ID: 1982-2.18

DATE: 06/30/82 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MIKE SMITH -- PRESIDENT, FLEET TIRE SERVICE

TITLE: NCA-30

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-23-82, FROM MIKE SMITH-FLEET TIRE SERVICE, TO NHTSA

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to this agency asking about requirements for importing and retreading truck tire casings. In your letter and through a phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke of my staff on April 23, you stated that you had imported 220 truck tire casings from Belgium for the purpose of retreading. These casings all had DOT numbers on them. You buffed the tires for retreading, and then had a local police officer ascertain that each casing had indeed been buffed. This procedure would fully satisfy our requirements for retreaded truck tires.

As you probably know, there is no Federal safety standard for retreaded tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, before June 18, 1981, any such tires to be imported for retreading had to have a DOT symbol on the sidewall, or some other certification by the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, complied with our standard for new truck tires. On June 18, 1981, the agency issued an interpretation stating that tires to be retreated for motor vehicles other than passenger cars could be imported solely for the purposes of retreading without having a DOT certification, providing that certain conditions were met. I have enclosed a copy of this interpretation for your information.

One of the conditions which the U.S. Customs Service has established for such activity is that the importer file an affidavit stating that casings without a DOT number will be buffed and retreaded, and none will be sold without retreading. The steps you took with this shipment of tires to show that each tire was actually retreaded were unnecessary, since your tires all had a DOT symbol on the sidewall, and could legally have been sold as used tires.

Your efforts to ensure that your retreading operation fully complied with all legal requirements are commendable. Efforts like yours will help make our roads as safe as possible for everyone using them. Should you have any further questions, or need any further information, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by phone at (202) 426-2992. ENCLOSURE

ID: 1982-2.19

DATE: 07/06/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Association -- Bradley Sweet

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT:

Truck Body & Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220 Chevy Chase Maryland 20815

Dear Mr. Sweet:

Since you represent the School Bus Manufacturers Institute, I am writing for your assistance. We are reinterpreting the requirements of @5.3.3 of Standard No. 217. Bus Window Retention and Release, as they apply to audible warning devices and would like your assistance in disseminating this interpretation.

As you know, the standard requires that a continuous warning sound shall be audible at both the driver's seating location and in the vicinity of the enclosed door. In the preamble to the notice implementing this requirement, the agency stated that section @5.3.3 requires two warning devices one located at each position. The agency made this interpretation based upon the then available data indicating that a single warning device in a bus might not be audible in both locations.

In the years that this requirement of the standard has been in effect, the agency has reexamined the issue in light of experience and finds that it is possible to have only one warning device audible at both locations. We have determined that this device can be heard even when a bus is loaded with noisy children. In accordance with this finding, the agency is reinterpreting the language of section @5.3.3 to permit one warning device is that device is audible at both locations. We caution manufacturers to ensure that their warning devices will be audible at both locations even when the bus is loaded.

Thank you for your assistance in providing this information to your members and others in the school bus industry.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-2.2

DATE: 04/07/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: D. L. Robertson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1977, regarding a letter from your constituent, Mr. Larry Gabor, Chairman of the Huntington Consumer Protection Board, concerning the safety of vehicle seats which do not lock in fore-and-aft adjustment position.

As we explained to Mr. Gabor in our letter of August 18, 1977 (copy enclosed), we have a Federal motor vehicle safety standard which is designed to prevent this situation. The standard regulates vehicles at initial sale, but does not cover inadvertent failure or premature wear-out situations. We do have authority to investigate such situations, however, to determine if grounds exist for conduct of a safety related defect "recall campaign." We are forwarding a copy of Mr. Gabor's letter to our Office of Defects Investigation to alert them of this situation. Our previous letter urged Mr. Gabor to furnish them the pertinent details on this matter. Only then can they investigate properly.

SINCERELY,

TOWN OF HUNTINGTON LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK

(Illegible Word) PROTECTION BOARD

July 25, 1977

Congressman Jerome Ambro

This Office is concerned about a particular aspect of automobile safety; the construction of the adjustable driver seat is what concerns us.

Based on an incident that occurred in our Town recently, it would appear that it is possible for a driver seat not to look into position but to actually slide back and forth depending on the motion of the driver, or the car, or both.

The incident that brought this to our attention was a driver, short in stature, actually unable to reach the brakes or the steering wheel of her car because the seat slid backward during acceleration. The driver of the car in this case was seriously injured.

We feel that this may be a significant hazzard and that some fail-safe system ought to be developed.

Please advise us of your thinking and experience on this subject.

Larry Gabor Chairman

ID: 1982-2.20

DATE: 07/21/82

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arnold P. Fuchs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This letter is to confirm your view, expressed in a telephone call with Edward Glancy of this office, that the requirements of Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, are not applicable to a replacement latch for a truck built in l969.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 are applicable to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. See S2 of that Standard. However, its requirements are not applicable to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types.

Further, the "render inoperative" provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act are not relevant to the installation of such a latch. Under section 108(a)(2)(A) of that Act, a business such as a garage must make sure that it does not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with any applicable safety standard. With respect to a 1969 truck and Standard No. 206, there is no compliance which could be rendered inoperative since the Standard was never applicable to that truck. That Standard applies only to trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972.

I would note that even in the absence of an applicable safety standard, the defect provisions of the Act may be applicable. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge.

ID: 1982-2.21

DATE: 07/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tri-City Tires, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120) concerning the use of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. Specifically, you wanted to know whether a DOT symbol was required to appear on any retreaded tires so used.

Pursuant to your request in a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, he sent you a copy of a March 22, 1978 letter from this agency to Dorsey Trailers. That letter stated that retreaded tires could be used on new trucks and trailers, and that retreaded tires used for that purpose are not required to have a DOT symbol. This conclusion is mandated by the requirement in 49 CFR @ 574.5 that "the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Standard is applicable." Since no safety standard applies to retreaded tires for use on trucks and trailers, it follows that the DOT symbol must not appear on those tires.

In your recent letter, you enclosed a copy of a September 29, 1980 letter from this agency to Elgene Tire Company. That letter states that, for purposes of Standard No. 120, used tires are interpreted to include retreaded tires. As you noted in your phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, an implication of this intrepretation seems to be that retreaded tires are required, as used tires, to have a DOT symbol.

The agency position regarding the presence of the DOT symbol on retreaded tires has been consistent since 1978, i.e., that the controlling provision on that issue is @ 574.5 and therefore the DOT symbol is not required to appear on retreaded truck tires, and, indeed, must not appear on those tires. Retreaded truck tires without the DOT symbol may be used on new trucks and trailers in full compliance with Standard No. 120. To clarify this point, the agency published a proposal on October 30, 1980 (45 FR 71834) to amend Standard 120 so that it expressly permits the installation of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. (A copy of the proposal is enclosed) Final action on that proposal is expected this summer.

I trust that this response clears up the confusion to which you alluded in your letter regarding these requirements. Should you have any further questions in this area, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

ENC.

TRI-CITY TIRES, INC.

June 11, 1982

Steven Kratzke U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Steve,

I am writing, per your request, in reference to our conversation concerning the clarification of correspondence dated Sept. 29, 1980 to Elgene Tire Co. of Union, N.J. This letter is to ask your clarification and determination of paragraph 4, (used tires vs retreaded tires), that are requested by the customer to be installed on new equipment. Per your statement to me on June 11, 1982 there is a misrepresentation of interpretation concerning the use of used tires and retreaded tires. Please send me a clarification of this issue as soon as possible, so this problem can be solved once and for all.

John I. Kitchen

ID: 1982-2.22

DATE: 07/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Regal Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 23, 1983

Regal Tire Corporation 4309 County Line Road Chalfont, PA 18914

Dear Sir:

At the request of the office of the Honorable Peter Peyser, M.C., we are writing this letter to you to explain the significance of certain items of information molded on the sidewall of new tires.

Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping (49 CFR 574), requires that each new tire to be sold in the United States have a serial number molded on one of its sidewalls. That number identifies the tire's manufacturer, date of manufacture, and size. This information is designed to ensure the proper identification of all tires subject to a recall by the manufacturer for correction of a safety-related defect or of a failure to comply with a safety standard. The serial number is not a guarantee of quality or of compliance with any safety standard.

Each new tire is also required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109, New pneumatic tires, and 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.109 and 571.119), to have the symbol "DOT" appear on one of its sidewalls. This symbol is a certification by the tire's manufacturer that the tire fully complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The symbol does not guarantee the quality of a tire in areas of performance unregulated by the safety standards.

Neither the serial number nor the DOT symbol constitute a representation that a tire is free from any safety-related defect.

If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel June 2, 1982

Ms. Carol Walls U. S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Congressional Relations 400 7th Street, SW Room 10408 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Walls:

Attached is the request for certification about which we spoke today. Regal Tire is interested in receiving a letter or other appropriate document on DOT letterhead confirming the intent of the DOT serial number on the tires themselves.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. H. Brewer, III Administrative Assistant to the Congressman

FHB/lb

CERTIFICATE

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

WE CONFIRM THAT TIRES MANUFACTURED IN U.S.A. HAVING D.O.T. SERIAL NUMBERS BRANDED ON SIDEWALL MEANS FOLLOWING:

A. EACH TIRE MEETS OR EXCEEDS U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY STANDARDS.

B. EACH TIRE HAS BEEN TESTED AND GUARANTEED BY MANUFACTURER TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IT IS FREE FROM ANY DEFECT AND OF FIRST QUALITY.

ID: 1982-2.23

DATE: 07/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ron Gustafson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 28, 1982, asking about requirements applicable to child restraints sold in the United States as well as any necessary permits or licenses. You also asked about any U.S. testing organizations, procedures or standards for child restraints.

All child restraints sold in the U.S. must conform with the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. The standard also sets out the test procedures that are used to measure the performance of child restraints. There are no other performance requirements or test procedures applicable to child restraints. I am enclosing a copy of the standard.

You are not required to obtain a permit or license from this agency prior to selling a child restraint in the U.S., nor are you required to obtain approval from any U.S. testing organization. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are required by Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, of our regulation to submit certain identifying information to the agency. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566.

In addition, you would be required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 et seg.) to certify that your child restraint complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under the Act, you would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign for any safety-related defect in your product. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, which defines your responsibilities as a manufacturer.

If you have any further question, please let me know.

ENCLS.

June 28, 1987

Furudals Bruks Kursinternat 790 70 FURUDAL Sweden

National Highway Safety Administration

To Whom it May Concern:

I am interested in receiving information concerning rules, regulations, requirements, procedures for testing, etc. concerning child safety seats in automobiles. There is interest in introducing a such a product in the USA. Therefore I would like to know of any minimum requirements (re: design, construction, materials, etc.) as well as any permits or licenses regarding those requirements. Also if there are any US testing organizations, procedures, or standards for this type of product please inform me. Thank you.

Ron Gustafson RON GUSTAFSON

ID: 1982-2.24

DATE: 07/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

JULY 26, 1982

Mr. William Croix Technical Maintenance, Manager Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. G.P.O. Box 71306 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936

Dear Mr. Croix:

This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency.

You have asked about Federal requirements for lighting of portable containers secured to flat bed trailers. As those containers are the cargo of the trailers and not an integral part of them, the Federal lighting requirements (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108) apply only to the trailer. However, the individual States in which the trailers are operated may impose their own lighting requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

PUERTO RICO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC. SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 00936

July 9, 1982

Department of Transportation Mr. Elliogt, Safety Standard Eng.

400-7th. Street South West, Room #5307 Routing NRM-11 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Elliogt:

I refer to our telephone conversation on July 7, 1982, in which my question pertained to lighting on the chassis of a container and chassis comnbination.

In transit our containers are secured to the cahssis for safety purposes. My prime question is are we in conformance with the lighting regulation set forth by your department with proper lighting on the chassis only, when the container is secured to the chassis.

Per your request I put in writing the substance of our conversation. Your response to this subject will be appreciated.

Cordially yours,

Mr. William Croix Technical Maintenance Manager

WC/umc

c: SAN JUAN - A. Colon, Executive J. Dillon, Corp. Maint.

W. Smith, Corp. Maint.

ID: 1982-2.25

DATE: 07/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: P. S. Woolley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 26 1982

Mr. Phillip S. Woolley 10769 63rd Way N. Pinellas Park, FL 33565

Dear Mr. Woolley:

This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1982, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking what you must do pursuant to Federal regulations as a manufacturer of taillamps for boat trailers.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard you must consider is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflection Devices, and Associated Equipment. (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, S571.108) Under its terms, every vehicle taillamp must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J585e Tail lamps (Rear Postion Lamps), September 1977, and the SAE materials referenced in J585e, except that paragraph S4.1.1.12 of Standard No. 108 establishes alternative photometric equipment. The standard does not establish per se a minimum lens area for a taillamp. However, a vehicle manufacturer is required to ensure that when a tail lamp is installed, "the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex," at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle" (paragraph 4, J585e).

As a manufacturer, you are required to certify compliance of each taillamp with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which may be by labelling the lamp with the symbol DOT, or by a statement on the lamp or on its shipping container (paragraph S4.7.2, Standard No. 108). You are also required to file an identification statement with the agency (49 CFR Part 566). In the event any taillamp fails to comply with Standard No. 108, or incorporates a safety-related defect, you must notify purchasers and remedy the problem in the manner specified by 49 CFR Part 577, after filing a report with the agency (Part 573).

You may obtain a copy of all Federal requirements by sending a check for $8 to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 and asking for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations - Parts 400 to 999, revised as of October 1, 1981."

For further information on the SAE materials, write "Technical Division, SAE, 400 Commonweath Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096 (or call 412-776-4841). In addition to J585e, you will need copies of J575e Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components, August 1970; J576d Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts Such as Lenses and Reflection of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices, June 1976; and J578c Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, June 1977.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Phillip S. Woolley 10769 63rd Way N. Pinellas Park, Fl. 33565

July 8, 1982

Mr. Taylor Vinson - F.M.V.S.S. - 108 Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Assoc. Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Our company intends to manufacture tail lights for boat trailers and we need to know in laymans terms exactly what we have to do to comply with the rules and regulations set by the Federal Department of Transportations section 108. Are there any rules regarding square inches of lens surface area?

Thank you very much,

Phillip S. Woolley

P.S. Your name was referred to me by the National Highway Transportation Dept.

PSW/kw

ID: 1982-2.26

DATE: 07/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: B. S. Horton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 26 1982

Mr. Bernard S. Horton 100 Memorial Drive Cambridge, MA 02142

Dear Mr. Horton:

This responds to your recent letter regarding the roof crush requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216. You ask why convertibles are excluded from the requirements of the standard, yet the BMW 318 which has a "targa" roof is not excluded.

Convertibles were excepted from Safety Standard No. 216 when the standard was first issued in 1971 because it was impossible for most convertibles to comply with the requirements. The legislative history of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), which authorizes the issuance of our safety standards, clarifies that Congress did not intend for the safety standards that would be issued to effectively preclude any type of existing motor vehicle. If no exception had been provided, the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216 would have caused the production of convertibles to cease. For this reason alone, they were excepted from the requirements.

The agency has limited the convertible exception to vehicles for which it is truly impractical to comply. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible", the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, passenger cars equipped with a "sun roof", "hurst hatch roof" or "targa roof" do not qualify as convertibles, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location. This interpretation applies, moreover, whether the rigid structural member joining the "A" and "B" pillars is a hidden reinforcing component or whether the structural member is part of the exterior roof panel.

I am sorry that you are unable to obtain the BMW 318, but this is primarily due to the fact that the manufacturer has chosen not to bring this model into compliance with Safety Standard No. 216. As you probably know, there are other models with "targa roofs" and "hurst roofs" that are in compliance with the standard and currently in use.

You also mention the fact that many vehicle custom shops cut one or more panels from vehicles to make them into convertibles or "targas". You state that there seems to be no prohibition to this. There are certain prohibitions, however. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or part any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard. This means that custom shops cannot cut panels from a used vehicle's roof if such operation would impair the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 216. Failure to observe this prohibition could result in civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note, however, that the custom shops are not precluded by this section from totally removing a vehicle roof, thereby converting the vehicle into a convertible. The prohibition does not apply to such a conversion since the vehicle would not have had to comply with Standard No. 216 if it had originally been manufactured as a convertible.

I realize that these various distinctions may be confusing. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

100 Memorial Drive Cambridge, MA 02142 July 13, 1982

Frank Berndt, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am trying to determine why one automobile or another might or might not meet Standard 216 or some other standard for roof crush resistance.

Specifically, I have been interested in buying an Americanized version of a BMW 318 cabriolet. I am told that it can't be imported here because it doesn't meet roll-over or roof crush requirements. Yet, as indicated by the enclosed article, convertibles are becoming popular again. They, at least the soft top ones I've seen, have no roof crush resistance.

By my way of thinking, a cabriolet, which is often called a "targa" because it has a section of roof which can be removed, and perhaps a drop down back window behind a bar, should be safer than a soft top convertible. In fact, customizing shops offer the cutting of one or more panels from the many makes of cars to make them into convertibles or "targas". There seems to be no prohibition to this.

Can you clarify why the BMW Cabriolet, in the light of what is on our roads, seems to be singled out as unacceptable?

Thank you very much for your help.

Sincerely,

Bernard S. Horton

BSH/lp