ID: nht71-3.50

DATE: 07/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your inquiry of July 16, 1971, concerning supplemental mirrors.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 does not prohibit the installation of a supplemental outside mirror on the passenger's side. The Standard does stipulate certain field of view requirements for both the inside and driver's outside mirror, but the manufacturer is certainly free to exceed these field of view requirements with additional mirrors.

ID: nht71-3.6

DATE: 05/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Louisiana Independent Tire Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The "Flash Notice" that you forwarded to us on April 23, 1971, and your telephone conversation of May 10 with Mike Peskoe of my staff have raised certain questions concerning your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires."

On page 1 of the "Flash Notice" you state, "But, so far as testing goes, it's apparent the risk for retreaders not to do their own testing to prove compliance is substantially greater than anticipated." You proceed to discuss whether manufacturers should test their own tires in order to prove "due care." As part of this discussion you refer to the statement in the preamble in the Notice of March 5, 1970, concerning what could suffice for a valid certification, and state that we have told you that this preamble is "still basically valid."

There is evidently some confusion as to the purpose and meaning of "due care" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and also as to the difference between compliance and certification.

A manufacturer of a retreaded tire that did not comply with the standard but who used due care in manufacturing the tire to comply with the standard cannot be subject to a civil penalty. The answer to your hypothetical question on page 3, "What if due care is used, but the tire doesn't comply" is that the manufacturer cannot be subject to a civil penalty in this situation. (He may, however, be required to send defect notification letters and be urged to recall.) We do not agree that one is "guilty until proven innocent." A finding of noncompliance must first be made by the agency. Once the agency, through testing or otherwise, discovers a noncompliance, it is then up to the manufacturer to show that he exercised due care. Although the issue of due care is one that is ultimately decided by a court, the agency, in determining whether to seek a civil penalty, will make a preliminary determination on this issue.

You asked in your conversation of May 10 that we amplify what is meant by "due care." "Due care" is a legal concept embodying the care that would be exercised by a reasonable man under the circumstances, and the circumstances of each situation must be considered in determining whether due care has been exercised. The set of cirumstances set forth in the preamble of March 5, 1970, might constitute "due care" in a large number of situations. To be sure, a manufacturer who tests his own tires might be considered in some cases to have exercised more care to insure that his tires complied with the standard than one who relied on tests by a third person on other tires that were similarly manufactured. Each potential case would be considered, and decided, by the agency on the facts peculiar to it.

The "Flash Notice" also mentions "certification" in such a way that clarification of the term is indicated. First, all tires manufactured after the standard's effective date must be certified. Certification is accomplished, as you know, by placing the symbol "DOT" on the tire in a prescribed location.

In practice, all tires will have the symbol "DOT" affixed to them after January 1, 1972, as manufacturers could not manufacture these tires without placing the mark on them. The answer to your question on page 3, "What if one certified does not comply" is that even if the tire fails to comply, if the manufacturer has exercised due care, in the view of the court, in manufacturing the tires to comply to the standard, his certification will not be considered "false or misleading," and no civil penalty can be imposed. The same "due care" that will suffice for compliance will suffice for purposes of certification. Manufacturers' efforts should be directed to manufacturing tires that conform to the standard.

Your "Flash Notice" also incorrectly explains certain provisions of the standard. First, with reference to which tests a particular tire must pass, S5.1.1 requires each tire to be able to pass every test, but when a single tire, during the agency testing, is subjected to one of the groups of tests specified in S5.1.1, that particular tire will not be tested further. As indicated to you on the phone, this is similar to the test procedure of Standard No. 109. It merely reflects that fact that certain tests, such as strength, normally destroy the tire.

Your statement on page 4 concerning the labeling requirements, that retreaders can "buff off the labeling required in retreading without worry, since it is displayed in other areas," is unclear to us. The standard requires each item of information required by Standard No. 109 to be retained in at least one location (Standard No. 109 requires each item to be on both sidewalls) on the complete retreaded tire. Retreaders must therefore take care that each tire retains the original marking to this extent.

Finally, with reference to the physical dimension requirements of S5.1.2, the 10 percent tolerance refers only to the maximum dimension with respect to the section width specified in the tables of Standard No. 109. Your reference on page 4 to "10% under" is incorrect, since no minimum measurement is stated in the standard. However, the section width is a variable in computing the size factor which must be at least the minimum specified for the tire in the tables in the Appendix.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

ID: nht71-3.7

DATE: 05/24/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 7, 1971, requesting clarification of S4.9 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." Your letter asks whether the release mechanism requirements of S4.9 apply to either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that is used to restrain the child seating system pursuant to S4.4(b) of the standard. Your letter also raises by implication the question whether a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that pursuant to S4.9, is used to directly restrain the child must also meet the release mechanism requirements of S4.9.

The answer to both questions is no. The release mechnism requirements that each Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly is required to meet are those specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. The requirements for the release mechanism specified in S4.9 of Standard No. 213 apply to those components, other than a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, that directly restrain the child.

ID: nht71-3.8

DATE: 05/25/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Distributers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is response to your letter of May 12, 1971, in which you inquired about the responsibilities, under Parts 567 and 568 of the NHTSA regulations, of a company that sells small trailer chassis in kit form, to persons who assemble them, add bodies, and sell them to users. You discussed the questions by telephone with Richard Dyson of this office on May 21, and this letter confirms the answers that Mr. Dyson gave you then.

Since the unit sold by the company in question is not assembled, it is not an "incomplete vehicle" within the meaning of Part 568, and the company therefore has no responsibilities under that part to provide information to subsequent purchasers. The person who assembles the kit and adds a body is, of course, a manufacturer, and must certify the complete vehicle under @ 567.4 of the Certification regulations. It appears that this certifier would normally rely on the chassis kit seller to provide the basic information concerning the vehicle characteristics, and the assurance that when assembled according to instructions it will conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards, so that he can responsibly certify the vehicle. We assume that the chassis kit seller would provide this information as a commerical responsibility, although the relationship is not at present governed by NHTSA regulations.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht71-3.9

DATE: 05/25/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hicks Oil Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 28, 1971. Under Part 574, the tire identification number may be placed on the side of the top cap areas or may be branded into the tire in accordance with the regulation. If the top cap area is used, the number should be as close to the sidewall as in feasible so that the number will remain legible as long as possible. See the enclosed amendment on this subject (Docket No. 70-12; Notice No. 9).

ID: nht71-4.1

DATE: 07/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of May 11, 1971, you requested our opinion as to how Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to a seating system in which the seat belt is attached, to an eyebolt anchored on the seat frame and the eyebolt, in turn, is anchored by another length of webbing to the floor. The evident purpose of such a method attachment on suspension-type seats is to eliminate the shocks which would otherwise be transmitted to the occupant and to augment the strength of the seat, which might be unable by itself to withstand the occupant's weight in a crash.

As you correctly indicate in your letter, a system in which the belt is attached only to the floor requires a force under S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) of 20 times the weight of the seat in a forward and rearward direction, while a system with a lap belt anchored to the seat requires in addition, a force of 5000 pounds to be applied simultaneously to the seat belt in accordance with Standard No. 210 (S4.2(c)). It is our opinion that the hybrid seat belt installation shown by Oshkosh will be likely to impose significant loads on the seating system in the event of a crash, and that it should therefore be treated under S4.2(c) as a system with a seat mounted belt. The webbing running from the eyebolt to the floor is considered to be a part of the seat anchorage and should be employed during the test.

If you have further questions, please advise us.

ID: nht71-4.10

DATE: 09/13/71

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

TO: Ray. C. Ellsworth Ranches

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 2 inquiring whether your braking system hydraulic valve "is in conformity with the Federal Dual Braking Regulations now in effect."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Service Brake, Emergency Brake, and Parking Brake Systems, applies to passenger cars, and not to individual items of motor vehicle equipment incorporated in a hydraulic brake system. Thus, there is no Federal Standard to which your valve must conform. If the valve is installed as original equipment in a passenger car, it is the vehicle that would be required to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 105.

I have noted your comment that the valve is to be tested on braking systems for military vehicles. You may be interested to know that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including No. 105, do not apply to vehicles manufactured for and sold to the Armed Forces of the United States.

ID: nht71-4.11

DATE: 09/16/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Alex Feigelson Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of August 23, 1971, the NHTSA neither requires nor provides forms by which manufacturers must submit quarterly reports pursuant to @ 573.5 of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). Manufacturers are free to use any form they wish in submitting the required information. However, a suggested format is enclosed for your guidance.

Please note that the effective date of the regulation has been extended to October 1, 1971. A copy of the Federal Register notice extending the date is also enclosed.

ENCLS.

ID: nht71-4.12

DATE: 09/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Greenbaum; Soloff & Earnst

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1971, requesting an official interpretation of certain provisions of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You ask whether @ 573.5 requires quarterly reports to contain information on defect notification campaigns initiated prior to the regulations effective date, which is now October 1, 1971 (36 F.R. 14742, August 11, 1971). If not, you ask whether an automobile manufacturer must provide any information concerning campaigns begun prior to the regulation's effective date.

The answer to your first question is no. Quarterly reports required pursuant to @ 573.5 are not required to contain information regarding notification campaigns initiated before October 1, 1971.

With reference to your second question, manufacturers are required to provide certain information regarding notification campaigns initiated before the regulation's effective date. Section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1402(d)) requires manufacturers to furnish NHTSA a copy of all notices, bulletins, and other communications to dealers or purchasers regarding any defect in a vehicle of item of equipment sold or serviced by the dealer. In addition, @ 573.7 of the Defect Reports regulations requires a copy of certain notices, bulletins, or other communications to be furnished to NHTSA monthly. Both of these requirements apply to notices, bulletins, and other communications regarding defects discovered or determined to be related to motor vehicle safety before as well as after the regulation's effective date. Furthermore, the agency may, should the need arise, request information from manufacturers regarding past campaigns under the authority of section 112(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1401(d)).

If you have further questions please write.

ID: nht71-4.13

DATE: 09/18/71

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

TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSE ASSEMBLIES

This is in reply to your letter of September 3 asking questions about compliance of hydraulic brake hose assemblies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106.

With respect to your first two questions, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not require that you demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 106 prior to supplying Japanese car manufacturers with brake hose assemblies to be installed on cars intended for export to the United States. If the Japanese vehicle manufacturers request proof of compliance from you (apparently in the form of a certification from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania based upon test reports from only one of two test laboratories) such a request is solely a business matter between you and the vehicle manufacturer.

Your third question points out that proposed Standard No. 106 (Docket No. 1-5, Notice 7) would eliminate the specification of braid material for hydraulic brake hoses and asks whether you may implement this "revision" at the present time. Notice 7 is a proposal only, and the current requirements specifying braid material remain in effect until a formal amendment of Standard No. 106 occurs. The brake hose manufacturer's code number, the subject of your fourth question, is also a proposal which may or may not be adopted in the final rule.