ID: nht76-5.51

DATE: 03/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - New York

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 20, 1976, question whether this agency considers Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, preemptive of New York State law or regulations mandating a 28-inch-high seat back and armrests for school bus passenger seating. Section 103(d) provides (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)):

@ 103

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Standard No. 222 specifies a formula for minimum seat back height that necessitates a height of at least 20 inches. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 20 inches, is preempted under @ 103(d).

The second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, New York State or its political subdivisions could specify a seat back height higher than 20 inches in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.

There are presently no requirements in Standard No. 222 dealing with armrests on school bus passenger seating. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standards on school bus seating performance were intended generally to cover this aspect of performance, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV 574-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F. 2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that the requirement for armrests by New York State does not conflict with or otherwise impair our present regulation of school bus passenger seating, and that armrests are not within the intended scope of the present Federal safety standards. Therefore, Standard No. 222 is not preemptive of the New York State regulation of armrests.

YOURS TRULY,

February 20, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In 1974 the New York State Legislature enacted a law that specified that all seats in school buses having a capacity of more than 11 passengers would have to be 28 inches high effective January 1, 1976. Recently the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced the adoption of a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222 identified as School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and identified it as Section 751.222 of Part 751 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to become effective October 26, 1976, which specifies under S5.1.2 that the seat back height must be 20 inches.

It has been called to our attention that under Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect no state or political subdivision shall have any authority, either to establish or continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. To date we have had differing opinions from representatives of the Federal Department of Transportation as to how we are to interpret this clause. So that we may set the records straight, we would like an official determination from your agency as to whether or not New York State can legally retain the requirement of 28 inch high back seats once the Federal standard dealing with seat back heights becomes effective on October 26, 1976.

Although not specifically addressed in the section dealing with school bus passenger seating and crash protection, we would also like to know whether or not an additional requirement in New York dealing with armrests on all seats in school buses having a seating capacity of more than 11 persons would be considered contrary to the standard. Since the standard does not include provision for armrests, it is possible to interpret it as meaning that armrests are not allowed.

Should you have any question as to what we are attempting to resolve, please feel free to call me on Phone # A.C. 518 - 457-1010, and we would hope to hear from you in the near future as to your reaction to our questions. You can address your reply to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, Traffic and Safety Division, Department of Transportation, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12232.

WILLIAM G. GALLOWAY, Director Traffic and Safety Division

By

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ID: nht76-5.52

DATE: 06/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority's May 17 and 18, 1976, letters asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of school bus or its Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, prevent the utilization of transit buses to transport students to and from school. You ask if a proposed amendment to Kansas statutes would conflict with Federal law or regulation if it exempts transit buses from a requirement that school bus seating be forward-facing.

Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)) does preempt State motor vehicle safety requirements of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal standard applicable to the same aspect of performance. In this case, the proposed section 10 appears to be identical to S5.1 of Standard No. 222 insofar as it addresses the direction in which school bus seating must face. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that this portion of the proposed section 10 would therefore not be preempted by Standard No. 222.

The second portion of section 10 provides an exception to the requirement for forward-facing seats, and it is the NHTSA's opinion that the exception is preempted insofar as it might apply to school buses purchased by a metropolitan transit authority after the October 26, 1976, effective date of Standard No. 222.

In the case of transit buses "designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation," however, the exception does not apply to an aspect of performance regulated by a motor vehicle safety standard (i.e., the orientation of seating in transit buses). It would therefore not appear to be preempted by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The NHTSA recently considered inclusion of transit buses in the definition of "school bus" but concluded that Congress' intent in broadening the definition of "school bus" did not address inclusion of transit buses involved in student transportation. I have enclosed a discussion of this issue that accompanied the redefinition of "school bus."

As you noted in your letter, Highway Program Safety Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR 1204), provides for the transportation of students in school buses and in transit buses.

SINCERELY,

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

May 18, 1976

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

As Chairman of the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority please accept this cover letter to the attached legal request. Let me simply emphasize to you that the question of federal preemption has arisen from all quarters on the State and local level, revelant to our transit authority providing service to the local school board. Your response to our inquiry is of first importance and we appreciate your attention to this matter.

David L. Ryan Chairman

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

May 17, 1976

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority would appreciate an opinion from your office with respect to the use of urban mass transit vehicles in special school route service and school related charter activities.

The Topeka MTA approached the Kansas Legislature in an effort to modify existing and proposed Kansas law so that it would be made clear that our buses can legally provide school related services. Basically our suggestions to the lawmakers would have changed state law so that it was more in line with federal provisions. However, the Director of Highway Safety for the Kansas Department of Transportation contended that the Transit Authority's position was in direct violation of federal law.

The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority believes that federal law allows urban mass transit vehicles to work with local school boards in solving their transportation problems. Please review the enclosed copy of the letter by Mr. Merrell, Kansas Director of Highway Safety, and the copy of our letter responding to such a position.

Needless to say, the view taken by the state agency is adversely affecting our revenue from school related services. The publicly supported transit system should be able to provide a variety of public services.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Your cooperation will be appreciated.

Michael D. Hood Legal Intern

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

March 15, 1976

The Honorable Don E. Crumbaker Chairman, House Committee on Education

RE: House Education Committee Amendment to Senate Bill 623

Thank you for the opportunity this morning to discuss with you Senate Bill 623. As we discussed, problems arise regarding the amendment contained in Section 10 of the bill. The portion with which we are concerned is contained on page 10, lines 22 through 29, which follows in part;

Sec. 10. K.S.A. 8-2009 is hereby amended to read as follows; 8-2009. (a) All seats on school buses shall be forward-facing . . . except that the secretary may waive such requirement upon the request of a metropolitan transit authority established pursuant to article 28 of chapter 12 of Kansas Statutes Annotated.

The underscored portion above is the amendment added to the bill by House Committee.

The above amendment is in direct violation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection," which was issued on January 22, 1976.

Section 5.1 of the Standard states as follows; S5.1 Seating requirements. School bus passenger seats shall be forward facing.

The Federal Register of January 28, 1976 (acopy of which is enclosed) contains a discussion of the Standard, including the following on page 4017 and 4018;

"The NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Association) designed the seating system in this Standard for protection from fore and aft crash forces, and considers it necessary that the seats be forward facing to achieve the objective of occupant protection."

In addition to the above objection to the amendment, we would also like to point out that a metropolitan transit authority bus may not also operate as a school bus to transport school children to or from school. Recently the NHTSA amended its definition of a school bus. (A copy of which is enclosed.)

The NHTSA concluded that it was in the public interest to continue to excluded buses used in urban transportation from coverage in the new school bus definition, as had been the case in the prior definition.

The NHTSA has repeated frequently that the States must develop long range plans for achieving full compliance with these requirements within a reasonable period of time. The amendment contained in SB623 takes a big step backwards in complying with federal standards. My office has been told by the NHTSA that any state which moves backward instead of forward in complying with the Federal Safety Standards faces the possibility of having federal funding cut or withheld. To avoid that possibility I respectfully request that the amendments to SB623, to which we have referred, be deleted from the bill.

JERRY L. MERRELL, Ph.D. Director of Highway Safety

ATTACHS.

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

April 9, 1976

Representative Ron Hein

The amendment to Senate Bill Number 623 referred to in the letter written by Mr. Jerry Merrell, Director of Highway Safety, Kansas Department of Transportation, to Representative Don Crumbaker, Chairman, House Committee on Education, does not violate federal law nor would it cause the Kansas Department of Transportation to lose federal money. That amendment would have allowed the secretary of transportation to waive the requirement that all seats in urban transit buses be forward facing when those vehicles are providing school charter service.

In 49 CFR 571.3 (b) the federal definition of "school bus" is given. That provision states:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection," which becomes effective October 26, 1976, provides:

Sec. 5.1 Seating Requirements. School Bus passenger seats shall be forward facing.

Since this safety standard speaks to seats in school buses and urban transit vehicles are expressly excluded from the "school bus" definition, there is no federal requirement that all seats in urban mass transit vehicles must be forward facing when those buses are used for school charters.

Furthermore, federal law, by excluding urban transit buses from the school bus definition, did not intend to exclude urban transit vehicles from providing school charter service. In fact, Pupil Transportation Safety Standard No. 17, which sets forth certain requirements with respect to the identification, operation, and maintenance of school buses, specifically recognizes that, because of the dual role they often play, urban transit buses are exempt from certain of those requirements when used for special school route service.

Federal law, then, recognizes the important function served by urban transit vehicles in the overall picture of urban transportation. Although not a "school bus", urban buses are sanctioned to perform school related services.

Senate Bill No. 623, on the other hand, does not recognize the ability of urban transit vehicles to provide school services. By withholding authority from the secretary of transportation to waive seating requirements on urban transit buses when those buses are used for school related services, Kansas may without logical reason, effectively prevent their public transportation systems from working with schools in meeting important public needs.

In view of federal law, Kansas is not prevented from allowing its franchised, publicly supported bus systems the ability to provide school charter services.

Moreover, there is no logical reason to withhold such permission. The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority has identified that urban transit vehicles are not only as safe as, but safer than the traditional "school bus". School related service by the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority is in the public interest.

David L. Ryan Chairman

Robert N. Salmon General Manager

cc: SHAWNEE COUNTY DELEGATION MEMBERS; JERRY MERRELL, DIR. OF SAFETY, KANSAS DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION; JIM GRAY, SUPT. OF SCHOOLS, U.S.D. 501

ID: nht76-5.53

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Robert White

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1976, asking how United States importation regulations would affect your plan as a tourist to bring a 1964 Triumph motorcycle into the United States and to ride it to Mexico.

There are no Federal safety standards that apply to a motorcycle manufactured before January 1, 1969. Should you wish to import a motorcycle manufactured after that date, as a non-resident of the United States you would be allowed to keep it here for a period of up to one year after entry with the understanding that it would not be sold.

It is our understanding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the other Federal agency regulating importation of motor vehicles, has no current regulations for motorcycles.

Brighton Sussex England 30.3.76

Dear Sir

Please could you send me Details concerning any salter or other type of regulation governing the importation of motor bikes int. the U.S.A. I plan to take the bike through to Mexico (Illegible Words) be sold in the U.S. It is a 1964 Triumph 500U of standard construction.

Your cooperation in this matter would be much appreciated

Robert White

ID: nht76-5.54

DATE: 02/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Customs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1976, asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to motorcycles and mini-bikes.

You first asked "if any motorcycles are exempt" from the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. If the configuration of any motorcycle is such that it cannot be licensed for use on the public roads it is considered exempt. One example is a competition cycle intended solely for racing, conveyed by trailer or truck, which has no lights, and is equipped with special tires, and gear ratios rendering it unfit for low speed on-road traffic conditions. Another is the off-road machine with knobby tires, modified suspension and gear ratios, clearly intended for trail riding, hill climbing and the like. Motorcycles with a dual off-road on-road capability are, on the other hand, subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You also asked for our "interpretation of and when a motorcycle or minibike would not be considered to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads." I enclose a copy of an interpretation issued in 1969 that reflects our views on this matter. As a general rule mini-bikes are not considered "motor vehicles", while most motorcycles do come within the definition. We consider both the C.B. 750 and Yamaha 90 to be "motor vehicles", even though we understand the latter is intended for dual-purpose use.

Enclosed is a Statement of Compliance for motorcycles.

Yours truly,

Enclosures

ATTACH.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE

GUAM

January 12, 1976

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Adm., Department of Transportation

Subject: National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

I have been receiving inquiries regarding motorcycle imporations by military personnel reassigned from Japan to Guam, specifically, a C.B. 750 and Yamaha 90.

Would your office please advise if any motorcycles are exempt from the subject law excluding those manufactured prior to January 1968. Also, request your interpretation of and when a motorcycle or minibike would not be considered to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads and is not a "Motor Vehicle" as defined in Section 102 of PL 89-563.

Request a copy of the "Statement of Compliance" be furnished this office.

John J. Kralik -- U.S. Customs Military Advisor

ID: nht76-5.55

DATE: 02/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Etnyre & Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1976, requesting information as to the criteria used to distinguish between a "new" or a "used" chassis, in regard to the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 567 and 49 CFR Part 568.

You described a situation in which a chassis-cab comes to you "from the field," lacking both a certification label and an incomplete vehicle manual, under the claim that it is used, with the absence of a certification label explained by a statement that "a previous body was mounted and removed by the customer and the vehicle was not presented for resale by a distributor or dealer." You also add that "the vehicle reportedly has had extremely limited or no use."

It seems to us that the facts you are describing constitute a fairly obvious misrepresentation by your customer in order to circumvent the requirements of the standards. Even if the implausible allegation that the customer "mounted and removed" a body were true, it would not remove the requirement for the vehicle to bear a certification label. Our regulations do not limit the labeling requirement to the narrow language of section 114; any vehicle upon completion must be permanently labeled.

Furthermore, for a vehicle to be "used" today, it must be titled and registered under the laws of some State. Your letter does not discuss this, but we would assume that any vehicle whose owner cannot produce title and registration as a completed vehicle was never completed and used within the meaning of our regulations.

For these reasons, we would expect you as a final-stage manufacturer to treat as new a chassis-cab brought to you for completion under the conditions you described. If the chassis-cab were properly certified in a manner that evidenced prior use, or the customer were able to produce legitimate title/registration documentation showing significant previous use as a completed vehicle, the answer would of course be different.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht76-5.56

DATE: 12/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michael E. Bufkin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 12, 1976, question whether a tire brand name owner is required by @ 574.7(b) of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, to establish and maintain specified purchaser information on its tires if the distributor or dealer fails to provide that information as specified by @ 574.8 of the regulation. You also ask whether a tire registration form with dimensions other than those specified in Figure 3 of the regulation may be provided to tire distributors and dealers.

Section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1418(b)) mandates the tire manufacturer's (including brand name owner's) responsibility to establish and maintain the purchaser information, independent of the distributor's or dealer's cooperation:

@ 158(a)(1)

(b) Every manufacturer of motor vehicle or tires shall cause the establishment and maintenance of records of the name and address of the first purchaser of each motor vehicle and tire produced by such manufacturer

Thus, the brand name owner's responsibility is a statutory one, independent of any interpretation of Part 574.

With regard to the size of the tire registration form, @ 574.7(a) permits the use of any size form unless a dealer requests forms that conform to the universal format set forth in Figure 3. The agency has interpreted the requirement for provision of the universal format to not apply in the case of a dealer that sells only one brand of tire.

SINCERELY,

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. BUFKIN

November 12, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Compliance Division

I represent a tire brand name owner who has sought my advice on a number of questions under Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping - of your Regulations published in 36 F.R. 1197 on January 26, 1971, and as amended thereafter. Although these Regulations appear to be well written and clear on their face, there are a couple of points on which I desire clarification. My client sells passenger and truck tires to independent businessmen (dealers) who resell them to the consuming public (customer).

1. Does Section 574.7(b) impose upon a brand name owner the obligation to obtain the customer's name, address and tire identification number in those cases where the dealer fails to procure this information? If such a duty is imposed upon the brand name owner, how does he comply? It would be virtually impossible for him to comply where the dealer does not provide this information. My own interpretation of the Regulations is that the brand name owner does not have this duty but simply has a duty to maintain whatever records are forwarded to him from his dealers.

2. My client desires to use a tire registration form which is smaller than the prescribed 7-3/8" x 3-1/4" Universal Format shown in your Figure 3. He would like to use a 5" x 3-1/4" size which will fit easily into a credit card imprinter, thereby enabling the dealer to imprint his name and address without having to write it out in longhand. Do you have any objection to use of a size smaller than the one specified in Figure 3?

3. If you do object to the smaller size registration form, can the brand name owner nevertheless provide the smaller form to his dealers and still not be in violation of the Regulations? A careful reading of Section 574.7(a) imposes a duty on the brand name owner to provide the Universal Format size only to "those dealers who request them". (Emphasis supplied). I gather then that the brand name owner may supply any size to dealers who do not request a form.

Your guidance will be most appreciated. Thanking you in advance for your help, I am,

Michael E. Bufkin

ID: nht76-5.57

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: United Rubber; Cork; Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of December 1, 1975, to the Federal Trade Commission, concerning the dates molded into tires manufactured by the Dayton Tire and Rubber Company, has been forwarded to this agency for further reply.

Motor Vehicle tires are required by @ 574.5 of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, to be labeled with an identification number containing certain information. A copy of this regulation is enclosed for your convenience. The last three digits of this number indicate the week and year of manufacture of the tire, as follows: the final digit is the last digit of the year, and the preceding two digits represent the week within that year. The numbering of the weeks begins with "01" for the first full calendar week in each year. For example, "016" indicates that a tire was manufactured during the week beginning Sunday, January 4, 1976, and ending Saturday, January 10. While the precise labeling on the tires that you have described is not clear from your letter, it appears that some of the tires do not comply with this labeling requirement, because November 24 and December 1 were not in the same calendar week of 1975.

I have forwarded a copy of your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement for such further action as may be appropriate.

YOURS TRULY,

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Corres. No. 12022

Robert C. Yates President, Local 178 United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America

Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1975 requesting information regarding tire regulations. In 1966, the Commission issued the "Tire Labelling and Advertising Guides" which set standards for advertising and promotion of tires to the public. However, there are no provisions within the Guides regarding the stamping of curing dates. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Guides.

Since it is possible that the Department of Transportation has regulations on this issue, I have referred your letter to them for any additional information they can offer.

D. McCarty Thornton Attorney Division of Marketing Practices

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America December 1, 1975

Federal Trade Commission

I am writing to request information concerning acts by the Company I work for, The Dayton Tire and Rubber Company, Dayton, Ohio.

It has been brought to my attention that the Company is back dating tires from their actual curing dates. For example. mold set and dated on November 24, 1975, the tires are then cured on December 1, 1975, bearing the date of November 24, 1975.

I would like to know if there are any regulations covering this type of production on passenger and truck tires. Any information concerning this matter would be appricated.

Robert C. Yates President of Local # 178 URW, AFL, CIO, CLC

ID: nht76-5.58

DATE: 07/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Carideng

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telex of June 18, 1976, requesting information concerning the designation of an agent for service of process and the assignment of a tire identification number.

Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, decisions, and requirements may be made. Such designation should be filed with the Office of Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In order for the designation to be effective, it is necessary that the procedural requirements of 49 CFR 551.45 (enclosed) be fulfilled by the submission of the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, does not require the designation of an agent for service of process prior to the assignment of a tire identification number. We are, therefore, forwarding your code number. Your tire identification number is T4.

Although you have been assigned an identification number, you are not permitted by Federal law to offer tires for importation into the United States until you have properly designated an agent for service of process. If you decide for any reason not to offer your tires for importation, we request that you notify the agency so that your tire code number can be placed in our inactive file.

If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

JUNE 18, 1976

TELEX MESSAGE FOR: U S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION ATT. E. T. DRIVER DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CRASH AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS.

DEAR SIRS,

WE NOW URGENTLY NEED TO HAVE OUR MOTORCYCLE (MOPED) TYRES AGREED FOR SALES IN THE USA. HOWEVER, FROM YOUR LETTER REF. N41-33 DD. MAY 6, 196EEE1976 WE UNDERSTAND THAT TO OBTAIN A TIRE IDENTIFICATION OR NUMBER WE SHOULD HAVE AN AGENT ESTABLISHED IN THE USA, WHILE THIS IS NOT THE CASE AND WE HAVE ONLY A COMMISSION AGENT TRAVELLING 3 OR 4 TIMES A YEAR THROUGH THE USA BUT LIVING IN EUROPE. PLSE LET US HAVE YOUR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS AND AT THE SAME TIME GIVE US AN IDEA OF THE ESTIMATED DELAY THAT IS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A TIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION D. PONCELET RUBBERFACTORY CARIDENG LANAKEN - BELGIUM

ID: nht76-5.59

DATE: 11/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gans Tire Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 12, 1976, question whether the manufacturer recordkeeping requirements of @ 574.7 of NHTSA regulations (49 CFR Part 574) may be fulfilled by a tire importer by one or both of the following arrangements: the purchaser records of tires manufactured by company B abroad and imported by Gans would be maintained by company A; the purchaser records of tires manufactured by Company B abroad and imported by Gans would be compiled by Gans but maintained by company B.

Either of these arrangements is acceptable under the language of @ 574.7(b), which provides that "[each] tire manufacturer shall record and maintain or have recorded and maintained for him, the information specified. . . ." this language permits the designation of a person other than the tire manufacturer to maintain the required records. Despite this designation, of course, the ultimate responsibility for maintenance would lie with the importer that qualifies as the manufacturer in the situation you describe.

SINCERELY,

GANS TIRE CO., INC.

October 12, 1976

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

This letter will confirm my conversation with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office. As I mentioned to Mr. Vinson, we, in the past years prior to the DOT requirement for truck tires, purchased tires from Company A in Europe and imported them into the United States. Since that time this company has been acquired by another European tire manufacturer, Company B. We have now made the following arrangements:

1. To purchase tires from the international office of Company A, located in the U.S.A., to import these tires into the United States. The tires, in fact, will be made up and certified by Company B, but Company A will, in fact, control and keep the records of registration for these tires.

2. We are also purchasing direct from Company B in Europe. We are making arrangements to send to Company B a list of the customers who purchase the tires along with the necessary serial numbers, etc. They, in fact, will have the responsibility of holding this information for purposes of part 574.

Will you please confirm that these two plans are acceptable for purposes of compliance to part 574? I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and look forward to receiving your approval in the handling of this matter.

Thank you in advance for your kindnesses.

David Gans, President

ID: nht76-5.6

DATE: 01/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Brenda Nolan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: A copy of your October 21, 1975, letter to Peterson Baby Products has been forwarded to this agency by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for our consideration. In your letter, you indicated to the Peterson Company that you have experienced problems with their "safety shell" child carrier as follows: a child can climb out of one model, vehicle seat belts do not readily attach to one model, while in both models, directions for adjustment of a tether strap appear inadequate, the child harness system does not adjust easily, and the padding materials are insufficiently durable.

Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, regulates certain safety aspects of the type of child restraint system that seats a child for transportation in a motor vehicle. Peterson products subject to the requirements of the standard have been tested under NHTSA enforcement programs without failure.

Standard No. 213 does not include durability requirements for the padding or other material of the device. The standard does establish requirements for the retention of a simulated child's torso in the system when it is subject to frontal crash forces. This test, however, would not ensure that a child would be retained in the system if it attempted to release itself from the system. A "child proof" system would make routine release by the parent extremely difficult.

As for belt webbing, the present standard only requires that installation instructions be provided with the system, and that the webbing fit snugly those children for which the system is recommended. There are no requirements for the ease of seat belt hardware operation.

The NHTSA has proposed a more comprehensive child restraint standard that would regulate all child restraint systems, and would subject them to testing under dynamic loads that should result in upgraded performance of child restraint systems. I have forwarded your letter to the public docket on this rulemaking so that your views will be considered in the rulemaking process.

SINCERELY,

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

December 29, 1975

Brenda Nolan

Dear Ms. Nolan:

The Consumer Affairs Division of the California Attorney General's Office has forwarded a copy of your letter concerning a children's car seat manufactured by Peterson Baby Products to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The Commission has jurisdiction to regulate children's car seats under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. However, it is our understanding that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation now has in effect safety regulations for children's restraint systems used in motor vehicles. The NHTSA Chief Counsel has informed us that NHTSA will issue in the near future an amendment to its existing standard for children's restraint systems (FMVSS #213).

Because of NHTSA's expertise in this matter, we have forwarded your letter to them for consideration and investigation of the safety problems described in your letter.

Michael A. Brown General Counsel

CC: OFC. OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA; OFC. OF THE ATTY. GENERAL

PETERSON BABY PRODUCTS

OCTOBER 21, 1975

DEAR SIRS:

WE PURCHASED TWO PETERSON SAFETY SHELLS, ONE IN DECEMBER 1974, THE OTHER IN APRIL 1975. THIS LETTER DESCRIBES THE PRODUCT'S FAILURES WHICH HAVE MADE THE SHELLS ALMOST UNUSABLE, AND ASKS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION ON YOUR PART.

OUR MAJOR COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE TODDLER SYSTEM, WHICH OUR YOUNGEST DAUGHTER HAS BEEN ABLE TO CLIMB OUT OF SINCE SHE WAS 9 1/2 MONTHS OLD. ACCORDING TO YOUR DIRECTIONS SHE SHOULD BE IN IT FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER YEAR. ALSO, THE CAR SEATBELT MUST BE STRAPPED SO TIGHTLY AROUND THE GUARD OF THE TODDLER SYSTEM, THAT IT TAKES A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER TO TIGHTEN IT OR SHE SIMPLY PUSHES IT OUT OF POSITION. THIS IS A FINGER PINCHER. . . AND PROBABLY NOT VERY SAFE. OUT OF NECESSITY SHE IS NOW IN THE CHILD SYSTEM, WITH THE CHILD'S HARNESS WHICH IS MUCH TOO LARGE, AND A FAILING PAD AND ALL.

OUR SECOND COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE PADS. THE SNAPS ON BOTH PADS HAVE PULLED OUT IN VARIOUS PLACES, ALLOWING THE PADS TO MOVE AROUND, PUTTING STRESS ON THE SLITS FOR THE HARNESS SYSTEM. THIS HAS RIPPED THE SLITS. ONE PAD WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED IN NINE MONTHS AND THE OTHER WILL BE SHORTLY IN SIX MONTHS. ANOTHER OBSERVATION: THERE WAS SKIMPING ON THE LENGTH OF THE PAD AND THE KIND OF FABRIC USED IS IMPROPER FOR THIS KIND OF THING. ALSO, OUR IN-LAW'S NEW SHELL LASTED THREE WEEKS UNTIL THE COVERING ON ONE WING SPLIT WIDE OPEN.

BECAUSE THESE SEATS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A USEFUL LIFE OF FOUR YEARS, WE FEEL PETERSON SHOULD REPLACE THE TWO PADS ON OUR SEATS. WE LOOK FOREWARD TO A PROMPT REPLY FROM YOU ON THESE REPLACEMENTS.

OUR THIRD COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE DIRECTIONS FOR FASTENING THE SIDE RESTRAINT STRAP. THEY ARE INADEQUATE. ACCORDING TO YOUR DIRECTIONS THIS STRAP IS VERY EASILY LOSSENED TO CREATE LOTS OF SLACK, SIMPLY, BY PULLING THE END OF THE STRAP. THIS WE CONSIDER VERY SERIOUS ENCLOSED ARE OUR REVISED DIRECTIONS IN WHICH YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED.

OUR FOURTH COMPLAINT: THE HARNESS SYSTEMS ARE DIFFICULT TO ADJUST TO DIFFERENT THICKNESSES OF OUTER CLOTHING. WHILE WE'RE UNFORTUNATE TO LIVE IN A CLIMATE WHERE IT MAY BE 80 DEGREES ONE DAY AND 35 DEGREES THE NEXT, CAN'T THESE ADJUSTMENTS BE MADE EASIER? MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT IS HARD TO GET THE BABY OUT OF THE INFANT SYSTEM QUICKLY IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE WHOLE SHELL. ALSO, THE CLASP ON THE CHILD'S HARNESS IS A (ILLEGIBLE WORDS). SAAB. WE PREFER THE VOLKSWAGEN. ONLY WE CAN'T FIT BOTH SEATS INTO THE BACK AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SIDE RESTRAINT STRAP STUD FOR RIGHT REAR POSITIONING.

UNTIL TWO MONTHS AGO WE WERE RELATIVELY PLEASED WITH THE TODDLER AND CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS. EXCEPT FOR THE ABSENCE OF THE PAD AND AWKWARD ADJUSTMENT OF THE HARNESS, THE CHILD'S SYSTEM IS OK. WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT THE TODDLER SYSTEM NOR MUCH ABOUT THE INFANT SYSTEM.

OUR CHILDREN ARE NEITHER OVERLY ACTIVE OR DESTRUCTIVE, YET THE PADS LASTED ONLY NINE MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS RESPECTIVELY. AGAIN, WE ASK FOR REPLACEMENT PADS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

WE LOOK FOREWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU AND RESOLVING THIS MATTER.

SINCERELY,

BRENDA NOLAN

COPIES TO: CHILD WORLD, CHELMSFORD, MASS; CONSUMER REPORTS, MT. VERNON, N.Y.; CONSUMER AFFAIRS DIV., ATTY. GEN.'S OFC., BOSTON, MASS.

Our directions for the side restraint strap.

Seatbelt anchor

(Graphics omitted)

CONSUMER AFFAIRS DIVISION ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE BOSTON, MASS.

OCTOBER 21, 1975

DEAR SIRS:

WE HAVE JUST WRITTEN A LETTER TO PETERSON BABY PRODUCTS, P.O. BOX 3974, NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, 91605. WE THOUGH THAT OUR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CAR SEAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO YOU. THEREFORE WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF THAT LETTER.

BRENDA NOLAN

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Peterson Baby Products

December 5, 1975

GENTLEMEN: The Consumer Protection Unit of the Attorney General's Office has received the enclosed complaint relating to your firm. We understand that there are always two sides to a problem, and we would appreciate your prompt review of this matter.

We do not represent the complainant. However, we analyze all complaints to determine whether grounds exist for legal action under California consumer protection laws. Your response to each of the factual allegations in the complaint will help us determine whether legal action on our part is warranted.

We would appreciate receiving your response within the next thirty days. We also request that you send a copy of your response to the complainant. Please feel free to attach any documents which you think are relevant in explaining your position. Naturally in sending you this complaint, we make no assumption to the truth of the allegations.

EVELLE J. YOUNGER Attorney General

Consumer Protection Analyst

cc: CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION