ID: amphibious_vehicle6175

Mr. Paul Larkin
Compliance and Research Services, Inc.
1701 West Front Street
Plainfield, NJ 07063




Dear Mr. Larkin:

This is in response to your letter, in which you asked if an amphibious vehicle your client is seeking to import would be classified as a "motor vehicle."  As explained below, our answer is yes.

Title 49 U.S. Code 30112 prohibits the importation of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is not certified to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards."Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles.Certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

In your letter you stated that your client, Rodedawg International Industries, wishes to import for sale into the U.S. an amphibious vehicle.You stated that the vehicle, the Rodedawg, is designed for "off-road use only, and will be sold, advertised, and marketed as such.You also stated that the certificate of origin will include a statement noting that the vehicle is not designed for use on public roads.You listed various vehicle characteristics demonstrating the vehicles amphibious capabilities and further stated that it is equipped with a throttle stop that limits the maximum speed on roads to 25 miles per hour.

The agency has consistently stated that off-road capabilities alone do not remove a vehicle from the definition of a "motor vehicle" (See letter to Judith Jurin Semo, April 19, 1994).While relevant, vehicle distribution and declarations contained in the certificate of origin are not determinative.The statutory definition directs us to consider the vehicle as manufactured.

Aside from the amphibious nature of the vehicle, the Rodedawg as manufactured is not readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles that have off-road capabilities, e.g., sport utility vehicles.Sport utility vehicles are considered motor vehicles and are generally classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles under our regulations.

We also note that the manufacturers website advertises the Rodedawg as a sport utility vehicle (http://rodedawgsuv.com/index.html, visited July 23, 2005) and represents the vehicle as an automobile.

Based on the design of the vehicle the Rodedawg would be classified as a "motor vehicle". If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.1/24/06

ID: Anuvu_002304

Mr. Ed Ring
Director Strategic Planning
Anuvu Incorporated
3980 Research Drive
Sacramento, CA 95838

Dear Mr. Ring:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry and telephone discussion with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, regarding Federal requirements that could affect the plans of your company (Anuvu) to install fuel cell/electric hybrid systems (fuel cell systems) in new, fully-certified motor vehicles, and then to sell those altered vehicles to consumers.

You stated that installation of the fuel cell system would necessitate the removal of the vehicles engine, transmission, and fuel tank. You explained that your company would then install a fuel cell stack, electric motor, hydrogen storage tank, and battery pack. You further explained that the alteration would include installing a regenerative braking system, which would be attached to the drive train, and an electric motor that would be used to power the hydraulic brake system. You noted that no other alterations would be made to the brake system.

Motor Vehicle Certification

A manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) (49 U.S.C. 30115, Certification of compliance). If any person alters a certified motor vehicle, prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale, then that person is deemed an "alterer," a type of manufacturer. As an alterer, that person must certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (enclosed).

Since Anuvu plans to install the fuel cell systems in new vehicles, i.e., ones that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale, Anuvu would be an alterer. As such, Avunu would be required to certify that the altered vehicles continue to comply with the Federal safety standards affected by the addition of the fuel cell system. The certification requirements for alterers can be found in 567.7. Additionally, at the point of first retail sale, the vehicle must comply with all standards applicable to the vehicle as altered (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)) and be certified as such.

Further, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Although Anuvu intends to remove fuel systems certified as complying with FMVSS No. 301, it is likely that this "make inoperative" provision would not be violated with respect to that standard.

This is because FMVSS No. 301 applies to vehicles that are equipped with fuel systems that use a fuel with a boiling point above zero degrees Celsius. The standard does not require vehicles to be equipped with such a fuel system. The vehicles as altered by Anuvu would be equipped with fuel systems that rely on hydrogen, a fuel with a boiling point below zero degrees Celsius. Since FMVSS No. 301 would not apply to the vehicles as altered, the make inoperative provision would not be violated by the removal of the FMVSS No. 301 fuel system. However, the make inoperative provision would prohibit Anuvu from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with any FMVSS that applied to the vehicle as altered, and subsequent to alteration (i.e., technology upgrades, retrofits).

Applicable FMVSSs

In order to determine how the installation of your fuel cell system would affect vehicle compliance with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard in 49 CFR Part 571. However, there are certain standards (discussed below) of which you should be particularly aware.

First, I would draw your attention to FMVSS No. 305, Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electric shock protection. This standard would apply to your vehicle if it used more than 48 nominal volts of electricity as propulsion power, had an attainable speed in 1.6 km on a paved level surface of more than 40 km/h, and had a gross vehicle weight rating of 4536 kilograms or less. FMVSS No. 305 specifies the requirements for limitation of electrolyte spillage, retention of propulsion batteries during a crash, and electrical isolation of the chassis from the high-voltage system.

Section 3 of FMVSS No. 135, Passenger car brake system, defines "electric vehicle" as a motor vehicle that is powered by an electric motor drawing current from rechargeable batteries or a fuel cell. Therefore, the addition of the fuel cell system would also change your vehicles classification to an electric vehicle for the purposes of FMVSS No. 135. Accordingly, if FMVSS No. 135 continued to apply to your vehicle, the vehicle would be required to comply with the brake performance requirements applicable to electric vehicles.

Although there is not currently any FMVSS applicable to hydrogen fuel systems or hydrogen fuel tanks, any application of fuel cell technologies to motor vehicles should include reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the motoring public. In the absence of Federal regulations, Anuvu should consult voluntary standards and recommended practices developed by groups such as the Society of Automotive Engineers, American National Standards Institute, and International Standards Organization.

I note that in your correspondence with Mr. Calamita, you discussed ways in which you have considered the safety of the converted vehicles. I strongly encourage you to ensure that your company takes appropriate and sufficient precautions concerning your companys current and projected applications of fuel cell technologies, and that your company will follow, and where necessary establish, appropriate internal evaluation and design protocols to address every potential safety concern.

Additionally as an alterer, your company would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 301 concerning the recall and remedy of safety related defects. If our agency or Anuvu were to determine that an altered vehicle contained a safety-related defect, Anuvu would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defect and remedying the problem free of charge (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121).

Exemption from an FMVSS

In your telephone conversation with Mr. Calamita, you inquired into the possibility of applying for an exemption from the FMVSSs impacted by the alteration. 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, establishes requirements for the temporary exemption of certain motor vehicles from compliance with one or more FMVSS in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113. Under 555.6(c), a manufacturer may ask for an exemption of up to two years, for a maximum of 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that an exemption would make the development of a low-emission vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety of the vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 555 (enclosed) for the information required to demonstrate that safety would not be unreasonably degraded and the specifications regarding application for an exemption.

Please note that Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:567
d.5/20/04

ID: aorc3.ogm

Mr. Steven R. Fredin
Chairman
Automotive Occupant Restraints Council
c/o Autoliv N.A., Inc.
1320 Pacific Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Fredin:

This responds to your recent letter to Clarke Harper of our Office of Crashworthiness Standards regarding certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and the compliance test procedures adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with respect to that standard.

Sections S4.3(j)(1) and S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209 provide that an emergency-locking retractor must lock before the webbing extends 25 mm (1 in.) when the webbing is subjected to an acceleration of 7 m/s² (0.7 g) within a period of 50 milliseconds (ms). You ask if the 0.7 g acceleration must be constant, if there is an allowable tolerance for the acceleration, if the 0.7 g must be maintained over a certain duration of time, and whether the acceleration trace is allowed to have a certain level of decay or declining acceleration during the test.

After providing background information with respect to the requirements applicable to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and NHTSA's testing of those items, I will respond to your specific question about the test conditions and procedures applicable to the retractor requirements of Standard No. 209.

Congress has authorized the NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C.  30111). NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards (49 U.S.C.  30112, 30115). NHTSA then conducts compliance tests of selected products to determine whether the products, in fact, comply with applicable requirements, usually utilizing test facilities under contract to the agency.

Each FMVSS specifies performance requirements for the vehicles or equipment to which the standard applies. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA provides instructions, known as "compliance test procedures" or "laboratory test procedures" (TP), for use by the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests. One purpose of the TP is to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, rather than differences between testing facilities.

The TP, of course, must not be inconsistent with the test procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the TP generally provides additional detail beyond what is set forth in the relevant FMVSS. In some cases, the TP does not refer to all of the performance requirements established by a standard, and in other cases it may direct the test facility to conduct a test at a lesser stringency than that set out in the standard. Nevertheless, the agency has repeatedly advised both manufacturers and the public that a TP does not limit the requirements of an applicable FMVSS, and each TP reiterates that principle.

While manufacturers are not required to conduct certification tests in any particular manner, any manufacturer that wishes to base its certification of compliance on a test procedure that is different from that included in the standard must necessarily assess whether the results of the alternative test procedure are good predictors of the results of the test procedure specified in the standard.

In the instant case, the agency believes that the provisions of S4.3(j)(1) and S5.2(j) are very clear. Under these sections, an emergency-locking retractor must, when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g within a period of 50 ms, lock before the webbing extends more than 25 mm (1 in.). Nothing in the standard purports to require a constant acceleration (or a constant rate of increase of acceleration), to establish a specific period during which the acceleration must be maintained, or to prohibit any "decay" after the 0.7 g level is reached. Therefore, each retractor must be able to meet the locking requirements of the standard regardless of the rate of acceleration, the duration of the acceleration, or the extent of any subsequent "decay."

We note that this interpretation of S4.3 and S5.2 is consistent with the purpose of those requirements, which is to ensure that retractors will lock in the event of severe vehicle deceleration, such as that which is experienced in a crash. In the event of an actual crash, it is unlikely that a retractor will be subjected to a constant rate of acceleration. It is also unlikely that the acceleration will occur within a narrow corridor for a specific duration. Moreover, the acceleration experienced by the retractor may decay during emergency events. Nonetheless, in all instances, the retractor must lock if the seat belt is to properly restrain an occupant.

With respect to your inquiry about tolerances, the TP provides that the retractor should be subjected to an acceleration of 0.72 g to ensure that, even if the test facility's instrumentation is slightly inaccurate, the retractor will be subjected to at least 0.7 g. This, in effect, provides a tolerance for the test facility. However, this does not create a tolerance for the manufacturer. As noted above, NHTSA often directs its test facilities to test in a less stringent manner than that set forth in a standard (in this case, at a slightly higher acceleration, which tends to facilitate retractor lock-up) to assure that a test will not have to be repeated in the event of a slight error. However, notwithstanding the TP, each manufacturer must assure that its retractors will lock when tested at the 0.7 g level provided in the standard; a retractor that did not lock until it experienced 0.72 g would be deemed noncompliant.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209
d.2/4/2000

ID: armor23160

Mr. Charlie Cao
Armor USA, Inc.
611 Forest Hill Drive
Coppell, TX 75019





Dear Mr. Cao:

This responds to your letter received on May 22, 2001 asking for information about the application of glazing marking requirements. More specifically, you ask whether it is optional or mandatory to have a DOT number for bullet-resistant glass to be used for the windshield of armored vehicles. As discussed below, a DOT number is required for the bullet-resistant glass to be used for the windshield of all vehicles, including armored vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards.

FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205), specifies requirements for glazing in each new motor vehicle. The standard permits bullet-resistant glazing to be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, provided such glazing meets specified performance, location, marking, and certification requirements. Therefore, the glazing to be used for the windshield of armored vehicles, whether bullet-resistant or not, must be marked in accordance with the marking requirements of FMVSS No. 205, as discussed below.

S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials. S6.1 requires every Aprime glazing material manufacturer@ (defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as Aone who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material@) to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with section 6 of American National Standard ASafety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways@ Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (AANS Z26"). S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles pursuant to the requirements of our statute at 49 U.S.C. ' 30115.

Each manufacturer or distributor who would not be considered a Aprime glazing material manufacturer,@ but who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing that are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with 49 U.S.C. ' 30115.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA=

s Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:205
d.8/1/01

ID: arschin

Arthur N. Arschin, Esq.
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2803
New York, NY 10123

Dear Mr. Arschin:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking whether the manufacturer identification numbers assigned to the Vee Rubber Company, Ltd. and the Vee Rubber International Company, Ltd. remain valid. The short answer is yes, if the plants remain in production.

49 CFR 574.5 requires each new or newly retreaded tire sold in the United States to have a tire identification number (TIN) labeled by the manufacturer on one sidewall of the tire. The TIN is intended to assist NHTSA to identify the production source of a tire in the event of a defect or noncompliance. The TIN must include a manufacturer identification mark (MIM) issued by NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR 574.6. NHTSA issues a separate MIM for each plant that currently produces or retreads tires, and a plant can only have one MIM.

Once NHTSA issues a MIM, the mark remains in effect as long as the plant to which it applies remains in production. In the event the plant ceases production, the mark assigned to that plant may not be further assigned or otherwise used by the manufacturer or anyone else. If the plant ceases production, NHTSA should be promptly notified so that the mark can be cancelled.

With regard to your client rubber companies, the MIMs assigned to Vee Rubber Company, Ltd., YRU for Plant No. 1 and YRV for Plant No. 2, remain in effect if those plants are still in production. The MIMs assigned to Vee Rubber International Company, Ltd., 4A for Plant No. 1 and 5A for Plant No. 2 remain in effect if those plants are still in production.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:574 d:10/20/95

ID: avi.ztv

Mr. John M. Dowd
Mr. James C. Osborne, Jr.
Ms. Elizabeth C. Peterson
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036

Re: American Vehicle Importers, Inc.

Dear Messrs. Dowd and Osborne, and Ms. Peterson:

We are replying to your letter of December 23, 1999, addressed to myself, and to Messrs. Guerci, Vinson, and Entwistle of this agency submitting a proposal to resolve the matters discussed at your meeting with us on December 21. This meeting concerned the practices of your client, American Vehicle Importers, Inc. ("AVI") with respect to statutes and regulations enforced by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance ("OVSC").

I will address the items in your letter in the order you have raised them. Your initial remark ascribes to us the acknowledgment that "the current regulations do not prohibit a Registered Importer ('RI') from moving an imported vehicle to an auction lot prior to receipt of a Bond Release for a vehicle." This is coupled with your realization that we may need to know the location of the vehicle during the period before the bond is released in order to be able to inspect it for conformance, and you state that AVI will inform OVSC of the location where the vehicles may be inspected. We agree that the current regulations do not specifically prohibit a RI from placing bonded vehicles on an auction lot, and that AVI's informing us of the location of bonded vehicles should facilitate our ability to inspect them. However, AVI must also ensure that we have unfettered access to these vehicles on an auction lot in the same manner as we would were they retained on AVI's property, at all times until receipt of the bond release. That is to say, we must be admitted to inspect bonded vehicles stored on an auction lot during all business hours. We will require the same information location from all RIs that do not store bonded vehicles on the lots identified in their registration application.

You contend "that the regulation, which prohibits an RI from licensing or registering the vehicle or 'releas[ing] custody of the vehicle to any person for license or registration for use on public streets . . .' prior to receipt of a Bond Release, do not preclude the vehicle's sale at a wholesale auction prior to receipt of the Bond Release." We disagree with you on this point. One of the conditions of the bond is that the vehicle it covers be exported or abandoned to the United States in the event that an insufficient showing of conformity is made and the bond and the vehicle are not released (49 U.S.C. 30141(d)(1) as implemented by 49 CFR 591.8(e) and Appendices A and B, and 49 CFR 592.6(a)). If a bonded vehicle has been sold at auction, wholesale or otherwise, before the bond has been released, we could not be certain that the RI could fulfill its duty to export or abandon the nonconforming vehicle because it would no longer own the vehicle. In that instance, NHTSA's sole remedy would be to foreclose on the bond. This is insufficient to fulfill the safety purpose of the statute and the bond, which is to ensure that imported noncomplying vehicles be brought into compliance before being licensed for use, and used, on the public roads. We note, however, your statement that "AVI will agree to await receipt of a Bond Release before selling its imported vehicles at a wholesale auction," and your opinion that all RI s should be preluded from selling their vehicles before receiving a bond release. To address your concern, we do intend to enforce the law equally, and we have informed RIs that they must not sell bonded vehicles while the bond is in effect, whether at auctions, to dealers, or to individuals.

Your final concern regards titling of bonded vehicles. You assert that we acknowledged that "the current regulations do not prohibit the titling of an imported vehicle prior to release of the bond on the vehicle." You refer to the letter of November 11, 1999, by Philip Trupiano, the president of Auto Enterprises, Inc. (and a principal of AVI), requesting an interpretation whether a RI may obtain a title for re-sale purposes before this agency has released the applicable performance bond. I enclose a copy of the Chief Counsel's recent response to Mr. Trupiano. As he advised Mr. Trupiano, we do not interpret 49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1) as precluding a RI from obtaining a title to a bonded vehicle in its own name before the bond is released. However, for the reasons explained in that letter, we have concluded that a RI may not have a vehicle retitled to another entity pending bond release.

With respect to other issues, you ask that OVSC commit to release the bond on a vehicle no more than seven days after receipt of conformance certification. While OVSC will not make such a "commitment," which, in any event, would not be enforceable, our policy has been, and will be, to process conformance certification packages expeditiously and in the order in which they are received. During the past three months, the average period between receipt of a RI's conformance package and bond release has been reduced to five days.

You also ask that OVSC engage in further discussions regarding implementation of a software program presented to OVSC by AVI and Avalon Risk Management. OVSC is willing to consider any software program, provided that the developer of the program agrees to waive all proprietary rights if the program is implemented. With regard to AVI's proposal to work with OVSC "to develop a procedure by which Vehicle Identification Numbers are inspected and verified prior to entry into the U.S," we believe that the U.S. Customs Service would be a more appropriate Federal agency to work with, particularly regarding procedures intended to identify stolen vehicles before their entry into the U.S.

Finally, we agree with you that fundamental fairness requires us to interpret and enforce the law equally against all RIs. To assure that RIs understand their duties and responsibilities, we will discuss these matters in Newsletter No. 16, currently being prepared to be sent to the RI community.

Sincerely,
Kenneth N. Weinstein
Associate Administrator
for Safety Assurance
Enclosure
ref:592
d.4/19/2000

ID: 77-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Lamar Gudger - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please excuse the delay in my response to your letter of June 15, 1977, addressed to Mr. Norman Sultan, with a copy to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Federal requirement for registration of tires.

Mr. Sultan has reported a tire registration of 10 percent in his area of operation which is considerably less than the national figures of 30 percent for retreads and 70 percent for new tire replacements developed in our studies. Mr. Sultan is urging a change in the law to permit voluntary registration of all tires.

Mr. John Snow, my predecessor, reported to the Honorable Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, that consideration would be given to changing Regulation Part 574 allowing voluntary registration of retreaded tires in lieu of mandatory registration. Since taking office, I have devoted considerable attention to reviewing and analyzing the pertinent factors related to tire registration. I am convinced of the safety benefits of registering new tires and I consider the mandatory recordkeeping provision essential to the purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act. However, because retreaded tires are individually manufactured and therefore could not be recalled as are mass produced items, I am considering proposing revocation of the mandatory recordkeeping requirement for retreaded tires.

For your information I am enclosing a copy of my recent letter to Senator Magnuson in response to his questions on this subject. You may be interested to know that a recent meeting with representatives of the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association (NTDRA) provided an opportunity to discuss basic clerical problems associated with registration. As a result, an interpretation of the regulation was reached which would permit the tire purchaser personally to complete the registration form. Although dealer responsibility remains, the interpretation is considered by NTDRA to provide considerable relief to dealers in time and cost. Hopefully this action will offset much of the objections to the current tire registration process.

SINCERELY,

Encls. Constituent's LTR. To Sen. MAGNUSON DATED AUG. 3, 1977

Congress of The United States House of Representatives

June 15, 1977

Norman Sultan

First, let me apologize for my delay in responding to your letter of May 27, 1977. I have noted your concern over the provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 requiring tire registration and the fact that the rate of response is now less than ten percent and that the added expense for such return "is simply just not worth it".

We were in contact with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the study which you cited which is to be conducted on the advisability of making such program voluntary and were informed that this has been under consideration for some time. In an effort to be of assistance in this matter, I am today taking the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the appropriate officials at this Administration in order that they might have the benefit of your views and an opportunity to supply up-to-date infromation on the study. Upon receipt of a response I will forward you a copy. I also appreciate having your views in regard to an Agency for Consumer Advocacy. Fortunately in Western North Carolina and in many other areas, the Better Business Bureau and private agencies are working effectively to protect the consumer from fraud and oppression. Moreover, the North Carolina Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General each maintain an assistant or a division to prosecute persons who defraud the public by false and fradulent sales practices. For these reasons and because I generally oppose creating new federal agencies and imposing more bureaucratic regulations, I expect to vote against the Agency for Consumer Advocacy.

The House Government Committee reported H. R. 6805 May 10th and it could reach the House Floor soon. I will certainly keep your observations about the bill in mind when it comes up for a vote.

With best wishes and kind personal regards.

Lamar Gudger Member of Congress

bcc: NHTSA CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON

May 27, 1977

The Honorable Lamar Gudger House of Representatives House Office Building

In 1966 the Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains a provision on tire registration. The law went into effect six years ago and has caused tire dealers a lot of expense and very little satisfaction. Our rate of response from small dealers in this registration card mailing is now probably running less than 10% and, in my opinion, during the six years, we feel that the added expense for the return is simply just not worth it.

I have just recently learned that the National Highway Traffic Administration will conduct a study on the advisability of making this program voluntary. We hope that the law can be changed to make the registration voluntary because as we said before, the expense is unnecessary and the customer does not want it.

While I am at it, I might as well tell you that I think the passage of the Consumer Agency Billing which creates an independent agency for consumer advocacy. I am against the creation of this agency because I firmly believe that communications between consumers and retailers, particularly in my industry, can be improved by the establishment of a consumer council "which can be adapted and run by local and area tire dealer groups". You fellows must not have thought too much about this agency yourselves since it only passed by one vote.

I am sure you have gotten acclamated to the ways of Washington by now so with best regards to you and yours.

Norman Sultan

ID: 77-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 31, 1977, letter asking whether a New York state requirement mandating the installation of both side emergency doors and rear emergency doors in school buses would mean that both emergency doors would be required to comply with the school bus exit specifications in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

The NHTSA has determined previously that only those exists required by S5.2.3 must meet the requirements specified for school bus emergency exists in Standard No. 217. Paragraph S5.2.3 requires either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push out window. The side emergency door to which you refer is installed in addition to a rear emergency door. The presence of the rear emergency door, alone, satisfies the requirements of S5.2.3. Therefore, a side emergency door is not required by the standard and need not meet the specifications for school bus emergency exists. Emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 must comply with regulations applicable to emergency exists in buses other than school buses. These requirements are also detailed in Standard No. 217.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 31, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton Subject: FMVSS - 217, Specific to Emergency Doors - Relating to New York State School Bus Regulations - New York State Department of Transportation.

We respectfully request a decision of the legality of the seat placement in the case of side emergency door(s) as noted in S5.4.2.1(b), when you also have a rear emergency door that complies with S5.2.3.1.

Our request speaks only to school buses, and vehicles of 10,000 pounds or greater. New York State required the following emergency doors. Passengers Doors Location 17-30 1 Rear Center 31-48 2 (1) Rear Center (1) Left Side 49-66 2 Same as 31-48 67 or more 3 (1) Rear Center (1) Left Side (1) Right Side

As can be seen by the chart the State of New York exceeds the F.M.V.S.S.-217 Section S5.2.3.1(a) by the addition of one or two extra doors.

Our request is that we be permitted to place a seat in the side door opening (Ref. 5.4.2.1(b). In other words, the last sentence of this section "A vertical Transverse, etc. . . . . . ." be declared null and void, yet the placement of the seat in relation to the door and for seat to the rear would not prevent the door to be used as an emergency exit.

To qualify as an emergency exit, seat placement and the door opening would permit the passage of the ellipsoid as specified in S5.2.2(b).

Should you desire additional information, kindly contact the writer.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: 77-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of August 19, 1977, we advise you that your mistake in referencing S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108 instead of S4.5.1 in your earlier letter of May 13, 1977, does not alter our previous interpretation of June 16, 1977.

Your design appears to meet the specifications of J564a allowing compliance of the headlamp beam switching system with S4.5.1 when installed in a motor vehicle.

YOURS TRULY,

AUGUST 19, 1977

Ref NOA-30

Joseph J Levin, Jr Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject Lucas 21SA Headlamp Switch Circuit

We thank you for your opinion on the subject switch circuitry that we requested in our letter dated May 13, 1977.

Inadvertently, we had referred to section S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 108 when requesting your help, instead of section S4.5.1 of standard 108.

Section S4.5.1 referes to the SAE recommended practice J564a "Headlamp Beam Switching" and it is part 4 of this standard which we are primarily concerned with, that is, "the switch shall be designed so that the headlight circuits are never maintained open" (The absence of a dead spot).

We again submit the wiring circuitry for the subject headlamp switch and ask that you re-evaluate this circuit as per section S4.5.1 and forward your opinion to us.

Eric E Gough Staff Assistant (Technical)

cc: K. J. JONES 21SA HEADLAMP BEAM SWITCH CIRCUIT

[Graphic omitted) (Illegible Text) (Illegible Text)

JUN 16 1977

Eric E. Gough Staff Assistant (Technical) Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

DEAR MR. GOUGH:

This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1977, to the Administrator asking whether the circuitry diagram that you enclosed would allow compliance with S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.5.2 requires that "each vehicle shall have a means for indicating to the driver when the upper beams of the headlamps are on that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, April 1964 . . . ." Your diagram appears to meet the specifications of J564a allowing compliance of the system with S4.5.2 when installed in a motor vehicle. The entity legally responsible for compliance with S4.5.2, of course, is the vehicle manufacturer who must certify that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

YOURS TRULY,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

cc: MR. VINSON; MR. CARTER

MAY 13, 1977 The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our sister company in Birmingham England, Lucas Electrical Limited, requests clarification of Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment - and SAE Recommended Practice J564, which is referenced in Standard 108, Section 4.5.2.

We submit a diagram of a four headlamp installation in which a Lucas Model 21SA switch and a normally closed relay is used to ensure that the headlight circuits cannot be held in the open condition. Manual and auto reset switches are also included in the circuit to ensure correct circuit operation. We are also submitting traces showing the transient voltage conditions when switching from:

a) Main beam to dip beam

b) Dip beam to main beam

This circuitry we have developed allows, as far as we are aware, for us to comply with Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108. We look forward to receiving whatever comments you deem applicable and will be pleased to supply additional material if you so desire.

LUCAS INDUSTRIES NORTH AMERICA INC

Eric E Gough Staff Assistant (Technical)

ENC

21SA HEADLAMP BEAM SWITCH CIRCUIT

[Graphics omitted)

b) LUCAS 21SA SHY DIP BEAM --> MAIN BEAM

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Text)

ID: 77-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bruce Ducker

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 2, 1977, letter requesting copies of regulations issued pursuant to section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).

I am enclosing a copy of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations). This part details the recordkeeping requirements imposed by the agency upon tire manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and manufacturers of motor vehicles. In response to your question concerning the availability of customer lists, the agency has not issued any regulations on that point. You should note that these customer lists are retained by the manufacturer, not by the agency. Therefore, only the manufacturer would be in the position to divulge his customer lists. Should the agency obtain customer lists, they would not be disclosed unless disclosure was determined to be necessary to carry out the purpose of the Act as permitted by section 158(b).

SINCERELY,

BRUCE DUCKER ATTORNEY AT LAW

August 2, 1977

Office of the General Counsel Department of Transportation

Can you please supply me with a copies of regulations adopted by the Secretary pursuant to Section 158(b), of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-492. I am particularly interested in all rules and regulations which "provide reasonable assurance that customer lists of any dealer and distributor, and similar information, will not be made available to any person other than the dealer or distributor . . . ."

BRUCE DUCKER