ID: nht71-5.47

DATE: 07/09/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Nance; Caston; Hefner and Green

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1971, concerning a marketing practice used by your client, Hale Trailer Salco, Inc., which consists of allowing purchasers of new trailers to specify that the trailer be delivered with either new or used tires. When used tires are chosen, you indicate that they are for the limited purpose of delivering the trailer to the purchaser, and are usually replaced by him with other tires. You further indicate that this practice is widespread in the particular industry.

You ask in your letter whether the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) apply to the trailers that are sold equipped with used tires. The answer to this question is no. However, as you apparently realize, trailers sold with new tires that have been manufactured on or after May 22, 1971, are subject to the regulation.

Your letter also discusses the possibility of future requirements for trailer tires, and suggests three possible courses of action under such requirements by which trailers might be sold with used tires. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, motorcycle, and trailer tires was published October 14, 1967, (32 F.R. 14279) and a public meeting was held on the subject in June 1970. Since that time there has been no public issuance concerning this matter, and it is thus impossible to

2 send you the proposed rule you requested. The matter is under active consideration within the agency, however, and the proposed requirements should be issued in the near future.

The proposals will solicit comments from interested persons, which will be considered before any final regulations are issued. Your comments and any additional suggestions you might have would be appreciated in response to these proposals.

If you have additional questions, please feel free to write.

NANCE, CASTON, HEFNER AND GREEN

May 20, 1971

George Shifflett U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau

Re: Hale Trailer Sales, Inc. 4-122 CIR-185.1

This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of May 19, 1971, with regard to our above client. I would appreciate opinions as I will hereafter numerate, and for purposes of these opinions the following facts are partinent: For a number of years, and purely as a convenience to our client's customers they have purchased in hugh lots, primarily from wrecking yards, used tires at $ 1.00 per tire. Since these tires are purchased from wrecking yards as merely a convenience item in huge lots we do not know the history of any of the tires concerning whether or not it has been retreaded, and if so, how recently and by whom, nor do we know when the tire was produced or whether the tire is a "second" in the production sense. Obviously, the products which we manufacture cannot be transported with convenience, from place to place, or delivered to customers without the use of tires. Many of the farmers and stockmen which we sell these tires to (approximately 40-50%) use these tires merely to deliver the vehicle from our stores, our dealer's store or our construction sights, and then discard them replacing on the vehicle tires which they have purchased at reduced rates either from tire manufacturers giving farmers discounts, or some cooperatives which purchase tires in bulk at reduced rates for members. Therefore, there is not real interest on the part that the vehicle even be equipped with tires, and in many instances they are not willing to pay for tires. However, this factor does not overcome the progmatic problem of transporting and delivering the vehicle. This problem is very characteristic of this particular industry, and at no time is a charge made for these tires. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, the invoices are marked "less tire" and with a notation of "no charge" on the sales invoices.

In addition, if Hale is required to put new tires on these vehicles, it will require on unnecessary increase in inventory of approximately $ 40,000.00 which is totally unnecessary for the sale of the vehicles and as stated above, are generally unwanted in 40-50% of the sales that are made. The other 50 - 60% of the sales that we make we are now furnishing tires and beginning May 22, 1971, will be complying with the record keeping

2 rules, even though, as you stated, there is no applicability to any tires manufactured prior to May 22, 1971. Presumably, we will continue to furnish these new tires and make appropriate charges for them, because in these instances the purchasers do not have the benefit of discount purchases, or they otherwise do desire to purchase tires with the vehicle and pay appropriate changes for them - we have no reason to suspect that we will not continue this in the future.

Based upon the above described facts, I would appreciate the following opinions:

1. Does the law as it becomes effective May 22, 1971, require us to keep records with regard to complying therewith with regard to these used tires?

2. You indicated that trailers are not covered by pertinent aspects of the present law, but that they would be covered in the future, and you indicated you would forward me a copy of the law which will become effective some time in the future. Based upon this extended application to which you referred, and in order that we may make preparations necessary to comply therewith, will it be possible for us to furnish any used tires under the facts stated above with the use of any one or more of the following whether singularly or in grouping:

a. Prepare a disclaimer certificate to deliver to the purchaser that the tires do not conform to the National Transportation Rules and are delivered merely as a convenience to the customer, and should not be used on any public road, street or highway; b. Some type of making on the tire to indicate that it is or may be a noncomplying tire.

c. The purchase by Hale of only tires manufactured after May 22, 1971, which are used tires, with the accompanying use of disclaimers described in either "a" or "b", and/or the use of any other method of your suggestion that would avoid this unnecessary increase in inventory.

As you know, I am totally unaware of what the new law will contain, since you have not had a chance to mail this to me. However, I thought that I would attempt to draft a request for opinion based upon our conversation in order to give you some additional time to consider and investigate this matter while I am reviewing this law as inacted, since the sizable outlay will have great implication on the economic structure of the corporation,

3 and will involve a great deal of planning and preparation, if a change is in fact necessary.

I hope that I have stated all necessary facts in order to illicit these opinions; however, if you need any additional facts which you feel are pertinent, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Thank you very much for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. Kindest regards.

Stephen F. Hefner

cc: Mr. Stanley Hale

ID: nht71-5.48

DATE: 07/06/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On June 29, 1971, you submitted on behalf of Ford Motor Company an Amendment to Petition for Reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. In this amendment of your petition you seek a stay of the effective date of the rule and the reopening of the administrative proceedings on the grounds that (1) Ford might make "specific responses, rebuttals and comments" regarding materials not placed in the docket until after issuance of the rule in question, and (2) Ford's own continuing work has resulted in material information which it could not until quite recently have made available. You request that the "amendment be decided" concurrently with Ford's petition for reconsideration.

As you know, the safety standards are promulgated under informal rulemaking procedures of Section 4(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. @ 553(c)). Automotive Parts & Accessories Association, Inc. v. Boyd, 407 F.2d 330 (D.C. Cir. 1968). Under informal rulemaking procedures, an agency "may act not only on the basis of the comments received in response to its notice of rulemaking, but also upon the basis of information available in its own files, and upon the knowledge and expertise of the agency." California Citizens Band Association v. United States, 375 F.2d 43, 54 (9 Cir., 1967). Under section 105(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, judicial review of our rulemaking takes place on the basis of the "record," which consists of all relevant materials available to the agency and considered by it in connection with the action in question. The certified list of the record in this matter filed in the Sixth Circuit is composed of just such a record. We emphatically deny that the assembling of the record in this manner constitutes "stacking" of

2 the record. On the contrary, we maintain that such action is entirely proper, a regular adjunct to informal rulemaking conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and is consistent with action taken in previous similar judicial review proceedings involving this agency.

Under the informal rulemaking procedures utilized by the NHTSA, the "record" is never really closed. When a final rule is issued, petitions for reconsideration may be filed pursuant to 49 CFR 553.35. When a final decision is issued on petitions for reconsideration, further submissions are placed in the public docket and are treated as petitions to establish, amend, or repeal a rule pursuant to 49 CFR 553.31. Thus, Ford and any other interested person are free at all times to submit relevant information to any rulemaking docket; and these submittals are regularly brought to the attention of concerned personnel for appropriate action.

Under 49 CFR 553.35(b) of the Administration's procedural rules, a petitioner for reconsideration may submit additional facts if he states the reason why they were not presented within the prescribed period. In your request to amend your petition for reconsideration you did state two such reasons (the same reasons advanced in support of the merits of your amendment): (1) the addition of materials to the docket by NHTSA, and (2) the possession by Ford of new material information only recently made available. Although we cannot agree with your contention that the Administration acted in a manner inconsistent with informal rulemaking procedures, you are nevertheless free to submit at this time whatever information you think is relevant to the record, including information only recently made available through Ford's continuing research. Accordingly, your June 29, 1971, amendment to your petition for reconsideration will be accepted as such and considered along with the petition pursuant to your request. If you have other material you wish to submit in addition to that already submitted under date of June 29, 1971, please submit it as soon as possible. Under informal rulemaking procedures this Administration is eager to receive such additional information and strongly urges Ford to make a prompt submission of any such material. Material submitted after a decision has been made on the petitions for reconsideration will, of course, be placed in the public docket pursuant to 49 CFR 553.31 of the Administration's procedural rules.

Ford Motor Company

June 29, 1971

Douglas W. Toms Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Toms:

Amendment to Petition for Reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 -- Occupant Crash Protection -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses

We are transmitting herewith for your information a copy of an amendment to the Ford Motor Company's pending Petition for Reconsideration in the above matter. The amendment has been formally filed in NHTSA's docket. In our view, the points discussed in this document raise grave questions as to the procedure followed in promulgating the occupant crash protection standard.

As you will note from the first page of the enclosure, Ford requests, because of the urgent matters set forth therein, that the amendment be decided with utmost dispatch, concurrently with Ford's pending Petition for Reconsideration.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. Eckhold Automotive Safety Director

ID: nht71-5.49

DATE: 07/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Modrall, Seymour, Sperling, Roehl & Harris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: GIGLER V. VOLKSWAGEN

In your letter of June 16 to Roman Brooks of this agency you ask for background information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and Fuel Tank Connections, effective January 1, 1968.

Section 103(h) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 required that the initial safety standards be "based upon existing safety standards." Standard No. 301 was based upon General Services Agency Standard No. 515/26, Fuel Tanks and Tank Filler Pipes, effective October 13, 1967. As you know, the GSA standards were applicable only to vehicles purchased by the Federal Government. The two standards, however, are not identical; as an example, Standard No. 301 includes fuel tank connections, while GSA Standard No. 515/26 included a rear end collision test at 20 miles per hour and a side collision test at 15 miles per hour. Perhaps GSA can provide you with background information on their standard if you deem it essential to your case.

MODRALL, SEYMOUR, SPERLING, ROEHL & HARRIS

June 16, 1971

Roman Brooks U. S. Department of Transportation

Re: Volkswagen Gas Caps Our File: Gigler v. Volkswagen

As I mentioned to you when we discussed this matter on the telephone sometime ago, one of the issues in this case will be the applicability of safety standard 301. It is my understanding that on November 30, 1966, the department issued public notice that it was proposing to adopt standard 301, together with the other initial 22 standards. This notice was published on December 3, 1966, in Volume 31 of the Federal Register, pages 15212 through 15221. The publication gave notice that standard 301 was anticipated to become effective on September 1, 1967, and invited interested parties to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. On January 31, 1967, the order establishing the standard was entered and the same was published on February 3, 1967, in Volume 32 of the Federal Register, pages 2408 through 2416. Standard 301 was adopted, but was to become effective January 1, 1968, rather than September 1, 1967, as originally proposed.

I recognize that safety standard 301 was not technically applicable to the 1966 VW and that it did not go into effect until after our accident (September 20, 1967) had occurred. It is my contention, however, that standard 301 was nothing more than a codification of a pre-existing standard or general custom commonly recognized in the automotive industry. What I need to find out is whether or not this is true and exactly where the standard came from. If you have any committee reports or other data which you could send me concerning the history and background of safety standard 301, I would be most appreciative. If you are not the proper party to handle this for me would you please see to it that this letter reaches the proper destination.

2

This issue is one which the court wants to resolve before trial and in a very short period of time. Consequently, I need this information as soon as possible. In the event that you have such reports and perhaps transcripts of hearings, etc., but the same would be bulky and rather expensive for me to purchase, please let me know since my clients have already built up enormous expenses in this case and we are going to have to start economizing.

Thank you for your very kind cooperation.

Kenneth L. Harrigan

ID: nht71-5.5

DATE: 11/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James Eckstein

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 27, 1971, which was forwarded to this office October 20, 1971, by the Federal Trade Commission, regarding Government specifications for retreaded tires. You refer to problems you believe result from "out of roundness;" specifically, abnormal wear and blowouts at normal boulevard and highway speeds. You wish to determine whether this problem results from "too lenient" Government requirements, or whether "manufacturers are negligent."

Out-of-roundness can occur in a retreaded tire for numerous reasons, and its presence does not necessarily indicate negligence on the part of the manufacturer. Moreover, while an out-of-round tire may affect vehicle handling it generally does not blow out at normal boulevard or even highway speeds, as a result of the out-of-round condition. Thus, a blow out in an out-of-round tire could have resulted from other factors. Many tire dealers, in addition, have machines that can eliminate out-of-roundness by cutting off excess tread.

With reference to Federal regulations of retreaded tires, the first such regulation will become effective January 1, 1972. This regulation, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires," specifies size and performance requirements for retreaded tires for use on passenger cars. These requirements are similar to those that have been applicable to new passenger car tires since January 1, 1968. None of these requirements specifically concern "out-of-roundness." We do not have evidence that this characteristic, by itself, is a safety problem.

ID: nht71-5.50

DATE: 07/01/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of June 7, 1971, you asked for confirmation of your understanding that under the NHTSA regulation (49 CFR @ 553.39) interpreting section 105(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a petition for judicial review of Standard No. 208 would be considered timely if filed within 60 days after the publication in the Federal Register of the Administrator's decision on any petitions for reconsideration of that standard.

Your understanding is correct. As the standard currently stands, we consider it (that is, the standard as it becomes effective January 1, 1972) a "single rule", to use your phrase, and the judicial review period will not begin to run until the publication of the decision on any timely-filed petitions for reconsideration of any part of it. If at a future date we wish to sever any portion of the standard for judicial review purposes, and consider it "final" despite pending action on other portions, we will give explicit notice of that action in the Federal Register.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht71-5.51

DATE: 06/04/71

FROM: DAVID SCHMELTZER FOR L. R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

COPYEE: PESKOE; ARMSTRONG; DRIVER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 11, 1971, in which you request an opinion on whether certain tires manufactured by Phillips Petroleum Company are subject to the requirements governing tires that have been issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 et seq.) You state that the tires in question result from Phillips' efforts to develop improved tread rubber, and are manufactured by purchasing new tires, buffing them down, and then retreading the remaining casings with experimental tread rubber compounds, You state further that after the casings have been retreaded, the tread rubber compounds are evaluated by stationary wheel testing, road testing, or both, and indicate that some of the road testing takes place on the public highways.

We agree with your conclusion that these tires are not retreaded pneumatic tires under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, because they are not manufactured from used tires. However, in our view these tires are new pneumatic tires, and accordingly are subject to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) provides that no person shall --

"manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard."

Phillips' use of the public roads for testing these tires is an introduction of them in interstate concerns and is prohibited by section 108(a)(1) if the tires do not conform to Standard No. 109.

One objective of the Act that you did not mention in your letter is the prevention of possibly hazardous motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment from being used on the public highways, where they may endanger not only the driver of the vehicle in question, but other users of the highway as well. The tires need not be manufactured for sale to the general public in order for a violation of section 108(a)(1) to occur.

However, if the testing of these tires is confined to the laboratory or to private roads, the prohibition of the Act will not apply to them.

I trust this answers your question. If you have further questions, please write.

ID: nht71-5.52

DATE: 06/25/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Robert W. Hunt Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of May 26, 1971, you requested an interpretation of the newly issued S5.3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (36 F.R. 4607, March 10, 1971). Your question is whether the three-pound weight shown in Figure 9 is the only force permitted on the lengthening stroke of the buckle abrasion test, or whether additional force may be applied.

The three-pound weight is shown in the illustration of the lengthening stroke in Figure 9 for reasons of pictorial accuracy, since it remains attached to the belt throughout the cycle. It is not intended to indicate a three-pound limit on the lengthening stroke force and you are correct in your understanding that additional tension may be applied to obtain the required eight-inch stroke length.

Please advise if we can be of further assistance.

ROBERT W. HUNT COMPANY May 26, 1971

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: L. Schneider

Re: Amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 209, Paragraphs 571.21, Title 49 of CFR Docket 69-23, Notice 2

When making tests provided for in the addition (d) "Resistance to Buckle Abrasion" of Paragraph S5.3, a condition occurred which led us to request clarification of the intent of this test procedure.

Figure 9 provides for a three-pound weight (B) and it could be interpreted that this weight alone is required to pull the webbing through on the lengthening stroke. It is our understanding that this is not the intention of the specification and that the three-pound weight is provided to offer resistance on the shortening stroke and that additional tension may be applied on the lengthening stroke to be certain that the webbing is pulled through the buckle to obtain a stroke length of 8".

In view of what we consider to be more than one possible interpretation of the intent of the specification we will appreciate clarification.

W. H. SAVAGE, P.E. President

ID: nht71-5.53

DATE: 06/10/71

FROM: CLUE D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY ZEMAITIS

TO: Physicians for Automotive Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 24, 1971, informing us of Mr. Hurley's Safe-Trip-Seat and inquiring about enforcement of Standard No. 209 concerning a non-complying Hankscraft child harness.

Mr. Hurley sent us a letter on April 10, 1971, informing us of his device. Our letter to him was sent out on May 10, 1971, so he had not received it when he wrote to you. I believe we have adequately informed him of his lack of compliance with Standard No. 213 and the penalties involved if he does not. A copy of our letter to him is enclosed for your information. Our compliance personnel were also alerted on the Safe-Trip-Seat.

Hankscraft was notified in a letter dated March 23, 1971, of our position on any child harness (copy enclosed). Please note that we will enforce Standard No. 209 on harnesses advertised in any way to provide any measure of protection in a vehicle accident. We will not enforce the requirements of Standard No. 209 on harnesses which "carefully state that they are not intended to protect a child from the effects of an accident."

A copy of this letter is being forwarded to our compliance personnel for appropriate action by them.

ENC

ID: nht71-5.54

DATE: 06/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Coach Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 7 requesting interpretations of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

First, with respect to Standard No. 207, you have asked whether designated seating positions must be labeled as such. Our response is that the labeling section requires labels on seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion but does not require designated seating positions to be labeled.

With respect to the nature and content of the label on a seat not designated for occupancy, the standard states that the seat must be "conspicuously labeled to that effect." There are thus two general requirements: that the label be conspicuous and that it indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. The requirement for conspicuousness relates to the location of the label and the prominence of its lettering. Generally speaking, it would have to be located so that it could be seen by a person preparing to occupy the seat and of a size that could be read by the occupant-in the normal motion of sitting. The statement on the label must clearly indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, but the exact wording is left to the manufacturer.

Standard No. 208 requires that MPV's and trucks with a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds, manufactured from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1975, must elect either a passive protection system or a seat belt system that requires Type 2 seat belt assemblies

at outboard designated seating positions that include the windshield header within the head impact area. A similar requirement, without the passive option, goes into effect July 1, 1971, for these vehicles. Your question is whether, if a seating position does not have the windshield header within the head impact area, it is permitted to have a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Our response is that the standard permits a Type 1 belt for such a position.

Please advise us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely

TRAILER COACH ASSOCIATION

7 June 1971

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Office of the Chief Counsel

Enclosed are the following requests for interpretation relative to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations and Standards: TCA-RI-1-71 - Request for Interpretation (7 June 1971) 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Record Keeping; TCA-RI-2-71 - Request for Interpretation (7 June 1971) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 Occupant Crash Protection.

The requests for interpretation formats and contents have been developed to facilitate interpretation by the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Trailer Coach Association wishes to develop an optimum standard system for requesting interpretations and would appreciate any comments from the Administrator, NHTSA, concerning improvements in format and content.

Richard I. Moss Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association

7 June 1971

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 1-71 (TCA-RI-1-71)

SUBJECT: 49 CFR Part 574 Tire Identification and Record Keeping

This document constitutes a formal request from the Trailer Coach Association to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for interpretation relative to the application of 49 CFR Part 574 Tire Identification and Record Keeping to the mobile home and recreation vehicle industry.

This document is designed to simplify arrival at an interpretation by the Administrator, NHTSA, and consists of the following paragraphs:

1.0 Background

2.0 Problem

2.1 Development of the problem situation

2.2 The specific problem

3.0 Request for Interpretation

Please forward the interpretation to the following office:

Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 922 Arlington, Virginia 22209.

RICHARD I. MOSS Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 1-71 (TCA-RI-1-71)

SUBJECT: 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (Part 574)

1.0 Background

In the recreation vehicle manufacturing process, the flow of tires and vehicles from the tire manufacturer to the customer is often complex. This complexity occurs primarily because several types of recreation vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages.

Figure - 1 -- Flow chart Type I Sequence of Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity portrays one typical flow of tires and vehicles from the tire manufacturer to the customer.

Figure - 2 -- Coding Chart for Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity provides a key to the activities performed by each organization along the flow (boxes 1 through 6 inclusive) as interpreted by the staff, Trailer Coach Association

2.0 Problem

2.1 Development of the Problem Situation

In Figure - 1 there is no tire dealer. There are, however, two motor vehicle dealers in the flow of tires and vehicles, namely, the truck dealer and the motor home dealer.

Paragraph 574.7 (Tire Distributors and Dealers) of the tire identification and record keeping regulations requires the tire distributors and dealers to provide tire information to the tire manufacturer.

Paragraph 574.8 establishes motor vehicle dealers as tire dealers when (1) he sells a used motor vehicle for purposes other than resale or leases a motor vehicle for more than 60 days that is equipped with new tires or newly retreaded tires; or (2) he sells a new motor vehicle to first purchaser that is equipped with tires that were not on the vehicle when shipped by the vehicle manufacturer.

There is no specific requirement appearing in 574 Tire Identification and Record Keeping for the motor vehicle dealer selling a new vehicle to the first purchaser equipped with tires when shipped by the manufacturer to report information to the motor vehicle manufacturer or the tire manufacturer.

A study of Figure - 1 flow chart indicates that: (1) There is no tire dealer in the chain; and (2) There are two motor vehicle dealers in the chain. Neither dealer is specifically required to report tire data by the provisions of 574, the tire identification and record keeping regulation.

Paragraph 574.9 requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to maintain a record, by identification number, of tires on or in each vehicle shipped by him to a motor vehicle distributor or dealer and to maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires.

2.2 The Specific Problem

The tire identification and record keeping regulations as written and as applied to Flow Chart Type I, Sequence of Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity, present the recreation vehicle manufacturer with the following problems.

(1) The vehicle manufacturer is required to report tire information, but, in the case of a vehicle equipped with tires provided by the manufacturer, the vehicle dealer is not specifically required to provide tire data to the vehicle manufacturer.

(2) The vehicle manufacturer is not considered a tire dealer and is not required to provide tire data to the tire manufacturer.

(3) The vehicle manufacturer cannot comply with 574 if the vehicle dealer refuses to provide tire data.

(4) The tire reporting chain is broken (Fig-1) and 574 the tire identification and reporting regulation becomes ineffective.

3.0 Request for Interpretation

It is requested that the following questions be answered in order to provide a sound basis for recreation vehicle industry compliance with 49 CFR Part 574 Tire Identification and Reporting Requirements.

3.1 Is there a specific regulation requiring the motor vehicle dealer to report tire data to the motor vehicle manufacturer when the motor vehicle is equipped with new tires installed by the motor vehicle manufacturer?

3.2 Would the Administrator apply Section 113f, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as the means

to the motor vehicle manufacturer when the motor vehicle is equipped with new tires installed by the motor vehicle manufacturer?

3.3 What specific regulation requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to report tire data to the tire manufacturer when new tires have been procured for motor vehicles direct from the manufacturer?

3.4 If a motor vehicle manufacturer who sells a motor vehicle to a motor vehicle dealer which is equipped with new tires installed by the manufactured has documented proof (such as a registered letter) that the motor vehicle dealer refused to provide the required tire records:

3.4.1 Has the motor vehicle manufacturer shown "due care" by having documentary evidence of the dealer's refusal to provide the tire records?

3.4.2 If the motor vehicle manufacturer informs the Administrator, NHTSA, concerning the dealer's refusal to provide tire records and provides documentary evidence of the dealer's refusal to provide tire records, what assistance will the Administrator, NHTSA, provide for the motor vehicle manufacturer?

Fig.

(FLOW CHART OMITTED)

NOTES 1. LETTERS (A,B,C) ARE CODES INDICATING SPECIFIC ACTIVITY [SEE CODING CHART]

2. NUMBER IN PARENTHESES [(2), (3)] INDICATES ORGANIZATION TO WHICH INFO IS PASSED.

FLOW CHART TYPE I SEQUENCE OF TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORD KEEPING ACTIVITY

CODING CHART FOR TIRE IDENTIFICATION RECORD KEEPING ACTIVITY Item Description of Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity Provides means of record keeping Records information concerning purchasers Maintains records concerning all tire purchasers Maintains records concerning distribu- tors and dealers purchasing tires directly from him Submits purchaser information to tire manufacturer Maintains record of tires on or in each vehicle shipped to motor vehicle distributor or dealer Maintains records for three years Maintains name and address of first vehicle purchaser

Item Code Remarks A This is a form containing the information in item 2 below B Name and address of tire purchasers Tire identification number Name and address of tire seller C Same remarks as for Item #2 D Name and address Number of tires purchased Number of tires for which reports received Total number of tires sold by manufacturer Total number of tires reported on E Same information as for item #2 A record of all purchasers is not required F Record is by tire identification number G H

TRAILER COACH ASSOCIATION

7 June 1971

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 2-71 (TCA-RI-2-71)

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208; Occupant Crash Protection.

This document constitutes a formal request from the Trailer Coach Association to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for interpretation relative to the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207 and 208 to the mobile home and recreation vehicle industry.

This document is designed to simplify arrival at an interpretation by the Administrator, NHTSA, and consists of the following paragraphs:

1.0 Background

2.0 Problem

2.1 Development of the Problem Situation

2.2 The Specific Problem

3.0 Request for Interpretation

Please forward the interpretation of the following office:

Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 922 Arlington, Virginia 22209

RICHARD I. MOSS Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 2-71 (TCA-RI-2-71)

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.

1.0 Background

Paragraph S 4.2.1.2 (b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 states that "The vehicle shall have seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard 209 as follows:

(a) . . . .

(b) In all vehicles except those for which requirements are specified in S 4.2.1.2 (a), a type of seat belt assembly shall be installed for each outboard designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area, and a type 1 or type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each other designated seating position."

There appears to be no requirement for labeling designated seating positions Standard 207, paragraph S 4.4 states that

"Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect."

2.0 Problem 2.1 Development of the Problem Situation

The problem confronting the recreation vehicle industry has developed relative to: (1) The requirement for type 2 seat belts if the windshield header is not in the head impact area; (2) The requirements for labeling designated seating positions; and (3) The requirement for labeling seats other than designated seating positions.

2.2 The Specific Problem

Does paragraph S 4.2.1.2(b) Standard 208 mean that if the windshield header is not in the head impact area, type 1 seat belt assemblies are satisfactory?

Are there labeling requirements for designated positions?

What are the specific requirements relative to labeling seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion?

3.0 Request for Interpretation

It is requested that the following questions be answered in order to provide a sound basis for recreation vehicle industry compliance with Standard 207, Seating systems - Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses; and Standard 208 - Occupant Crash Protection:

3.1 If the windshield header is not within the head impact area, is a type 1 seat belt satisfactory for the designated seating position?

3.2 Is labeling required for designated seating positions? If so, what are the requirements for:

3.2.1 Label Contents?

3.2.2 Lettering Size?

3.2.3 Contrast?

3.2.4 Location?

3.2.5 Number of labels per designated seating position?

3.3 What are the requirements for the labels required by paragraph S 4.4 standard 207? Specifically, what are the requirements for:

3.3.1 Label Contents?

3.3.2 Lettering Size?

3.3.3 Contrast?

3.3.4 Location?

3.3.5 Number of Labels?

ID: nht71-5.55

DATE: 05/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1971, requesting an additional interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation.

If in fact, the vehicle manufactured is not considered a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act and the mini-bike interpretation (34 F.R. 15416) (copy enclosed), then Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, and section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402) will be inapplicable.

SINCERELY,

PATTON, BLOW, VERRILL, BRAND & BOGGS

May 3, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Re: Your reference 40-30

Thank you for your letter of April 28th in response to my letter of April 12th which requested confirmation of my interpretation of certain requirements of MVSS Part 574. Your reply raises an additional question which I would appreciate having answered by your office.

Your letter states that "the regulation does not apply to tires manufactured exclusively for the [off-road vehicle]." The underscored words "manufactured exclusively" concern me inasmuch as I pointed out in my April 12 letter that Cushman frequently utilizes DOT coded tires on golf carts and other off-road vehicles -- that is, tires that could also be used on on-road vehicles. The question remains, therefore, whether the record-keeping requirements as well as the requirements of Section 15 U.S.C. @ 1402 apply in the case of tires that could be used for either on-road or off-road vehicles but are in fact utilized on off-road vehicles.

In light of the foregoing, I find it necessary to repeat my request for confirmation of the analysis made in my April 12 letter as follows:

"As I understand it, Cushman is not required to follow the Part 574 record keeping with respect to tires installed

2 on such vehicles [off-road], nor would the other requirements of 15 U.S.C. @ 1402 apply. Further, as I read Part 574, Cushman has no obligation to report to the tire manufacturer any information regarding tires purchased for installation on off-road vehicles."

In the event that you have any questions in connection with the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Charles O. Verrill, Jr.