ID: nht71-1.35

DATE: 12/02/71

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON For Lawrence R. Schneider -- NHTSA

TO: G & D Communications Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 22, 1971, and your phone call to Michael Peskoe of November 15, 1971, requesting a copy of the Consumer Information regulations and asking what penalties may be imposed on manufacturers if their vehicles cannot perform as well as the figures they provide pursuant to the regulation. You stated in the above conversation that you have obtained the volume entitled "Performance Data for New 1971 Passenger Cars and Motorcycles" which contains a copy of the Consumer Information requirements. I have enclosed certain amendments to the Consumer Information regulations which will bring the regulations as they appear in this volume up to date.

With reference to your question regarding penalties for violations of the Consumer Information requirements, Section 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C.@@ 1397, 1398) authorize the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, and up to $ 400,000 for any related series of violations, against manufacturers whose vehicles cannot perform at least as well as the data they supply indicates. In addition, injunctive proceedings may be utilized pursuant to section 110 of the Act (15 U.S.C.@ 1399).

I trust this answers your question. We regret that it was over-looked in our first response to your letter.

ID: nht71-1.36

DATE: 04/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Air Force

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Secretary Volpe has asked me to reply to your letter of April 2. Section 108(b)(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 states that the "temporary importation of any motor vehicle" is permissible, and you ask "if any joint regulations have been established between the Secretary of the Treasury and your department establishing a maximum period of time or a definite period of time in which any vehicle may be imported into the United States, whether or not it meets the safety standards set forth."

Joint regulations (19 C.F.R. @ 12.80) were adopted in 1968 and I enclose a copy for your information. Obviously we have to objection to a vehicle remaining in the United States and used upon the public roads indefinitely if it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The word "temporary" within the meaning of section 108(b)(4) does, however, have differing meanings for vehicles which do not met Federal standards and which are imported under different circumstances. Section 12.80(b)(2)(iii) and (c) allow importers not otherwise exempted 90 days in which to bring a noncomplying vehicle into compliance and permit an extension of time if circumstances warrant. A non-resident of the United States is permitted by subsection (b)(2)(v) to import a noncomplying vehicle for a period of up to one year. Foreign diplomatic and military personnel are allowed by subsection (b)(2)(vi) to import their noncomplying vehicles for the duration of their stay and must declare that they will not sell their vehicles in the United States during that time. On the other hand, a noncomplying vehicle imported solely for purpose of show test, experiment, competition, or repairs, may be admitted indefinitely pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(vii) if it is not sold or licensed for use on the public roads.

These regulations do not apply to vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1963. We advise military personnel not to purchase vehicles produced after that date and manufactured for the European market as the conversion costs are prohibitive in many instances. We also advise them that vehicles which are alleged to have been converted to meet U.S. safety specifications in most instances do not. The best evidence of compliance with U.S. requirements is the certification of that fact, generally affixed by the original manufacturer to the door post on the driver's side of the vehicle. I enclose a booklet on the importation of motor vehicles for your guidance, and I will be happy to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: nht71-1.37

DATE: 06/15/71

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Hill; Lewis; Adams; Goodrich & Tait

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 10 to Francis Armstrong, Director of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of Vehicle Industries, Inc. Your client wishes to import dune buggy chasses, either in kit or assembled form, for sale to a distributor-dealer organization and subsequent resale by them to retail customers who will complete the final manufacture of the incomplete vehicle as a dune buggy. You have asked questions concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("safety standards") and other regulations.

Your letter indicates that you are familiar with our two Mini-Bike Interpretations and the criteria we use in determining whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act"). There have been no further additions to these Interpretations. We view a dune buggy as a "motor vehicle" primarily because it is licensable for use on the public roads. Conversely all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and some categories of mini-bikes are not considered "motor vehicles" because of State statutory prohibitions forbidding their registration for on-road use. Because a dune buggy is constructed with "special features for occasional off-road use" it is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" ("MPV") under the safety standards, and must, at the time of its manufacture, comply with all safety standards applicable to MPVs. Equipping a vehicle with speed restrictive components would not affect this opinion unless the equipment rendered the completed vehicle unlicensable for on-road use.

Until January 1, 1972, the product Vehicle Industries wishes to import, either in kit form or as an assemolage, is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Act. It is not a chassis-cab, as you suggested, because it has no cab. Since section 102(5) of the Act includes an importer in the definition of "manufacturer." Vehicle Industries is considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle equipment it imports, and responsible for compliance of that equipment with applicable safety standards.

Regulated equipment items for MPVs and corresponding safety standards are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), brake fluid (No. 116), glazing (No. 205), seat belt assemblies (No. 209), and wheel covers (No. 211). If the kit or assemblage contains any of these items, the item must comply upon inportation, and Vehicle Industries must provide certification to the distributor-dealer that the equipment item meets the appropriate safety standard. The certification obligation is imposed by section 114 of the Act as amplified by a notice published on November 4, 1967, copy enclosed. There are no other labeling or informational obligations. The requirements of this paragraph remain in effect after January 1, 1972, to any dune buggy chassis imported in kit form.

If the chassis is imported in assembled form, on and after January 1, 1972, Vehicle Industries as importer - manufacturer of an assemblage will be considered an "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" and the assemblage an "incomplete vehicle" as those terms are defined in 49 CFR Part 568, the regulations governing vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I enclose a copy of Part 568 for your guidance and call your attention to @ 568.4, requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Section 568.4(a)(7) will require Vehicle Industries to provide with the incomplete vehicle a list of those standards applicable to MPVs, together with one of three appropriate statements for each such standard. If Vehicle Industries has provided certification prior to January 1, 1972, covering an equipment item in the assemblage, for instance brake hoses, the appropriate statement on and after January 1, 1972 would appear to be set out in @ 568.4(a)(7)(i), that the vehicle when completed will comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hose and Brake Hose Assemblies, if the final assembler makes no change in the brake hoses or brake hose assemblies. You ask if these regulations may be followed as a "guideline" before January 1, 1972. Because the @ 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement is a representation of compliance, it is a de facto certification of compliance and, in my opinion, Vehicle Industries may provide such a @ 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement in advance of January 1, 1972, that includes a regulated equipment item, to satisfy the existing equipment certification requirement.

You have also asked if it is possible to "retail the unit in its present form with an item of equipment on it" that doesn't comply with the safety standards. The answer is no, if that item is directly regulated by a safety standard. However, if a safety standard applies to vehicle categories only - and most of them do - then an item encompassed in that safety standard need not comply until time of final assembly. For example, Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, applies to MPVs and passenger cars, and not to the equipment items specified therein. Consequently, the horn ring and steering wheel assembly hub of the assemblage need not have a finish in accordance with Standard No. 107, but these items must comply with reflectance requirements when the assemblage is completed as a dune buggy.

In closing, I want to call your attention to section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR @ 551.45, which require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment who offer their products for importation into the United States appoint a resident agent for service of process. I enclose a copy of @ 551.45 with the informational requirements underlined and request that you ask the Spanish manufacturer of the dune buggy chassis to file a designation of agent with us.

If you have any further questions I shall be happy to answer them for you.

Enclosures

ID: nht71-1.38

DATE: 02/10/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Kelly Springfield Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 2, 1971, concerning Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulations and to confirm that the date code may be placed at the end of the tire identification number by means of a screw as depicted in the sketch attached to your letter.

ID: nht71-1.39

DATE: 02/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Tire (U.S.A.) Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 2, 1971, to Mr. Casanova concerning Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping.

Adding a group of numbers consisting of three-digits to the tire identification number is not permitted under the regulation because the additional numbers 99:(Illegible Word) be too easily confused with the tire identification number.

You are not prohibited, however, from placing the additional three-digit number elsewhere on the tire in an area where it would not be confused with the required tire identification number. Anywhere further than six inches would be far enough to avoid confusion.

ID: nht71-1.4

DATE: 01/01/71 EST.

FROM: Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: JEEP Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On June 16, 1971, you and Mr. William Fleming of American Motors met with representatives of NHTSA and pointed out that the March 4, 1971, revisions of Standard No. 210 (36 F.R. 4291) had created a situation where seat belt anchorages for side-facing seats of multipurpose passenger vehicles would have to meet strength requirements only for the six-month period from July 1, 1971, to January 1, 1972. This occurred because the March 4 notice, which basically extended the existing standard for passenger cars to other types of vehicles as of July 1, 1972, did not have the exemption for side-facing seat belt anchorages that is contained in the revised standard that goes into effect on January 1, 1972.

The failure to exempt side-facing seats from the anchorage test requirements for the six-month period ending January 1, 1972, was inadvertent. A Federal Register notice will be issued shortly amending Standard No. 210 to correct this discrepancy. I am sending you this letter, which will be placed in the public files, in advance of the notice as an extraordinary procedure in light of the time period involved, to confirm that your vehicles need not meet the strength requirements for seat belt anchorages for side-facing seats apparently contained in Standard No. 210.

ID: nht71-1.40

DATE: 05/21/71

FROM: Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Jack Lewis; Legislative Assistant, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your telephone conversation of May 19, 1971 with a member of this office concerning Pert 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping.

In your conversation you asked what the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would be if a retreader could establish he was unable to obtain, by May 22, 1971, the effective date of the regulation, the necessary tin plate for placing the required tire identification number on his retreaded tires.

Of course, each case would be considered individually, but if a retreader could demonstrate that good faith attempts had been made to obtain the tin plate by May 22, 1971, and due to circumstances beyond his control he was unable to mark tires manufactured after May 22, 1971 with the required identification number, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would not take enforcement section against the retreader.

ID: nht71-1.41

DATE: 12/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: L. E. Needham

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT: Your letter of November 4, 1971, concerning the compliance of two dual rear door locking system with Standard 206, has been forwarded to this office for reply.

Both systems consist of

". . . a primary locking system which when engaged renders the outside rear door handle and the inside rear door handle inoperative and a special locking device accessible from the door shut face, which when engaged renders the inside door handle inoperative but does not affect the outside door handle."

The systems differ is that engagement of the special locking device in the first system prevents the engagement of the primary locking systems, while engagement of the special device in the second system does not have this effect.

As stated in the preamble to the April 27, 1968 amendment (33 F.R. 6465) to the standard. S4.1.3 does not preclude the installation of a special locking mechanism in addition to the required locking mechanism. However, the required locking mechanism must be engageable or disengageable regardless of whether any additional locking mechanism is engaged or disengaged. If the special locking mechanism does not interfere with the operation of the required locking mechanism, it will not constitute a failure to comply with the standard.

Under these criteria, the first dual system would not comply with the standard since engagement of the special locking mechanism would interfere with the operation of the primary locking mechanism.

The second dual system would comply if engagement of the special locking mechanism would prevent neither the engagement nor the disengagement of the primary locking mechanism.

Please write if I can be of any further assistance.

ID: nht71-1.42

DATE: 07/22/71

FROM: E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA OFFICE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM -- DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING GENERAL MOTORS ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lundstrom:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Acting Administrator, concerning replacement equipment covered in FMVSS No. 108, effective January 1, 1972.

The requirements for original and replacement equipment in FMVSS No. 108 cover those items listed in Tables I and III, namely: Headlamps Turn signal operating units Tail lamps Turn signal flashers Stop lamps Vehicular hazard warning signal License plate lamps operating units Reflex reflectors Vehicular hazard warning signal Parking lamps flashers Side marker lamps Identification lamps Backup lamps Clearance lamps Turn signal lamps Intermediate side marker lamps Intermediate reflex reflectors

In addition the requirements cover the following items specified in the text of the standard:

School bus warning lamps

Headlamp beam switching devices

Headlamp upper beam indicator lamps

Turn signal pilot indicator lamps

Hazard warning signal pilot indicator lamps

Plastic lenses

Sincerely,

ID: nht71-1.43

DATE: 07/16/71

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM -- DIRECTOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING GENERAL MOTORS ENVIRONMENT ACTIVITIES STAFF

COPYEE: C.R. SHARP

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lundstrom:

This is in response to your request of June 14 for an interpretation of several provisions of Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination.

You asked first whether "redundant" controls must be identified, such as the windshield washer control that is located in the end of the column mounted shift lever. The standard does not distinguish between required and redundant controls, and redundant controls must be identified. As this agency observed of controls designed to be operable by touch "their function is not clear to a operator unfamiliar with the vehicle in which they are installed, and their identification is necessary" (36 F.R. 8297, May 4, 1971).

Secondly, you pointed out to us the virtual impossibility of requiring identification of intermediate positions in rocker-type and push-pull type heating and air conditioning system controls. We agree with your point, and I enclose an order of the Administrator amending paragraph S4.2 to exclude intermediate positions on these types of controls from the identification requirement.

Finally, you ask whether the identification requirement in S4.2 for "manually operated" controls extends to a floor mounted windshield washer control. Since a manually operated control is, by definition, a control that is operated by hand, a foot-operated control need not be identified.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. 1-18; Notice 5]

Summary Statement

MOTOR VEHICLE CONTROLS STANDARD - amendment of motor vehicle controls standard (Standard No. 101), to clarify control identification and illumination requirement and control location test condition, effective January 1, 1972, and September 1, 1972.

Title 49 - TRANSPORTATION

Chapter V - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

PART 571 - FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS Control Location, Identification, and Illumination

The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 to clarify control identification, and illumination requirements, and the control location test conditions.

Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, was amended on January 14, 1971 (36 F.R. 503) and, as a result of reconsideration petitions, was amended again on May 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 8296). General Motors Corporation has asked for a clarification of the requirement in S4.2 that "Each position of . . . a heating or air conditioning system control shall be identified." It points out the virtual impossibility of identification of intermediate positions for rocker-type and push-pull-type switches. The NHTSA agrees that intermediate positions for these types of switches are difficult to identify, and consequently has amended S4.2 to exclude them from the identification requirement.

Ford Motor Company has petitioned for a clarification of the requirement in S4.3 that ". . . A control shall be provided to adjust the intensity of control illumination variable from an 'off' position to a position providing illumination sufficient for the vehicle operator to readily identify the control under conditions of reduced visibility." Specifically, Ford wishes an interpretation

that a simple on-off switch is a sufficient variable control.

The NHTSA has determined that a motor vehicle operator should be able to set control illumination levels according to his own, eye comfort and the specific condition of reduced visibility that requires control illumination. Additionally, it is important for a driver to reduce control illumination when the illumination is reflected in the windshield creating a glare condition. The NHTSA intended in the January 14 issuance that a continuously variable "rheostat"-type control be provided, and is amending S4.3 to reflect this intention.

The NHTSA is also amending the restraint test condition of S5.2 to correspond with the recent amendment to Standard No. 208, Seat Belt Installations, (36 F.R. 9869) that requires Type 1 seat belt assemblies in, among other vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.21, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination, is amended as follows:

1. The third sentence in Paragraph S4.2 is amended to read: "Each position of an automatic vehicle speed control and a heating and air conditioning system control, other than an intermediate position of a rocker-type or push-pull-type control, shall be identified."

2. The last sentence of Paragraph S4.3 is amended to read: "A control shall be provided to adjust the intensity of control illumination, continuously variable from an 'off' position to a position providing illumination sufficient for the vehicle operator to readily identify controls under conditions of reduced visibility."

3. Paragraph S5.2 is amended to read: "The person seated at the controls of a multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, convertible, open-body type vehicle, walk-in van-type truck, or bus is restrained by a nonextending pelvic restraint fastened so that there is no slack between the lap belt and the pelvis."

Effective date: January 1, 1972, Paragraph S4.2 for passenger cars; September 1, 1972, Paragraph S4.2 for vehicles other than passenger cars, Paragraph S4.3 and Paragraph S5.2.

This amendment is issued pursuant to sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and the delegation of authority from the Secretary of Transportation to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 CFR 1.51.

Issued on JUL 9 1971

Douglas W. Toms

Acting Administrator