ID: nht71-5.52

DATE: 06/25/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Robert W. Hunt Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of May 26, 1971, you requested an interpretation of the newly issued S5.3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (36 F.R. 4607, March 10, 1971). Your question is whether the three-pound weight shown in Figure 9 is the only force permitted on the lengthening stroke of the buckle abrasion test, or whether additional force may be applied.

The three-pound weight is shown in the illustration of the lengthening stroke in Figure 9 for reasons of pictorial accuracy, since it remains attached to the belt throughout the cycle. It is not intended to indicate a three-pound limit on the lengthening stroke force and you are correct in your understanding that additional tension may be applied to obtain the required eight-inch stroke length.

Please advise if we can be of further assistance.

ROBERT W. HUNT COMPANY May 26, 1971

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: L. Schneider

Re: Amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 209, Paragraphs 571.21, Title 49 of CFR Docket 69-23, Notice 2

When making tests provided for in the addition (d) "Resistance to Buckle Abrasion" of Paragraph S5.3, a condition occurred which led us to request clarification of the intent of this test procedure.

Figure 9 provides for a three-pound weight (B) and it could be interpreted that this weight alone is required to pull the webbing through on the lengthening stroke. It is our understanding that this is not the intention of the specification and that the three-pound weight is provided to offer resistance on the shortening stroke and that additional tension may be applied on the lengthening stroke to be certain that the webbing is pulled through the buckle to obtain a stroke length of 8".

In view of what we consider to be more than one possible interpretation of the intent of the specification we will appreciate clarification.

W. H. SAVAGE, P.E. President

ID: nht71-5.53

DATE: 06/10/71

FROM: CLUE D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY ZEMAITIS

TO: Physicians for Automotive Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 24, 1971, informing us of Mr. Hurley's Safe-Trip-Seat and inquiring about enforcement of Standard No. 209 concerning a non-complying Hankscraft child harness.

Mr. Hurley sent us a letter on April 10, 1971, informing us of his device. Our letter to him was sent out on May 10, 1971, so he had not received it when he wrote to you. I believe we have adequately informed him of his lack of compliance with Standard No. 213 and the penalties involved if he does not. A copy of our letter to him is enclosed for your information. Our compliance personnel were also alerted on the Safe-Trip-Seat.

Hankscraft was notified in a letter dated March 23, 1971, of our position on any child harness (copy enclosed). Please note that we will enforce Standard No. 209 on harnesses advertised in any way to provide any measure of protection in a vehicle accident. We will not enforce the requirements of Standard No. 209 on harnesses which "carefully state that they are not intended to protect a child from the effects of an accident."

A copy of this letter is being forwarded to our compliance personnel for appropriate action by them.

ENC

ID: nht71-5.54

DATE: 06/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Coach Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 7 requesting interpretations of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

First, with respect to Standard No. 207, you have asked whether designated seating positions must be labeled as such. Our response is that the labeling section requires labels on seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion but does not require designated seating positions to be labeled.

With respect to the nature and content of the label on a seat not designated for occupancy, the standard states that the seat must be "conspicuously labeled to that effect." There are thus two general requirements: that the label be conspicuous and that it indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. The requirement for conspicuousness relates to the location of the label and the prominence of its lettering. Generally speaking, it would have to be located so that it could be seen by a person preparing to occupy the seat and of a size that could be read by the occupant-in the normal motion of sitting. The statement on the label must clearly indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, but the exact wording is left to the manufacturer.

Standard No. 208 requires that MPV's and trucks with a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds, manufactured from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1975, must elect either a passive protection system or a seat belt system that requires Type 2 seat belt assemblies

at outboard designated seating positions that include the windshield header within the head impact area. A similar requirement, without the passive option, goes into effect July 1, 1971, for these vehicles. Your question is whether, if a seating position does not have the windshield header within the head impact area, it is permitted to have a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Our response is that the standard permits a Type 1 belt for such a position.

Please advise us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely

TRAILER COACH ASSOCIATION

7 June 1971

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Office of the Chief Counsel

Enclosed are the following requests for interpretation relative to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations and Standards: TCA-RI-1-71 - Request for Interpretation (7 June 1971) 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Record Keeping; TCA-RI-2-71 - Request for Interpretation (7 June 1971) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 Occupant Crash Protection.

The requests for interpretation formats and contents have been developed to facilitate interpretation by the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Trailer Coach Association wishes to develop an optimum standard system for requesting interpretations and would appreciate any comments from the Administrator, NHTSA, concerning improvements in format and content.

Richard I. Moss Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association

7 June 1971

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 1-71 (TCA-RI-1-71)

SUBJECT: 49 CFR Part 574 Tire Identification and Record Keeping

This document constitutes a formal request from the Trailer Coach Association to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for interpretation relative to the application of 49 CFR Part 574 Tire Identification and Record Keeping to the mobile home and recreation vehicle industry.

This document is designed to simplify arrival at an interpretation by the Administrator, NHTSA, and consists of the following paragraphs:

1.0 Background

2.0 Problem

2.1 Development of the problem situation

2.2 The specific problem

3.0 Request for Interpretation

Please forward the interpretation to the following office:

Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 922 Arlington, Virginia 22209.

RICHARD I. MOSS Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 1-71 (TCA-RI-1-71)

SUBJECT: 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (Part 574)

1.0 Background

In the recreation vehicle manufacturing process, the flow of tires and vehicles from the tire manufacturer to the customer is often complex. This complexity occurs primarily because several types of recreation vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages.

Figure - 1 -- Flow chart Type I Sequence of Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity portrays one typical flow of tires and vehicles from the tire manufacturer to the customer.

Figure - 2 -- Coding Chart for Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity provides a key to the activities performed by each organization along the flow (boxes 1 through 6 inclusive) as interpreted by the staff, Trailer Coach Association

2.0 Problem

2.1 Development of the Problem Situation

In Figure - 1 there is no tire dealer. There are, however, two motor vehicle dealers in the flow of tires and vehicles, namely, the truck dealer and the motor home dealer.

Paragraph 574.7 (Tire Distributors and Dealers) of the tire identification and record keeping regulations requires the tire distributors and dealers to provide tire information to the tire manufacturer.

Paragraph 574.8 establishes motor vehicle dealers as tire dealers when (1) he sells a used motor vehicle for purposes other than resale or leases a motor vehicle for more than 60 days that is equipped with new tires or newly retreaded tires; or (2) he sells a new motor vehicle to first purchaser that is equipped with tires that were not on the vehicle when shipped by the vehicle manufacturer.

There is no specific requirement appearing in 574 Tire Identification and Record Keeping for the motor vehicle dealer selling a new vehicle to the first purchaser equipped with tires when shipped by the manufacturer to report information to the motor vehicle manufacturer or the tire manufacturer.

A study of Figure - 1 flow chart indicates that: (1) There is no tire dealer in the chain; and (2) There are two motor vehicle dealers in the chain. Neither dealer is specifically required to report tire data by the provisions of 574, the tire identification and record keeping regulation.

Paragraph 574.9 requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to maintain a record, by identification number, of tires on or in each vehicle shipped by him to a motor vehicle distributor or dealer and to maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires.

2.2 The Specific Problem

The tire identification and record keeping regulations as written and as applied to Flow Chart Type I, Sequence of Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity, present the recreation vehicle manufacturer with the following problems.

(1) The vehicle manufacturer is required to report tire information, but, in the case of a vehicle equipped with tires provided by the manufacturer, the vehicle dealer is not specifically required to provide tire data to the vehicle manufacturer.

(2) The vehicle manufacturer is not considered a tire dealer and is not required to provide tire data to the tire manufacturer.

(3) The vehicle manufacturer cannot comply with 574 if the vehicle dealer refuses to provide tire data.

(4) The tire reporting chain is broken (Fig-1) and 574 the tire identification and reporting regulation becomes ineffective.

3.0 Request for Interpretation

It is requested that the following questions be answered in order to provide a sound basis for recreation vehicle industry compliance with 49 CFR Part 574 Tire Identification and Reporting Requirements.

3.1 Is there a specific regulation requiring the motor vehicle dealer to report tire data to the motor vehicle manufacturer when the motor vehicle is equipped with new tires installed by the motor vehicle manufacturer?

3.2 Would the Administrator apply Section 113f, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as the means

to the motor vehicle manufacturer when the motor vehicle is equipped with new tires installed by the motor vehicle manufacturer?

3.3 What specific regulation requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to report tire data to the tire manufacturer when new tires have been procured for motor vehicles direct from the manufacturer?

3.4 If a motor vehicle manufacturer who sells a motor vehicle to a motor vehicle dealer which is equipped with new tires installed by the manufactured has documented proof (such as a registered letter) that the motor vehicle dealer refused to provide the required tire records:

3.4.1 Has the motor vehicle manufacturer shown "due care" by having documentary evidence of the dealer's refusal to provide the tire records?

3.4.2 If the motor vehicle manufacturer informs the Administrator, NHTSA, concerning the dealer's refusal to provide tire records and provides documentary evidence of the dealer's refusal to provide tire records, what assistance will the Administrator, NHTSA, provide for the motor vehicle manufacturer?

Fig.

(FLOW CHART OMITTED)

NOTES 1. LETTERS (A,B,C) ARE CODES INDICATING SPECIFIC ACTIVITY [SEE CODING CHART]

2. NUMBER IN PARENTHESES [(2), (3)] INDICATES ORGANIZATION TO WHICH INFO IS PASSED.

FLOW CHART TYPE I SEQUENCE OF TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORD KEEPING ACTIVITY

CODING CHART FOR TIRE IDENTIFICATION RECORD KEEPING ACTIVITY Item Description of Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity Provides means of record keeping Records information concerning purchasers Maintains records concerning all tire purchasers Maintains records concerning distribu- tors and dealers purchasing tires directly from him Submits purchaser information to tire manufacturer Maintains record of tires on or in each vehicle shipped to motor vehicle distributor or dealer Maintains records for three years Maintains name and address of first vehicle purchaser

Item Code Remarks A This is a form containing the information in item 2 below B Name and address of tire purchasers Tire identification number Name and address of tire seller C Same remarks as for Item #2 D Name and address Number of tires purchased Number of tires for which reports received Total number of tires sold by manufacturer Total number of tires reported on E Same information as for item #2 A record of all purchasers is not required F Record is by tire identification number G H

TRAILER COACH ASSOCIATION

7 June 1971

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 2-71 (TCA-RI-2-71)

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208; Occupant Crash Protection.

This document constitutes a formal request from the Trailer Coach Association to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for interpretation relative to the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207 and 208 to the mobile home and recreation vehicle industry.

This document is designed to simplify arrival at an interpretation by the Administrator, NHTSA, and consists of the following paragraphs:

1.0 Background

2.0 Problem

2.1 Development of the Problem Situation

2.2 The Specific Problem

3.0 Request for Interpretation

Please forward the interpretation of the following office:

Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 922 Arlington, Virginia 22209

RICHARD I. MOSS Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 2-71 (TCA-RI-2-71)

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.

1.0 Background

Paragraph S 4.2.1.2 (b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 states that "The vehicle shall have seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard 209 as follows:

(a) . . . .

(b) In all vehicles except those for which requirements are specified in S 4.2.1.2 (a), a type of seat belt assembly shall be installed for each outboard designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area, and a type 1 or type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each other designated seating position."

There appears to be no requirement for labeling designated seating positions Standard 207, paragraph S 4.4 states that

"Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect."

2.0 Problem 2.1 Development of the Problem Situation

The problem confronting the recreation vehicle industry has developed relative to: (1) The requirement for type 2 seat belts if the windshield header is not in the head impact area; (2) The requirements for labeling designated seating positions; and (3) The requirement for labeling seats other than designated seating positions.

2.2 The Specific Problem

Does paragraph S 4.2.1.2(b) Standard 208 mean that if the windshield header is not in the head impact area, type 1 seat belt assemblies are satisfactory?

Are there labeling requirements for designated positions?

What are the specific requirements relative to labeling seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion?

3.0 Request for Interpretation

It is requested that the following questions be answered in order to provide a sound basis for recreation vehicle industry compliance with Standard 207, Seating systems - Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses; and Standard 208 - Occupant Crash Protection:

3.1 If the windshield header is not within the head impact area, is a type 1 seat belt satisfactory for the designated seating position?

3.2 Is labeling required for designated seating positions? If so, what are the requirements for:

3.2.1 Label Contents?

3.2.2 Lettering Size?

3.2.3 Contrast?

3.2.4 Location?

3.2.5 Number of labels per designated seating position?

3.3 What are the requirements for the labels required by paragraph S 4.4 standard 207? Specifically, what are the requirements for:

3.3.1 Label Contents?

3.3.2 Lettering Size?

3.3.3 Contrast?

3.3.4 Location?

3.3.5 Number of Labels?

ID: nht71-5.55

DATE: 05/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1971, requesting an additional interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation.

If in fact, the vehicle manufactured is not considered a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act and the mini-bike interpretation (34 F.R. 15416) (copy enclosed), then Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, and section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402) will be inapplicable.

SINCERELY,

PATTON, BLOW, VERRILL, BRAND & BOGGS

May 3, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Re: Your reference 40-30

Thank you for your letter of April 28th in response to my letter of April 12th which requested confirmation of my interpretation of certain requirements of MVSS Part 574. Your reply raises an additional question which I would appreciate having answered by your office.

Your letter states that "the regulation does not apply to tires manufactured exclusively for the [off-road vehicle]." The underscored words "manufactured exclusively" concern me inasmuch as I pointed out in my April 12 letter that Cushman frequently utilizes DOT coded tires on golf carts and other off-road vehicles -- that is, tires that could also be used on on-road vehicles. The question remains, therefore, whether the record-keeping requirements as well as the requirements of Section 15 U.S.C. @ 1402 apply in the case of tires that could be used for either on-road or off-road vehicles but are in fact utilized on off-road vehicles.

In light of the foregoing, I find it necessary to repeat my request for confirmation of the analysis made in my April 12 letter as follows:

"As I understand it, Cushman is not required to follow the Part 574 record keeping with respect to tires installed

2 on such vehicles [off-road], nor would the other requirements of 15 U.S.C. @ 1402 apply. Further, as I read Part 574, Cushman has no obligation to report to the tire manufacturer any information regarding tires purchased for installation on off-road vehicles."

In the event that you have any questions in connection with the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Charles O. Verrill, Jr.

ID: nht71-5.56

DATE: 05/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Herbert A. Strum; P. E.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of April 20, 1971, to Robert L. Carter you ask for copies of regulations governing "the construction, equipping, and operation of private motor coaches." It is our understanding that you wish to construct a vehicle for your own use upon a standard Dodge M-300 motor coach chassis.

A motor coach is categorized as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose copies of the following safety standards which would apply to the motor coach body that you wish to construct, and with which you, as a "manufacturer" of a motor vehicle, must ensure compliance.

102 - Transmission Shift Lever, etc. (Note S3.2)

103 - Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems

104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems

107 - Reflecting Surfaces

108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associate Equipment

111 - Rearview Mirrors

205 - Glazing Materials

206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components

208 - Seat Belt Installation (effective July 1, 1971)

209 - Seat Belt Assemblies (effective September 1, 1971; the requirements in effect until then apply only to equipment manufacturers)

This agency has no regulations governing the "operation" of a private motor home; however, Michigan may have special provisions as a prerequisite to the registration of a motor home.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

April 20, 1971

Robert L. Carter, Motor Vehicle Programs, Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Re: Construction and Equipment Requirements Motor Coaches - Recreational Vehicles.

Would you kindly send me the regulations which govern the construction, equipping and operation of private motor coaches? I am proposing to construct such a coach for my own use, starting with a standard Dodge M-300 motor coach chassis designed for the purpose, and presumably meeting all current regulations which apply to the chassis and drive-train, etc. My concern thereafter, is with the requirements governing the body dimensions, clearance lighting, etc.

Your prompt attention will be appreciated.

(Herbert A. Strum) P. E.

ID: nht71-5.57

DATE: 05/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1971, regarding an interpretation for seat belt assemblies required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection.

It is our intent that an integral (3-point) lap and shoulder belt system, with a sliding attachment, could meet the requirements of the subject standard. Since paragraph S7.1.1 requires automatic adjustment by means of an emergency-locking retractor for this type of integral system (see S7.1.1.3), the sliding attachment friction could not unduly restrict adjusting movements of the belt, however, a nominal friction is permissible and is expected.

The seat belt assembly which you submitted to Mr. Clue Ferguson's Office of Crash Worthiness has been placed in Docket 69-7. This system would appear to have a nominal friction at the sliding adjustment, however, an actual vehicle installation is necessary to enable a full evaluation.

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

April 20, 1971

Doug W. Toms, Director National Traffic and Highway Safety Administration

Subject: Seat Belt Assemblies According to FMVSS 208

The Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 which will be effective January 1, 1972, requires that seat belt assemblies shall adjust to fit the occupant by means of an automatic or emergency locking retractor. The seat belt assembly being considered for installation in our vehicles has been designed to comply with the subject Safety Standard. We would, however, appreciate receiving your confirmation that the design complies with the aspect of performance described in S7.1.1 of the Standard prior to equipping our vehicles.

The subject assembly consists of a single piece of webbing permanently attached at the outboard floor anchorage, with the release/fastening mechanism at the inboard anchorage forming the pelvic restraining loop and a third anchorage behind the shoulder forming the upper torso restraint. The webbing is fed during extension by an emergency locking retractor through the upper shoulder restraint anchorage to provide freedom of movement for the occupant.

Application of this assembly around the occupant is achieved by pulling the "tongue" portion of the attachment hardware from its fully retracted position at the "3" pillar, across the occupant down to the fixed buckle or receptable at the inboard anchorage. The webbing passes loosely through a slot in the tongue to provide a sliding adjustment during this application.

We are requesting your confirmation that this sliding adjustment specifically, will not be considered in non-compliance with your requirement for adjustment by the retractor because of the small amount of friction occuring at the webbing and tongue. It is our opinion that the friction is adequately overcome by the retractor force to provide proper adjustment. Additionally, the assembly when extended for use, will be drawn across the occupant, thus a snug fit across the pelvic region will be provided upon application thereby minimizing the need for further automatic adjustment by the retractor.

A sample of an assembly incorporating this design has been left at Mr. C. Ferguson's office for further evaluation by your staff. Upon receipt of your evaluation of this design we will advise our parent company accordingly.

H. W. Gerth General Manager Product Engineering and Service

cc: Mr. Wilfert Dr. Reidelbach

ID: nht71-5.58

DATE: 04/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1971, in which you repeat Rolls Royce's requests for interpretation of Standards No. 207 and 208.

The request for interpretation of the seat adjustment requirement of Standard No. 207 was initially made in your petition for reconsideration of that standard. Our response to the petitions on Standard No. 207 was published or April 20, 1971. Your petition was denied to the extent that it requested that the requirement be amended to permit 2 inches of travel. However, it is recognized that continuously adjustable seats may have a certain small amount of travel that would not be harmful, and the notice accordingly indicates that they are considered to remain in their adjusted position despite such motion.

We expect that you have by now received our reply to your questions on Standard No. 208. Your inquiry first reached us through your Washington counsel and we accordingly sent our reply by the same route. Please advise us if further clarification is needed.

ID: nht71-5.59

DATE: 12/29/71

FROM: WALTER T. COX -- V. P., THEODORE BERGMAN COMPANY

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Frank Armstrong, Director of the Office of Standards Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the responsibilities of recreational vehicle manufacturers for whom the Bargman Lock Company is conducting a defect notification campaign.

The primary responsibility for conducting the defect notification campaign rests with the vehicle manufacturer. While, in this case, the campaigns are being conducted by the Bargman Lock Company on behalf of the various recreational vehicle manufacturers, it is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to (1) assure that the Bargman Company is supplied a list of customers who purchased vehicles with non-complying door locks, and (2) make sure that the customer is, in fact, notified of the defect.

Since we have received samples of the defect letters the Theodore Bargman Company is sending the vehicle purchaser and the vehicle dealer, it is not necessary for the recreational vehicle manufacturers to send the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration copies of the defect notification letters as required under section 113(d).

Concerning the requirements of the Defects Reports Regulation (49 CFR 573), you are correct in your understanding that the regulation would not be applicable to the Bargman defect notification because the defect involved was determined to be safety-related prior to the effective date of the regulation.

ID: nht71-5.6

DATE: 11/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trike Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: You wrote some time ago to request information concerning the application of various motor vehicle safety standards to passenger cars with curb weights of less than 1,000 pounds. Contrary to the information you obtained from Motor Trend, this category of passenger cars is still exempt from the standards. There is a possibility that at some future date the exemption granted by 571.7(a) will be changed or revoked, but any such action can be taken only after opportunity for public comment.

Please advise us if you feel it necessary to have your remaining questions answered.

ID: nht71-5.60

DATE: 09/14/71

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

TO: Cabot Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of March 10 and July 1, 1971, requesting an exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 for experimental tires that you manufacture by buffing off the tread of new tires and then recapping the tires with different compounds. You state that you use these tires for testing carbon blacks by testing the tires on the public highways and on private test tracks.

We do not consider tires manufactured by the method you describe to be retreaded tires within the scope of Standard No. 117 because they are not manufactured from used tires. However, we do consider them to be new pneumatic tires, and subject to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. We regret that an earlier letter to you of April 7, 1971, may have been misleading in that regard.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) provides that no person shall --

"manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . . any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard."

We consider the testing of these tires on the public roads to be an introduction of them in interstate commerce, and prohibited by section 108(a)(1) unless the tires conform to Standard No. 109. The tires need not be manufactured for sale to the general public

in order for violations of section 108(a)(1) to occur. However, if the testing of these tires is confined to the laboratory or to private roads, the prohibition of the section 108(a)(1) will not apply to them.

A copy of the Act and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 is enclosed for your information.

Enclosures