ID: nht71-3.14

DATE: 06/02/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY RICHARD B. DYSON

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 18, 1971, with which you enclosed eleven questions that time precluded answering at the recent Recreational Vehicle Institute symposium. Some of the questions are really comments or expressions of opinion, and the answer must be of the same nature.

1. Where does the manufacturer's responsibility start and end, and where does the sub-contractor's or supplier's responsibility start and end?

This question must obviously be answered in general terms. The primary thrust of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is the regulation of manufacturers. Under the statutory scheme set up by Congress and the standards and regulations that we have issued, the "manufacturer" is viewed as the final producer of a particular product -- either a completed vehicle or a defined type of motor vehicle equipment. Although we recognize that in virtually all types of manufacturing there is actually a multiple chain of production from basic raw materials to final product, it is necessary for our purposes to fix legal responsibility on the final "assembler"; our legal system offers ample ways in which the final manufacturer can and does share some of the responsibility with his suppliers, primarily through the system of contracts and warranties that is basic to all commercial activities. Thus, where a standard is concerned, we look to the final manufacturer for compliance purposes. His responsibilities are, of course, modified by the possibility of a due care defense, whether or not supplied

products are involved. There are some exceptions: for example, the Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulation creates some limited responsibilities on the manufacturers of "incomplete vehicles"; and the responsibility for safety-related defects extends to all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, whether or not covered by a standard.

2. Are RV manufacturers required to provide more proof of compliance than the compliance nameplate.

There is no requirement that manufacturers "provide proof of compliance", beyond the certification label, as a routine matter (the sense in which the question was probably intended). If the NHTSA discovers evidence of noncompliance with the standards, by testing or otherwise, it normally asks the manufacturer to provide the test results or other information or data that formed the basis for his certification that the product conformed to the particular standard in question. This is a normal function of the administrative process whereby the agency gathers all available information in the course of deciding whether and how to proceed in an enforcement action. Obviously, it is in the manufacturer's interest to maintain carefully the records of testing and other data upon which he bases his certification.

3. Are defect reports required relative to plumbing or electrical defects which are functional defects but could in some cases have safety implications? Who makes the decision concerning the safety implication?

Defect reports and appropriate notification action are required in the case of any defects determined to be safety-related. These would include defects in the plumbing or electrical systems, as in any other system of the vehicle. Section 113 of the Act requires the vehicle manufacturer to make this determination and take appropriate action on his own initiative. The NHTSA also has the authority to make an independent determination on the question, under procedures that afford the manufacturer the opportunity to present his own evidence.

4. Is there a statutory requirement that rulings and standards in fact be reasonable, and in fact reduce some known hazard? If so, how do you establish the fact that a particular hazard is real, does exist and the proposed standards will reduce such hazards?

The act requires that a standard "shall be practicable, shall meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and shall be stated in objective terms," and also that it be "reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed." The NHTSA devotes a great deal of effort to establishing that hazards are "real", and that a standard "will reduce such hazard". The effort is multifaceted, and includes analysis of known accident data, existing research data, research studies and tests funded and managed by NHTSA, information gathered from industry and other sources, and the knowledge and expertise of NHTSA technical personnel.

5. What will be the NHTSA's view in regard to a motor home that exceeds the chassis manufacturer's GVWR?

Under the new certification regulations scheduled to come into effect January 1, 1972, the final-stage manufacturer will have the responsibility for establishing the GVWR of his vehicle, and there are no inherent restrictions on the value that he establishes. It is anticipated that the standards will base many of the performance requirements on the GVWR and GAWR of the vehicle, and it may often be to the final-stage manufacturer's advantage to remain within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's recommended values in order to take full advantage of the protections provided by the regulation on Vehicles Manufacturered in Two or More Stages.

6. Mr. Wood's talk mentioned that "some trailers" might be included in the definition of passenger motor vehicle" in S. 976, the "Hart Bill". What trailers are "some trailers"?

Our opinion on the meaning of terms in bills before Congress can only be speculative, and the terms in question may be changed if and when the bill is enacted, or clarified by the legislative history. "Motor vehicles" under the present National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act clearly include trailers. We are not sure whether or not the reference in the definition ("any motor vehicle manufactured primarily for the transportation of its operator and passengers upon the public streets, roads, and highways") to "its operator" is intended to exclude trailers.

7. Do you think that the NHTSA should use "due care" before proposing a standard to be reasonably certain that there exists correlation between a small-scale test and realistic tests -- which are preferably large scale?

The answer to question 4, includes the statutory criteria under which the NHTSA operates in issuing standards and regulations. The validity of test procedures is one of the basic issues that must be taken into account by the NHTSA in the issuance of any regulation.

8. When a proposal or rule is issued, have the test procedures been proven by the government? If not, how can "doubted" results be correlated by the NHTSA test facilities? How do you compare results as related to test equipment?

In terms of the broad generalities of the question and the scope of this letter, little more can be said in addition to the answers to question 4 and 7. The agency must make every reasonable effort to assure that the standards meet the statutory criteria, and are the best way of dealing with the safety problems involved.

9. What are the present tie down angle(Illegible Word) for seat belts and are there any exceptions?

The requirements for seat belt installations are contained in the published standards, and we request that persons concerned with requirements such as those mentioned first examine the standards as they relate to his particular case. We will be pleased to answer questions related to specific requirements of the standards, either by letter or in person.

10. It would seem that the standards and due care testing lead to a concentration of the industry into a few major companies. Is NHTSA concerned about this effect and is it willing to see it happen in order to accomplish NHTSA's goal?

The economic impact of the standards is one of the main concerns of the NHTSA in its rulemaking activity; it is part of the determination of "practicability" required by the Act. Mr. Toms devoted a major part of his address at the banquet (after the question was asked) to this problem, and his remarks probably contain the most complete discussion on the subject that we can offer.

11. Which, if any, of the speakers has had personal experience vacationing in a recreational vehicle?

The speakers, and other personnel of the NHTSA, have the responsibility to discharge their functions as objectively and fairly as possible, unbiased by their "personal experiences", vacationing or otherwise. We hope and intend that the motor vehicle safety program will, to the greatest extent possible, enable the public to have safe and enjoyable vacation experiences with your members' products.

ID: nht71-3.15

DATE: 06/08/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your May 21, 1971, letter to Mr. H. H. Wallace to determine whether Dunlop is in compliance as to the use of spaces in the tire identification number.

There are no objections to the spaces between the different parts of the number. However, the photograph illustrates other problem, that of a dual size marked tire. Dual size marked tires are not permissible. The tire can be labeled as one size tire with the indication that it replaces another size tire. For example, 205R14 replaces ER70-14.

The General Secretary of ETRTO has been advised of the "dual marked" tire usage.

ID: nht71-3.16

DATE: 06/08/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This letter is to further clarify an interpretation contained in our letter of Nov. 6, 1971, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation.

We wish to make it clear that although the final-stage manufacturer may designate someone to maintain the records required under section 574.10 of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, the legal responsibility for maintaining the records remains with the final-stage manufacturer.

However, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediate vehicle manufacturer, may assume "legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by (the Act) with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured . . ." (49 C.F.R. 568.7). In such a case, the responsibilities for maintaining the records required by the Act and the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation will be assumed by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediate manufacturer, and the final-stage manufacturer will be relieved of all liability for maintaining the records.

We would also point out that the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation was not meant to preclude the use of multiple designees for the maintenance of the required records. See the enclosed interpretation issued on May 28, 1971 (36 F.C. 9780).

ID: nht71-3.17

DATE: 06/08/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1970, requesting an interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. 574).

The proposals you described in your letter, paragraphs 1 and 2, will certainly meet the minimum requirements of the regulation and are perfectly acceptable. The regulation requires that a record be kept of the type of tire shipped on or in the vehicle. It does not require that the individual tire identification number be(Illegible Word) with the name and address of the purchaser.

If a vehicle dealer sells a vehicle equipped with tires which were not shipped on or in the vehicle, the vehicle dealer is considered a tire dealer under section 574.9(b) and as such, he is required to record the name and address of the first purchaser along with the tire identification number, and forward this information to the tire manufacturer. However, the tire manufacturer may designate someone else to maintain the required records by section 574.7. Therefore, it would be acceptable to have your vehicle dealers forward the required information to you instead of to the tire manufacturer, if the tire manufacturer designates you to maintain the records of tires installed on your vehicles.

If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write.

ID: nht71-3.18

DATE: 06/09/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Lynd-Talin Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 10, 1971, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation. Please accept my apology for not responding earlier.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers each enforcement case on an individual basis. 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 information, we would certainly take this into consideration before beginning any enforcement action.

ID: nht71-3.19

DATE: 06/10/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1971, concerning the marking requirements in the proposed amendment to Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (Docket No. 71-1; Notice 1). These requirements are only proposed at present, as is their effective date, and do not represent the agency's final decision on the matter. If the agency determines to amend the standard, and before any compliance with new requirements is required, a "final rule" will be issued that is based on the proposed rule but may differ in some respects from it. The final rule will specify an effective date for these new requirements which, in this instance, will probably be later than the effective date proposed.

You ask whether the effective date of the proposed standard would apply to the manufacture of the glazing, or to the fitting of the material into the vehicle. Standard No. 205 applies to "glazing materials for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, motorcycles, trucks and buses", and the effective date of any amendment to this standard refers to the date of manufacture of the glazing material, and not to its fitting into the vehicle.

Your second question, whether we will accept your marking without a hyphen between the "DOT" symbol and your code mark, has been answered in our letter to you of May 26, 1971.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

ID: nht71-3.2

DATE: 05/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: J. A. Kackney & Sons, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1971, to Mr. Julian E. Leycath of this Administration, concerning the installation of supplementary stop and rear turn signal lamps on your van type delivery bodies.

Installation of the supplementary stop and rear turn signal lamps, in the manner described in your letter and as shown on your drawings 69C-81, and 69C-41 (enclosed with your letter). would not impair the effectiveness of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and would not be prohibited by that standard.

Standard No. 108 presently specified that the required stop lamps be mounted at a height "not less than 15 inches nor more than 72 inches". No mounting heights are presently specified for the required rear turn signal lamps. Effective January 1, 1972, the mounting height of required rear turn signal lamps will be "not less than 15 inches nor more than 83 inches". These limitations on mounting heights for the required lamps are not applicable to supplementary stop and rear turn signal lamps.

ID: nht71-3.20

DATE: 06/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: D. R. Elder

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to a carbon copy of a letter you sent to Mr.(Illegible Word) Office of Consumer Affairs and Public Information of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulations (49 CPR Part 574).

In the last paragraph of your letter you state that the regulation "has absolutely no bearing on the manufacture and (Illegible Word) of of any off-highway vehicles such as, wheeled form or industrial tractors, wheeled motor scrapers, tractor drawn scrapers, garden tractors, "terre tigers", wheeled agricultural equipment, lift trucks, etc.", (emphasis added). This appears to be a broadening of the interpretation given to you by Mr.(Illegible Word). This letter is to make it clear that the regulation applies unless the product you manufacture is not a motor vehicle within the definition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Enclosed is a copy of the Act. Your specific attention is directed to the definition of a motor vehicle found in Section 102(3).

While vehicles used primarily for-off-rond purposes are not considered motor vehicles within the meaning of the Act, I suggest you request an interpretation from this office (enclosing brochures) concerning the specific vehicles you manufacture.

ID: nht71-3.21

DATE: 06/24/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: 707 Tire Service Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1971, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR Part 574).

As stated in the interpretation published in the Federal Register of May 28, 1971, under section 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, "it is the tire manufacturer who has ultimate responsibility for maintaining the records of first purchasers".

Under the Act and the Regulation, we have no authority to require a tire manufacturer to choose someone as his designee. I have asked Goodyear's counsel for their position with regard to the possible use of tire dealers customer's lists and was forwarded a letter dated June 8, 1971, from the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company which sets forth the company's policy with regard to the prohibition in the regulation. I enclose the letter for your information.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht71-3.22

DATE: 06/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Fiat Motor Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 19, 1971, in which you request an interpretation of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 to the right side door of the Fiat City Taxi Car. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter.

Your questions and their answers are set forth below. Questions 1 and 2 have been reversed to facilitate discussion.

"Can this door be classified as a sliding door?" Yes, if, as it appears, the mechanism attaching the right side door to the vehicle is a sliding device rather than a hinge system.

"Can the outside door handle release control be inoperative and the door opened only from the inside." Yes, since the right side door is a sliding door, rather than a hinged door, it is not subject to the door lock requirements specified in S4.1.3 of the Standard.

"Which are the loads, the direction and location of the load, and the test procedures to be followed to demonstrate that this door conforms to the Standard 206." The performance requirements and demonstration procedures which apply to sliding doors are specified in S4.3 and S5.3, respectively. S4.3 requires that the track and slide combination or other supporting means for the right side door not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position. Compliance of the right side door with S4.3 is required by S5.3 to be tested by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door. The total force applied would be 4,000 pounds. S5.3 requires that the testing be done either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture.

"Can this door have only a fully latched position?" Yes. Standard No. 206 does not specify any requirements for latches on sliding doors.

Please write if I can be of any further assistance.