ID: nht75-5.50

DATE: 10/01/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Maslansky; Niles; Dougherty & Boyajian

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 31, 1975, in which you ask whether National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval is necessary before selling imported inertia switches in this country.

No specific NHTSA approval is required. However, you should be aware of the regulations governing the importation for sale of motor vehicle equipment into the United States. These regulations provide in part that if imported motor vehicle equipment is not certified by the manufacturer as having complied with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, upon entry the importer must file a declaration that no safety standards were applicable to the equipment at the time it was manufactured, that the equipment is exempt from applicable safety standards, or that the equipment has been or shortly will be brought into compliance with applicable safety standards (19 CFR @ 12.80(b)).

The NHTSA has issued no safety standards concerning inertia switches in motor vehicle electrical systems. However, the agency recently issued on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (40 FR 40853, September 4, 1975) on the subject of motor vehicle electrical system integrity, with the intent of eventually issuing a safety standard in that area.

We hope this information is of assistance. If you have any further questions, please write us.

ID: nht75-5.6

DATE: 12/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Conti Rubber Products

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 29, 1975, letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, to moped tires.

Mopeds are classified under 49 CFR 571.3 as "motor-driven cycles", a subcategory of "motorcycles", for the purposes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations. Therefore, tires designed for use on mopeds are tires designed for use on motorcycles and, as such, are subject to Standard No. 119. The NHTSA is considering an amendment of Standard No. 119 which would modify the requirements applicable to such tires, and expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Conti RUBBER PRODUCTS INC.

October 29, 1975

Frank Berudt -- Acting Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berudt:

We would appreciate receiving a ruling whether MOPED tires in the sizes 2-17 and 2 1/4-17 fall under MVSS119.

A MOPED is a motorized bicycle with a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour.

We would appreciate your fastest possible reply.

Very truly yours,

George H. Schildge -- Exec. Vice President

ID: nht75-5.7

DATE: 11/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bucyrus-Erie Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Bucyrus-Erie's October 8, 1975, suggestion that the terms "unloaded vehicle weight and "passenger-carrying capacity" be defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 to reflect explanations of them that appeared in the preamble of recent NHTSA rulemaking on Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. (40 FR 38160, August 27, 1975). You believe that removable portions of a vehicle that are essential to its function (e.g., the boom on a mobile crane) should not be considered part of the vehicle's "cargo" as that term is used in the present definition of unloaded vehicle weight.

The NHTSA explained in the preamble to which you refer that the unloaded vehicle weight is easily determined by, in most cases, subtracting the weight of cargo and occupants from the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) assigned to the vehicle by the manufacturer. We believe that the term "cargo" clearly indicates that the manufacturer must only subtract the weight of commodities or freight that the vehicle is designed to carry as a transportation function. Presumably the manufacturer of a mobile crane would have no difficulty in concluding under the present definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" that its vehicle does not transport "cargo" and that no value must be subtracted from the GVWR on this account.

It does appear that the term "passenger-carrying capacity" used in Standard No. 121 could be expanded to reflect the exclusion of the operating crew from consideration as passengers. In response to your request we are considering an amendment of S3 to make this concept clearer.

SINCERELY,

BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY

October 8, 1975

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This letter is in response to Docket No. 75-16 Notice 02, which appeared on Page 38160 of the August 27th, Federal Register.

In this article the NHTSA responded to the concern of specialized equipment manufacturers over the terms "unloaded vehicle weight" and "passenger-carrying capacity." After reviewing the explanation issued by the NHTSA, we understand that a mobile crane could be exempt from MVSS 121 if it meets the following conditions.

1. Its maximum attainable speed in two miles is not more than 45 mph.

2. It has an unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR. Example: equipment which is essential to the crane's function, such as, boom, counterweight, etc., may be removed and transported separately. This essential equipment can be subtracted (as cargo) from the GVWR when determining the unloaded vehicle weight.

Note: We do not believe that the term cargo correctly describes the essential equipment which is removed from a mobile crane and transported by alternate means to the next working site for reassembly.

3. It has seating capacity for the driver and essential operating crew, but not passengers.

The NHSTA's explanation prior to amending Section 571.121 implies the above. Our concern is that this explanation is not contained within 49 CFR Section 571.3, and therefore this important qualification would not be available to one referring only to the CFR.

We would like to suggest that the NHSTA clarify within CFR Title 49, the terms "Passenger" and "unloaded vehicle weight," which would reflect the views expressed in the aforementioned Federal Register Article.

Bruce J. Smith Engineering Services Dept.

ID: nht75-5.8

DATE: 12/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's November 11, 1975, request for confirmation that a manufacturer's location of the seating reference point, as the term is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3, may take into account nominal deflection of the seat and seat back cushions.

Blue Bird Body is correct that subparagraph (c) of the NHTSA's definition of seating reference point contemplates some deflection of seat cushions to simulate compression of padding material under the weight of a human torso and thigh. As noted in the preamble of the second proposal for a school bus seating standard (39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974), "It can be seen that the manufacturer's freedom to locate the point is sharply restricted by the definition which specifies that it actually simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh, following SAE placement procedures."

Blue Bird Body's nominal seat and seat back cushion deflections appear to be reasonable, based on our understanding of the drawing you enclosed.

YOURS TRULY,

November 11, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Council U. S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

As you might imagine, we are deeply involved in designing and developing school bus passenger seats to meet the proposed Docket 73-3, Notice 4, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In several places this docket refers to "the seating reference point." This is a very important design dimension, since it becomes the basis for determining seat back height and seat spacing as required by this docket.

The purpose of this letter is to describe to you the manner in which we have defined our proposed seating reference point and to seek confirmation from you that this constitutes a valid seating reference point as required by Docket 73-3.

In Part 571.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, "seating reference point" is defined. Subparagraphs c and d under that definition state that the seating reference point simulates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh and is the reference point employed to position the two dimensional templates described in the SAE recommended practice J-826, "Mannequins for Use in Defining Motor Vehicle Seating Accommodations" November, 1962. Subparagraph c seems to imply that nominal seat and back cushion deflections should be considered in defining the seating reference point. However, subparagraph d is not clear to us with regard to whether or not nominal seat and back cushion deflections should be considered. Please find enclosed a copy of our drawing 0756809 which shows our proposed seating reference point as defined by coordinates relative to the seat frame. Please note that this drawing is based on a nominal seat cushion deflection of 1/2" and a nominal back cushion deflection of 1/8". It is on this basis that we are proceeding with our seat design and development program.

Please review this drawing and make a determination if this is a valid way to define and describe the seating reference point, especially with regard to the nominal seat cushion and seat back cushion deflections.

Your early response will be appreciated since these dimensions are basic to our entire seat and vehicle development program.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

C: WILBUR RUMPH; JIM MOORMAN; BILL PIERCE

(Graphics omitted)

NOTES: 1. Seating reference point shown includes deflection of cushions. Nominal cushion deflection assume as 1/2" on seat cushion parallel to seat back, 1/8" on seat back parallel to seat cushion.

2. Seating reference point: See H-Point SAE J826 - Nov. 1962

C 1974 Nov. 1962

B (Illegible Words)

A (Illegible Words) corrected

INACTIVATES NOS. 0529933

BLUE BIRD BODY CO. FORT VALLEY. GEORGIA U.S.A.

(Illegible Words)

(Illegible Word) PADDED SEAT

(Illegible Words)

SIZE A

(Illegible)

BLUE BIRD

BODY COMPANY

DEAR MARTY THANKS FOR SHARING YOUR LETTER TO SENATOR DECONCINI WITH US. YOUR LETTER CORRECTLY SUMMARIZED THE CONFUSION CAUSED BY THE IMPACT OF THE NEW FEDERAL STANDARDS. EVERY BODY COMPANY HAS HAD TO INTERPRET THESE STANDARDS AND REACT ACCORDINGLY WITH LITTLE FURTHER HELP FROM ANY GOVT. AGENCY.

YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH REALLY SPOTLIGHTS THE MEAT OF THE MATTER. THESE QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ASKED AND ANSWERED. HOPEFULLY THE SENATOR AND OTHER WASHING REPS. WILL BEGIN TO ASK AND LOOK BEFORE THEY (Illegible Word)

THIS WILL SURELY GO DOWN AS A MOST UNUSUAL YEAR IN THE HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL BUS INDUSTRY. HOPEFULLY, WE WILL GET THRU IT AND THE FUTURE WILL MAKE MORE SENSE.

SINCERELY

JOSE

ID: nht75-5.9

DATE: 07/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Robert Taft Jr.; U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter of July 1, 1975, forwarding correspondence from Mr. R. H. Lawrence concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation.

By Act of Congress (Public Law 91-265), the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was amended in 1970 to require manufacturers and retreaders of tires to maintain the names and addresses of first purchasers so that owners of defective tires may be notified of any defect. The legislative history of this amendment makes it clear that the Congress recognized the need for regulations in the area. Earlier joint attempts by manufacturers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to notify purchasers of defective tires produced inadequate results even in cases where the manufacturer offered to replace the defective tires free of charge. The poor results were attributable to the fact that owners could not be directly notified of the defect.

The magnitude of the problem which the regulation seeks to alleviate is clear. Since the inception of the program in 1966 through 1973, there have been 1,427,670 tires recalled in 88 separate defect recall campaigns. In 1973 alone, there were 116,743 tires recalled in 11 defect recall campaigns.

With regard to the effectiveness of the recordkeeping regulation, our records indicate the percentage of tires being recorded is increasing, and should continue to increase when additional enforcement action is taken against manufacturers and dealers who do not comply with the regulation. Of course, what is most needed to make the regulation effective is the voluntary cooperation of retreaders and dealers in recording, reporting and maintaining the required information.

While this regulation indisputably places an added responsibility on retailers, we also believe that the burden is neither onerous nor unjustified in view of the danger to the consumer. NHTSA has continually attempted to improve and simplify the procedures for the registration of tires, the most recent example being the Universal Tire Registration Format issued on June 3, 1974. I have enclosed a copy for your information.

For these reasons, we are convinced that the requirement that dealers record the name and address of tire purchasers at the time of sale is reasonable and appropriate.

Mr. Lawrence also suggested that it is inappropriate to require tires to be graded on the basis of mileage, because different drivers may obtain different total mileages from identical tires. He appears to have misunderstood the meaning of the treadwear grades established by the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. That regulation, issued pursuant to Section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, requires new tires to be graded in each of the following performance areas: treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The treadwear grade is based on the mileage which a tire can be expected to attain when tested on a specified course under controlled conditions and driving procedures. This grade is not designed to predict the actual mileage a consumer will obtain from a tire, because that mileage depends on many environmental factors, including the difference in driving styles to which Mr. Lawrence has referred. It is designed to permit to prospective tire purchaser to compare the performance of competing tires. For this reason, the treadwear grade is expressed as a percentage (of a nominal 30,000 miles), rather than as a mileage. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the regulation.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate

June 25, 1975

John Snow Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation

Please find enclosed a copy of correspondence I have received concerning tire registration requirements.

I would appreciate any comments and/or information you could provide that might help me in responding to my constituent.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Robert Taft, Jr.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

May 28, 1975

The Honorable Robert A. Taft, Jr. United States Senate

We are bringing to your personal attention the remarks of Federation member, Mr. Robert Lawrence, Mid City Tire & Alignment, 69 W. Church Street, Newark, Oh. 43055, appearing in the comment section of the Federation's economic survey with respect to elimination of tire registration requirements.

We believe there is much merit in the remarks made by Mr. Lawrence and we feel certain he will greatly appreciate hearing from you with reference to your thinking on this subject matter.

Thanking you for your cooperation, and with best wishes,

(Mrs.) Izetta B. Hoge Membership Services

Comments and Recommendations:

Please help tire dealers by eliminating tire registration. We spend a lot of time doing this and never have a result of any tires made in the lost 2 years.

Also grade labeling of tires for mileage is one of the (Illegible Word) thought our government has ever thought of How car you expect an 18 year old and 50 year old to get the some mileage.

Your Signature: R. H. Lawrance

Business Name: MID CITY TIRE & ALIGNMENT Street & Number: 69 W. Church St.

City or Town: NEWARK State: OHIO Zip: 43055

County: LICKING

ID: nht75-6.1

DATE: 08/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Development Service Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1975, asking our opinion on several matters.

You first ask:

"1. If our automobile is imported using a used chassis and where a used or rebuilt engine would be installed in the car in the United States, would you consider that this constitutes the vehicle being classified as used?

We consider a vehicle with a used chassis to be a used automobile.

2. If a used chassis is defined as being used by its being previously titled, does it matter where the titling has occurred?

As the previous answer indicates, it does not matter where titling has occurred.

3. If we import, complete, and sell the car under the conditions stated in number one and your opinion was that this constitutes a used vehicle, then, what would our requirements be in reference to the vehicles complying with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under the Act of 1966?"

Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to used vehicles, that are imported into the United States. The standards are those that were in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis. Further, you would be a manufacturer of motor vehicles and subject to all regulations that apply to manufacturers, chief of which is to notify purchasers upon discovery of any safety-related defect in your product, and to remedy it.

Your fourth question asks what your responsibilities are under four possible plans of shipping components into the United States. I will assume for purposes of this answer that the chassis are new. These four fact situations differ somewhat from the hypothetical presented in your letter of May 31, 1975, of a motor vehicle complete except for its engine. In these four situations, the vehicle is clearly motor vehicle equipment, an assembly that needs further manufacturing operations for completion, and the remarks of Mr. Schultz in his letter of May 5 on this matter set forth your obligations as a supplier of equipment.

ID: nht75-6.10

DATE: 06/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A.G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Holley Carburetor Division

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your defect notification and remedy campaign involving some chrome reverse wheels which may have insufficient welds between the center disc and the rim. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) identification number 75E-022 has been assigned to this campaign. Please refer to that number in any future correspondence concerning this campaign.

The letter which you have submitted as the letter to be sent to retail purchasers of the subject wheels does not meet the requirement of Part 577 (49 CFR) as well as the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. Part 577, the Defect Notification regulation, is presently still in effect except for those sections which conflict with the 1974 amendment. Your notification letter therefore should have had the opening statements specified by Part 577.4(a) and (b).

The letter also does not notify owners that they may inform the Secretary of Transportation if they are unable to receive remedy without charge, as required by Section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment. The fact that your company has set up a procedure intended to insure that all owners will receive remedy without charge does not eliminate that requirement. This office knows of numerous instances where an individual owner of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment was not able to have a defect corrected. This may be due to a parts' supply problem, an uncooperative dealer, or some other problem which may not be known to the manufacturer. In any event, NHTSA does not have the authority to delete a requirement imposed by an act of Congress and must therefore insist that all manufacturers respond to Section 153(a)(6) in their owner notification letters. To comply, owners may be told that they may write to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590.

Although the letter does imply that dealers are prepared to remedy the defect, it does not give the earliest date on which the defect will be remodled without charge, as required by Section 153(a)(5) of the 1974 amendment.

It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification letter to conform with Part 577, as well as Section 153 of the 1974 amendment. A copy of the revised letter should be sent to all owners who have not yet had their wheels inspected or replaced, and also to this office. If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. James Murray or W. Reinhart of this office at (202) 426-2840. A copy of Part 577 is enclosed.

Sincerely,

Colt Industries

Holley Carburetor Division May 9, 1975

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

This is a "notification to the Secretary", in accordance with Section 151 of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, to which you will find attached a copy of our notification to our known customers (39 warehouse distributors), in accordance with Section 153 and proposing to remedy any defect in accordance with Section 154.

This notification is made in view of a determination resulting from an investigation made as a result of the one (1) and only failure of which we are aware, a copy of our letter to that consumer being attached.

The writer is advised that, according to our records, we have already recalled 307 wheels for purposes of our investigation, which comprises about 71% of the total of 431 suspect wheels built by us. This leaves only 124 suspect wheels to be recalled, and, since 229 of the 307 wheels already recalled were found to be free of any possible defect, we have sufficient good wheels available to begin to replace suspect wheels immediately. Our suggested letter to retail purchasers states that they should bring suspect wheels in for inspection "just as soon as possible", which we consider to satisfy the "earliest date" requirement of Section 153(a)(5). Our letter to our customers is, likewise, effective immediately.

This is our first notification experience. However, we consider that our attached notification meets the requirements of the Act. While we do not fully understand what is meant by Section 153 (a)(6), we consider that such a "description" is not required inasmuch as we are able to remedy this defect without charge.

Walter Potoroka -- Asst. Sec'y,

Resident General Counsel,

Patent Counsel

(SUGGESTED LETTER TO BE SENT BY W.D. AND OTHERS TO RETAIL PURCHASERS/OWNERS.)

cc: S. D. Jursek

Holley Carburetor Div.

Colt Industries

Dear Sir:

This is a notification under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974.

Our records indicate that you purchased for your own use (quantity) Chrome Reverse Wheel(s), Holley part number 253-461 (14" x 6" with a 5-bolt pattern on a 4" bolt circle).

We have recently received notification from Holley Carburetor Division that some of these wheels, produced during a certain period, may have insufficient welds which could possibly cause the center disc to separate from the rim, possibly resulting in an accident.

If the wheels you purchased are still in your possession will you please bring them to our shop, just as soon as possible, for inspection. If the wheels are identified as suspect they will be replaced with reasonably equivalent wheels at no charge to you. If these wheels are no longer in your possession please advise us the name and address of the present owner, if known to you, or what other disposition was made of these wheels.

Please call us if you have any questions about these wheels.

ID: nht75-6.11

DATE: 03/13/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A.G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Norton Triumph Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in acknowledgment of your Defect Information Report, in accordance with the defect reporting regulations, Part 573.

The Defect Information Report involves: 1,471 Norton Commando 850cc motorcycles which may experience failure of a rear suspension unit.

The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identification number has been assigned to the campaign 75-0040. The first quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by May 5, 1975. Please refer to the above number in all future correspondence concerning this campaign.

The letter which you propose mailing to owners of the subject vehicles does not meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. The sections of this law dealing with defect notifications became effective December 26, 1974. Specifically, the statement made in the fourth paragraph, that at moderate speeds or in straight line operation "there is no safety problem", is a disclaimer and is prohibited by 49 CFR @ 577.6 (copy enclosed). The phrase "there is no safety problem" must therefore be deleted from the notification. A statement that the motorcycle continues to be rideable at moderate speeds or in straight line operation is permissible as long as this is accurate.

Since remedy without charge is contingent upon actual dates, your letter should further designate a specific date as the earliest date on which the defect will be remedied without charge, as required by section 153(a) (5). The letter must also include information responsive to section 153(a) (6). This can be done by informing owners that they may write to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590 if they are unable to obtain remedy without charge.

The notifications should be mailed by first class mail as specified by section 153(c) (1), and not by certified mail as you have indicated is your intention.

A copy of the 1974 amendment is enclosed. If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. J. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840.

ID: nht75-6.12

DATE: 04/04/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A.G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your safety defect notification and remedy campaign (NHTSA No. 75-0022) concerning a nut used to secure the front exhaust pipe bracket to the automatic transmission housing which may loosen.

The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject vehicles does not entirely meet the requirements of section 153 of the 1974 amendment to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Specifically, your letter fails to inform recipients that they may notify the Secretary of Transportation if they are unable to have the defect remedied without charge, as required by section 153(a)(6). The address for this purpose may be given as: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590. We also believe that your statement, "although the possibility of a fire is remote," is a disclaimer, and is prohibited by 49 CFR @577.6. Likewise use of the word "may" in your second sentence implies that possibly a defect does not exist and is therefore also prohibited. Your letter also fails to contain an evaluation of the risk to motor vehicle safety as required by section 153(a)(2).

It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification letter and send a copy to each owner whose vehicle has not yet been corrected. A copy should also be sent to this office.

If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840. A copy of the 1974 amendment is enclosed.

SINCERELY,

Dear Customer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

A defect, which relates to motor vehicle safety, may exist in some 1975 model Audi 100 vehicles equipped with automatic transmission which were manufactured between September, 1974 and the middle of January, 1975.

This defect involves the possible loosening of a securing nut which holds the front exhaust pipe support bracket to the transmission housing. In the event that this becomes loose, the support bracket could vibrate to the point where it might touch and possibly damage the return fuel line.

In the interest of your safety, it is essential that the securing nut, together with the supporting bracket, is replaced on your vehicle as quickly as possible.

Although the possibility of a fire is remote, we urge that you immediately get in touch with the service manager of your authorized Audi dealership and make arrangements for the necessary work to be performed on your car. If you notice any fuel drippings when your car is parked, use no open flame and contact your Audi dealer immediately. This work will require approximately 1/2 hour and, of course, will be done without any charge to you. Necessary replacement parts have either already been shipped to your dealership or will arrive not later than the 14th of February.

While we very much regret the inconvenience, which we know this matter will cause you, we know that you will want to make prompt arrangements for the necessary work to be completed on your Audi as quickly as possible.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

G. Meier -- TECHNICAL SERVICE MGR.

ID: nht75-6.13

DATE: 04/01/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A.G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Matlock Truck Body & Trailer Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to respond to your letter of February 11, 1975, to Mr. Wolfgang Reinhart, concerning your defect notification letter in NHTSA campaign # 74-0203.

You believe that the second sentence in your notification letter properly determined that the defect existed in Matlock Model trailers. That sentence read, "Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the brake shoes of Standard Forge axles with 12 1/4 and 7 1/2 brake shoes on Matlock Model MTE (electronic trailers)." The NHTSA has consistently viewed a determination stated in this manner as relating to equipment (brake shoes) and not specifically to the vehicle. Matlock's determination should have been that the defect had been determined to exist in the described vehicles. We are aware that the existing requirements (49 CFR S 577.4(b) (1)) are not worded as explicitly as they might be. However, a proposed amendment to Part 577 published November 25, 1974 (39 FR 41182), did attempt to clarify the intent of this section. Should you have need to issue defect notification in the future we would expect the statement of determination to be directed specifically at the vehicles you manufacture.

With respect to your second point, section 577.4(d) calls for the evaluation to mention the possibility of vehicle crash where that is a potential result of the defect. In that regard your notification was clearly deficient.

We hope that this clarifies our earlier letter to you. Please feel free to write again if you have questions regarding the interpretation or application of any NHTSA requirements.