ID: GF003901

Dae-Ki Min, Esq.
38 West 32^nd Street, Suite 1600
New York, NY 10001-3816

Dear Mr. Min:

This is in response to your letter of June 1, 2004, and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether identical tires manufactured prior to the completion of the uniform tire quality grading process and submission of results to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) can subsequently be marked with appropriate grading information and sold in the United States.

49 CFR 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS), requires that all new pneumatic tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars be graded for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance, and that those grades or ratings be permanently molded onto the sidewall of each tire. In addition, 49 CFR 575.6(d)(2)(i) requires that each tire brand name owner or tire manufacturer submit to NHTSA the information obtained during the tire grading process, at least 30 days before offering the tires to prospective purchasers.

In your letter, you state that the tires in question are identical and of the same grade as the tires subjected to the tire grading process, but were manufactured prior to the completion of the tire grading process because they were originally intended for a market other than the United States.

Under 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A), tires of a new tire line need not have the UTQGS ratings molded into their sidewalls, if the tires were manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line. In previous letters, we interpreted this time frame to mean within six months of the initial production of the tire line for export to the United States (see July 12, 1983, letter to Robert Ainsworth). In your situation, some tires were manufactured prior to the decision to import them into U.S. Accordingly, the six-month period would begin on the date of manufacture of the oldest tire that you would import to the U.S. In sum, all tires of the line manufactured not more than six months after the manufacture of the first tire of the line imported into the U.S. need not be permanently molded with UTQGS grades. However, we note that tires eligible for this six-month period are still subject to the paper labeling requirements of 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B).

In addition to the six-month period, certain limited production tires are fully excluded from all UTQGS requirements. In order to qualify as limited production tires, the tires must meet all the following criteria of 575.104(c)(2):

(1) Total annual domestic production or importation into the United States of tires of the same design and size by either the manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 15,000 tires;

(2) The tire's size must not have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for new motor vehicles domestically produced or imported in quantities greater than 10,000 during the year prior to the tire's manufacture; and

(3) The total annual domestic production or importation by the tire's manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 35,000 tires.

In all other circumstances, your tires may not be sold in the United States unless they are graded for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance, and those grades or ratings are permanently molded onto the sidewall of each tire. Further, "molding" means the process by which the tires are shaped in the mold and imbedded with the required grading information during the actual production of the tire. Accordingly, a tire cannot be "molded" with the appropriate UTQGS grading information after it has been manufactured. Instead, the molding process must occur during the manufacture of the tire and not thereafter.

Finally, we note that in addition to UTQGS, there are several Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to tires sold in the United States. Please be advised that these FMVSSs also require that certain tire safety information be molded into the tire sidewall during the manufacturing process. Specifically, FMVSS No. 109 applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger vehicles, and FMVSS No. 119, applies to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles other than passenger vehicles. Further, tire manufacturers may choose to voluntarily comply with FMVSS No. 139, which applies to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles that have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less. FMVSS No. 139 is scheduled to become mandatory in the near future. For more information on effective dates and phase-in schedules please see 69 FR 38116, June 26, 2003; and 69 FR 31306, June 4, 2004.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:575
d.8/9/04

ID: 21236.drf

The Honorable Scott McInnis
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
225 North 5^th Street
Suite 702
Grand Junction, CO 81501

Dear Congressman McInnis:

Thank you for your letter concerning Federal school bus safety regulations. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for school buses.

You have contacted us on behalf of a public school official who asks about a regulation that requires transportation of students to sporting events by school bus. Your constituent is concerned that such a regulation would be financially burdensome on schools with small enrollments. The official would prefer using private vehicles and vans supplied by automobile dealers on a temporary basis. You ask three questions: (1) Do such regulations exist? (2) Do the regulations apply regardless of the size of the school or team? (3) Can private vehicles or dealership-supplied vehicles that have required restraint systems, adequate seating, be used instead of school buses? Each of these questions is addressed below.

Some background information may be helpful in answering your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. Persons selling or leasing new "buses" for such use must sell or lease a "school bus."

By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses: vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." Persons selling or leasing new 15-person vans for such use must sell or lease a van that meets our school bus standards.

You first ask whether our regulations require students to be transported to sporting events by school buses. We require persons selling new "buses" (e.g., 15-passenger vans) for use as school vehicles to sell buses that meet our school bus safety standards. However, we do not require schools to use school buses nor do we prohibit schools from using non-school buses to transport school children. Matters concerning the use of vehicles are set by each State. Thus, Colorado law would determine whether the students must be transported by school buses.

We believe, however, that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. Thus, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting our school bus safety standards.

Your second question asks whether school or team size makes a difference in the application of our school bus regulations. Our school bus regulations apply to any person selling a new "bus" that is likely to be used significantly to transport students to or from school or related events. Our regulations do not distinguish between buses sold to large or small schools or between buses sold to carry large or small teams. However, our school bus regulations only apply to transactions involving buses and school buses that are likely to be significantly used for pupil transportation. We permit dealers to sell or lease vehicles other than "buses" for pupil transportation, e.g., passenger cars or vans that carry fewer than 11 persons.

Your third question asks whether schools may use private vehicles or dealership-supplied vehicles instead of school buses. As stated above, requirements concerning which vehicles schools may use are set by each State, and not NHTSA. In addition, our school bus regulations do not prohibit a rental of a bus on an occasional basis. Such a vehicle would not be used significantly to carry school children and thus would not be a "school bus" under our regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. For your information, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571
d.2/29/2000

ID: 3267o

Lance E. Tunick, Esq.
Vice President and General Counsel
Maserati Automobiles, Inc.
1501 Caton Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21227

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your October 20, 1988 letter, in which you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). More specifically, you noted that section S4.1.3 requires a specified percentage of a manufacturer's annual production to be equipped with automatic occupant protection. You stated that some vehicles imported into the United States may subsequently be exported to Canada. Since section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5); the Safety Act) specifies that none of the safety standards apply to vehicles intended solely for export, your company assumes that it should not include vehicles subsequently exported to Canada in its annual production totals when determining compliance with S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208. This assumption is incorrect, as explained below.

In a September 4, 1985 letter to Messrs. Stephen Waimey and Dean Hansell (copy enclosed), we answered the question of how manufacturers that produce cars outside the United States should calculate their annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208. That letter explains that foreign-based manufacturers should count the number of vehicles that were produced and certified for sale in the United States, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, during the relevant time period to determine their annual production for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

Your letter referred to section 108(b)(5) of the Safety Act, and suggested that this statutory provision means that any vehicles that are imported into the United States and subsequently exported to a different country should not be counted as part of the manufacturer's annual production. I am happy to explain our view of what is permitted under that statutory provision.

Section 108(b)(5) provides that the requirements in the safety standards "shall not apply in the case of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported." This statutory language establishes three separate conditions that would have to be satisfied to exclude a vehicle from the requirements of the safety standards, including the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for purposes of Standard No. 208. These three conditions are:

1. The vehicle must be intended solely for export; 2. The vehicle must have a label or tag on it at the time it is imported which shows that the vehicle is intended solely for export; and 3. The vehicle must actually be exported.

We agree with your contention that a vehicle satisfying all three of these conditions would not be subject to the requirements of any of the safety standards, and could properly be excluded from the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for the purposes of Standard No. 208. For a similar interpretation regarding imported tires that are intended solely for export and so labeled, see the enclosed November 10, 1975 letter to Mr. John B. White. Of course, it would not be sufficient if only one of these conditions, such as the third one regarding actual exportation, were satisfied.

We are uncertain regarding the facts surrounding the vehicles that have already been imported into the United States and then exported to Canada and thus are unable to give an opinion concerning their satisfaction of the section 108(b)(5) conditions. It should be relatively simple for you to determine whether these vehicles satisfied the first two conditions. Did those vehicles truly just pass through the US on their way to Canada? To what country's standards were those vehicles certified and when? When the vehicles were imported into the United States, your company was required to complete a Form HS-7. That form allows the importer to declare that a vehicle is intended solely for export and that the vehicle bears a label or tag to that effect. What type of declaration was made with respect to the vehicles in question?

As to vehicles which Maserati Automobiles, Inc., wishes in the future to import into this country and pass directly through to Canada for sale there, satisfaction of each of the three section 108(b)(5) conditions will assure that the vehicles are not included in the Standard No. 208 calculations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:208#VSA#MIS d:l2/9/88

ID: 3324o

Mr. Donald Smith
Chief Inventor
New Innovative Systems
1047 E. Vernon Road
Philadelphia, PA 19146

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter regarding the "Highway Automatic Communications Indicator (HACI)", as supplemented by a telephone conversation between you and Stephen Wood of my staff on December 20, l988. You have asked for approval of your device.

The HACI "will display, via a transparent display screen mounted in the rear window, pre-programmed distress messages, activated only when with the automobile is at a complete standstill." The diagram of the display alert indicates that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, rather than at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be. When not activated, the device would be transparent. It would be activated by a special switch, not by the brake pedal. It is our understanding that the HACI would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, and is not wired into the brake light or hazard light system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to approve or disapprove individual inventions or devices. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of the HACI to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under the authority of which the standards are issued. These standards must be met at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, and persons other than the purchaser may not modify a vehicle after its sale in a manner that, in essence, renders it noncompliant with any standard.

There are three standards potentially affected by the HACI. The first is the lighting standard, Standard No. l08. Since the HACI's display screen is mounted in the rear window, a problem could arise if the center high mounted stop lamp required by Standard No. l08 is also mounted in that area. The HACI is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp, or any other lamp required by Standard No. l08. While this determination is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer (or dealer, if the HACI is installed after vehicle manufacture but before sale to its first purchaser) in the first instance, it appears to us that the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp would not be impaired. We base this conclusion on our understanding that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, instead of at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be and that it would apparently be activated only when the vehicle was stationary, such as parked on the side of the road.

The second standard potentially affected is Standard No. lll, relating to rearview mirrors. This standard specifies a field of view to be met by the inside rearview mirror; if the mirror does not provide this field of view, an outside mirror on the front seat passenger side must be provided. Since your device is reportedly transparent when not activated, and would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, it may well be that there is no necessity for the addition of an outside mirror. However, we do not have sufficient information to determine whether the HACI would impede the field of view under all conditions.

The third standard potentially affected is Standard No. 205, relating to glazing. This requires, in part, that all glazing in passenger cars have at least 70 percent light transmittance. To the extent that the display screen reduces light transmittance, it could create a noncompliance with this standard. However, because you have indicated that your display screen is transparent, it does not appear likely that any reduction in light transmittance would fall below the specified minimum.

With this guidance and your knowledge of the HACI, you should be able to judge whether installation of the HACI either before or after the initial sale of a passenger car might be regarded as creating a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, or otherwise be in violation of the Act. An official judgment regarding noncompliance or violation is made by the agency only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

In addition, you should be aware that the HACI remains subject to the laws of the individual States. We cannot advise you of its legality under these laws. To obtain an opinion on this matter, you may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:l2/29/88

ID: 77-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

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

TO: Edward J. Flesch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to the President dated February 8, 1977, which has been forwarded to our office by the Department of Justice. You are concerned whether there is a Federal law that prohibits the replacement of a single part of a seat belt assembly, as opposed to replacement of the entire assembly.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards and regulations that govern the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies to be used both as original equipment in passenger cars and as aftermarket replacement equipment. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 209. There is no requirement in Standard No. 209, however, that would preclude the replacement or repair of a broken component in a seat belt assembly.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et. seq.), provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in 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. Therefore, none of the persons mentined could replace or repair a component of a seat belt assembly if that action would destroy the compliance of the assembly with Standrad No. 209. Violation of this section of the Safety Act could result in the imposition of civil penalties up to $ 1,000.

Perhaps it is General Motors' policy not to replace or repair a component of a seat belt assembly because of the possibility that the assembly might, thereby, be "rendered inoperative." From the point of view of General Motors, replacement of the entire assembly with a new, certified, assembly might be a safer practice. General Motors is certainly entitled to operate under such a policy. The policy is not, however, a Federal law.

SINCERELY,

February 18, 1977

The President The White House

I have a consumer problem and I don't know just where to go for a solution. I've contacted the following with no result.

Better Business Bureau

Department of Transportation

Consumer Product Safety Commission

General Motors Corporation

District Attorney's Office

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Senator Zorinski's Office

A plastic part that attaches the shroud to the retracting device of the front seat belts on my 1975 Chevrolet Nova has broken. I'm certain that the part should cost somewhat less than a dollar. The Regional Representative for General Motors has told me that a law forbids replacing only this part - that the entire seat belt system most be replaced at a cost of over ten dollars plus labor.

If a law does exist in such language that it must be interpreted that way, it should be changed. The part is easily inserted without effecting the safety function of the seat belt system. Its absence does cause damage to the back of the seat by allowing the shroud to catch on the seat fabric.

I have asked each of those I contacted if instructions can be issued allowing reinterpretation of any regulation or law forbidding the sale of the part. Each Government agency has denied responsibility or the ability to find a solution and referred me to one of the others.

This is a prime example of one of those bureaucratic messes of which you have spoken. I could probably manufacture a "do for it" in my own workship, but it has become much more important to me to unravel this mess than it is to repair the broken shroud. Please let me know what can be done.

EDWARD J. FLESCH

MAY 23, 1977

Edward J. Flesch

Your letter to the President dated February 8, 1977, regarding your complaint concerning General Motors' refusal to replace a part of your seat belt has been forwarded to the Department of Justice for response.

The Consumer Affairs Section contacted the Office of the Chief Counsel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and advised them of your complaint. We were informed by that Office that it has jurisdiction over requirements for seat belt assemblies and anchorages. We are therefore forwarding your correspondence to the Office of the Chief Counsel for their consideration.

We hope this is of assistance to you.

John H. Shenefield Acting Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division

cc: FRANK A. BERNDT

ID: 1984-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Manning; Fulton; and Skinner -- John B. McMillan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/18/77 letter from Frank Berndt to Video Research Corp.

TEXT: Mr. John B. McMillan Manning, Fulton, and Skinner Raleigh, North Carolina

This is in response to your March 5, 1984 letter regarding the extent to which an automotive remote starting device which one of your clients wishes to market is compatible with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 114, Theft Protection. This device would permit a vehicle to be started from a remote location using a signal transmitter, provided the vehicle's gear shift is in the park position, the emergency brake is set, the hood is closed, and all the vehicle doors are closed. Further, should any of these failsafe systems became deactivated (e.g., gear shift lever moved out of the park position), the engine would automatically shut off.

FMVSS 114 reguires that passenger cars as well as trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less must have a key locking system that, when the key is removed, will prevent normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility. We presume that the steering/transmission lock feature is unaffected by your client's device. Therefore, the question presented by your client's system is whether that device, which permits activation of the engine when the ignition key is removed, permits "normal activation" of the vehicle.

In a previous agency interpretation (copy enclosed), the agency described certain characteristics of a remote starting system similar to your client's which we concluded were outside the concept of "normal activation." These characteristics are automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine when a vehicle door is opened, maintenance of the steering column or gear shift locking feature until the ignition key is inserted in the vehicle, and automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine after 15 minutes (unless the key is inserted in the ignition).

Your client's device apparently has some of these same characteristics as this previously considered device, as well as other automatic engine deactivation features which are comparable in nature. Therefore, we conclude your client's device does not conflict with the requirements of FMVSS 114, since it does not permit normal activation of the engine without the ignition key.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt

Enclosure - See 5/18/77 Letter from Frank Berndt to Video Research Corp.

March 5 1984

Re: Hawban, Inc. - G-11934

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with Roger Fairchild regarding a patented device which my client Hawban, Inc. is attempting to market with major automobile manufacturers. A description of this product is attached for your review. In one of our meetings, John Mapleback of Ford suggested that we contact your office to review the concept with you. Specifically, before going any further, we wanted to be sure that your office would agree that this system is compatible with the existing standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and particularly Standard No. 114.

My client's device provides for the remote starting of an automobile and the signaling back as to whether the starting has been accomplished. There are significant safety features built into the device so, for example, the device will not operate unless the gear shift is in the park position, the emergency brake is set, the hood is closed and the doors are all closed. In the event any of these circuits are broken, as for example the hood is open, the engine will cut off. We do not feel that the device conflicts with Standard No. 114 because the use of it would not be "normal activation" of the vehicle. The device is not intended as a substitute for a key because the automobile could not be operated without a key. If the car door were to be opened the engine would shut off. If the gear shift were taken out of the park position, the engine would shut off. In fact, because it would encourage the owner to leave the vehicle in the "park" position and with the emergency brake engaged, we hope you will agree that it is a positive device.

We would appreciate your looking into this matter and confirming our interpretation of the relationship between this device and your standards.

Very truly yours,

MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER

John B. McMillan

JBM/gbj Enclosure omitted.

ID: 1983-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Duane W. Duvall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Duvall:

We have received your letter of October 27, 1943, informing us of your plans to provide a front-end replacement kit for 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas. You have asked whether incorporating a 1973 bumper and mounting hardware will meet safety regulations. You have also asked for a copy of front lighting requirements, and for information on how you may certify your kit for national distribution.

As you have not provided us with a description of all equipment items in the kit, I can offer only general guidance. There are very few requirements for fabricators of kits intended to modify used vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are of two types: those that apply to vehicle systems, and those that apply to individual equipment items. The so-called "bumper standard" is an example of a systems standard. Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, which applied to passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1972, and Sept. 1, 1978, did not directly apply to the bumper itself but established a level of damage resistance to be met by the vehicle in low-speed frontal impacts.

On the other hand, the vehicle lighting standard applies to both lighting systems and replacement lighting equipment. The primary statutory obligation of a kit supplier lies in this area--to determine if any item of equipment in the kit is covered by an equipment standard, and then to insure that the item meets the standard. For example, Standard No. 104, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, required 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas to be equipped with sealed beam headlamps. Here unsealed European headlamps to be furnished as part of the kit, that sale would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Other equipment standards cover brake hoses, tires, brake fluids, glazing, and seat belts. Usually the manufacturer of equipment items covered by standards will certify compliance with Federal requirements by marking them with the symbol "DOT". In that event, no recertification by the kit supplier is required. A further important obligation of a kit supplier is to insure that safety-related defects are absent, or do not develop, in any motor vehicle equipment that he fabricates. If such occur, he is required to notify purchasers and remedy the defects.

There is also a provision of the Safety Act that has some relevance to your operation. Although a vehicle owner may modify his car in any manner he chooses, a restriction is established on modifications by others. That restriction is that "no device or element of design" added to a vehicle enabling it to comply with a safety standard shall be "rendered inoperative in whole or in part." Thus, were a repair shop to remove the Vega front end and replace it with yours, the shop must insure that the Vega upon reassembly remains in compliance with the standards that originally applied to it. Although the kit supplier is not required under the Safety Act to insure that the Vega continues to comply with Standard No. 215, such insurance obviously assists the modifier in meeting its Federal responsibilities, and your incorporation of a 1973 bumper and attachments is helpful. The modified Vega must also continue to meet Federal lighting requirements, such as being equipped with front side marker lamps, and having no cover or other object over the headlamps when they are in use.

To assist you, I enclose copies of Standards Nos. 108 and 215 as they were in effect on October 1, 1977, the requirements were substantially the same for the other years in which you are interested. There is no charge and I am returning your check. If you have further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

October 27, 1983 Office of Chief Council 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

To Whom it May Concern:

A local agency referred me to this administration for some information that I need. Please send the proper pamphlets or publications.

I am designing a fiberglass front-end replacement kit for Chevrolet Vegas, years 1971-77. The rear will be unchanged, I plan to incorporate a 1973 bumper and mounting hardware, will this meet safety regulations?

I also need front exterior lighting regulations, and the procedure to certify this kit for national distribution.

Your prompt response is sincerely appreciated. I am enclosing $2 for any postage or duplication fees.

Thanks, Original signed by Duane W. Duvall (206) 766-6845 901 North Beach Rd.

Bow, VA 98232

ID: nht79-3.15

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Lynch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office when you telephoned on June 19 with regard to your intention to establish a business for the manufacture of 53.6 gallon replacement gasoline tanks and for the installation of these tanks in used Cadillac limousines. You specifically asked what Federal law is applicable to your proposed activities and whether any Federal law establishes a maximum allowable capacity for gasoline tanks.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (see enclosed copy) is a vehicle standard applicable to passenger cars and other vehicles which requires that fuel spillage occurring during and after any crash of the vehicle into a fixed or moving barrier not exceed established limits. As explained below, this standard indirectly affects both the installation and manufacture of replacement gasoline tanks.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits certain entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting, or reducing the performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. Specifically, the section provides:

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 . . .

A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).

If a person or entity listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) removes the original gasoline tank from a used vehicle and installs a replacement tank, the section is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be more readily pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.

Consequently, as a manufacturer of replacement gasoline tanks, you could be liable for a penalty under section 108(a)(2)(A) if you replace the gasoline tank in a used Cadillac limousine with one of your tanks, knowing that the performance of the replacement tank as installed would be inferior to that of the original tank.

Please note that should you decide to install your tanks in new vehicles prior to their first sale for purposes other than resale, you would also be required to certify that the vehicle as altered still complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Should these provisions become relevant to your business, I would be happy to provide further information.

Sections 151-155 of the Act, which are enclosed, would also apply to your activities as a manufacturer of gasoline tanks. These sections provide that if the agency or you find that your tanks contain a safety-related defect, you would be required to notify purchasers of the hazard and to remedy the defect. Under sections 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

I would like to point out that, in addition to the Federal law discussed above, there may be state products liability law applicable to your proposed activities. As a manufacturer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. As an installer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for the manner and location in which the tanks are installed. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before starting your new business.

Finally, with respect to your inquiry about a maximum allowable capacity for gasoline tanks, neither the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration nor the Department of Transportation as a whole has established such a limit.

I hope that you will find this response helpful.

ID: nht79-3.29

DATE: 04/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 5, 1979

Mr. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety and Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 13767 Freeway Drive Santa Fe Springs, California 90670

Dear Mr. Petler:

This is in response to your request of March 22, 1979, for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. First, I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your request of September 14, 1978. As was explained to you in a telephone conversation on March 22, your letter and the response thereto was apparently lost when the Chief Counsel's offices were moved. Although we took great care to ensure that something like this would not happen, it seemingly did in this case. I regret this and hope that it has not caused any undue inconvenience for your company.

You asked whether it was permissible under Standard 109 for a manufacturer to stamp the maximum permissible inflation pressure of a tire and its maximum load rating on the tire in both English units (pounds and psi) and metric units (kilograms and kPa). S4.3(b) and (c) of the standard specify that each tire shall have permanently molded onto the sidewalls the maximum permissible inflation pressure and the maximum load rating for the tire. This agency has interpreted this requirement to mean that the information must appear on the sidewalls in the English units, since this is the system of measurement which will be used and understood by most consumers. However, so long as the information appears in English units, there is no reason that it could not also be expressed in equivalent metric units, if the presentation of the additional information does not cause confusion about the required information. By stating not only the pressure and rating values, but also the units of value, your company would avoid causing any such confusion. Therefore, the expression of inflation pressure and load rating in English and metric units as shown in your illustration is permissible under Standard 109.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

March 22, 1979

Steven Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5213 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C., 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

As per our telephone conversation of this date, as requested I have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 14, 1978, to Mr. Levin regarding our request for interpretation of FMVSS No. 109.

If you are in need of any additional information please feel free to contact us.

Thank you for your interest and assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety and Legislation Department

FMP/ks Enc.

September 14, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adminisiration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for interpretation, FMVSS #109, New Pneumatic Tires- Passenger Cars

Dear Mr. Levin:

We have been requested by our parent company, Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. to request from your agency, an interpretation of Section S4.3 of this standard, as to the permissibility of molding specific information on the sidewall of a 6.00-16 passenger car tire in both U.S. and Metric (SI) units. We note that in Section S.4.3.4. (a) and (b) that dual markings have been allowed for tires if the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280 or 300 KPa.

Our company would like to know whether FMVSS #109 would permit the information required in S4.3 (b) and (c) to be molded onto the 6.00-16 tire sidewall in the following manner by our tire supplier.

That information is:

MAX LOAD 1400 LBS (635 KG) AT 32PSI (221KPA) MAX PRESS

For your convenience we have attached a copy of a drawing that shows the various required markings that would appear on this tire as required in S4.3 of the standard. The letter height would be 4mm, and the letters would be raised 0.4mm for items (b) and (c) of S4.3.

If you are in need of any additional information please feel free to contact us.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Department

attachments (1)

FMP/vw

ID: nht79-1.19

DATE: 10/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 25, 1979

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in confirmation of the discussion with Mr. Schwartz of my office when you met with him on September 10, 1979, as well as further confirmation of the telephone conversation between you and Mr. Schwartz in response to the letter from Mr. Maeda of your company dated February 9, 1979. As you may remember, the questions raised in this letter were substantially answered in the Agency's response of February 13, 1979, to a previous letter from your firm. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the Agency's letter to Volvo on the same subject as requested.

Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) states that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. "Line" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type." "Series" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line', denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes."

Your particular concern relates to the division of a particular Datsun model into several series based on the amount and type of optional equipment with which it is sold.

Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that Datsun models with different optional equipment packages could each be designated a "series" if Nissan desired. Nonetheless, the definition of "series" makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the "series" designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If the differences between the potential series are superficial and a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality, the agency will not require such a designation.

Examples of series include Chrysler Plymouth Fury I, Fury and Fury III.

You also wish to know which types of restraint systems need to be distinguished within the VIN. Active belts, passive belts, and air bags must each be separately designated. Please note that if all the vehicles of a particular model utilize one restraint system type, that type must be reported to the Agency, but need not be directly encoded in the VIN itself.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 9, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION D.O.T. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

We would like to take this time to ask for your interpretation concerning FMVSS No. 115 - VIN.

In our Datsun 210 series, there are two 2-Door Sedans (the ordinary 2-Door Sedan and the Deluxe 2-Door Sedan). These 2-Door Sedans have the same "Body Type", "Engine Type" and "Line".

However, the Deluxe 2-Door Sedan costs $450 more than the ordinary 2-Door Sedan due to the different equipment.(See Attachment Nos. 1 and 2)

It is my understanding that these two types of 2-Door Sedans do not have to be distinguished between in the "Series" even though there is a difference in equipment. (Refer to Attachment 2) I would like to know the answers to the following questions, if possible.

1) Would it be required or just requested to distinguish in the "Series" between these two 2-Door Sedans (Refer to Attachment Nos. 1 and 2)

2) What is the reason for the answer to Question No. 1?

3) Regarding Question No. 1, if it is not required to distinguish between these two 2-Door Sedans in the "Series", would it be OK for the Manufacturers to voluntarily distinguish between them even though it is not required in FMVSS No. 115-VIN?

4) Using the current models of GM, Ford or Chrysler, please show us some examples of "Series".

Thank you for your cooperation with regard to the above questions.

We would appreciate receiving the answers to the above questions as soon as possible.

We would also like to ask that you treat Attachment No. 2 "Confidential".

Should any questions arise with regard to the above mentioned matters, please feel free to contact Mr. Hisakazu Murakami, a member of my Staff, at 201-871-3555.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO.,LTD.

Teruo Maeda General Manager

TM:mh Attachments