ID: nht75-5.14

DATE: 07/31/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Humanoid Systems

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht75-5.15

DATE: 07/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE: Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: APAA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter inquiring whether certain automotive products are subject to the defect reporting requirements of the Traffic Safety Act (Section 158(a)(1)), and whether manufacturers are required to submit defect reports on communications arising out of improper customer maintenance or abuse.

Section 102(4) of the Traffic Safety Act defines "motor vehicle equipment", in part, as:

"* * * any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle * * *"

Thus, any item of equipment which becomes "part" of the motor vehicle is an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Act. We further have determined that any item of equipment intended by the equipment manufacturer for use principally by the user of a motor vehicle, or any item that is normally kept in the vehicle, is an "accessory" to the vehicle and is also covered by the Act.

In deciding whether or not the items listed in your letter are items of motor vehicle equipment and thus subject to the defect reporting requirements of the Act, the above factors were considered. In the list below, those items not considered motor vehicle equipment are "repair shop items," not intended for principal use by the user of a motor vehicle. The particular reason for the inclusion of each of the other items within the coverage of the Act is given following each item.

Hand tools:

Lugnut tightner: Yes, because it is principally intended for use by a motor vehicle user with the vehicle. Therefore, it is an accessory.

Clutch adjusting tool: No. It is not an accessory as principal intended use is by someone other than the user, such as a repairman.

Feeler gauge: No.

Battery carrier: No.

Point file: No.

Ratchet wrench: No.

Mechanical tools: Sanders: No.

Pullers: No.

Crankshaft grinder: No.

Honing machine: No.

Repair kits:

Soldering/welding kits: No.

Tire repair kits: Yes, because the plugs, cement, vulcanizing liquid and patches become part of the tire and thus part of the motor vehicle.

Suspension devices:

Sway bars: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle when attached thereto.

Steering stabilizers: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle when attached thereto.

Wheel balancers: If you are referring to the machine used to balance wheels, then it is not an item of motor vehicle equipment as it is not an accessory. If you are referring to the actual weights attached to the wheels, then they are motor vehicle equipment because they become part of the vehicle.

Towing devices:

Chains: Yes, because during the towing operation, they become part of the vehicle.

Hitches: Yes, because they are attached to the vehicle and thereby become part of it.

Towbars: Yes, because during the towing operation, they become part of the vehicle.

Test instruments:

Timing light: No.

Tire gauges: Yes, to the extent that they are sold principally to owners for use with the vehicle.

Compression tester: No.

Vacuum and fuel pump tester: No.

Chemicals:

Traction compound chemical: If by this you mean some sort of substance designed to help owners get their vehicle moving on slippery surfaces, then it is an accessory and is covered.

Lubricants: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle.

Miscellaneous:

Anti-theft devices: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle.

Battery cables: Yes, if they are sold to vehicle users for use primarily with vehicle.

Battery charger: No.

Fire extinguisher: Yes, if it is sold principally to users for use with the vehicle.

Flares: Yes, because they principally intended for use with the vehicle by users.

Fusees: Yes, because they are principally intended for use with the vehicle by users.

Mudflaps: Yes, because they become part of the motor vehicle.

Traction bars: Yes, because upon installation they become part of the vehicle.

Wheel adaptors: Yes, because upon installation they become part of the vehicle.

In response to your question concerning the submission of defect reports, it is important to note that the intent of Section 158 of the Act is to provide the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with the information it needs in order to fulfill its responsibility to examine manufacturers' judgments regarding the relationship to safety of vehicle and equipment defects. If a manufacturer discovers a safety-related defect in its product the manufacturer is avoiding the imposition of a penalty by forwarding copies of communications regarding such defect to NHTSA. If, on the other hand, the product does not contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer does not incur any liability for having forwarded copies of communications concerning the defect to the NHTSA.

The regulations concerning defect reporting provide that only communications "sent to more than one dealer or purchaser . . . regarding such defect" be forwarded to the NHTSA (49 CFR @@ 573.4(c)(8) and 573.7). It would appear that the communications about which you are concerned are principally individual communications to individual purchasers or dealers. The manufacturer would not have to submit copies of such communications to the NHTSA. This provision is carried over into the proposed amendments to Part 573 which are being issued in order to bring the regulation into line with Section 158 by including equipment manufacturers (39 F.R. 1863, January 15, 1974; 39 F.R. 43075, December 10, 1974).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht75-5.16

DATE: 08/07/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 1, 1975 (NA-2637A), forwarded to us by the Tire Division, which requests comments on the issues raised by two letters from Mr. R. G. Clifton of Dunlop U.K.

Mr. Clifton's first concern is with respect to the proper interpretation of section 159(2) of the 1974 amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1419). Section 159 provides that the definitions of "original equipment" and "replacement equipment" in section 159 may be changed "as otherwise provided by Regulations of the Secretary." This phrase does not mean that the definitions may be changed by any regulation, but rather that the definitions may be changed by a regulation implementing sections 151-60 of the 1974 amendments, to which the provisions of section 159 specifically apply. Therefore, a definition of "tire manufacturer" in a regulation issued pursuant to some other statutory provision has no effect on the definitions of "original equipment" and "replacement equipment" in section 159. No specific regulation has yet been issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) modifying the provisions of section 159, although such a regulation is currently under consideration.

Mr. Clifton's second concern was that no amendments to Part 573 have been proposed in order to make tire and equipment manufacturers subject to defect reporting requirements, as required by the 1974 amendments. The NHTSA is preparing to issue proposed amendments to Part 573 which will reflect this requirement.

Mr. Clifton's third concern, expressed in his letter of June 3, was that section 159(2) (D) of the 1974 amendments would make the motor vehicle manufacturer totally responsible for the original equipment tires on his vehicles. Although section 159 places the legal responsibility for notification and remedy of safetyrelated defects in original equipment on the vehicle manufacturers, it does not lessen the obligation of the tire manufacturers to ensure that their tires contain no safety-related defects. Tire manufacturers do have an obligation to notify of and remedy defects in tires used as replacement equipment.

We trust this has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

ID: nht75-5.17

DATE: 03/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Andrew G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Brockway Motor Trucks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in acknowledgment of your quarterly report submitted on January 31, 1975, in accordance with the defect reporting regulations, Part 573. Enclosed with your report were copies of the owner notification letters, service bulletins, and other information concerning your safety campaign (your #218) involving some 700 Series L and LL model trucks which may experience automatic application of the spring brakes caused by use of an air line which is too large.

This office has no record of this campaign and did not receive knowledge of it prior to your January 31 report. Since your owner letters and service bulletins were mailed in October of 1974, it appears that you did not comply with the 5 working day time limit for submitting defect reports specified in Part 573 (49 CFR). You are therefore cautioned that all future reports must be submitted on a timely basis. A failure to do so may result in the imposition of civil penalities and injunctive sanctions against your company.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identification number 75-0024 has been assigned to this campaign. Please refer to this number in all future correspondence concerning this campaign. The second quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by May 6, 1975. A full and complete Defect Report in accordance with Part 573 must also still be submitted for this campaign.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht75-5.18

DATE: 10/02/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kawaski Motors Corporation U.S.A.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 22, 1975, addressed to Mr. Robert F. Hellmuth, Office of Defects Investigation, has been referred to this office for reply. You have identified all model year Kawasaki motorcycles models KZ400, H1, H2, and Z1 equipped with Kawasaki accessory half-fairing installed as containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. The defect involves the fatigue failure of the mounting bracket which attaches the half-fairing to the motorcycle.

Kawasaki has developed a new bracket for the KE400 and Z1 models and intends to repair those models by installing the new bracket in place of the old. However, you have indicated that Kawasaki has been unsuccessful in developing a satisfactory mounting bracket for the models H1 and H2.

Based on the above facts, you have addressed two questions to the agency which will be answered in the order presented.

1. To facilitate replacement of the mounting brackets on the models KE400 and Z1, we intend to ship the newly designed parts to the Kawasaki Dealer nearest to the owner of the motorcycle. It is then our intention to direct the owner to go to this dealer for the replacement.

Question: Is it allowable for us to so direct the owner, and if so, may such directions be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to Part 577, Defect Notification?

Answer - It is allowable for Kawasaki to so direct the owner, and such directions may be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 577.

2. Is it allowable to repurchase the half-fairing from the owners of the models H1 and H2 (estimated quantity 25 total for both models), and if so, is it allowable for Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. to contact these customers by telephone prior to sending a notification letter as required by Part 577?

Answer - Unfortunately, it is not allowable to repurchase the half-fairing from the owners of the H1 and H2 models. The half-fairings are items of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined in section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Actor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S 1391(4) hereinafter "the Act"). Congress has explicitly limited the options of manufacturers of Motor Vehicle equipment containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. While repurchase of a motor vehicle in permissible when a safety related defect is contained therein, such is not the case when the defect is contained in an item of motor vehicle equipment. Compare 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2) (A) with 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a) (2) (A); accord R.R. Rep. No. 1452, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 26-29 (1974).

Half-fairings can make a safety contribution by shielding the rider from flying stones or other small debris and reducing driver fatigue on long trips. It is therefore reasonable that Congress would require that such equipment be either repaired or replaced but not repurchased when it contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If Kawasaki is unable to repair the defective half-fairings on H1 and H2 models, the law required that it replace them "without charge with . . . identical or reasonably equivalent" items of replacement equipment. 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a) (2) (B). Replacement may involve the design of a new half-fairing by Kawasaki or provision of a similar item of equipment produced by another manufacturer.

Thank you for your inquiry. Should you have any questions with regard to these matters, please contact the undersigned at 202-426-9511.

ID: nht75-5.19

DATE: 05/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Speaker of the House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to inform the Committees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and on Public Works and Transportation of recent activities and decisions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration relating to the establishment of a Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standard (UTQGS). We are pleased to announce that this standard, required by section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1423), was promulgated on May 20, 1975 (copy enclosed). The rule provides for grading tires in three areas: treadwear, traction, and temperature performance. I believe it will provide the consumer with the information he needs to determine which tire is the best value for him, considering his needs and driving habits.

As I am sure you are aware, we have had our share of problems in developing this rule. It had been our original intention to utilize a control tire against which other tires would be compared. In May of 1974, due to technical problems and time constraints imposed by the court in Nash v. Brinegar, Civil Action No. 17, D.C. (1974), the decision was made to attempt to utilize a control surface rather than a control tire. In order to investigate the feasibility of this approach, a section of runway at Goodfellow AFB, in San Angelo, Texas, was repaved, to provide a research control surface. At the outset of the research project the question had been raised regarding the applicability of section 301 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (which provides for specific approval by the above mentioned Committees of the House and their counterparts in the Senate, before constructing facilities for testing in traffic safety) to the construction of the control surfaces. It was then determined that since the action was a short-term effort, and in the nature of a feasibility study, section 301 was not applicable. This research project was successful and forms the basis of the rule.

We have recently obligated a sum of $ 75,000, in addition to the approximately $ 750,000 expended for the earlier research project (including $ 165,000 for the control surface), for the purpose of altering the control surfaces and nearby roadway to enable manufacturers to use these surfaces to meet the requirements of complying with the rule.

Even though the associated conversion costs were less than $ 100,000, we recognized that alterations to the surfaces in late FY 1976 and FY 1977 will cause total expenditures to rise above that level. Therefore, prior to proceeding with the recent site conversion effort, we focused again on the issue of the applicability of section 301. We determined that the section is to facilitate testing in a matter which is first and foremost consumer information rather than traffic safety, for, as stated in section 203 of the Act, UTQGS is established "in order to assist the consumer to make an informed choice in the purchase of motor vehicle tires . . . ."

We will continue to keep you posted on the progress of the UTQGS as manufacturers begin testing. We expect to be able to provide the consumer with information in the near future which will enable him to make the best use of his tire dollars.

ID: nht75-5.2

DATE: 05/27/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Johnson; Hogan & Ometer

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the meaning of "gross vehicle weight rating."

The gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of a trailer consists of the weight of the empty trailer plus its rated cargo load. The weight of the tractor is not included. The tractor and the trailer are considered as two separate vehicles, each with its own individual GVWR.

The Distributors Association interpretation you cited is correct, but you appear to have misinterpreted it. In the case of a semi-trailer, a significant portion of the loaded trailer's GVWR may be supported by the tractor's rear axle. Therefore, the trailer's GVWR may be significantly higher than its gross axle weight rating, which is the weight an entire axle system, including tires, wheels, axle, and suspension systems, is capable of supporting.

Please let me know if you need further assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

LAW OFFICES JOHNSON, HOGAN & OMETER

April 11, 1975

Richard Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Advisory opinion on the meaning of "GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING" (GVWR)

Dear Mr. Dyson:

I am the attorney for Titan Trailer Corporation of Woodland, California. Titan manufactures, among other things, aluminum hopper bottom trailers. In compliance with applicable regulations, Titan denotes on each trailer a "gross vehicle weight rating or "GVWR"".

A dispute has arisen between Titan and one of its customers as to the precise meaning of that term and by this letter, we request an advisory opinion from you.

Section 571.3(b), Chapter V, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regulations states, in part: "Gross vehicle weight rating" or "GVWR" means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

Enclosed please find a bulletin from the Distributors Association, which states that Department of Transportation advised the Distributors Association that

"should not be based solely on the semi-trailer's axle or axles. The definition of GVWR calls for the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, and normally the weight of a semi-trailer is greater than that of its rear axles. The Distributors Association interprets this to mean that GVWR of a trailer would be the weight to be carried by the trailer's axles, plus any weight that would be carried by the tractor."

Essentially, the question is - Does "GVWR" include (1) the weight of the empty trailer, (2) its payload, and (3) the empty or loaded towing vehicle (tractor)? (In essence, confirming the Distributor's Association interpretation of GVWR as set forth above).

I notice that Section 567.4(a)(3) and Section 568.4(a) (4) of the above-referenced regulations require GVWR to be "not. . less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the designated seating capacity."

Those sections lend partial credence to the meaning ascribed to "GVWR" by the Distributors Association, to wit weight of cargo and trailer. However, I am somewhat confused by the formula "150 pds x designated seat capacity" presumably referring to the tractor's/seating capacity. That would seem to be at variance with the Distributors Association's above referenced interpretation of DOT's meaning of GVWR which includes "any weight that would be carried by the tractor."

Please clarify this very critical issue in as expeditious a fashion as possible. Since millions of trailers are manufactured each year, by thousands of manufactures, it would seem that the meaning of "GVWR" should be crystal clear to manufacturers consumers and their lawyers.

Thank you for your cooperation. I have been referred directly to you by Mr. David Schmeltzer now of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Very truly yours, Andrew H. Swartz

cc: David Schmeltzer c/o David Melnick; Kai Norton; encl.; cc: Dick Cunha, Esq.

ID: nht75-5.20

DATE: 06/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: A reply to your inquiry of June 5, 1975, concerning grade labelling regulations for new passenger car tires was transmitted to you on June 13 by Mr. James II. Cromwell of the Department of Transportation. Mr. Cromwell also referred your inquiry to me for additional comments.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the original impetus for the establishment of a uniform quality grading system for motor vehicle tires was provided by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, which established this agency. The Congress, (Illegible Word) of the problems which beset the consumer when the attempts to make an informed choice of motor vehicle tires based on the relative merits of tire brands, included a specific Section 203 in the aforementioned Safety Act of 1966 which states that, "In order to assist the consumer to make an informed choice in the purchase of motor vehicle tire . . . the Secretary shall . . . prescribe by order, and publish in the Federal Register, a uniform quality grading system for motor vehicle tires."

The benefits of such a system, while difficult to quantify, represent an enormous potential since some 200,000,000 motor vehicle tires are produced per year and are presently sold to consumers without adequate quantitative measures of their performance. It is expected that, by facilitating increased and more meaningful competition, the quality grading information will enable the tire consumer to obtain more value per dollar than he has in the past. The rule will enable the consumer to judge relative tire performance from a simple grading system, and there by select a tire which provides him with the optimum solution to his driving needs.

For your review and information, I am enclosing a copy of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) which was issued in the Federal Register dated May 28, 1975. The rule provides quantitative grading measures for three important tire properties -- i.e., treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance.

I trust the above information satisfies your needs. Should you have any further questions, I shall be glad to attempt to provide answers.

ID: nht75-5.21

DATE: 06/18/75

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

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please refer to Mr. Ronald W. Mohler's letter of September 6, 1974, (copy enclosed) and Mr. Snyder's telephone conversation with you on January 23, 1975, regarding the transfer of tread code mark "BFK" from the "Griffin General Tire Service, Inc." retread company operated by Mr. James W. Griffin to the "Griffin General Tire Service" company operated by The General Tire and Rubber Company.

The enclosed copy of the May 17, 1973, letter to Mr. Daniels of the Daniels Tire Service, Inc. company outlines the conditions which must prevail for this company and the "Griffin General Tire Service, Inc." company to use the same code mark BFK. With respect to the "Griffin General Tire Service, Inc." the various limiting conditions prevailing at that time and which we understand will be continued by your acquired company are:

1. Recordkeeping procedures must be internal, i.e., within the specific company.

2. Production is limited. Mr. Griffin advised us that production in 1973 was approximately five truck tires per day.

3. The plant serves only local trade in the vicinity of Hornell, New York.

Please advise us whether our understanding is correct that these conditions will be met by the "Griffin General Tire Service" company operating under the control of The General Tire and Rubber Company. If not, a new code number must be assigned to this plant.

We further wish to advise you that the conditional usage of code mark BFK will not be extended to any future disposition of the "Griffin General Tire Service" company. To perpetuate the abnormal condition where two retread plants use the same code mark is highly undesirable due to the potential confusion, the extra necessary control effort, as well as the personal supervision required at our computer operation.

ID: nht75-5.22

DATE: 12/12/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark I. Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: INTERPRETATIONS FILE; PARTS 575.104(d)(1)(ii) and 575.6

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Office visit by Pat Raber, Hogan and Hartson

I received in office visit on December 8, 1973, from Mr. Raher of Hogan and Hartson (representing Mercedes-Benz). He showed me a sample information sheet of the type that Mercedes proposes to use to indicate the quality grades of tires with which its vehicles are equipped. We discussed the vehicle manufacturer's information requirement of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, and I indicated that a formal interpretation would follow our receipt of his letter, which is en route.