ID: nht73-4.49

DATE: 08/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Adams Rite Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your July 25, 1973, request for copies of the Federal regulations concerning door locks and latches.

Federal Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, is enclosed. It regulates passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. These categories include ambulances and "motor homes", which are self-propelled units with sleeping accommodations, generally constructed on a light truck chassis. Most other "mobile homes" are not self-propelled and they qualify as trailers, which are not subject to this standard.

For your information, paragraph 9.1.2 of Ambulance Design Criteria has also been enclosed. This publication specifies the criteria which an ambulance must meet to qualify for Federal funding under the Highway Safety Program @ 402.

ENCS.

ADAMS RITE PRODUCTS, INC.

July 25, 1973

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

Adams Rite Products manufactures locks and latches used on commercial aircraft. We have been receiving many inquiries from mobile home builders and ambulance fabricators to supply latches that meet federal safety requirements. To date we have been unable to obtain copies of these regulations.

Please forward two copies each of the regulations governing our type of equipment. If this is not under your jurisdiction, would you please forward this letter to the proper agency or notify us of the correct address.

Robert B. Hirsch Marketing, Technical Staff

ID: nht73-4.5

DATE: 04/10/73

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

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask two questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacement parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

There are no requirements for the certification or replacement vehicle parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present, Standards Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements that manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that "due care" was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.

It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or not subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the

manufacturer or the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which the defect may exist. A manufacturer who has such records will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.

ID: nht73-4.50

DATE: 08/28/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Meteor Works

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of July 5, 1973, you express two concerns about the treatment of multipurpose passenger vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

Your first concern is that the standards to be issued under the act will apply to all passenger motor vehicles, and will include multipurpose passenger vehicles unless the agency expressly exempts them. As we stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking on the new bumper standard, we are proposing to exempt multipurpose passenger vehicles from the initial standard. The continuance of this exemption depends on a variety of considerations, and we would appreciate the benefit of your views on the subject.

Your second concern is that the definition of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" in the safety standards (49 CFR 571.3(b)) differs from the definition of the same term in the Cost Savings Act. Although the definitions are fundamentally similar, the safety standards definition limits the MPV category to vehicles designed to carry 10 persons or less, while the Cost Savings Act definition includes somewhat larger vehicles, up to a capacity of 12 persons. We do not foresee any problems as a result of this difference, but if problems arise, it would be possible through rulemaking to restrict the applicability of a cost savings standard to MPV's having a capacity of 10 persons.

ENC.

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

5 Jul 1973

Rover British Leyland UK Ltd manufacturers the Land Rover multi-purpose passenger vehicle which is sold in the United States by British Leyland Motors Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, New Jersey.

The Land Rover is designed to operate on and off road and to carry special equipment and is therefore incapable of meeting some of the requirements of passenger cars, for example bumper heights, without impairment of its special performance capabilities. This fact is recognised in the differential application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to passenger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles. We wish to ensure that a clear distinction between these two classes of vehicle is made and continue to be made and for this reason we are concerned that the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act adopts a different definition for multi-purpose passenger vehicle from that adopted in Part 371 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We quote from the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act "(1) The term "passenger motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle with motive power, designed for carrying twelve persons or less, except (A) a motorcycle or (B) a truck not designed primarily to carry its operator or passengers.

(2) The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a passenger motor vehicle which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

and from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards "Passenger car" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a motor vehicle with power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

It is obvious that the two definitions are different although the vehicles to be defined are the same.

Our concern is that the term "multi-purpose passenger vehicle" in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act is embraced by the term "passenger motor vehicle". Thus any requirements written under this Act for a "passenger motor vehicle" apply automatically to a "multi-purpose passenger vehicle" unless the latter is specifically exempted. Such exemption is expected to be necessary in consequence of the different purpose for which the vehicles are designed.

Secondly the Seating capacity used in the definitions is 12 persons or less in the case of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 10 persons or less in the case of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The most satisfactory solution would be for the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act to adopt the definitions of "Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle" and "Passenger Car" of Part 371 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, if however such an administrative solution is not possible perhaps NHTSA would consider seeking a technical amendment to work this out.

We would be pleased to receive your comments on this proposal and particularly if we have to take any further action to request such an amendment or how the different definitions will be interpreted.

C J GOODE SAFETY CO-ORDINATOR (PASSENGER CARS)

ID: nht73-4.6

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Independent Tire Dealer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1973, requesting our view of your booklet on Standard No. 117. We have the following comments.

On page 2, under the heading, "Does a Retread Have to Pass All These Tests", you refer to a lack of availability of test wheels. On page 3, under the heading, "How Expensive Could Testing Get?", you quote figures of $ 250.00 to $ 400.00. As you know, the standard no longer includes the high speed and endurance tests, and while there are other laboratory tests involved in testing strength and bead unseating, neither includes the use of the laboratory test wheel. Consequently, insofar as your statements may take into account laboratory wheel tests, they should be modified.

On page 3, under the heading, "What if One Certified Doesn't Comply?", you state, "If the tire was not produced with due care then you will have both a recall and the probability of a penalty being assessed." Notification of defects to first purchasers however, is not contingent upon a showing of due care, and must be made even if a manufacturer used due care. Whether a manufacturer exercises due care is relevant only to whether he is in violation of the Act, and to civil penalties, but not to defect notification (recall). The reason is that a retreader's exercise of due care doesn't change the fact that potentially unsafe tires will be used unless their owners are notified.

On page 4, under the heading, "Must You Submit Information On Defects and Failures?": Under section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended in 1970), each retreader must furnish NHTSA with a true and representative copy of all notices, bulletins, or other communications sent either to dealers or purchasers with regard to any defect in his tires. This requirement applies to all defects, and you should review it. It is incorrect to say that retreaders are not required to submit information regarding defects to NHTSA.

On page 4, under "What Casing Controls are Required?", you indicate that no tire may be retreaded which has exposed ply cord. However, the standard allows ply cord to be exposed at a splice (S5.2.1(b)). While you make this point later, on page 5, the way in which you do so seems more to contradict than clarify your earlier statement. We suggest you indicate that ply cord may be exposed at a splice in the earlier paragraph as well. The same thing can be said for the next section on page 4, "May Tires With Exposed Ply Cord be Retreaded?". This section is also completely silent on the exception for ply cord at a splice, and should also be modified.

On page 4, under the heading, "What are Restrictions on Good Casings?", you omit certain requirements. Casings without a symbol DOT that are to be retreaded must only be of those size designations specified in the table at the end of the standard. These casings must also have permanently labeled on them the size, and number of plies or ply rating. Both of these information items and the symbol "DOT" must also be permanently labeled on each DOT casing that is to be retreaded.

On page 5, under the heading, "Should We Use Affixed Labels or Permanent Molding On Tire?", the minimum size for permanent labeling under S6.3.2 has been changed to 0.078 inches. This change does not, however, affect affixed labels.

On page 6, under the heading, "Is Any Provision Made For Sizing Difference in Retreads?", you state a retread may be 10% over new tire physical and dimension requirements. The 10% allowance for section width is to be calculated on the section width specified in the Tables of Standard No. 109, for the tire size designation. New tires are allowed to exceed this figure by 7%. Consequently, retreads can exceed the new tire requirement by only 3%(Illegible Word) of the table figure). To say they can exceed the new tire requirement by 10% may mislead some persons into thinking they can exceed the value in the table by 17% which, of course, is not correct.

Apart from these points, your booklet appears to us to be essentially correct. It should prove helpful to retreaders.

ID: nht73-4.7

DATE: 04/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: American Retreaders' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 20, 1973, in which you ask whether, if a retreaded tire cannot meet the dimensional requirements for its original casing size, it can be considered as and labeled with a smaller size, if it meets the dimensional requirements for the smaller size.

S5.1.4 of Standard No. 117 prohibits a retread tire from having a size designation, maximum load rating, or maximum inflation pressure greater than that originally specified on the casing. It does not prohibit a retreaded tire from having a smaller size than its casing, as long as the retreaded tire meets all the requirements for its labeled size designation.

ID: nht73-4.8

DATE: 04/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Fiat Motor Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1973, requesting confirmation of your understanding that automobile manufacturers may continue to use glazing materials manufactured before April 1, 1973, that do not conform to the recent amendment to Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", effective on that date, in motor vehicles manufactured after that date.

Standard No. 205, an "equipment standard", applies to glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. It does not apply directly to vehicles in which such materials are used. As a consequence, a vehicle manufacturer may use glazing materials that do not conform to Standard No. 205 as it exists on the date the vehicle is manufactured. The glazing material must, however, conform to the standard as it exists on the date that the material is manufactured.

ID: nht73-4.9

DATE: 04/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hyland Manufacturing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1973, in which you asked whether the date a vehicle is completed, with reference to the date of manufacture placed on the vehicle certification label, is the date a vehicle comes off the "main production line" or the date it comes out of the "final finish production area".

On this question we are willing, in light of the wide variety of possible factual situations, to let a manufacturer use his own discretion within reasonable limits. As you have described your situation, either date may be used, up to the point where the last physical operations are completed. The "final quality control checkout", however, would appear to be an operation taking place after the manufacture as we normally understand it is completed.

ID: nht73-5.1

DATE: 08/28/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request of July 18, 1973, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration undertake an investigation of possible odometer tampering on a vehicle purchased by Mr. Fulton Y. Roberts of Tallahassee.

There are no criminal penalties for violation of the odometer requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. Remedies for violation of the odometer requirements are of two types. In the case of repeated violations, the United States Attorney may seek injunctive relief against further violations. In the case of a violation which has already occurred, the remedy is a private civil action by the defrauded party. For this reason, the NHTSA does not normally investigate incidents such as this.

Mr. Roberts should be advised that he may be able to sue for $ 1,500 without proof of damages, or possibly more if he can prove damages.

Mr. Roberts may wish to consult an attorney in this matter. The applicable provisions of the Act are enclosed.

ID: nht73-5.10

DATE: 10/05/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ellwood T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of September 7, 1973, concerning correspondence you received from Mr. Alton R. Rau of Linton, North Dakota. Mr. Rau objects to Federal regulations which require him to purchase trucks with stronger axles and tires than those trucks which he formerly purchased.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568) require manufacturers to establish gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings, and to equip new vehicles with components, including tires and axles, that are of sufficient capacity to carry intended loads. The regulations do not establish the relevant ratings, which are established solely by manufacturers. We feel the justification in terms of safety for such requirements is obvious.

We believe situations such as that experienced by Mr. Rau where, according to manufacturer's figures, vehicles should have been equipped with stronger axles and tires, demonstrate the need for the Certification requirements rather than showing them to be unnecessary.

The regulations apply only to new motor vehicles, and not to vehicles already in use. For Mr. Rau's information I have enclosed a copy of these requirements.

3 ENCLS.

ID: nht73-5.11

DATE: 10/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1973, forwarding to us correspondence from Mr. G. H. Nichols, President, Midwestern Products, Incorporated, Tulsa, concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to an air suspension auxiliary axle manufactured by Midwestern Products. According to the manufacturer's advertising brochure, this axle, the "Micro-Air Retractable Safety Axle," is intended to be used on pick-up and bobtail trucks, particularly in the recreational vehicle and related fields.

There are presently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations that apply to the manufacture of these axles. However, persons who install them on new pick-up trucks or other vehicle types (a "new" vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is one that has not yet been sold to a user) may be considered as vehicle alterers under provisions of NHTSA Certification regulations which are to become effective February 1, 1974 (Docket No. 72-27; copy enclosed), and would be required to affix to the vehicle the label described in section 567.7 of those regulations.

Midwestern Products should be aware of these requirements whether it installs the Micro-Air axle or whether the installation is done by other parties. In the former case Midwestern would be responsible for affixing the required label, and in the latter it should provide the relevant information for the label regarding weight ratings to the party making the installation.

The NHTSA does not maintain a mailing list to provide copies of NHTSA notices and regulations. Copies are

$92 available as indicated on the enclosed sheet, "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

We are pleased to be of assistance.

2 ENCLS.