ID: nht71-3.12

DATE: 06/02/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1972, requesting clarification of whether a vehicle manufacturer, under 574.10 of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation, may designate someone to maintain the records for his.

This letter is to confirm that motor vehicle manufacturers may assign a designee for the record keeping requirements of Part 574.

ID: nht71-3.13

DATE: 06/02/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Long Mile Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Mr. Van Orden dated May 20, 1971.

Tires retreaded prior to the effective date of the retread standard (January 1, 1972) are not permitted to contain the DOT symbol on the tire. If you have marked your matrices with the symbol, I suggest you buff the letters off the tire after it is retreaded, or remove the symbol from the matrix, or fill in that portion of the matrix.

The retreading of tires without the DOT markings before the effective date of the standard is permissible.

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: nht71-5.63

DATE: 10/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 11, 1971, concerning the application of GVWR and GAWR (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) to semitrailers.

Your position is that the term "gross vehicle weight rating" is not meaningful when applied to semitrailers because the amount of cargo a semitrailer can carry depends upon the tractor that pulls it. You request that a different expression, "rating based on load-carrying capability" be used "for purposes of certification" (assumedly on the certification label). If that alternative is found unsatisfactory you request our concurrence with the following: "For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the king-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length." You also mention that gross vehicle weight rating has particular industry meaning and note that confusion "will certainly arise when state and Federal governmental authorities are using the same term to mean two different things."

As we indicated in our meeting with you of November 4, 1971, we do not agree that the concept of GVWR is meaningless when applied to a semitrailer. The definition of GVWR, "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle" (49 CFR @ 568.3), can be applied to a semitrailer without considering the load-carrying ability of a tractor. The fact that certain tractors should not be attached to a particular semitrailer loaded to its GVWR does not mean that the trailer cannot be so rated.

With regard to your first question, "rating based on load-carrying capability," while we do not grant your request that this language be substituted on the label, we believe that a GVWR based on operational load-carrying capability, as long as the weight of the vehicle is included, would be within the definition of GVWR in

49 CFR 568.3. Similarly, your other statement, "For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the king-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length" is likewise consistent with the definition of GVWR. With reference to your claim concerning confusion of State and Federal regulation, we believe that if problems in this regard are properly presented to a State government, any ambiguities can be satisfactorily resolved.

You also ask, with reference to Gross Axle Weight(Illegible Word) whether speed limitations can be included on the certification label. The regulation does not allow such weight limitations to be included within the listing of the required information, although it may be placed on the vehicle in any other location.

ID: nht71-5.64

DATE: 10/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of September 8, 1971, you ask whether final-stage manufacturers may use the new vehicle certification label required as of January 1, 1972, before that date.

Your members may use the new label before January 1, 1972. Since the two vehicle weight ratings are not required until that date, there is no legal objection either to leaving the appropriate space blank, or to typing the phrase "NOT REQUIRED UNTIL 1/1/72" in the space provided.

ID: nht71-5.65

DATE: 12/17/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 18, 1971, requesting for twenty-six of your trucks a temporary exemption from Standard No. 206. You reported that these trucks represent the final units to be produced in two soon-to-be-discontinued cab styles.

We regret that we are unable to consider your request, since our authority under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) to grant such exemptions expired in April of this year.

Beginning January 1, 1972, the manufacture of any truck not in compliance with the standard will be prohibited. Section 108(a) of the Act provides that

"(no) person shall manufacture for sale . . . any motor vehicle . . . manufactured on or after the date any applicable . . . standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397)

The prohibition is enforceable by civil penalties under section 109 (15 U.S.C. 1398) and injunction under section 110 (15 U.S.C. 1349). In addition, in the event that a noncompliance were determined to be a safety-related defect, notification of the defect would have to be furnished under section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402) to purchaser of the vehicle.

LET US KNOW IF WE MAY BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE.

ID: nht71-5.66

DATE: 12/15/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your telegram of December 9, 1971, in which you asked whether the effective dates of Standards 206, 207, 208, and 210 are postponed to January 1, 1974 for firefighting vehicles as a result of the adoption of the effective date provisions of 49 CFR 571.8 (36 F.R. 13926, July, 28, 1971).

Our answer is that since all of the amendments making the listed(Illegible Words) to trucks were issued prior to the September 1, 1971 reference date used in 571.8, these standards are effective on the dates established at the time of their issuance. Versions of Standards 208 and 210 became effective for trucks on July 1, 1971, and amended version of these standards, as well as Standards 205 and 207 become effective January 1, 1972.

Sincerely,

ID: nht71-5.67

DATE: 08/23/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 12 asking for a clarification of the effect of the recent firefighting vehicle amendment (36 F.R. 13926) on Federal standards published prior to September 1, 1971 but effective after that date. Specifically you ask whether Standard No. 302 Flammability of Interior Materials, published on January 8, 1971 applies to firefighting vehicles on September 1, 1972, or September 1, 1974.

The firefighting vehicle amendment is effective September 1, 1971 and has no effect upon standards or amendments to standards issued before that date. Thus Standard No. 302 applies to firefighting vehicles as of September 1, 1972.

Sincerely,