees F. refers to a legal conclusion that is to be drawn from appropriate testing, and no tolerance is necessary or appropriate in the text of the standard. In practical terms, it is up to the manufacturer to determine what tests will enable him to certify his products as conforming. Normally, this is done by testing his products under slightly more adverse conditions than those specified in the standard. If, for example, higher temperatures constitute more adverse conditions for a flasher, the laboratory should test at a temperature slightly higher than that specified. In sum, the testing should be sufficient to support the conclusion that, if tested under the specified conditions, the product would perform as required.

RB

cc

ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

September 8, 1971

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Docket No. 71-12588

69-18, notice 5

We have reviewed the above mentioned notice to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 relative to automotive turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers. We find that in Section S4.6.1.3, subparagraphs (b)(ii) and (c)(ii) have been interchanged relative to current testing procedures. We also note that paragraph S4.6.1.3, subparagraph (c)(iv) 11 volts is shown as 11.00. The additional zero indicates accuracy beyond normal testing procedure.

We find that in all cases the ambient temperature is shown as 75 degrees F. without a tolerance. We would like to ask what tolerance is acceptable for testing.

W. Glenn Pracejus Manager Electrical/Electronic Division

ID: nht71-5.46

DATE: 08/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1971, concerning the applicability (@ 573.3) of the Defect Reports regulations (Docket No. 69-31: Notice 2) published February 17, 1971 (36 F.R. 3064). In your letter you ask,

"If a concrete truck mixer manufacturer is notified of a defect (on brakes, for example) and the concrete truck mixer manufacturer relays this information to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer indicates that he will file the necessary defect reports with [the] Administration and then does not, would . . . [the] concrete truck mixer manufacturer be deemed in violation of Part 573?"

The answer to this question is yes. Under the circumstances you describe, both the concrete truck mixer and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be in violation of the regulation. Neither manufacturer would be in compliance until one of them filed the report in question, which could be either the defect information report required pursuant to @ 573.4 or the quarterly report required pursuant to @ 573.5.

The NHTSA cannot become involved in disputes between complete and incomplete vehicle manufacturers as to which one of them will furnish the required reports, and the manufacturers concerned must bear the responsibility for deciding this question between themselves.

TRUCK MIXER MANUFACTURERS BUREAU

Mr. Laurence R. Schneider Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration

We have reviewed the final rule making on defect reports which appeared in the Federal Register on February 17, 1971, and I have a question relative to Section 573.3 -- "Applications".

Section 573.3 provides that "In the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, compliance by either the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle or one of the subsequent manufacturers of the vehicle with(Illegible Word) and 573.5, with respect to a particular defect, shall be considered compliance by both the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and the subsequent manufacturers."

If a concrete truck mixer manufacturer is notified of a defect (on brakes, for example) and the concrete truck mixer manufacturer relayes this information to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer indicates that he will file the necessary defect reports with your Administration and then does not, would, under such circumstances, a concrete truck mixer manufacturer be deemed in violation of Part 573?

Your prompt response to this question would be grately appreciated.

Stephen C. Royer Director of Governmental Relations National Ready Mixed Concrete Association

ID: nht71-5.47

DATE: 07/09/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Nance; Caston; Hefner and Green

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1971, concerning a marketing practice used by your client, Hale Trailer Salco, Inc., which consists of allowing purchasers of new trailers to specify that the trailer be delivered with either new or used tires. When used tires are chosen, you indicate that they are for the limited purpose of delivering the trailer to the purchaser, and are usually replaced by him with other tires. You further indicate that this practice is widespread in the particular industry.

You ask in your letter whether the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) apply to the trailers that are sold equipped with used tires. The answer to this question is no. However, as you apparently realize, trailers sold with new tires that have been manufactured on or after May 22, 1971, are subject to the regulation.

Your letter also discusses the possibility of future requirements for trailer tires, and suggests three possible courses of action under such requirements by which trailers might be sold with used tires. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, motorcycle, and trailer tires was published October 14, 1967, (32 F.R. 14279) and a public meeting was held on the subject in June 1970. Since that time there has been no public issuance concerning this matter, and it is thus impossible to

2 send you the proposed rule you requested. The matter is under active consideration within the agency, however, and the proposed requirements should be issued in the near future.

The proposals will solicit comments from interested persons, which will be considered before any final regulations are issued. Your comments and any additional suggestions you might have would be appreciated in response to these proposals.

If you have additional questions, please feel free to write.

NANCE, CASTON, HEFNER AND GREEN

May 20, 1971

George Shifflett U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau

Re: Hale Trailer Sales, Inc. 4-122 CIR-185.1

This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of May 19, 1971, with regard to our above client. I would appreciate opinions as I will hereafter numerate, and for purposes of these opinions the following facts are partinent: For a number of years, and purely as a convenience to our client's customers they have purchased in hugh lots, primarily from wrecking yards, used tires at $ 1.00 per tire. Since these tires are purchased from wrecking yards as merely a convenience item in huge lots we do not know the history of any of the tires concerning whether or not it has been retreaded, and if so, how recently and by whom, nor do we know when the tire was produced or whether the tire is a "second" in the production sense. Obviously, the products which we manufacture cannot be transported with convenience, from place to place, or delivered to customers without the use of tires. Many of the farmers and stockmen which we sell these tires to (approximately 40-50%) use these tires merely to deliver the vehicle from our stores, our dealer's store or our construction sights, and then discard them replacing on the vehicle tires which they have purchased at reduced rates either from tire manufacturers giving farmers discounts, or some cooperatives which purchase tires in bulk at reduced rates for members. Therefore, there is not real interest on the part that the vehicle even be equipped with tires, and in many instances they are not willing to pay for tires. However, this factor does not overcome the progmatic problem of transporting and delivering the vehicle. This problem is very characteristic of this particular industry, and at no time is a charge made for these tires. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, the invoices are marked "less tire" and with a notation of "no charge" on the sales invoices.

In addition, if Hale is required to put new tires on these vehicles, it will require on unnecessary increase in inventory of approximately $ 40,000.00 which is totally unnecessary for the sale of the vehicles and as stated above, are generally unwanted in 40-50% of the sales that are made. The other 50 - 60% of the sales that we make we are now furnishing tires and beginning May 22, 1971, will be complying with the record keeping

2 rules, even though, as you stated, there is no applicability to any tires manufactured prior to May 22, 1971. Presumably, we will continue to furnish these new tires and make appropriate charges for them, because in these instances the purchasers do not have the benefit of discount purchases, or they otherwise do desire to purchase tires with the vehicle and pay appropriate changes for them - we have no reason to suspect that we will not continue this in the future.

Based upon the above described facts, I would appreciate the following opinions:

1. Does the law as it becomes effective May 22, 1971, require us to keep records with regard to complying therewith with regard to these used tires?

2. You indicated that trailers are not covered by pertinent aspects of the present law, but that they would be covered in the future, and you indicated you would forward me a copy of the law which will become effective some time in the future. Based upon this extended application to which you referred, and in order that we may make preparations necessary to comply therewith, will it be possible for us to furnish any used tires under the facts stated above with the use of any one or more of the following whether singularly or in grouping:

a. Prepare a disclaimer certificate to deliver to the purchaser that the tires do not conform to the National Transportation Rules and are delivered merely as a convenience to the customer, and should not be used on any public road, street or highway; b. Some type of making on the tire to indicate that it is or may be a noncomplying tire.

c. The purchase by Hale of only tires manufactured after May 22, 1971, which are used tires, with the accompanying use of disclaimers described in either "a" or "b", and/or the use of any other method of your suggestion that would avoid this unnecessary increase in inventory.

As you know, I am totally unaware of what the new law will contain, since you have not had a chance to mail this to me. However, I thought that I would attempt to draft a request for opinion based upon our conversation in order to give you some additional time to consider and investigate this matter while I am reviewing this law as inacted, since the sizable outlay will have great implication on the economic structure of the corporation,

3 and will involve a great deal of planning and preparation, if a change is in fact necessary.

I hope that I have stated all necessary facts in order to illicit these opinions; however, if you need any additional facts which you feel are pertinent, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Thank you very much for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. Kindest regards.

Stephen F. Hefner

cc: Mr. Stanley Hale

ID: nht71-5.48

DATE: 07/06/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On June 29, 1971, you submitted on behalf of Ford Motor Company an Amendment to Petition for Reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. In this amendment of your petition you seek a stay of the effective date of the rule and the reopening of the administrative proceedings on the grounds that (1) Ford might make "specific responses, rebuttals and comments" regarding materials not placed in the docket until after issuance of the rule in question, and (2) Ford's own continuing work has resulted in material information which it could not until quite recently have made available. You request that the "amendment be decided" concurrently with Ford's petition for reconsideration.

As you know, the safety standards are promulgated under informal rulemaking procedures of Section 4(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. @ 553(c)). Automotive Parts & Accessories Association, Inc. v. Boyd, 407 F.2d 330 (D.C. Cir. 1968). Under informal rulemaking procedures, an agency "may act not only on the basis of the comments received in response to its notice of rulemaking, but also upon the basis of information available in its own files, and upon the knowledge and expertise of the agency." California Citizens Band Association v. United States, 375 F.2d 43, 54 (9 Cir., 1967). Under section 105(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, judicial review of our rulemaking takes place on the basis of the "record," which consists of all relevant materials available to the agency and considered by it in connection with the action in question. The certified list of the record in this matter filed in the Sixth Circuit is composed of just such a record. We emphatically deny that the assembling of the record in this manner constitutes "stacking" of

2 the record. On the contrary, we maintain that such action is entirely proper, a regular adjunct to informal rulemaking conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and is consistent with action taken in previous similar judicial review proceedings involving this agency.

Under the informal rulemaking procedures utilized by the NHTSA, the "record" is never really closed. When a final rule is issued, petitions for reconsideration may be filed pursuant to 49 CFR 553.35. When a final decision is issued on petitions for reconsideration, further submissions are placed in the public docket and are treated as petitions to establish, amend, or repeal a rule pursuant to 49 CFR 553.31. Thus, Ford and any other interested person are free at all times to submit relevant information to any rulemaking docket; and these submittals are regularly brought to the attention of concerned personnel for appropriate action.

Under 49 CFR 553.35(b) of the Administration's procedural rules, a petitioner for reconsideration may submit additional facts if he states the reason why they were not presented within the prescribed period. In your request to amend your petition for reconsideration you did state two such reasons (the same reasons advanced in support of the merits of your amendment): (1) the addition of materials to the docket by NHTSA, and (2) the possession by Ford of new material information only recently made available. Although we cannot agree with your contention that the Administration acted in a manner inconsistent with informal rulemaking procedures, you are nevertheless free to submit at this time whatever information you think is relevant to the record, including information only recently made available through Ford's continuing research. Accordingly, your June 29, 1971, amendment to your petition for reconsideration will be accepted as such and considered along with the petition pursuant to your request. If you have other material you wish to submit in addition to that already submitted under date of June 29, 1971, please submit it as soon as possible. Under informal rulemaking procedures this Administration is eager to receive such additional information and strongly urges Ford to make a prompt submission of any such material. Material submitted after a decision has been made on the petitions for reconsideration will, of course, be placed in the public docket pursuant to 49 CFR 553.31 of the Administration's procedural rules.

Ford Motor Company

June 29, 1971

Douglas W. Toms Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Toms:

Amendment to Petition for Reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 -- Occupant Crash Protection -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses

We are transmitting herewith for your information a copy of an amendment to the Ford Motor Company's pending Petition for Reconsideration in the above matter. The amendment has been formally filed in NHTSA's docket. In our view, the points discussed in this document raise grave questions as to the procedure followed in promulgating the occupant crash protection standard.

As you will note from the first page of the enclosure, Ford requests, because of the urgent matters set forth therein, that the amendment be decided with utmost dispatch, concurrently with Ford's pending Petition for Reconsideration.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. Eckhold Automotive Safety Director

ID: nht71-5.49

DATE: 07/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Modrall, Seymour, Sperling, Roehl & Harris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: GIGLER V. VOLKSWAGEN

In your letter of June 16 to Roman Brooks of this agency you ask for background information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and Fuel Tank Connections, effective January 1, 1968.

Section 103(h) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 required that the initial safety standards be "based upon existing safety standards." Standard No. 301 was based upon General Services Agency Standard No. 515/26, Fuel Tanks and Tank Filler Pipes, effective October 13, 1967. As you know, the GSA standards were applicable only to vehicles purchased by the Federal Government. The two standards, however, are not identical; as an example, Standard No. 301 includes fuel tank connections, while GSA Standard No. 515/26 included a rear end collision test at 20 miles per hour and a side collision test at 15 miles per hour. Perhaps GSA can provide you with background information on their standard if you deem it essential to your case.

MODRALL, SEYMOUR, SPERLING, ROEHL & HARRIS

June 16, 1971

Roman Brooks U. S. Department of Transportation

Re: Volkswagen Gas Caps Our File: Gigler v. Volkswagen

As I mentioned to you when we discussed this matter on the telephone sometime ago, one of the issues in this case will be the applicability of safety standard 301. It is my understanding that on November 30, 1966, the department issued public notice that it was proposing to adopt standard 301, together with the other initial 22 standards. This notice was published on December 3, 1966, in Volume 31 of the Federal Register, pages 15212 through 15221. The publication gave notice that standard 301 was anticipated to become effective on September 1, 1967, and invited interested parties to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. On January 31, 1967, the order establishing the standard was entered and the same was published on February 3, 1967, in Volume 32 of the Federal Register, pages 2408 through 2416. Standard 301 was adopted, but was to become effective January 1, 1968, rather than September 1, 1967, as originally proposed.

I recognize that safety standard 301 was not technically applicable to the 1966 VW and that it did not go into effect until after our accident (September 20, 1967) had occurred. It is my contention, however, that standard 301 was nothing more than a codification of a pre-existing standard or general custom commonly recognized in the automotive industry. What I need to find out is whether or not this is true and exactly where the standard came from. If you have any committee reports or other data which you could send me concerning the history and background of safety standard 301, I would be most appreciative. If you are not the proper party to handle this for me would you please see to it that this letter reaches the proper destination.

2

This issue is one which the court wants to resolve before trial and in a very short period of time. Consequently, I need this information as soon as possible. In the event that you have such reports and perhaps transcripts of hearings, etc., but the same would be bulky and rather expensive for me to purchase, please let me know since my clients have already built up enormous expenses in this case and we are going to have to start economizing.

Thank you for your very kind cooperation.

Kenneth L. Harrigan

ID: nht71-5.5

DATE: 11/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James Eckstein

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 27, 1971, which was forwarded to this office October 20, 1971, by the Federal Trade Commission, regarding Government specifications for retreaded tires. You refer to problems you believe result from "out of roundness;" specifically, abnormal wear and blowouts at normal boulevard and highway speeds. You wish to determine whether this problem results from "too lenient" Government requirements, or whether "manufacturers are negligent."

Out-of-roundness can occur in a retreaded tire for numerous reasons, and its presence does not necessarily indicate negligence on the part of the manufacturer. Moreover, while an out-of-round tire may affect vehicle handling it generally does not blow out at normal boulevard or even highway speeds, as a result of the out-of-round condition. Thus, a blow out in an out-of-round tire could have resulted from other factors. Many tire dealers, in addition, have machines that can eliminate out-of-roundness by cutting off excess tread.

With reference to Federal regulations of retreaded tires, the first such regulation will become effective January 1, 1972. This regulation, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires," specifies size and performance requirements for retreaded tires for use on passenger cars. These requirements are similar to those that have been applicable to new passenger car tires since January 1, 1968. None of these requirements specifically concern "out-of-roundness." We do not have evidence that this characteristic, by itself, is a safety problem.

ID: nht71-5.50

DATE: 07/01/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of June 7, 1971, you asked for confirmation of your understanding that under the NHTSA regulation (49 CFR @ 553.39) interpreting section 105(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a petition for judicial review of Standard No. 208 would be considered timely if filed within 60 days after the publication in the Federal Register of the Administrator's decision on any petitions for reconsideration of that standard.

Your understanding is correct. As the standard currently stands, we consider it (that is, the standard as it becomes effective January 1, 1972) a "single rule", to use your phrase, and the judicial review period will not begin to run until the publication of the decision on any timely-filed petitions for reconsideration of any part of it. If at a future date we wish to sever any portion of the standard for judicial review purposes, and consider it "final" despite pending action on other portions, we will give explicit notice of that action in the Federal Register.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht71-5.51

DATE: 06/04/71

FROM: DAVID SCHMELTZER FOR L. R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

COPYEE: PESKOE; ARMSTRONG; DRIVER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 11, 1971, in which you request an opinion on whether certain tires manufactured by Phillips Petroleum Company are subject to the requirements governing tires that have been issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 et seq.) You state that the tires in question result from Phillips' efforts to develop improved tread rubber, and are manufactured by purchasing new tires, buffing them down, and then retreading the remaining casings with experimental tread rubber compounds, You state further that after the casings have been retreaded, the tread rubber compounds are evaluated by stationary wheel testing, road testing, or both, and indicate that some of the road testing takes place on the public highways.

We agree with your conclusion that these tires are not retreaded pneumatic tires under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, because they are not manufactured from used tires. However, in our view these tires are new pneumatic tires, and accordingly are subject to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) provides that no person shall --

"manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard."

Phillips' use of the public roads for testing these tires is an introduction of them in interstate concerns and is prohibited by section 108(a)(1) if the tires do not conform to Standard No. 109.

One objective of the Act that you did not mention in your letter is the prevention of possibly hazardous motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment from being used on the public highways, where they may endanger not only the driver of the vehicle in question, but other users of the highway as well. The tires need not be manufactured for sale to the general public in order for a violation of section 108(a)(1) to occur.

However, if the testing of these tires is confined to the laboratory or to private roads, the prohibition of the Act will not apply to them.

I trust this answers your question. If you have further questions, please write.