ID: nht72-6.38

DATE: 07/18/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Brighton Truck & Equipment Sales Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1972, asking several questions regarding truck certification by final-stage manufacturers. We have repeated your questions below, responding to each.

1. When is the progressive manufacturing report for each vehicle required to be filed?

You appear to be referring to "incomplete vehicle documents," which are furnished by incomplete and intermediate manufacturers to final-stage manufacturers. These documents are not required to be filed, but are to be used by the final-stage manufacturer as a basis for his certification of the completed vehicle. We suggest you save these documents, however, should it be necessary for you to show that you exercised due care in completing and certifying a vehicle.

2. If we sell a tractor cab and chassis upon which the customer is to install the fifth wheel, who is the final manufacturer? How? And when?

In this case, the customer is the final-stage manufacturer and bears the responsibility for certification (the regulations provide otherwise in the exceptional case where the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes this responsibility). If you do no more than sell the incomplete vehicle as it is delivered to you, you may meet your responsibilities under the regulations by forwarding to the customer the incomplete vehicle documents which you receive. Certification by the customer should be accomplished by affixing the required label containing the information specified in section 567.4 of the regulations, at the time of the installation of the fifth wheel.

3. If we sell a cab and chassis for a van body which the customer plans to transfer a used body, who must make final certification, how and when?

The answer to this question is essentially the same as that to question 2.

4. Are the customers required to return vehicles to us after installation of fifth wheel or body for us to issue the final sticker?

No. A customer who completes the vehicle is responsible for affixing the required label.

ID: nht72-6.39

DATE: 01/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 24, 1971, in which you asked several questions concerning the weight rating requirements in the Certification Regulations that go into effect January 1, 1972.

Your first three questions are summarized in your third question, as follows:

"We are under the impression that the only way in which the GVW and GAW Ratings assigned to an Incomplete Vehicle by the Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer can be increased would be (a) if a third axle is added, or (b) if the component parts of the existing axles are increased. Is this correct?

The answer is no. The information supplied to the final-stage manufacturer by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer under Part 563 is to assist the final-stage manufacturer in completing the vehicle in conformity with the standards, and certifying in conformity with Part 567. There are no requirements, however, as to how the final-stage manufacturer uses this information. If he wishes to take it on himself to change the ratings in either direction, or to disregard the conformity information, that is his right. Of course, he will be assuming legal responsibility for whatever changes he makes, as indicated by the facts of the particular situation. Similarly, he has the right to make whatever physical changes he wishes in the chassis, and assumes the normal responsibilities of a manufacturer in doing so. The Part 568 document offers him protection to the extent that he chooses to stay within its limits, but it is his choice to make.

You asked for a definition of "rated cargo load" as used in the Part 567 requirement that GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." We have not provided a definition for this term in the regulations. By it is meant simply any figure provided to the vehicle user as to the cargo-carrying capacity, by weight, of the vehicle. There is no requirement that such a figure be provided; but if it is, it must be consistent with the gross vehicle weight rating.

Finally, you asked whether it would be "illegal" to supply a body with a volumetric "capacity for holding eight tons of feed," on a vehicle whose GVWR only allowed for a cargo load of five tons. If no rating by weight is supplied, the labeling requirement would not be violated by the volumetric capacity of the body. As we stated in a recent letter on the same question, however, such action might have adverse consequences beyond the certification regulation:

"[Completing] the vehicle so that it apparent carrying capacity exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (section 113, 15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common-law product liability doctrines. In such a case, the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle might avoid liability, leaving it all on the final-stage manufacturer, by pointing out that the design of the vehicle is completed led the user to exceed the GVWR and GAWR furnished with the incomplete vehicle." (Letter from L. R. Schncider to E. W. Mentzer. October 26, 1971, filed in Interpretations Redbook, Part 567, 568.)

We are pleased to be of assistance. We are sorry that we will be unable to have one of our attorneys attend your meeting in Las Vegas.

ID: nht72-6.4

DATE: 03/09/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 28, 1972, to the Administrator, in which you questioned the applicability of Federal seatbelt standards to the trucks operated by your company.

Your argument consists of two parts. In the first place you state that the trucks are not involved in interstate(Illegible Word), as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and that the standard therefore does not apply. Secondly, with respect to the crew compartments in these trucks, you state that Standard 208 would not apply in any event, since the seats. In these compartments are auxiliary seating accommodations," and are therefore not required to have belts.

We are not altogether certain whether you are primarily concerned with the installation of seatbelts in your existing fleet of trucks, or with the installation of belts in new trucks which you are planning to acquire. Our authority under section 103 of the Act extends only to the regulation of new vehicles. We cannot require vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of a standard to conform to that standard. To the extent that you are concerned with the company's existing fleet, therefore, you should address your question to the Dureau of Motor Carrier Safety, which has recently adopted regulations requiring installation of seatbelts in vehicles in the interstate commerce. (49CFR@393.93)

With respect to new vehicles, the "interstate commrce" referred to in the Act does not, as you inferred, refer to the purpose for which the vehicles are to be used. If it did, it would not cover the vast majority of vehicles in the country, which are passenger cars not used for the purposes of commerce, interstate or otherwise. It is perfectly clear from the legislative history of the Act that Congress intended to cover passenger cars. In our opinion, Congress was referring to interstate commerce in the broad Constitutional sense, which includes all transportation on the public roads of this country. In that sense, any vehicle introduced onto a public road is part of the stream of interstate commerce. It also includes the chain of manufacturing and distribution of the vehicles, which invariably involves transactions spreading over many states. Thus, the Act and the standards issued thereunder apply to your vehicles even though they may not be used in commerce that has been directly regulated by agencies such as the Interstate Commerce Commission. They will therefore be required by Standard 208 to have seatbelts at all designated seating positions.

Despite the apparent differences between the design of crew compartment seating and that of other seating accommodations, we cannot consider the crew compartment seats to be "auxiliary seating accommodations." It appears from your letter that the trucks are expressly designed to carry passengers as well as equipment, and that the primary, if not the only, function of the crew compartment is to carry passengers. Without the crew aboard, presumably, the usefulness of the truck would be impaired. Since the seats are essential to the use of the vehicle and since the passenger carrying function of the compartment is not secondary to some other use, it follows that the seats are not auxiliary and that they should be considered "designated seating positions" as defined in 49CFR@571.3. In new vehicles, therefore, the crew compartment must be equipped with seatbelts.

ID: nht72-6.40

DATE: 09/14/72

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

TO: G.W. Balch

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter dated July 29, 1972, you advise us that your Southside Recapping and Tire Company with the assigned retread identification code mark "MBP" ceased operation on or about June 5, 1972, and that you wish the code mark cancelled. We have changed our records in accordance with your request.

Since your production ended at a specific time and the regulation requires that all retread tires be marked with the week and year of manufacture, the tires produced under your management and for which you are responsible are easily identified by the date code.

With proper application to the "Tire identification and Recordkeeping" of the "National Highway Traffic Safety Administration," if requested, the same code mark way be assigned to a new company in order to avoid the cost of reworking the matrices.

We would be pleased to service you with a new retread code mark if you recenter the retread business sometime in the future. We are also forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Buce, the present owner of the matrices, for his information.

SINCERELY,

July 29, 1972

Department of Transportation Tire Safety Section

Gentlemen:

This is to advise that I request you cancel my retreading number of DOT RMBP which was originally assigned to me, operating as Southside Recapping and Tire-Co, 255 East Fleming Road, Montgomery, Alabama 35106.

I ceased operations on or about June 5th or this year and produced no tires bear-the above stated DOT number or date code after that date.

I am particularly concerned about the cancellation of this number in that the landlord indicated that he anticipates commencing operation early in the month of August under a new name but he does not believe he will have to do anything to comply with your departments regulations. I certainly do not want to be liable for any of his production which conceivably could bear my DOT number with or without date code tag.

It is therefore requested that you notify him via letter that the DOT number MBP has subsequently been cancelled and that he must apply for his own identification.

You may contact him at the following address: Fred Buce 255 East Fleming Road Montgomery, Albana 36105

G W Balch f/d/b/a Southside Recapping and Tire

ID: nht72-6.41

DATE: 08/09/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Housing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 9 and July 21, 1972 to Mr. E. T. Driver requesting further clarification of the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR 574) concerning the responsibility of vehicle manufacturers and dealers in cases where no agreement can be reached between the two as to the method of recording the required information.

Under the circumstances you describe it is the vehicle manufacturer who is ultimately responsible for maintaining the name and address of the purchaser of the vehicle and a record that will supply enough information concerning the tires to enable the manufacturer to conduct a defect notification if the tires are found to be defective.

ID: nht72-6.42

DATE: 08/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your petition for rulemaking, submitted July 30, 1971, to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping Regulations (49 CFR Part 574). Your petition requests that Standard No. 109 be amended to provide for a special tire category for folding sidewall-reduced tread tires, of which the "Space Saver Spare" tire you manufacture is an example. You request specifically that requirements for these tires differ from conventional tires as follows: lower minimum breaking-energy values in the strength test (S4.2.2.4, Table II); modified minimum size factors for certain tire size designations which you list; elimination of the condition that the tire be mounted without lubricant for the bead unseating test (S4.2.2.3); and allowing the tire identification number to be placed on the lower sidewall (49 CFR 574.5). For the reasons stated below, your petition is hereby denied insofar as it requests modifications to the strength and bead unseating requirements of Standard No. 109, and the requirements of Part 574. We make certain recommendations herein regarding your request for modification of the minimum size factors of Standard No. 109.

The basis for your request for lower breaking-energy values in the strength test is that the values you request represent a level of performance equal to that of a conventional tire having the same amount of tread remaining as a new folding sidewall-reduced tread tire. The NHTSA cannot accept this argument as a valid basis for specifying lower breaking-energy value requirements for folding sidewall-reduced tread tires The requirements specified for the strength test are considered to be necessary minimum requirements for all new passenger car tires. Consequently, persons who purchase new tires, regardless of their construction, are entitled to at least this level of performance, and not the level of performance represented by a used tire.

The NHTSA does not believe, similarly, that you have presented a sufficient basis for elimination of the condition, in the bead unseating test procedure, that the tire be mounted for the test without the use of lubricant. While the NHTSA concurs in the benefits of run-flat performance, which the "Space Saver Spare" appears to provide, we do not believe that this advantage outweighs the necessity that the tire conform to the bead unseating requirements when mounted without lubrication. The NHTSA believes the possibility that tires will be mounted without lubrication in the field is sufficiently great to warrant the retention of this condition in the standard's test procedure.

We also do not consider sufficient the justification you provide for your request that the identification number required pursuant to Part 574 be allowed to be placed on the lower sidewall of the tire. Your statement to the effect that no problems are presented if the number "wears off" ignores the fact that the number must be retained on the tire for purposes of identification should a defect notification or recall campaign be instituted.

With reference to your request for modification of the (Illegible Word) size factor for the tire size designations which you list, believe B. F. Goodrich should petition, in accordance with guidelines published October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), to amend the Appendices of Standards Nos. 109 and 110 to provide that folding sidewall-reduced tread tires be added as a separate tire type, including new size designations and corresponding values for section width and minimum size factor that you consider appropriate.

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

ID: nht72-6.43

DATE: 01/20/72

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

TO: Crestview Service Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 7, 1972, regarding recordkeeping of tires manufactured before May 22, 1971.

Tires manufactured prior to May 22, 1971, are not subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Regulation Part 574.

Regulation Part 574 became effective May 22, 1971, for tires manufactured on and after that date.

ID: nht72-6.44

DATE: 05/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Service Industry Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 21, 1972, in which you request clarification as to the application of the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) to your members under various circumstances described therein.

Generally persons other than tire manufacturers who have obligations under the Tire I.D. regulations are motor vehicle manufacturers and tire distributors and dealers. A person adding tires to a vehicle of which he is either an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, intermediate manufacturer, or final-stage manufacturer, as those terms are defined in 49 CFR 574.10. Those persons adding tires as part of modifications to used vehicles will be tire dealers, and subject to the requirements of 574.8.

With respect to the three situations you list, in those cases where the tires have already been installed on the vehicle when your member receives it (Case #1), your member would not be adding tires to the vehicle and would not be responsible for compliance with the Tire I.D. requiremts In these cases where the tires are added or changed by an independent tire dealer, if the independent dealer is actually doing business with your member rather than with the owner of the vehicle, and if your member is an incomplet, intermediate, or final-stage manufacturer, he must comply with 574.10. If he does not fall within any of these categories he will be a tire dealer subject to 574.8. If the tire dealer is dealing independently with the owner of the vehicle, your member will not be the party adding tires to the vehicle, and will not be subject to the requirements. With regard to the situation where your member puts tires on a frame or vehicle as part of a package deal (Case #3), if he is either an incomplete vehicle, intermediate or final-stage manufacturer he will be required to comply with the requirements of 574.10. If he does not fall within these categories, he will be a tire dealer and subject to section 574.8.

Assuming your member must record the name of the first purchaser as a manufacturer or dealer, you have asked whether he may use the name of the dealer to whom he delivers the vehicle as the first purchaser, when that is the case, as he frequently does not know the name of the first purchaser for a purpose other than resale. You refer to our March 14, 1972, letter to you in which we stated that a dealer's name could be used in meeting the "Owner's List" requirement of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573) when the name of the dealer was the only name which the manufacturer had. For the purposes of the Tire I.D. requirements, the manufacturer must obtain and use the name of the actual purchaser for a purpose other than resale. It is not sufficient under this requirement for the name of the dealer to be used. Section 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402(f)), which became effective November 18, 1970. provides that. "Every manufacturer of motor vehicles or tires shall maintain records of the names and addresses of the first purchaser (other than a dealer or distributor) of motor vehicles or tires produced by that manufacturer." In our view this provision requires the manufacturer of a multi-stage vehicle who adds the tires to the vehicle to obtain the names of such purchasers, even if the names must be obtained from dealers. Our letter of March 14 should not be read to absolve your members who are such manufacturers from meeting this requirement. What that letter allows is simply that in those cases where manufacturers have not, at the time they must compile an owner list, obtained the names of first purchasers, they may use the name of the dealer and not be in violation of the "Owner's List" requirement. This may be done, however, only until they can obtain the actual first purchaser's name. We regret that this point was not made clear in our March 14 letter, and that letter is hereby modified in this regard.

Concerning your question as to the conditions under which automotive wholesalers and warehouse distributors must keep Tire Identification records, if the automotive wholesaler or warehouse distributor is not selling tires directly to the user of the vehicle he need only ensure that the dealer or distributor to whom he sells the tires has a means of recording the required information so that it may be forwarded to the tire manufacturer (section 574.8(c)). In the event the automotive wholesaler or warehouse distributor sells tires to a user, then he must record the information specified in @ 574.7(a) and forward that information to the tire manufacturer.

ID: nht72-6.45

DATE: 06/06/72

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

TO: International Houseing Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge your letter of May 19, 1972, regarding tire identification and recordkeeping.

Regulation Part 574 requires a vehicle manufacturer to maintain a record of tires on each vehicle shipped to a dealer and requires that he maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser of the vehicle for a period of three years. The purpose, of course, is to enable him to locate tires in the event of a recall. The name and address of the purchaser is provided by the dealer. The manufacturer is not required by the regulation to record each identification number for each tire, but may do so by group or category. There is a strong possibility that all tires on one vehicle will be of the same brand and will have the same identification number. The manner in which a manufacturer chooses to maintain the tire records is optional and the dealer would be expected to cooperate in his system of recording data. It is primarily a matter of agreement between manufacturer and dealer.

In the event the original tires on a vehicle are changed by the dealer prior to sale, he must report the new tire identification numbers and the purchaser's name and address to the manufacturer of the tires sold with the vehicle.

We note that your letter refers to registration of serial number rather than identification number. It is the letter that is subject to the regulation.

We trust this information answers your questions.

ID: nht72-6.46

DATE: 06/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Super Mold Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your phone call of June 6, 1972. Under Part 574, the tire identification number may be placed on the side of the top cap area 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 is feasible so that the number will remain legible as long as possible. Seetthe enclosed amendment on this subject (Docket No. 70-12; Notice No. 9).