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.

ID: nht71-3.23

DATE: 06/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Coach Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1971, requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation to the mobile home and recreational vehicle industry.

You have asked if there is a specific regulation requiring the motor vehicle dealer to report tire data to the motor vehicle manufacturer when the vehicle is sold equipped with new tires installed by the manufacturer. There is no requirement that the vehicle dealer report tire data to the vehicle manufacturer, however, in the event the vehicle is sold with tires different from those shipped on or in the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle dealer would have to report the name and address of the purchaser along with the tire identification number to the tire manufacturer.

You have asked if the Administrator would apply section 113(f) of the Act to require vehicle dealers to provide tire data to the vehicle manufacturer when the vehicle is sold equipped with tires installed by the vehicle manufacturer. The vehicle manufacturer is required to keep records of tires shipped on or in his vehicles as well as the name and address of the first purchaser. It is doubtful that any additional requirements will be considered unless this system appears to be ineffective.

Regarding your question whether there is a regulation requiring the vehicle manufacturer to report tire data to the tire manufacturer, there is no requirement that vehicle manufacturer report tire information to the tire manufacturer because the responsibility for issuing defect notification to the first purchaser of the vehicle rests with the vehicle manufacturer and not with the tire manufacturer.

You have also asked, in a situation where a vehicle dealer refuses to provide "tire records" to the vehicle manufacturer, would this constitute a "due care" defense for the vehicle manufacturer who would be unable to maintain the records required by the regulation. Because each enforcement action is handled separately, it is impossible to determine in advance whether this would be considered a "due care" defense in the situation you describe, however, it would be taken into consideration before an enforcement action would be initiated. If vehicle dealers refuse to cooperate and provide first purchaser information which section 113(f) of the Act requires vehicle manufacturers to maintain, the Administration would consider issuing a regulation making this mandatory.

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

ID: nht71-3.24

DATE: 07/02/71

FROM: E.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN CARSON

TO: Bandag Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1971, and to confirm opinions given by members of this office(Illegible Words) phone coversation with you.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued pursuant to it the treadless casing you import is not considered to be a completed tire until the tread is applied. Therefore, the Bandag dealer applying the tread is considered to be the tire manufacturer and the Korean manufacturer of the casing does not have to put his own "DOT" number on the casing.

Since you expect many of your dealers will be using this process, in order not to unduly expand the new manufacturer's list, all your dealers are to use your assigned code number "DOT" for the grouping representing the manufacturer's assigned code and their own three symbol retreader's code in the third grouping which is normally considered the optional code:

Your dealers, as manufacturers of the tires are responsible for maintaining the records of the first purchaser of the tires they manufacturer.

I believe Docket No. 70-12, Notice No. 9 (36 P.R. 9869) answers your question concerning the location of tire identification numbers.

Mr. M. Groosman U.S. Factory Representative Automobiles Peugeot

This is in reply to your letter of June 22 requesting an interpretation of Paragraph S4.2 of Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 101.

You may mark your windshield wiper control, and lighting - windshield washing control in the manner indicated in your letter. We do not consider the washing control a wiping control requiring identification as such merely because the wiper is momentarily activated when the washer system is in operation.

Lawrence R. Schneider Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-3.25

DATE: 07/07/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Chase Manhattan Capital Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1971 concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574). We are concerned with the points you raise in your letter regarding the confidentiality of tire dealers customer's lists and the extra burden the regulation causes dealers who handle more than one brand of tires.

However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act we do not feel we have authority to require the tire manufacturer to choose someone as his designee. Section 113(f) of the Act makes the tire manufacturer responsible for maintaining the records of first purchasers.

As you probably know, any use of the customer's list by the tire manufacturer is expressly prohibited by the regulation. Any violation of this prohibition will be enforced.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a notice published in the Federal Register May 28, 1971 which is relevant to the points you raise.