Interpretation ID: nht74-5.2

DATE: 02/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1974, and an earlier letter received from Mr. J. K. Smith dated December 14, 1973, forwarding to us for approval revised draft defect notification letters in International campaigns IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081), IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078), IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125), IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) -- two drafts, IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207), IH 73521 (NHTSA 730208). You ask if the revised letters may be sent First Class mail as opposed to Certified mail.

We appreciate your efforts to comply with both the letter and spirit of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577), but we find that your revised owner notification letters do not comply with the regulations. We deal with each notification separately below.

IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081). The third paragraph of your letter appears to represent an attempt to comply with both @ 577.4(c) requiring a description of the defect, and @ 577.4(d), requiring an evaluation of the risk to traffic safety related to the defect. We find that this letter fails to adequately describe the defect as the phrase, "unwanted vehicle speed" is vague, and consequently meaningless. Any speed in excess of the driver's input would be "unwanted." We believe to adequately describe the defect, the amount of unwanted speed should be quantified, at least in general terms. If, as quite likely, this may differ from vehicle to vehicle, we believe the letter should contain an indication of the most adverse case. In evaluating the risk you state that the condition can result in vehicle crash if not corrected by the driver. However, you do not indicate how the driver can correct the problem, and the facts as you present them, a jammed throttle

linkage in a moving vehicle, seem to preclude any possibility that the driver can "correct" the condition apart from somehow stopping the vehicle. Without a clear explanation, we believe that the reference to the possibility of correction is misleading. We do not, therefore, consider your statement to be responsive to the requirement of @ 577.4(d)(1)(ii).

Section 577.4(e)(1)(ii) requires an estimate by the manufacturer of the day by which dealers will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect. Your letter states that most dealers have parts, but if they do not, that parts are "usually" available at parts depots within 72 hours. We question the latter part of your statement, particularly as it appears in each notification letter you submit. The estimate must be a specific day, based on the facts of each particular campaign. The requirement assumes, because notification campaigns usually involve other than normal service items and apply to large numbers of vehicles, that manufacturers will take special steps to ensure the availability of parts. Your statement would be appropriate only if repairs can be accomplished using parts normally stocked by dealers, and your company is taking no special steps to supply parts to dealers (or parts depots). Even if this is the case, we believe your letter should include that explanation for your customers.

IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078). We do not find this notification letter to comply with Part 577. I response to your question, the use of the words, "may exist" in the first sentence of the second paragraph is not permitted under @ 577.4(b), which calls for a precise statement. Your next sentence, indicating that the defect may not exist in each vehicle, is permitted under the regulations. Your description of the defect as some loss of "stopping ability" fails to comply with @ 577.4(c) for the same reason as the phrase "unwanted speed" in campaign IH73505. The loss of braking power should be quantified, as the worst possible case if it varies from vehicle to vehicle. Our comments made with reference to IH 73505 regarding compliance with @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) are equally applicable here.

IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125). This notification letter does not conform to Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.

IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) 2 proposals. We do not find the notification letter equating the defect with the violation of Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations to contain, for that reason, an appropriate description of the defect (@ 577.4(c)) and we do not discuss that draft further. With respect to the

the other draft, we do not find the description of the defect to be sufficient under @ 577.4(c). Specifically, there is no explanation why the gas cap is incorrect, and how it can cause an explosion. In addition, the letter does not comply with @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided in our evaluation of campaign notice IH 78505 (NHTSA 730081).

IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207). This notification letter does not conform to Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.

IH 73521 (NHTSA 730206). This letter does not conform for reasons similar to those provided for campaign IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078) and IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126). Specifically, to conform to @ 577.4(c), the degree of additional brake pedal effort should be quantified, and an explanation should be provided on why the use of "single wrap" brake hose can result in a loss of vacuum assist. Similarly, the letter does not conform to @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided for campaign IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081).

The regulations require notification letters which conform to Part 577 to be sent Certified mail. Consequently, the revised letters must also be sent Certified mail.