ID: nht71-2.26

DATE: 04/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 16, 1971, requesting interpretations of several provisions of the Defect Report Regulations, 49 CFR Part 573.

You ask whether a quarterly report containing the information specified by section 573.5(b) concerning quarterly motor vehicle production must be submitted for calendar quarters during which no defect notification campaign is conducted. This interpretation is correct. A quarterly report containing the production figures and such other information as may be required by section 573.5 must be submitted for each calendar quarter.

You ask whether the first quarterly report required to be submitted pursuant to section 573.5 need cover only the period from August 16, 1971 (the effective date of the regulation) to September 30, 1971. This interpretation is correct.

Finally, you ask whether the term "submit", as used in sections 573.4(b) and 573.5(a), means "send". This interpretation is generally correct. The requirements in these sections for the submission of the defect information and quarterly reports would be satisfied by mailing the reports so that they are postmarked within the specified period of time. For example, defect information reports that are mailed to NHTSA must be postmarked not more than 5 working days after a defect in a vehicle has been determined to be safety-related. However, hand-delivered defect information reports must be received by NHTSA not more than 5 working days after such determination.

ID: nht71-2.27

DATE: 04/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schenider; NHTSA

TO: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of February 9 and February 17, 1971, requesting a clarification of the applicability of Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation, to changeover tires.

In your letters you suggest that, for purposes of Part 574, changeover tires should be considered as used tires, because (1) as a legal matter title to both the vehicle and the tires passes to the purchaser of the vehicle at the time of purchase; (2) tire dealers generally accept changeover tires with less than 100 miles of use as trade-in tires; (3) changeover tires are considered to be used tires by the Federal Trade Commission; and (4) in most cases the tire manufacturer will not have direct contact with the tire dealer selling the changeover tires after they have been traded in by the vehicle purchaser.

We have carefully considered these points, and have determined that Part 574 is nevertheless applicable to changeover tires.

Part 574 is an integral part of the enforcement scheme for compliance with the standards and the requirements with respect to safety-related defects, and as such its coverage is intended to be coextensive with the applicability of the standards. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, or offering for sale of tires which do not conform to applicable standards. Although the Act provides that this prohibition shall not apply after the first purchase, it specifically limits this exemption to purchases made "in good faith for purposes other than resale." Therefore, the fact that title to original-equipment tires has passed to the vehicle purchaser is not controlling, because in these cases the purchaser intends to exchange the tires-- that is, he is purchasing them for the purpose of reselling them, not for using them.

If the standard were not applicable to changeover tires, tire dealers could with impunity alter these tires in a manner that would make them unsafe. A case in point is the known practice whereby dealers alter the sidewalls of tires, often changeover tires, by cutting out a groove and laminating a whitewall surface to the surface of the tire.

Another policy reason for applying Part 574 to changeover tires is that, from a safety standpoint, the person who actually is using the changeover tires on his vehicle should be the one who is notified in the event the tires are suspected of being defective.

We recognize that the Federal Trade Commission does not allow changeover tires to be sold as new tires. That agency is, however, primarily concerned with fraudulent sales, an area of concern much different from ours. The difference in the definitional categories used by the two agencies is, we feel, fully justified by their different missions.

With regard to your point that the manufacturer of the changeover tires would not have direct contact with the dealer who sells the changeover tires, I will simply say that this is true in many situations with regard to tire distribution, and we do not consider it sufficient grounds to make the regulation inapplicable to changeover tires. It does not appear to be an undue hardship for a tire dealer to obtain a form and forward the information concerning the purchaser of the tire to the tire manufacturer.

ID: nht71-2.28

DATE: 04/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Allied Chemical Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1971, requesting our interpretation of S4.5.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. You have asked whether the requirement of S4.5.2 that "all electrical circuits" must be monitored would mean that a bridgewire circuit in an electroexplosive device would have to be monitored. Our answer is that such a circuit must be monitored, although it should be noted that monitoring need not be continous, but may be designed to occur, for example, only when the ignition is in the "start" position.

Your letter points out several potential problems with the inclusion of such a bridgewire circuit among the monitored systems. We are giving consideration to the self-monitoring requirement in the light of the comments we have received, with a view to possible amendments that may be found advisable.

ID: nht71-2.29

DATE: 04/20/71

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

TO: Morgan Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 17, 1971, in which you requested further clarification of the test procedures of the standard on side door strength, Standard No. 214. Your diagram of the Morgan Plus 8 shows a horizontal line drawn across the door 5 inches above the lowest point of the door. This would appear to be an accurate depiction of the location of the lower edge of the loading device as specified in the standard. You express concern that the line is a considerable distance from the ground, but under the requirements of the standard, the height above the lower edge of the door is the relevant height, and not the height above ground.

I hope this will help to resolve your questions with respect to Standard No. 214.

ID: nht71-2.3

DATE: 02/10/71

FROM: R.A. DIAZ -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CLUE D. FERGUSON

TO: The Yokohama Rubber Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of December 30, 1970, requesting exemption from the requirements of Section 374,4, concerning the location of the required labeling between the maximum section width and the based, of Regulation Fact 374. Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Your request is being(Illegible Word) as a petition for rulemaking under @ 353.551 of title 42 and by way of this letter is denied.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administrative is requiring the location of the identification number because the maximum sections width and the based for two reasons. As you have currently cited the location is such as this labeling will not be remove in the retreading(Illegible Words). The second reason is that such a location will provide the maximum protection to(Illegible Word) that the number is not scuffed or(Illegible Word) off during the operation. In view of these reasons, you are not allowed to put the identification number in the space above the regular section width.

Your question concerning the height of the "DOT" for motorcycle tires is not applicable at this time. The symbol "DOT" cannot be used as motorcycle tires until there is an applicable standard. The(Illegible Word) for the standard covering these tires will be issued later this calender year and probably will not be effective until January 1, 1972.

ID: nht71-2.30

DATE: 04/23/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: J.O. Phillips

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of March 31 you ask what requirements may apply to you if you rebuild truck tractors from salvage units.

To begin with, you become a "manufacturer" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and subject to the requirements which the Act imposes upon manufacturers. These requirements are that you ensure that any motor vehicle you manufacture complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, that you cooperate with safety-related investigations by providing information and access to your premises upon request by this agency, that you furnish certification to distributers(Illegible Word) of your motor vehicles that the vehicles comply with applicable general standards, standards, and that you furnish notification to vehicle owners of any safety-related defects in the vehicle when they come to your attention. At present, regulations requiring that prospective purchasers be supplied with certain safety-related performance information do not apply to manufacturers of truck tractors.

Under our regulations a "truck tractor" is a sub-category of "truck," and therefore it must comply with Federal standards applicable to trucks, as well as requirements that specifically apply to truck tractors.(Illegible Word) standards, however, do not apply to vehicles in use, that is, to a vehicle which is merely repaired. A vehicle which is rebuilt, however, so that it becomes in(Illegible Word) motor vehicle must. In our view, comply with all Federal Standards applicable to the manufacturer of new vehicles.

You informed Mr. Vinaon of our Office of Chief Counsel on April 19 that, in a typical operation, you would assemble a truck tractor using both parts from one or more existing truck tractors and new parts contained in a "Glider" kit such as is held by(Illegible Words), and that the resulting truck tractor would be eligible for registration as a new motor vehicle. In our opinion, truck tractors which you produce in this manner must comply with all Federal standards applicable to trucks or truck tractors as of the date of their manufacture.

I enclose a copy of the Act and "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Other Regulations" for your guidance.

Enclosures

ID: nht71-2.31

DATE: 04/28/71

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

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to conform your understanding that the DOT symbol, which represents the tire manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with the passenger car tire standard, is required on tires installed on multipurpose passenger vehicles, if such tires are originally designed and have passenger car tire size designations. However, since Standard No. 110 does not, at the present time, apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, the responsibility for assuring that these tires contain the DOT symbol is limited to the tire manufacturer.

ID: nht71-2.32

DATE: 04/28/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Simek Manufacturing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 7, 1971, concerning the applicability of the Tire identification and Record Keeping Regulations to boat trailers. As used in the regulation, "Motor Vehicle" includes boat trailers as well as other types of trailers. Thus, the regulation does apply to boat trailers.

If a trailer is shipped with the tires attached, section 574.10 requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to maintain the records of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale because the tires will be "on or in" a vehicle shipped by him. If, however, the trailers are shipped in a "knocked down" configuration with the tires shipped seperately, the tires are not considered to be shipped "on or in" the vehicle within the meaning of Section 574.10, and therefore, the vehicle dealer is, by section 57 required to report the name and address of the purchaser to the tire manufacturer.

The manner of maintaining the records is not specified by the regulation and any method that satisfies the requirements of the regulation may be used.

ID: nht71-2.33

DATE: 04/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Ashimori Industry Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1971, regarding self-fastening seat belt systems.

Any system which requires no action by vehicle occupants can be used to meet the appropriate options of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection. "The action," in this case, means that no action is permitted by vehicle occupants other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.

We have received a number of petitions for reconsideration or clarification of Notice 9, particularly in reference to the role of a passive (no action) safety belt system as it relates to the requirements for Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt installations prior to August 15, 1975. We are now in the process of resolving the petitions received, and our final decisions in response to the petitions will be issued in the Federal Register as soon as possible.

Your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs is most appreciated.

ID: nht71-2.34

DATE: 04/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Busby, Rivkin, Sherman and Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1971, in which you enclosed a request for clarification, on behalf of Rolls-Royce, Ltd., of the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Essentially, the question was whether a "European type combined lap and diagonal strap seat belt assembly with retractor" could be furnished instead of the "Type 1 seatbelt assembly" specified in the second protection option on passenger cars manufactured from August 15, 1973, to August 14, 1975.

Standard No. 208 does not permit this substitution. The key feature of the second option in the August 1973- August 1975 period is that the manufacturer must design his vehicles so that the front seat occupants are protected from injury when restrained with lap belts only, and provide lap belts for all occupants that may, at least, be separately usable as such. A detachable upper torso belt may be provided at the manufacturer's option. The basis for this requirement is the well-documented finding that a much larger percentage of the American public will fasten lap belts than will use upper torso belts, whether the latter are of the detachable or the combination type.

We are pleased to be of assistance.