ID: nht93-6.38

DATE: September 19, 1993

FROM: Thomas J. Devon

TO: Senator Phil Gramm

TITLE: PRIVACY FORM

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/93 from John Womack to The Honorable Phil Gramm (A41; Std. 117)

TEXT:

I hereby authorize Senator Phil Gramm to request on my behalf, pertinent to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, access to information concerning me in the files of:

Dept. of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Department or Agency)

Senator Phil Gramm is also authorized to see any materials that may be disclosed pertinent to that request.

Name (PRINT) Thomas J. Devon

Address 109 Katy Dr.

(STREET)

Longview, Texas 75601 (CITY, STATE, ZIP

PHONE: 903 - 757-9409

SS NO: 205-36-0742

PLEASE STATE NATURE OF PROBLEM: P.S. Rep. Jim Chapman has sent me some of the federal code regulations on new tires.

Concerns on safety standards of "retredded" or "recapped" tires as used on large tractor trailers. I have documented the deaths of two young ladies brought about by them running over a large section of tire tread causing them to lose control of their vehicle. My concerns are that such retread tires do not meet the standards of new tires in performance on interstate highways in summer heat. Would want to know if there is accident data on accident/death occurrences due to assignable cause of collision with such tread sections left on the roadway. Thank you very much.

ID: nht94-1.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Ken Weinstein

TO: Kathryn A. Roach -- Cooper Perskie April Niedelman Wagenheim & Levenson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/11/93 from Kathryn A. Roach to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9344), letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208) and letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1993, requesting confirmation of a statement made by a NHTSA engineer that there is no federal regulation that requires replacement of a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explaine d in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deplo yment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 12654.ztv

Mr. Ernst Waldeck
Vice President
FER North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 2229
Birmingham, MI 48012-2229

Dear Mr. Waldeck:

This is in reply to your FAX of October 15, 1996, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency requesting approval of a design proposal to place a combination front side marker lamp and reflector behind the front wheel house.

As you noted, Table IV of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires front side marker lamps and reflectors to be located "as far to the front as practicable." The center of the combination device shown on the drawing you enclosed is 1222.6 mm from the front of the vehicle. In this location, it is behind the front wheel house. We surmise that this location is otherwise used for a turn signal repeater lamp in markets other than the United States.

As a general rule, it is initially the vehicle manufacturer that determines whether a specific location is "practicable" for its vehicle design. The agency will not contest that determination unless it is clearly erroneous. In this instance, we believe that it would be clearly erroneous to place the combination device at the location indicated. In that location, the combination device would not fulfill its intended function of indicating the forward edge of the vehicle. There appears to be ample room in front of the wheel house for location of the combination device so that it might more nearly fulfill that function. Unless the manufacturer can demonstrate convincingly that a location in front of the wheel house is not practicable, we would regard a location behind the wheel house as noncompliant with the requirements of Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:11/14/96

ID: 9753a

Mr. J. L. Steffy
Triumph Designs Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate
Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS
England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of model year designations specified in 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a 1994 model year vehicle may use the symbol "P" to designate model year. The answer is no.

You stated that Triumph wishes to use, in its VIN, a letter code designating the year of vehicle manufacture. Triumph marks the letter "P" in the VIN of a vehicle manufactured in November 1993. Triumph considers this a MY 1994 vehicle.

The format for VIN content information is specified in part 565. Table VI of part 565 specifies that MY 1993 is designated by the letter "P" and MY 1994 is designated by the letter "R." Designating a MY 1994 vehicle with the letter "P," as you wish to do, could engender confusion since it would represent that the vehicle is a MY 1993 vehicle. Such confusion could hinder the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.

You also asked if Triumph may be permitted a modification of the part 565 model year designations and designate its MY 1994 vehicles as "P." The answer is no. NHTSA has no procedures to permit manufacturers to modify or waive any of part 565.

We note that Triumph could use the letter "P" to designate the vehicle as a 1993 MY vehicle. Section 565.3(h) defines "model year" as:

the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.

Assuming the actual production period of the vehicle is less than two calendar years, a vehicle manufactured in November 1993 could be a MY 1993 vehicle, identified by the letter "P."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:565 d:3/29/94

ID: nht94-2.5

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J.L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 3/9/94 from J.L. Steffy to Dave Elias (OCC 9753)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of model year designations specified in 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a 1994 model year vehicle may use the symbol "P" to designate model year. The answer is no.

You stated that Triumph wishes to use, in its VIN, a letter code designating the year of vehicle manufacture. Triumph marks the letter "P" in the VIN of a vehicle manufactured in November 1993. Triumph considers this a MY 1994 vehicle.

The format for VIN content information is specified in part 565. Table VI of part 565 specifies that MY 1993 is designated by the letter "P" and MY 1994 is designated by the letter "R." Designating a MY 1994 vehicle with the letter "P," as you wish to do, could engender confusion since it would represent that the vehicle is a MY 1993 vehicle. Such confusion could hinder the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.

You also asked if Triumph may be permitted a modification of the part 565 model year designations and designate its MY 1994 vehicles as "P." The answer is no. NHTSA has no procedures to permit manufacturers to modify or waive any of part 565.

We note that Triumph could use the letter "P" to designate the vehicle as a 1993 MY vehicle. Section 565.3(h) defines "model year" as:

the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.

Assuming the actual production period of the vehicle is less than two calendar years, a vehicle manufactured in November 1993 could be a MY 1993 vehicle, identified by the letter "P."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht74-5.46

DATE: 08/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Universal Tire

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 6, 1974, asking what registration procedures apply to tires manufactured before May 22, 1971, but sold after that date.

We interpret Part 574 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which establishes the tire registration requirements, as applying only to tires manufactured after the effective date of the regulation, May 22, 1971. Therefore, tires manufactured before that date need not be registered.

YOURS TRULY,

Universal Tire

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Attention: Dick Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

August 6, 1974/Letter #3747

I have just finished conversing with Mr. Cassanova who was very helpful; however, he referred my question to your department for legal advice.

Universal Tire is contemplating purchasing a number of containers of tires of foreign manufacture which have the old type serial number used prior to May 22, 1971. I am advised by Mr. Cassanova that we can sell these tires in view of the fact they have the old type serial number. They also are marked "D.O.T." and, of course, meet all D.O.T. specifications. We would be happy to have a letter to this effect written by the manufacturer if you suggest we do so.

Would you please reply by mail as to whether these tires would require registration as applies to the current system.

Your quick response and time is appreciated.

Thanking you in advance, I remain

Bruce Ladson Assistant Division Manager

ID: nht94-7.15

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J.L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 3/9/94 from J.L. Steffy to Dave Elias (OCC 9753)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of model year designations specified in 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a 1994 model year vehicle may use the symbol "P" to designate model year. The answer is no.

You stated that Triumph wishes to use, in its VIN, a letter code designating the year of vehicle manufacture. Triumph marks the letter "P" in the VIN of a vehicle manufactured in November 1993. Triumph considers this a MY 1994 vehicle.

The format for VIN content information is specified in part 565. Table VI of part 565 specifies that MY 1993 is designated by the letter "P" and MY 1994 is designated by the letter "R." Designating a MY 1994 vehicle with the letter "P," as you wish to do, could engender confusion since it would represent that the vehicle is a MY 1993 vehicle. Such confusion could hinder the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.

You also asked if Triumph may be permitted a modification of the part 565 model year designations and designate its MY 1994 vehicles as "P." The answer is no. NHTSA has no procedures to permit manufacturers to modify or waive any of part 565.

We note that Triumph could use the letter "P" to designate the vehicle as a 1993 MY vehicle. Section 565.3(h) defines "model year" as:

the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.

Assuming the actual production period of the vehicle is less than two calendar years, a vehicle manufactured in November 1993 could be a MY 1993 vehicle, identified by the letter "P."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht72-1.32

DATE: 02/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Garden Spot Oil Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your inquiry of December 21, 1971, to the Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation in Dallas, Texas, and undated letter to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety concerning the sale of tires branded "Unsafe for Highway Use."

By Notice No. 2, to Docket 70-2 (copy enclosed) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109 specifying the conditions under which tires that failed to pass the minimum performance requirements of FMVSS No. 109 could be sold. This amendment presently permits such tires to be reclassified as "Unsafe for Highway Use," and if properly labeled to be sold for farm wagons or other off-highway uses only. A dealer who sells such tires for passenger car use, or who removes or alters the legend "Unsafe for Highway Use" imprinted on the tire sidewall, in subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

It is proposed that on or after March 1, 1972, no tire of a type and size designation specified in FMVSS No. 109, Table 1 of Appendix A, shall be sold, offered for sale, imported, or introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce for any purpose unless it conforms to all the requirements of this standard. If implemented, this proposal will void the authority granted by Notice No. 2 to Docket 70-2 mentioned above.

If the Javelin Tire Company of Dallas, Texas, is representing the tires you have on hand as safe for highway use, we would appreciate any evidence to this effect which you can provide. An invoice or a statement from Javelin claiming these tires as suitable for highway use or an affidavit from you attesting to such claims by the Javelin Tire Company would be useful.

A copy of the proposed rule, published in Notice 3, Docket 70-2, is enclosed for your information. One of the matters being covered in the rulemaking is whether tires reclassified prior to the effective date of the proposed rule may be sold. Copies of your letters have been entered in the official Docket. When the final rule is issued, it will be published in the Federal Register with a definite effective date. Because of your interest in this matter, we will send you a copy of the amendment when finally issued.

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

ID: 12530.ztv

Mr. Marvin Lee Eastman
1033 E. Vine
Fresno, CA 93706-5303

Dear Mr. Eastman:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1996, with respect to a "safety display board to be mounted on the rear of a trailer in the effort to help prevent accidents involving cars and tractor trailers." You would like to know if this is permissible under the laws that we administer.

The message board could be mounted on the side (at an angle) or on the rear of the trailer. When the turn signal is activated, a message "will rotate around the message board" which may read "For your safety please move in front of the tractor or to the rear of the trailer."

We appreciate your thoughtful wish to improve safety on our nation's highways, but, in our opinion, your invention may create more problems than it would solve. In order to read and comprehend a moving message, a vehicle operator will be diverted from giving full attention to driving. Furthermore, a flashing turn signal that is used for purposes other than to indicate an intention to turn has the potential to confuse motorists to the front as well as to the rear

of the trailer. For these reasons, we believe that this system could impair the effectiveness of some lighting equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps which we require to be on trailers. When a lamp's effectiveness is impaired, it is equivalent to making that lamp inoperative, in our view.

Under the laws we administer, this system would not be permitted as original equipment on new trailers. In the aftermarket, the system could be marketed for trailers in use, but it could not be legally installed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses. However, the owner would not be prohibited from installing the message board system. In this event, the legality of the message board becomes a matter of State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the States in which the system may be used.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
11/2/96

ID: nht90-3.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Rebecca Flint -- Sales Representative, Polymeric Systems, Inc.

TO: Paul Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Rebecca Flint (A37; Std. 301; VSA 102(4); VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing for information regarding D.O.T. standards for fuel system's integrity. We are a company that manufactures an epoxy putty which could be used as a patching material for leaking gas tanks. Our customer wants to market this product for fleet (buses and truck) maintenance, but tell us it must have "DOT approval" to be used on gas tanks.

What I am asking, first of all, is : Is there an approval process for a product which would be used as a permanent or temporary repair for patching gas tanks on buses or trucks? Is so, please send me application material and instructions for this proces s.

Secondly, if such an approval process does exist, what performance standards would our product have to meet so that we could state that it complies with DOT standards for gas tanks on fuel systems integrity? Please send any information you can provide in the way of NHTSA or DOT standards in this area.