ID: 1983-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The BF Goodrich Company -- C.J. Johnston, Manager, Product Reliability

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Toyo Tire Corporation

TEXT:

Mr. C. J. Johnston Manager, Product Reliability The BF Goodrich Company Tire Group 500 South Main Street Akron, Ohio 44318

Dear Mr. Johnston:

This is in response to your May 12, 1983 letter regarding the tire sidewall molding requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. In that letter you indicated that, acting in reliance on statements by a NHTSA employee, your company modified certain new tire molds by deleting the numerical treadwear grade from the sidewall label, but leaving the word "TREADWEAR" in place. NHTSA subsequently stated, in a letter to Toyo Tire Company, that if the sidewall molded label is modified, both the numerical grade and the word "TREADWEAR" should be deleted. You also indicated that BF Goodrich is now in the process of modifying the molds again to delete the word "TREADWEAR".

In light of your good faith reliance on agency statements and your current efforts to conform to the policy stated in our letter to Toyo Tire Company, NHTSA will take no enforcement action regarding sidewall molding requirements for tires produced through the completion of the mold modification process.

For future reference, please be aware formal interpretations of legal requirements are issued only by this office and only in writing. To obtain an interpretation upon which reliance can be placed for purposes of making business decisions, you should direct a letter of inquiry to the Chief Counsel's Office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 12, 1983 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

The BF Goodrich Company agrees with the NHTSA decision to suspend the treadwear grading requirement specified in 49 CFR 575.104. We agree with the NHTSA statement that "the treadwear grades are apparently not only failing to aid many consumers, but also are affirmatively misleading then in their selection of new tires."

When the suspension was announced, we had several new lines of molds ready for production. We felt that removing the numerical grade would help avoid further confusion. Our decision to leave the word "treadwear" in these molds was simply a matter of economics. The molds were already stamped and we wished to avoid the expense and delay required to remove it, especially due to the uncertainties as to litigation on this issue.

Before deleting the numerical grade, we sought clarification of the new tire labeling requirements. On February 7, 1983, a telephone discussion was held with the designated NHTSA contact regarding the acceptability of leaving the word "treadwear" but removing the numerical treadwear grade from new lines of tire molds. We were advised that this would be acceptable. This same advice was given by the agency to the Deputy Director of the Tire Division, Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), and it was in turn reported to other RMA members.

We learned, according to your April 5, 1983 letter to Mr. K. Inoue of the Toyo Tire Corporation, that the omission of the numerical grade now is not considered an acceptable format for the UTQG labeling on the sidewall of tires. The reason stated was that the display format could be interpreted as attributing the grade which appears after the word "traction" to both the treadwear and traction performance of the tire and thus could confuse tire purchasers.

We had a telephone discussion with a member of your staff on April 12, 1983 to review this history and inquire about appropriate action to be taken with regard to our present circumstances. This letter is the result of his suggestion that essential information covering this situation be communicated to you.

Since February, 1983, we have produced several new lines of tires with the numerical treadwear grades omitted. To date, we have produced approximately 420,000 tires from these molds. The mold branding is being revised to remove the word "treadwear." However, because of the number of molds involved, it is anticipated that the branding revision could take up to two months to complete. During that period, we could produce another 150,000 tires.

To summarize, we acted in good faith to comply with the treadwear suspension and with verbal guidance from the agency to both us and the Industry, through RMA. Accordingly, our tires no doubt will be part of a larger group of tires produced by the Industry with various branding formats during the interim period prior to implementation of the final version of the new branding format. Nevertheless, and in the meantime, we have started the action described above, consistent with your letter of April 5, 1983 to Toyo Tire Corporation.

Yours truly,

C. J. Johnston Manager, Product Reliability

Enclosure (4/5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Toyo Tire Corporation omitted here.)

ID: 1983-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Flxible Corporation -- Charles R. Sidner, Product Safety Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Charles R. Sidner, CPSM Product Safety Engineer Grumman Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43015

Dear Mr. Sidner:

This responds to your March 31, 1983, letter asking about the lo-air pressure warning device that is required by Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In particular you ask whether the requirement must be met with two switches, one on the primary and one on the secondary air tank, or whether one switch on the supply tank would be sufficient.

S5.l.5 of the standard states that a warning signal shall be provided to give a continuous warning of a loss of pressure in the service reservoir system below 60 p.s.i. The intent of the section clearly is to provide a warning to a driver of any instance that results in a loss of pressure in either the primary or secondary service reservoir system.

Dependinq upon the design of any individual brake system, it might be necessary for more than one switch to ensure that the driver will be alerted to such an air loss. For example, a single switch on the supply tank might be inadequate to signal a loss of pressure in the primary or secondary service reservoir system if the action of the compressor masks such loss of pressure. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its system is designed in a way that requires more than one switch.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 31, 1983

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: (a) FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems S5.l.5 Warning Signal

Dear Sirs:

Your assistance is requested with respect to an official interpretation/ clarification of reference (a) above as it relates to the installation of lo-air pressure switches on our Flxible-METRO transit coach.

In accordance with S5.l.5, as we interpret the standard, when the ignition is in the "on" or "run" position and the pressure in the service reservoir system is below 60 ps, there shall be a signal either visible....or both audible or visible.

In order to attain this signal, we have positioned a lo-air pressure switch, electrically operated at both the primary and secondary air tank (service reservoir system).

The issue for interpretation is whether the two lo-air switches on both the primary and secondary tanks are necessary to meet the requirement, or if one lo-air switch on the supply tank only to activate the warning signal is adequate to meet the requirements of S5.1.5.

We shall continue to locate a lo-air switch on both the primary and secondary tanks until we are advised otherwise.

Sincerely,

GRUMMAN FLXIBLE CORPORATION

Charles R. Sidner, CPSM Product Safety Engineer

cc: E. Kravitz J. Bolton L. Musser T. Schubach

ID: 1983-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Kano:

This responds to your letter of April 20, 1983, asking several questions concerning the requirements for armrests in Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. That standard requires, as one optional means of compliance (S3.5.1(c)), that each armrest have at least 2 inches of coverage withing the pelvic impact area, when measured vertically in side elevation. You ask whether this 2-inch measurement may be made from the outermost points of the base of the armrest as it fits against the door inner trim, or whether the measurement must be made from the inboard portion of the armrest that would actually contact a vehicle occupant. You also ask if the standard permits an armrest surface that would contact an occupant to be tilted at a 15 degree angle from the vertical, and whether it permits that surface to have "low moles" or "shallow bezels" (i.e., minor protrusions or indentations).

With reference to the drawing included in your letter, Standard No. 201 would require the specified 2-inch measurement to be taken at the "H1" parameters, rather than the "HO". The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that there is at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. For this requirement to be meaningful, the covered surface must be contactable by the vehicle occupant. The vehicle occupant would not contact the base of the armrest illustrated in your drawing, regardless of its vertical length.

Paragraph S3.5.1(c) does not preclude "moles" or "bezels" in the armrest, since there are no limitations on radius of curvature. A "mole" which projected only moderately into the vehicle interior would be included in the calculation to determine compliance with the requirement for 2 inches of covered surface. If a mole projected so far into the vehicle interior that it would prevent pelvic contact with the rest of the armrest, however, only the mole would be included in the calculation.

By the same token, while a "bezel" is not precluded, it is not included in the calculation if it is so deep that it cannot be contacted.

Paragraph S3.5.1(c) does not specify any particular angle at which an armrest must be set with relation to the door inner trim. Therefore, it is permissible for the inboard surface of the armrest illustrated in your drawing to make an angle of 15 degrees from the vertical.

Finally, I would point out that paragraph S3.5.1(c) is one of three optional means of compliance for manufacturers who install armrests. A manufacturer may also satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with either S3.5.1(a) or S3.5.1(b), in which case it is not necessary to provide 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 201: Occupant Protection In Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to ask your interpretation of FMVSS 201; S 3.5.1 (C) (armrests) which states, "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area" is not clear about the measuring method, therefore, the following is our own interpretation. (Reference to the figure of attachment);

We interpret the "at least 2 inches" length "HO" which is measured vertically in side elevation.

If your interpretation is not "HO" but "H1",

i) Is it acceptable that the lean of the armrest side- surface is 15 degrees (0=15) or less?

ii) Is it allowable that the armrest side-surface has the low mole or the shallow bezel, with the following dimensions:

-- Width of mole or bezel "W1" or "W2" is equal to or less than 0.5 inch.

-- Height of mole "D2" and depth of bezel "D1" are equal to or less than 0.2 inch, respectively.

Very truly yours,

Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President

ID: 1983-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/83

FROM: Frank Berndt, NHTSA

TO: Koji Tokunaga -- Manager of Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager of Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, Michigan 48076

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This responds to your letter of May 26, 1983, asking whether a continuous loop seat belt system you are considering would comply with the requirments of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Continuous seat belt systems are permissible under Safety Standard No. 208 if certain conditions are met. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of Type 2 belts "by means of an emergency locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems if the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the danger of submarining due to a slack lap belt, the agency has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1.

To conform to the requirements, the buckle of the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjusting. This means that when the belt is buckled by the vehicle occupant, the retractor must be capable of cinching the lap belt tightly around the occupant's pelvic area (regardless of where the buckle tongue is located along the belt webbing when the belt is fastened). The friction in the buckle tongue cannot be so high that the occupant must manually pull the belt webbing through the tongue to tighten the lap belt.

We note your statement that the one-way frictional bar included in your contemplated belt design "permits the wearer to fasten the lap belt more tightly than the tension from the ELR usually achieves." This is certainly permissible, provided the ELR does tighten the belt sufficiently for the lap belt to be considered automatically adjustable. You will have to make this determination, however. Please note that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether or not its belt design complies with the standard. The agency does not offer advance approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. Further, the agency does not make determination of compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment prior to the manufacturer's certification of that vehicle or equipment.

I hope this clarification will be of help to you in your design plans.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Subject: New Seat Belt System - Compliance with FMVSS 208. S7.1.1

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to request your confirmation on the interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 in the context of our new seat belt system which we plan to use as soon as possible for the front outboard seating postions on our passenger cars.

This belt system is of a continous webbing loop type with an emergency locking retractor (ELR) installed on the lower part of the B-pillar. The belt webbing goes up from the ELR through a metal ring mounted on the upper part of the B-pillar, then downward diagonally across the occupant's upper torso, through a latch plate which couples the belt to the inboard buckle. Then sideways across the occupant's lap, and to the outboard anchor.

The new feature of this design is a one-way frictional bar incorporated in the latch plate which in effect is the junction between lap and shoulder portions of the webbing. This device permits the wearer to fasten the lap belt more tightly than the tension from the ELR usually achieves, while preventing the lap belt from loosening out as long as the belt is worn. When the belt is worn by the occupant, any slack in the lap belt is removed by his action to pull out the shoulder belt from the retractor. Even when he did not tighten the lap belt snugly, tensions on the shoulder belt caused by his normal motions during vehicle operation work to cause the slack in the lap belt to be taken up by the retractor.

A webbing tension-relieving device is not incorporated in this belt system.

We believe this design meets the intent of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 because the one-way feature of the latch plates does no interfere with the function of the single retractor to automatically adjust the tension of the lap belt portion ot prevent excessive slack as mentioned in the interpretation letters issued by NHTSA to Renault (dated Sept. 25, 1972) General Motors (dated March 27, 1975) and to Chrysler (dated June 13, 1975).

We request your letter of confirmation regarding this interpretation of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 in the context of the belt system design described above. Since our final tooling commitments to produce this system must be made very shortly, we would appreciate your prompt review and response.

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager of Engineering

ID: 1983-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT: William Shapiro,. P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs North American Car Operations Product Planning and Development Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter of May 24, 1983, requesting an interpretation concerning the retraction force requirements to Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You are considering a Type 2 seat belt design which includes an emergency locking retractor for continuous loop webbing and an emergency locking retractor for additional webbing at the inboard buckle portion of the system. You state that this inboard webbing is extended only if the belt is used by an extremely large occupant. You ask whether the retraction force requirements of the standard allow testing with the webbing of the entire system extended 75%, i.e., even if this mean; that no webbing is extended from the inboard retractor, so that the retraction force is actually only measured from the retractor for the continuous loop portion of the belt.

Paragraph @4.3(j) of Safety Standard No. 209 specifies that an emergency locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph @5.2(j) shall:

(1) expert a retroactive force of at least 0.6 pound under zero accelaration when attached only to the pelvic restraint: (5) exert a retroactive force of not less than 0.2 pound and not more than 1.1 pounds under zero acceleration when attached only to in upper torso restraint;

(6) exert a retroactive force of not less than 0.2 pound and not more than 1.5 pounds under zero acceleration when attached to a strap or webbing that restrains both the upper torso and pelvis.

The test procedures of paragraph @5.2 (j) specify that these retraction forces are to be measured with the belt webbing extended from the retractor to 75% of its length.

The requirements of @4.3(j) apply to each retractor on a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system. There is no exception in the standard for a system which includes two or more retractors which exert force on the same belt webbing. Thus, both retractors on your proposed system would have to comply with the requirements of the standard independently of one another. Under the test procedure you suggest, the retraction force of the inboard retractor would not be measured. This is contrary to the explicit language of the standard. Both retractors on your proposed system would have to comply with the force requirements of paragraph @4.3(j) (6). This is true because both retractors are attached "to a strap or webbing that restrains both the upper torso and the pelvis." Therefore, the retraction force on your inboard retractor must be not less than 0. 2 pound and not greater than 1.5 pounds when the webbing on that retractor is extended to 75% of its length. The same is true for the retractor on the continuous loop portion of the system.

I hope this has clarified any misunderstanding you might have had concerning these requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/07/83 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: BINICHI DOI -- NSK REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

TITLE: NOA-30

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 1-31-83, SAFETY BELT RETRACTORS, TO ROBERT NELSON, FROM BINICHI DOI

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether a continuous loop seat belt system with a tension reliever ("window-shade device") on the upper torso section of the belt must have a one-way locking tongue.

Continuous seat belt systems are permissible under Safety Standard No. 208 if certain conditions are met. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of Type 2 belts "by means of an emergency locking or automatic locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits single retractor, continuous loop systems if the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the danger of submarining due to a slack lap belt, the agency has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.

First, to conform to the requirements, the buckle of the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjusting. This means that when the belt is buckled by the vehicle occupant, the retractor must be capable of cinching the lap belt tightly around the occupant's pelvic area (regardless of where the buckle tongue is located along the belt webbing when the belt is fastened). The friction in the buckle tongue cannot be so high that the occupant must manually pull the belt webbing through the tongue to tighten the lap belt. Based on our viewing of your proposed belt system (presented by your representative in a May 25th meeting), it is our opinion that your system does not have a sufficiently low level of friction that it would automatically adjust the lap belt portion. It is impossible for us to judge how this

system would perform when installed in a vehicle, however, since the angle of the buckle tongue at the time of fastening does affect its friction level. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether or not its belt design complies with the standard. The agency does not offer advance approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. Further, the agency does not make determinations of compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment prior to the manufacturer's certification of that vehicle or equipment.

The second restriction in regard to continuous loop systems concerns the use of manual and automatic tension relieving devices on the upper torso portion of the continuous loop. In past letters of interpretation, the agency has limited the use of tension relieving devices to the upper torso section of seat belts that have an individually adjustable lap belt. A system does not have an individually adjustable lap belt if slack which is introduced into the continuous loop by a "window shade" device or "comfort clip" is directly transferred to the lap belt. Thus, in answer to your specific question, yes, a continuous loop seat belt system with a tension reliever on the upper torso portion of the belt should have a one-way locking tongue or some other method of preventing slack from returning to the lap belt. The high friction in the buckle tongue of your belt design would likely prevent the return of belt slack to the lap belt. However, as pointed out above, this high friction would also likely prevent the lap belt from adjusting automatically. Granted, these are somewhat conflicting concerns and they do present a tremendous design challenge. However, the agency believes these are necessary requirements if manufacturers include tension-relieving devices in their continuous loop systems.

I hope this clarification will be of help to you in your design plans.

ID: 1983-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Able Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jim Cowen Manager Able Body Company P.O. BOX 1868 Joplin, MO. 64802

Dear Mr. Cowen:

This is in reply to your letter of May 26, 1983, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Standard No. 302 existing in truck sleeper berths that you manufacture is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

We do not believe that Able Body has the legal responsibility to file a petition of this nature. Your description of the company as a manufacturer of "sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks" indicates that Able Body is a supplier of original equipment which is installed in trucks rather than the manufacturer of the truck itself. While Able Body may have a contractual obligation with truck manufacturers to provide them with evidence of compliance with Standard No. 302, the truck manufacturer itself assumes ultimate responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act for compliance with that standard by affixing a label to each truck certifying compliance with all applicable standards. This means that the truck manufacturer has the legal responsibility to notify purchasers and remedy noncompliances in its products involving Standard No. 302, even though the component concerned was produced by another company. As the obligation to notify and remedy rests upon the truck manufacture, only that party may petition for an inconsequentiality determination.

When noncompliances occur, they must be reported to the agency pursuant to 49 CFR 573 Defect and Noncompliance Reports. Under this regulation either a component or a vechicle manufacturer may report a noncompliance to NHTSA if the noncompliance exists only in original equipment of a single vehicle manufacturer. However, if the noncomplying component has been used in the vehicles of more than one manufacturer, the manufacturer of the component and all vehicle manufacturers must file individual noncompliance reports. We have no record that Able Body has filed a Part 573 report on this matter. I enclose a copy of Part 573 for your information.

We would appreciate prompt filing of a Part 573 report by Able Body and/or relevant truck manufacturer(s). You may advise your customers of their right to file an inconsequentiality petition.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

May 26, 1983

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

Dear Administrator:

Able Body Company, P.O. Box 1868, Joplin, Missouri, a corporation chartered in and under the laws of the state of Missouri, wishes to petition the NHTSA for exemption from notification and remedy requirements on the grounds of an inconsequential noncompliance to FMVSS 302.

Able Body Company manufactures sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks. During a routine update of testing for compliance with FMVSS 302 on April 8, 1983, a specimen of the speaker grill mesh from a Motorola speaker grill (Motorola Part Number RV 1001) failed the burn test. The specimen burned at a rate of 6.48 in/min. Motorola was contacted and further samples were tested. As a result, on May 3, 1983, it was determined that all of the Motorola grills that had been installed by Able Body Company were out of compliance. The speaker grills were installed in pairs in 1371 sleeper berths made between May 1977 and May 1983.

Able Body Company feels that the noncompliance in this case is inconsequential for the following reasons:

1.) The grills in question measure 6 inches by 6 inches. This represents 0.5% of the surface area of the passenger compartment of a sleeper berth. Since the speaker grills are such a small area, the probability of their involvement in a fire is correspondingly small.

2.) The grills in question weigh one ounce each. This represents 0.19% of the total lining material available to burn. If a fire did occur and if it involved the grills, they would be consumed in approximately one minute each and be of no further support for combustion.

3.) The grills are located 27 inches above the mattress. This location is above the most likely risk area, from reclining smokers.

4.) Since the most likely source of fire is from a passenger who smokes, a test was made to try to ignite a grill with the coal of a cigarette. While the coal melted a hole in the mesh it did not ignite the grill. Since the grill will only readily ignite from an open flame, the probability of involvement is futher reduced..

5.) The Motorola RV 1001 grills were installed in 1371 Able Body sleeper berths. This represents a small number compared to the total number of berths. During the same period (1977-1983), Able Body manufactured 2158 other sleeper berths that did not include the Motorola grill.

Able Body Company feels that the above reasons are sufficient and therefore make this petition. If there are any questions regarding this matter, please notify us at once.

Respectfully submitted. Jim Cowen, Manager

ID: 1983-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ezon Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Louis Gaia V.P. Purchasing Ezon Products, Inc. P.O. Box 18134 Memphis, Tennessee 38118

Dear Mr. Gaia:

In your letter of June 2, 1983, to the Office of Chief Counsel, you asked if there were "any D.O.T. requirements on miniature bulbs?"

We understand your question to refer to bulbs used in lighting devices other than headlamps. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, imposes no performance requirements on individual bulbs used in lighting devices other than those used in replaceable bulb headlamps (an option permissible as of July 1, 1983). Other lighting devices must meet the photometric requirements of the standard with the bulb, chosen by the lighting device manufacturer, installed.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 2, 1983

National Hwy. Traffic Agency Office of Chief Councel 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

We were advised by Mr. Al Kazmierzak from the D.O.T. to write you concerning the following.

Are there any D.O.T. requirements on automotive miniature bulbs?

Please advise.

Awaiting your reply,

EZON PRODUCTS, INC.

Louis Gaia V.P. Purchasing

LG/dd

ID: 1983-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard London

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard London Ferme de la Ferrage 06620 Gourdon France

Dear Mr. London:

We understand that you recently asked the agency about the permissibility of importing a used motor vehicle, such as a Mercedes 280SL, which would be trailered to various auto meets, and which would not be licensed for use or used on the public roads. You have asked whether the vehicle would qualify, under these facts, as one imported "solely for the purpose of show...." within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

The agency considers several factors in determining whether to accept a declaration that a vehicle is imported solely for "show". One of these is the nature of the vehicle itself. If it is a unique machine generally considered to be of technological or historical significance, it is more likely to be admitted under the exception than if it were a mass-produced vehicle similar to many that were manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The smaller the production run, the greater the likelihood that it will be considered to be unique. Mechanical components that differ substantially from those commonly in use at the time of manufacture are evidence of its technological significance. Association with historical personages that would create a desire in the public to see the car is also considered relevant in the agency's interpretation of the word "show".

Another factor is the nature of "show". If the vehicle is intended for display as part of a collection of vehicles open to the public on a continuing basis, it is more likely to be admitted than if it were the importer's sole vehicle and garaged. The fact that an importer intends to transport a vehicle by trailer to display sites is consistent with the general declaration that the car is imported for purposes of show and will not be operated on the public roads.

In interpreting the word "show" and thereby exercising its discretion whether to allow importation of nonconforming motor vehicles for this purpose, the agency must balance the harm to the public likely to occur through use of the vehicle on the public roads, with the benefit to the public of importation of a nonconforming vehicle for show purposes. The agency has no control over disposition or use of a nonconforming vehicle once it has been imported for "show", and NHTSA's intent is to assure itself that a "show" vehicle is unlikely to be sold at some time in the future for use on the public roads. Therefore, the statement by the importer that he does not intend to use it on the roads is not necessarily dispositive of the matter because there is no assurance that a subsequent owner would have the same intent. Thus, the agency believes it is less likely that a rare or unique vehicle, part of a collection available to the public will be sold for use on the public roads than a vehicle such as the 1968-72 Mercedes 280SL that has been imported in numerous quantities as a conforming motor vehicle. Of course, any vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1968, such as the Mercedes 230 SL or 250 SL need not meet any Federal safety or emission requirements.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/10/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: VREDUSA -- Anthony Lavro, President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Anthony Lauro President VREDUSA P.O. Box 279 Somerset, New Jersey 08873

Dear Mr. Lauro:

This responds to your recent letter asking if you can legally sell certain tires you have imported from the Netherlands. These truck tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall but do not have a maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure labeled on the sidewall.

Under Federal law, these tires cannot be sold or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce because they do not comply with all requirements of Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119). Paragraph S6.5(d) of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) requires that a maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure be labeled on both sidewalls of each tire subject to the standard. The tires described in your letter plainly do not meet this requirement. Hence, the DOT symbol on those tires is misleading, since that symbol is supposed to be a manufacturer's certification that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 119.

Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) specifies that no person shall sell or introduce into interstate commerce any item of motor vehicle equipment (which includes tires) unless the item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) sets forth a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108, if they were offered for sale or introduced into interstate commerce.

At this point, you have two legal courses of action open to you. You may have the tire manufacturer file a petition requesting an exemption from the noncompliance of these tires, arguing that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to the safety of the tires. The procedures to be followed in filing a petition for an inconsequential noncompliance are set forth in the enclosed copy of 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance. I cannot state at this time that the absence of maximum load information would be viewed as inconsequential, but we would certainly give full consideration to any petition the manufacturer might submit. If the petition were granted, you could sell these tires.

The other course of action available to you is to ship these tires back to the manufacturer in the Netherlands and explain that they do not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 119. I appreciate your efforts to ensure that you are complying with all applicable Federal regulations with respect to the sale of tires you import.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Office of Chief Council NHTSA - Room 5219 400 - 7th St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Recently I spoke with a Mr. Steve Kratsky, of your office concerning an opinion I desire. Mr. Kratsky advised that I write a letter to your office so that I could receive a written opinion.

I am an importer of a line of tires manufactured in Holland. On my last container I received some light truck radial tires which did not have the maximum inflation or maximum load capacity imprinted on the sidewall. The tires do have a D.O.T. number.

My question is: Can I still sell these tires to a wholesale, retail or user customer?

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Anthony Lauro President