Interpretation ID: nht71-4.17

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1971, to the Acting Chief Counsel, concerning several matters involving the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). In your letter you request an interpretation of whether @ 573.5(b) requires reports of quarterly production figures irrespective of whether or not the manufacturer has a safety-related defect campaign to report for that or any other quarter. The answer to this question is yes. As indicated in the denial of the petition for reconsideration (36 F.R. 14774), the requirement that production figures be reported is related to more than the particular quarter in which the information is submitted. Consequently, this information must be submitted for each quarter regardless of whether a defect notification campaign takes place during that or any quarter.

In your letter you also petition for certain modifications to the regulation. These are discussed separately below.

1. You petition that, if the quarterly production figures are required regardless of the existence of defect notification campaigns, we exempt "recreational vehicle manufacturers" from this requirement. This request is denied. Under present standards and regulations, as you know, recreational vehicles may be classified in any one of numerous vehicle categories set forth in 49 CFR 571.3. We cannot consider your petition without your specifying the types of vehicles for which you request the exemption and a justification for each particular type of vehicle, based upon the specific characteristics of the vehicle that you believe warrant our granting an exemption. I add, however, that we find your arguments concerning the burden of reporting production figures to be insubstantial. The ability of the NHTSA to monitor notification campaigns clearly outweighs, in our view, the burden of reporting vehicle production figures. Furthermore, we do not agree with the position you

take, that the proposed requirements of Docket 71-11, "Manufacturers Identification", regarding estimated yearly production figures can in any way serve as a substitute for actual production figures in terms of providing hard data on the effectiveness of notification campaigns, on the percentage of production campaigned, or in terms of monitoring manufacturers' estimates of the number of vehicles involved.

2. For the reasons stated in the denial of petition for reconsideration we deem your petition for additional notice on the requirements for reporting production figures (@ 573.5(b)) to be without merit, and it is accordingly denied.