ID: nht81-2.15

DATE: 04/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rivkin, Sherman and Levy

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 16 1981 NOA-30

Donald M. Schwentker, Esq. Rivkin, Sherman and Levy 900 17th Street, N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Schwentker:

This letter is in reference to our March 20, 1981, meeting with you and your client, Jaguar. The meeting was held at your request and concerned whether future product plans of Jaguar are consistent with existing Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

As we indicated to you at the beginning of the meeting, the agency does not give oral interpretations. The agency holds such meetings with industry representatives in order to help those representatives identify questions which should be submitted in writing to the Office of Chief Counsel for interpretation, and to familiarize agency personnel with the specific nature of products at issue.

One concern expressed by Jaguar in that meeting was the confidentiality of its future product plans. In issuing letters of interpretation, the agency ordinarily will provide confidential treatment for future product plans. A request for confidential treatment should accompany the request for interpretation. The agency published a final rule concerning confidential business information in the Federal Register (46 FR 2049) on January 8, 1981. While that rule is not yet effective, we suggest that its procedures for requesting confidential treatment be followed. We would note that even where the agency provides confidential treatment for future product plans, letters of interpretation issued by the agency are made available to the public for inspection. In drafting a letter of interpretation, only the information necessary for that interpretation would be stated. The agency does not issue private letters of interpretation, however. During the March 20 meeting, you indicated that Jaguar might find it preferable not to request an interpretation in light of its concerns about confidentiality. We would like to remind you that informal discussions with agency personnel should not be relied on as evidence that the agency approves of stated product plans or that those plans comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Moreover, the fact that particular issues concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards were not raised at the March 20 meeting should not be taken to mean that such issues do not exist. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-2.16

DATE: 04/22/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: PolyDyne Engineering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. O. Vandewege, President PolyDyne Engineering Box 3517 Scottsdale, Arizona 85257

Dear Mr. Vandewege:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1981, to Joseph Zemaitis, Motor Vehicle Program Director, Region IX, regarding Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You wish to obtain approval of your warning device (the "short stop") for use on trucks and trailers. Your device is a collapsible reflective triangle that is designed to be permanently mounted on the side or rear of a vehicle.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices, establishes requirements for devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle. The rule does not apply to warning devices that are designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and thus does not apply to your device. Hence, it is not necessary for you to obtain the "approval" of this agency before you may manufacture or sell a "short stop" or before an owner may use such a warning device on his vehicle.

However, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has promulgated a regulation (49 CFR S 393.95) regarding the use of emergency equipment on heavy duty trucks and buses that are used in interstate commerce. This standard may prohibit the use of warning devices such as the "short stop" on certain types of vehicles. Since the FHWA can best address this issue, we have forwarded your letter to that agency's Chief Counsel for response. The address of that office is Room 4213, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-2.17

DATE: 04/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: N. B. Echelberry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the vehicle owner's questionnaire you forwarded on March 9, 1981, concerning the installation of computer terminals in patrol cars assigned to the city of Miami Police Department. The questionnaire was recently forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether the installation violated any safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, a copy of which is enclosed, specifies performance requirements for the instrument panel. It can't be determined from the information you provided whether the terminals are located within an area of the vehicle covered by that standard. The standard generally regulates only the upper portion of the dashboard. If it is located within the regulated zone, the installation of the computer terminal on the vehicle's instrument panel may be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Modification of the instrument panel by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business during the installation of the computer terminals so that it no longer complies with Standard No. 201 would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION VEHICLE OWNER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

HL NO.: (Illegible Words)

OWNER

LAST NAME: ECHELBERRY FIRST NAME & MIDDLE INITIAL: NORMAN B. TELEPHONE NO. (Area Code): Work- 579-6540 Home- 579-6111

STREET ADDRESS: 2514 SHERMAN ST. CITY: HOLLYWOOD STATE: FL. ZIP CODE: 33020

VEHICLE INFORMATION

VEHICLE MAKE & MODEL: PLYMOUTH VOLARE MODEL YEAR: 79-80 BODY STYLE: 4 DR. VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NO.: UNK.

ENGINE SIZE (CID/CC): UNK. [X] GAS [] DIESEL MILEAGE: UNK DATE PURCHASED: [X] NEW [] USED DEALER'S NAME AND ADDRESS: AIR CONDITIONED: [X] Yes [] No

VEHICLE SPEED AT FAILURE: [] Parked NO. CYLINDERS: 8 POWER STEERING: [X] YES [] NO POWER BRAKES: [X] YES [] NO TRANSMISSION MANUAL (Speed): AUTOMATIC [X] Yes [] No [] 3 [] 4 [] 5 TYPE

FAILED COMPONENT/PART INFORMATION

COMPONENT/PART NAME: LOCATION: [] Left [] Right [] Front [] Rear FAILED PART: [] Original [] Replacement MILEAGE AT FAILURE: NO. OF FAILURES:

DESCRIPTION OF FAILURE: (OVER)

FAILED TIRE INFORMATION

MANUFACTURER: TIRE NAME: SIZE: TYPE FAILURE:

CONSTRUCTION: [] Belted [] Bias [] Radial FAILED TIRE: [] Original [] Replacement BELT MATERIAL: [] Steel [] Fiberglass [] Aramid [] Rayon LOCATION: [] Right Front [] Right Rear [] Left Front [] Left Rear [] Spare DOT IDENTIFICATION NO. *:

* The identification number consists of about ten letters and numerals following the letters DOT usually located near the rim flange on the side opposite the whitewall or on either side of a blackwall tire.

APPLICABLE ACCIDENT INFORMATION

ACCIDENT: [X] Yes [] No NO. INJURIES: UNK.- INFO NOT AVAILABLE NO. FATALITIES: 0

DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT: OVER SIGNATURE OF OWNER: (Illegible Words) DATE: 2-20-81

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM

I am employed by the City of Miami Police Dept.-400 NW 2 Ave Miami, Fl. Currently, nearly our entire fleet of patrol cars have had computer terminals installed in them. These terminals are approx. 12" x 12" x 18" high. They protrude from the center dashboard into the area over the front seat. Two thin metal brackets support this terminal. There have been accidents where our officers were injured as a result of this installation. I have made several inquiries to different agencies to determine if this is indeed a violation of a safety standard. I received your agencies name to send a request to.

Please respond if I have contacted the wrong agency. This is a serious matter, particularly for passengers in the front right side. These items are going to be installed in vehicles due for a near future delivery.

Thank you for your attention on this matter.

(Illegible Words)

ID: nht81-2.18

DATE: 04/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Weinblatt & Knee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 5, 1981, in which you requested a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You are apparently trying to determine what types of glazing material may be used in "caps" installed on truck bodies.

Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing materials to be used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.1-1966 (ANS Z26). Copies of both standards are enclosed. ANS Z26 and Standard No. 205 list 13 "Items" or types of glazing that vary in terms of the performance tests each item must pass and the locations in which each type of glazing may be used. While the meaning of the word "cap" as used in your letter is somewhat unclear, we presume you are referring to a "pickup cover." A "pickup cover" is defined in paragraph S4 of Standard No. 205 as a camper having a roof and sides but without a floor, designed to be mounted on and removable from the cargo area of a truck by the user. All 13 items of glazing may be used in pickup covers. However, some items (e.g., Item 6) may not be used in forward-facing windows, and others (e.g., Item 5) may not be used at levels requisite for driving visibility.

Certification and marking requirements for glazing are found in paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

March 5, 1981

U.S. Department of Transportation -- Attn: Regulatory Division

Gentlemen:

I have been informed by a client that there is a Federal regulation promulgated by your Department requiring a certain safety stamping with a number of every peice of glass or plastic substitute for glass used on any auto, truck, camper, cap, etc.

I would greatly appreciate a copy of that regulation since it involved a legal question as to what my client is allowed to install as part of his business of selling caps that go on truck bodies.

Thank you for your immediate attention in this matter.

Very truly yours,

SEYMOUR S. WEINBLATT -- WEINBLATT & KNEE COUNSELLORS AT LAW

ID: nht81-2.19

ID: nht81-2.2

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sutphen Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Robert L. Poe General Manager Sutphen Corporation 7000 Columbus-Marysville Road P.O. Amlin, Ohio 43002

Dear Mr. Poe

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 19, 1980

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Subject: Submittal of Vehicle 407th Street, S.W. Identification Number (VIN) Washington, D.C. 20590 Application Breakdown

Attention: Vin Coordinator Gentlemen:

Please find, enclosed, a copy of the Sutphen Corporation forms which will be utilized in assigning VIN numbers to apparatus manufactured after February 1, 1981.

It is assumed that submittal of these tabulations are satisfactory to fulfill our requirements as applicable to FMVSS 115 (amended).

If further information is needed, please contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT L. POE General Manager

rs enc.

ID: nht81-2.20

DATE: 05/06/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. G. Frail

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

May 6, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. John G. Frail P.O. Box 581 Bronxville, New York 10708

Dear Mr. Frail:

This is in reply to your letter of April 9, 1981, to this agency asking, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured outside of the lamp or inside of the lamp." You have asked this question in behalf of an "OEM supplier" in Germany.

The requirement in Table IV of Standard No. 108 is that the minimum edge to edge separation distance between a turn signal lamp and a tail or stop lamp be 4 inches while the turn signal lamps themselves must have a minimum separation distance of 9 inches between their centerlines. (Your design is somewhat confusing as it depicts centerlines of stop lamps and turn signal lamps at 9 inches.) We interpret this as meaning the minimum separation distance between the edge of lighted area to be 4 inches, as depicted in "B" in your design. Of course, final responsibility for compliance with this requirement rests on the vehicle manufacturer rather than the equipment manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

John G. Frail Post Office Box 581 Bronxville, New York 10708

April 9, 1981

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: FMVSS 108 interpertation.

Gentlemen:

The attachment from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations from ULO-WERK of West Germany questions the following:

The contents of the attachment are that of Table III & Table IV (Part 571; S 108 11/12). They are interested, as illustrated by the client, the interpertation as to whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured outside of the lamp or inside of the lamp.

They have not specified their concern other than being OEM suppliers. This question may have risen as a result of two manufacturers supplying the lamp for one vehicle. The outside ornamentation of the lamp may be the question resulting in how one should measure the distance. Also, if we assume the distance is basically for light output of the lamp (night time driving) they may have a reasonable question.

So that I may inform our client, please advise in writing the proper interpertation of the subject specification as to wether the measurement of 4 inches regarding the distance between tail-stop-lamp and indicator lamp will be measured at the inside or outside of the spare lens.

Please forward your answer to my above post office box address at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

John G. Frail

Attachment Omitted

ID: nht81-2.21

DATE: 05/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 8 1981

Mr. William G. Finn, Merchandizing Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

Dear Mr. Finn:

This is in response to your letter of April 22, 1981, regarding marketing of Continental's ContiContact steel belted mud and snow tire as an all-season tire. You ask whether there are any governing criteria for what constitutes an all-season tire, and, if a tire is advertised as an all-season tire, whether it must be graded under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards. You also ask whether it would be legal to market this tire as an all-season tire.

As you know, deep tread, winter-type snow tires are not within the coverage of the UTQG regulation (49 CFR S575.104(c)(1)). On May 24, 1979, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published in the Federal Register its interpretation that all-season tires are not considered deep-tread, winter-type snow tires within the meaning of the regulation (44 F.R. 30139). All-season tires were described in that notice as those with a tread depth which permits safe operation throughout the year. The notice indicated the agency's intention to exempt from the coverage of the standard "a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger cars inadvisable." Thus, a tire offered for sale by its manufacturer or brand name owner as suitable for all-season use could not be considered a deep tread, winter-type snow tire for UTQG purposes.

With regard to the legality of marketing the ContiContact tire as an all-season tire, mud and snow tires must meet Federal safety standards in the same manner as other passenger car tires. Also, a tire not suitable for its intended use could be considered to contain a safety-related defect in performance, construction, or materials, for purposes of the recall authority of Title I, Part B of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq.). Beyond these limitations, statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA do not restrict the sale of all-season tires. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Richard Hipolit Dept. of Transportation Legal Dept. Washington, DC 20590 April 22, 1981

Dear Dick,

Thank you for taking the time to speak to me on the phone yesterday.

As per our discussion, Dick, we are considering marketing our ContiContact steel belt M + S tire as an "all season" tire in the fall of 1981. Enclosed is a photograph of the tze, should such a recall be necessary. As long as Michelin maintains accurate records of the size codes assigned to the various tire sizes, it would be permissible to assign more than one size code to each tire size.

At the outset, it is important to note that the size code in the tire identification number is not the means used by the consumer to determine the size of the tires on his or her car. Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 and section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specify that the tire size designation must be labeled on both sidewalls. The size designation is the exact size and is not the same as the size code. To satisfy this requirement, Michelin should label all tires of the same size with just one size designation.

For purposes of record keeping, paragraph S574.5 requires that each tire be labeled with a tire identification number, and that this identification number contain four groupings of information. The first grouping is a symbol identifying the manufacture.

ID: nht81-2.22

DATE: 05/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. F. Gordon, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 8, 1981 NOA-30

Richard F. Gordon, Esq. 610 Arendell Street P.O. Box 489 Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

Dear Mr. Gordon:

This responds to your recent request for information on any safety standards this agency may have published for retreaded tires. We have a Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117) which applies to all retreaded passenger car tires. I have enclosed a copy of this standard and Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109), which is referenced in Standard No. 117.

As you will see, Standard 117 requires that the retreaded tires pass certain size and strength requirements, that the casings of the original tires which are retreaded meet certain requirements, and that certain information be labeled on the retreaded tires.

I hope that this information will be useful. If you have any further questions in this area or need further information on tire safety standards, feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 18, 1981

General Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: Regulations governing the manufacture of retread automobile tires.

Dear Sir:

We earlier wrote your department seeking copies of the regulations governing the manufacture of retread automobile tires. We got back a pamphlet on Uniform Tire Quality Grading.

What we are seeking are the regulations promulgated pursuant to 15 USCS 1426. There is not a set of CFR's in this county. We have a situation where a young girl was injured when a recently retreaded radial tire failed on a paved surface and examination of the tire disclosed rusty steel in the wall of the tire. We need to determine whether the manufacturer should have retreaded that tire.

Your assistance is appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Richard F. Gordon Attorney at Law

RFG/lmw

ID: nht81-2.23

DATE: 05/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gateway Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 12 1981

NOA-30

Mr. John S. Miskowicz Gateway Industries, Inc. 17512 Carriage Way Drive Hazel Crest, Illinois 60429

Dear Mr. Miskowicz:

This responds to your letter of March 2, 1981, to Vladislav Radovich concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your letter was forwarded to this office for reply.

You asked whether a child restraint belt buckle must meet the buckle force release requirements when tested in an unloaded condition. As explained below, the answer is no. The buckle force requirements only apply to buckles tested in a loaded condition. In addition, you asked whether section 4.3(a) and 4.3(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, are the only requirements of that standard which apply to buckles in child restraint systems. The answer is yes.

Section 5.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 provides that each child restraint belt buckle, when tested in accordance with S6.2, must not release when a force of not more than 12 pounds is applied before the dynamic sled specified in S6.1 is conducted. The buckle must release when a force of 20 pounds is applied after the dynamic sled test. Section 6.2 provides that in conducting the belt buckle release force test, the appropriate test dummy is placed in the restraint and either a pull force of 20 pounds is applied, in the case of 6 month-old-test dummy, or a 45 pound pull force is applied, in the case of the three-year-old test dummy. Thus, the buckle is not tested in an unloaded state.

Section 5.4.2 of the standard provides that each belt buckle has to conform to the "requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209." No other provisions of Standard No. 209 apply to belt buckles used in child restraints.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 2, 1981

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Vladislav Radovich

Dear Mr. Radovich:

Enclosed please find three prototype samples of our child seat buckle we would like to market. Gateway Industries is a major supplier of seat belts to General Motors and Chrysler and we hope to expand our product line by offering this item to child seat manufacturers.

We feel that our buckle meets all of the specifications of Standard 213, however, there is one area we wish you would clarify in regard to the 12 lb. to 20 lb. release force. (You may recall my phone call to you in the first week of January.)

Our buckle meets the letter of the spec as written. That is, as specified in S5.4.3.5 we meet S6.2 before and after the test specified in S6.1. Standard 213 makes no mention of how to test the buckle in an unloaded state. Does the 12 to 20 lbs. apply to the unloaded condition?

The three enclosed buckles do meet the 12 lb. minimum in the unloaded state, however, we are marginal and I doubt we can consistently obtain this on a large volume product basis. I theorize that on cccasion we will have release efforts of 10 lbs. in the unloaded state. Would this mean that we do not comply with Standard 213? With the slightest load applied to the buckle (approximately 5 lbs.), the release efforts increase and we again are in compliance. Also, in the "Summary of Final Rule Provisions", No. 5 states the requirements in 209 apply and S5.4.2 states S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of 209 apply. Does this mean that only the requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) apply or do all the requirements of 209 apply?

We thank you for your time in reviewing this matter and would appreciate your written response. Please feel free to include any comments you may have concerning our product.

I would like to add that our buckle has been dynamically tested to Standard 213 on a Strolee Seat System at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and proven successful. We can guarantee a tensile load of 750 lbs.

Truly yours,

GATEWAY INDUSTRIES, INC.

John S. Miskowicz Manager, Design Engineering