ID: 1983-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jeff S. Brantner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1983, to the Urban Mass Transit Administration, which was forwarded to this agency for reply, concerning legal requirements regulating window stickers. The following discussion addresses the Federal requirements applicable to sticker or other films applied to glazing materials in motor vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that films such as the type referred to in your letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-1834).

SINCERELY,

Arthur E. Teele Jr. Urban Mass Trans. Admin.

November 9, 1983

Dear Mr. Teele.

I have designed an automobile sticker that I feel is very catchy and will hopefully be on the rear windows of a large number of vehicles. I do have a question though, regarding the legal size of a window sticker. My tentative design is three (3) inches high by sixteen (16) inches wide. I feel that the width is not as critical as the heighth as far as a visability restriction is concerned, yet I would like to keep it legal in order to avoid any trouble.

I will appreciate any help that you can give me, since this means a great deal to me. Thank you, in advance, for your time and effort.

Jeff Brantner

ID: 1983-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Corporation -- William K. Sweeney, Assistant General Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William K. Sweeney Assistant General Counsel Grumman Corporation 445 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11747

Dear Mr. Sweeney:

This responds to your letter of November 22, 1983, regarding the application of Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) to the new Kubvan minivan you intend to manufacture and distribute. You state in your letter that the Kubvan is a minivan designed primarily for delivery and utility service. You ask whether the Kubvan must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt protection system under S4.2.2.2 of the standard.

You state that Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive models of the Kubvan. The right hand drive models are intended for use by the United States Postal Service (USPS). You add that Grumman Olson also plans to sell right hand vehicles to any and all interested customers.

Section 4.2.2.2 requires trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to provide a lap and shoulder belt protection system, except for those "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service." As correctly stated in your letter, all Kubvans sold to customers other than the USPS must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt assembly. However, based on the, intent of S4.2.2.2 and the unique operating needs of the USPS, right hand Kubvans sold to the USPS need only be equipped with a lap belt system.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 22, 1983 Frank Berndt, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR Section 571.208

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Mr. Steven Wood of your department.

I represent Grumman Olson, a division of Grumman Allied Industries. Inc., and a manufacturer of aluminum truck bodies. As I indicated to Mr. Wood, Grumman Olson is now embarking on the manufacture and distribution of a new minivan completely built by it at its own facilities. This minivan is called the Kubvan (R), and is designed for delivery and utility service. A specification sheet on the Kubvan minivan is enclosed for your information.

Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive versions of the Kubvan, the latter for use by the United States Postal Service. A number of other potential customers, including Canada Post Corporation, have expressed interest in the right hand drive Kubvan, and that expression of interest necessitates my writing to you.

Specifically, a question has arisen concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR S 571.208. Paragraph S4.2.2 of the safety standard sets out the basic occupant crash protection required for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; namely, a lap and shoulder belt protection system. Certain classes of light trucks are excluded, such as "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service...". Vehicles of the latter type are permitted to carry a lap belt system only.

Grumman Olson is desirous of selling the right hand drive Kubvan to customers other than the United States Postal Service (USPS). As we interpret Paragraph S4.2.2, it basically equates light trucks with passenger cars, in terms of crash protection. USPS vehicles were specifically excluded (and permitted to be equipped with lap belts only) because of their unique operating environment (i.e., generally lower speeds, frequent stops, and the need for the driver to exit and enter the vehicle quickly, and/or reach out of the vehicle to service mail boxes).

Given this interpretation, Grumman Olson would be entitled to sell right hand drive Kubvans to any and all interested customers, provided that all such vehicles are equipped with a full lap and shoulder belt restraint system, except for those sold to the USPS. However, the wording of Paragraph S4.2.2 literally implies that if Grumman Olson were to sell right hand drive Kubvans to parties other than USPS, the vehicle might not technically qualify as one "designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service". This, in turn, might mean that Grumman Olson (a) would be required to equip all right hand drive Kubvans with lap and shoulder belt restraint systems (including those destined for the United States Postal Service, which would render the vehicle unsuitable for their use), and/or (b) would be required to retrofit any right hand drive Kubvans presently in USPS inventory with lap and shoulder belt systems (such vehicles not having a lap belt system only as permitted by the Paragraph). We feel this end result is inconsistent with the intent of Paragraph S4.2.2.

I have had telephone discussions with Mr. Wood and with Mr. Bob Gardner of NHTSA's engineering staff, relative to interpretation of the Paragraph in question. Both of these individuals felt that our analysis of the Paragraph was consistent with its intent and expressed no difficulty with (1) our selling right hand drive Kubvans (equipped with lap and shoulder belt system) to customers other than the USPS and (2) our continuing to sell right hand drive Kubvans to the USPS, with lap belt system only (and without the need to retrofit any vehicles presently in USPS inventory). I asked Mr. Wood about the possibility of a formal response from NHTSA approving our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2, and he suggested that I write to you to request such a response.

I would, therefore, appreciate your discussing this matter with Mr. Wood, and, if you agree, arranging for a letter from your office to me, concurring in our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2 and approving sales of right hand Kubvans as set out in the previous paragraph.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

WILLIAM K. SWEENEY Assistant General Counsel

WKS:mz

ID: 1983-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Ms. Pamela Cox NADA Management Education National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, Virginia 22102

Dear Ms. Cox:

This responds to your request to Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff to verify the record retention checklist your organization plans to distribute to its members. The checklist indicates that automobile dealers must maintain records of "New and retread tires, name, address of purchaser, tire seller and identification number," and "Tires on each vehicle sold." This is not an accurate description of the recordkeeping requirements imposed on automobile dealers with respect to tire sales.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. The tire registration requirements applicable to motor vehicle dealers are set forth in section 574.9. Motor vehicle dealers are not required to register the tires on each vehicle sold; they are only required to register tires in two instances. First, if the dealer is selling a new vehicle, the tires must be registered by that dealer only if the vehicle is equipped with tires other than those installed on the vehicle or furnished with it by the vehicle manufacturer. In the far more common situation where the dealer delivers a new vehicle with the original equipment tires installed on or furnished by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle dealer has no registration responsibility for those tires.

Second, if the motor vehicle dealer is selling a used vehicle or leasing a vehicle for more than 60 days, the dealer must register the tires on that vehicle only if he has installed new tires on it. Again, it is more usual for a used vehicle to be equipped with the used tires already on it, and, in that case, the vehicle dealer is not required to register the tires. Moreover, tire registration is not required for any dealer when a vehicle is equipped with retreaded tires, even if the dealer installed the retreaded tires on the vehicle.

Even when motor vehicle dealers are required to register tires, they are only required to record tne purchaser's name and address if the dealer's business is owned or controlled by a tire company. I presume this would be a very unusual situation. This agency published an interim final rule establishing voluntary tire registration requirements for "independent" dealers in the Federal Register of May 19, 1983 (copy enclosed). "Independent" dealers means those whose business is not owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer. When one of your members is required to register tires and qualifies as an independent dealer, he must simply record the tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold on a registration form provided by the tire manufacturer, together with the dealer's name and address, and give the form to the tire purchaser. It is up to the purchaser to fill in his or her name and address on the form and return it to the manufacturer. The dealer is not required to retain any record of this. Even if the motor vehicle dealer were owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer, that dealer would simply be required to complete the entire registration form and return it to the tire manufacturer, and the tire manufacturer would be required to retain a record of the registration form for three years.

I trust that this information will help you in your efforts to educate your members about their responsibilities under Federal laws. If you need any further assistance in those efforts; please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

August 8, 1983

Mr. Steven Kratsky Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratsky:

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me over the phone in April regarding retention of tire and retread records. As I said, we are in the process of compiling a Federal Records Retention Checklist for our members. I have enclosed a copy of it and would appreciate your verifying our infomation by initialing beside the appropriate records and returning it to me in the postage paid envelope by September 1st.

Thanking you in advance, I remain

Sincerely,

Pamela Cox NADA Management Education

Enclosures

RETENTION OF RECORDS

"INSERT"

ID: 1983-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Isuzu Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard McCarl American Isuzu Motors Inc. Whittier, California 90601

Dear Mr. McCarl:

This responds to your November 23, 1981 letter regarding the applicability of motor vehicle certification requirements to a new vehicle to be imported by Isuzu Motors. This small utility vehicle would be certified as a truck. Isuzu dealers will offer for the vehicle an optional rear seat which can be installed by simply bolting it to the vehicle. The basic vehicle already has the necessary mountings for the seat, so the seat installation can apparently be readily accomplished. You have asked whether installation of these seats constitutes "alteration" of the vehicle by the dealer, requiring the addition of an alterer's label in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7.

Based on your description of the seat installation process, it appears that dealers installing the seats would be subject to 49 CFR 567.6, "Requirements for persons who do not alter certified vehicles or do so with readily attachable components." Since the seats appear to be "readily attachable components," section 567.6 requires dealers to leave the manufacturer's certification label in place and requires no alterer's label to be added.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lyn-Mont Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey A. Crawford Q.A. Manager Lyn-Mont Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 11745 4208 Clubview Drive Fort Wayne, Indiana 46860

Dear Mr. Crawford:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You asked whether certain proposed labeling for brake hose assemblies would meet the labeling requirements of sections S7.2.3 and S7.2.3.1. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.

By way of background information, this agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equip- ment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its products comply with applicable safety standards. The following opinion is based on the facts provided in your letter.

Sections S7.2.3 and S7.2.3.1 provide two options for the labeling of air brake hose assemblies made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging. Section S7.2.3 states that such assemblies, except those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly as specified in that paragraph, or, at the option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in section S7.2.3.1.

If the first option is chosen, using a band as specified in section S7.2.3, the band must include (a) the symbol DOT, and (b) the manufacturer designation.. If the second option, specified in section S7.2.3.1, is chosen, the manufacturer designation must be placed on at least one end fitting of the assembly. (These sections also specify other require- ments concerning labeling, such as size of letters, which are not relevant to this interpretation.)

Your proposed labeling, placing the manufacturer designation on the band and the symbol DOT on the end fitting, would not meet the requirements of either of these options. If the first option is chosen, the symbol DOT must be placed on the band along with the manufacturer designation. If the second option is chosen, the manufacturer designation must be placed on the end fitting.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 5, 1983

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Crash Avoidance Division National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTN: Mr. Bloom

Subject: FMVSS -106 Paragraph S7.2.3 and S7.2.3.1

Dear Mr. Bloom,

There is some confusion on interpreting these two paragraphs between ourselves and a customer.

We've interpreted paragraph S7.2.3 to read that the assembly can be labeled with a band listing the information in sub-paragraph A&B, with it being our option to put on our designation as the manufacturer either on this tag or marked on the fitting as described in paragraph S7.2.3.1.

Our customer interprets this to read that this designation must be stamped on the fitting no matter what. What we would like to do is stamp the symbol DOT on the hex of the fitting.

Enclosed please find a sketch of our assembly showing where they would be marked in accordance with the 106 spec.

We would like a legal interpretation on weather we would be in compliance labeling our assemblies in this manner.

Sincerely,

Lyn-Mont Manufacturing Co.

Jeffrey A. Crawford Q.A. Manager

NO SHARP EDGE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

* GRAPH INSERTED HERE

ID: 1983-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Potemkin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 Mr. Al Desarro Potemkin 21111 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33189

Dear Mr. Desarro:

This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the type of seat belts that must be used in a 1983 converted van that has a sofa.

Paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (copy enclosed) requires trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less to meet the same requirements as passenger cars. This would include the vans in question. Paragraph S4.1.2.3 of the standard specifies that passenger cars must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly (non-detachable lap and shoulder belt) at each front outboard designated seating position. At all other seating positions, either a Type 1 seat belt assembly (lap belt only) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly must be used. Thus, your vans must have Type 2 belts in the two front seats and either Type 2 or Type 1 belts in the rear seating positions, including the sofa. The agency's position regarding seat belts for sofa/beds used in van conversions is more fully explained in the enclosed interpretation letter of March 29, 1983, to Sherrod Vans, Inc.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: 1983-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bandag Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Frank B. Hill, Esq. Patent and Trademark Counsel Bandag, Inc. Bandag Center Muscatine, Iowa 52761

Dear Mr. Hill:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking about marking requirements applicable to truck tires retreaded for non-highway use. You stated in your letter that the retreaded tires would be mounted only on vehicles used in shipyard areas to move cargo around. I will answer the three questions you raised in the order you presented them.

1. Is it required that a retreader put its DOT identification mark of truck tires when they are retreaded for non-highway use?

It is not possible to give a simple yes or no answer to this question. 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, sets forth certain marking requirements which must be met by manufacturers and retreaders of tires, including the requirement in section 574.5 that a DOT identification mark be molded on all new and retreaded tires. However, section 574.1 specifies that the requirements of Part 574 apply only to new and retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles. Hence, the question which must be answered to determine if a retreaded is required to put its DOT identification mark on a retreaded tire is whether the tire is for use on motor vehicles.

"Motor vehicle" is defined at 15 U.S.C. 7391(5) as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." If these retreaded tires are for use on forklifts or other types of mobile construction equipment intended and sold primarily for off-road use, the retreader would not be required to mold a DOT identification mark on the tires, because the tires would not be for use on motor vehicles. This is true even if these types of vehicles are incidentally used for highway travel from one job site to another.

If, on the other hand, the vehicles on which the retreaded tires are mounted are conventional on-road trucks simply being used in a shipyard, the retreaders would be required to comply with the requirements of Part 574, because the tires are for use on motor vehicles. The determination of whether the retreaded tires are for use on motor vehicles must be made initially by the retreader, but it would be subject to review by this agency.

2. If a DOT identification mark is not required, is there any other notice that is required on the retreaded trucks tires, retreaded for non-highway use?

If the retreaded truck tires are not subject to the Part 574 marking requirements, because they are not for use on motor vehicles, there are no other marking requirements applicable to retreaded truck tires.

3. If no notice is required and the DOT identification mark is not required, would it be permissible to place a disclaimer notice such as "Not Retreaded for Highway Use" on the retreaded truck tire?

This sort of notice would be permitted, and would be a useful disclosure for the retreader and the user of the tire, to show the intended use of the tire. Such a notice would not affect the retreader's duty to determine whether the tire was retreaded for use on motor vehicles, and mold its DOT identification mark on the sidewall of the tire if it were for use on motor vehicles.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 4, 1983 FBH:83-583

Mr. Steve Kratzke National Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin. Legal Department Room 5219 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

I would appreciate receiving an opinion from you on the requirements that a retreader would have in reference to retreading truck tires for non-highway use. Specifically, the application of retreaded truck tires being used in shipyards to move cargo in the shipyard area only.

I have three specific questions:

1. Is it required that a retreader put their DOT identification mark on truck tires when they are retreaded for non-highway use?

2. If a DOT identification mark is not required, is there any other notice that is required on the retreaded truck tires, retreaded for non-highway use?

3. If no notice is required and the DOT identification mark is not required, would it be permissible to place a disclaimer notice such as "Not Retreaded for Highway Use" on the retreaded truck tire?

As soon as you have had an opportunity to review this matter, I would appreciate receiving your opinion.

Very truly yours,

Frank B. Hill Patent and Trademark Counsel

FBH:jl

ID: 1983-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Deltana Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Philip H. Wong Deltana Enterprises, Inc. 12871 S.W. 117 Street Miami, Florida 33186

Dear Mr. Wong:

This responds to your letter to this office asking for information on regulations applicable to the importation of new tires, retreaded tires, and used tire casings from Japan into this country. It is not clear from your letter whether you are interested in importing passenger car tires or tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you get the information of concern to you, I will discuss the three situations you asked about for both passenger car tires and tires for use on other motor vehicles.

Generally speaking, all tires which are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must have the symbol "DOT" molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The importation of any tire without the DOT certification symbol on the sidewall would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), and the importer would be subject to a civil penalty of $1000 for each tire he imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall.

New passenger car tires. Section S4.3.1 of Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109) (copy enclosed) requires that all new passenger car tires have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country. New tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Section S6.5(a) of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119) (copy enclosed) requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.

Retreaded passenger car tires. Section S6.1 of Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S571.117) (copy enclosed) requires that all retreaded passenger car tires have the symbol DOT molded into the side-wall by the retreader. Retreaded passenger car tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.

Retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. No Federal safety standard is applicable to these tires. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the re- treader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574 (copy enclosed), if they are to be legally sold in the United States. It would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(E) to sell tires without an identification number.

Used passenger car tires. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) reads in part as follows: "No person shall...import into the United States... any item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard..." The effect of this language is to require that passenger car tires manufactured on or after the date Standard No. 109 took effect (January 1, 1968) be certified as complying with that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. To be legally imported into the United States, used passenger car tires must either have a DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the original manufacturer or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before January 1, 1968.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. The same reasoning applied above in the case of used passenger car tires applies to these tires as well. Standard No. 119 took effect on March 1, 1975, so used tires to be imported into the United States must either have a DOT symbol on the sidewall or proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported.

You also asked for any other information which your supplier might need to export tires to the United States. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Yang Ru-tang, which sets forth the requirement which must be satisfied in order for a foreign manufacturer to export tires to this country.

If you need any further information on this subject, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

JULY 12, 1983

Office of Chief Council 400 7th Street S.W. Washington- D.C 20590

Dear Sirs:

I am requesting information regarding regulations concerning the importation of new, recaps and used tire casings from Japan to the United States for resale and export. Please advise regulations here regards to Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119 and any other applicable regulation or information which my supplier requires.

Thank you for your cooperation and advice.

Sincerely yours,

Philip H. Wong

ID: 1983-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flyer Industries Limited -- Moni Marcus, Chief Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Flyer Industries Limited

TEXT:

Moni Marcus, P.Eng. Chief Engineer Flyer Industries Limited 64 Hoka Street Box 245 Transcona P.O. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R2C 3T4

Dear Mr. Marcus:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S 571.217). You stated that your company's transit bus models use eight large windows as emergency exits to satisfy the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217, and that the entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency doors. Accordingly, you stated that the entrance and exit doors do not "have to be tested for Standard No. 217 requirements." This is not wholly correct.

Standard No. 217 sets forth two basic requirements. These are (1) window retention requirements, which must be met by all windows in a new bus, except for the windshield, and (2) requirements applicable to emergency exits. As I pointed out in a letter to Mr. Moss, of your staff, the window retention requirements apply to all front door glazing which exceeds 8 inches in diameter, and this agency does test such glazing for compliance with the standard. Hence, while you may be correct in asserting that a door not designated as an emergency door would not be tested for compliance with the emergency exit requirements, you are incorrect if you are asserting that the glazing on such a door would not be tested for compliance with the window retention requirements.

Your letter went on to state that, although your entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency exits, most local transit authorities have requested you to add a decal instructing people how to open the doors in case of an emergency. You then stated your opinion that the addition of these decals would not change the status of the doors to emergency exits, so the doors would not be required to meet the Standard No. 217 push force requirements applicable to emergency doors. This conclusion is incorrect.

Standard No. 217 specifies minimum criteria for emergency exits which must be met by all new buses, and your letter states that your transit bus models do not need to count the entrance and exit doors on the buses to satisfy these criteria. Thus, absent other factors, those doors would not be required to comply with the portions of the standard applicable to emergency doors. However, affixing a decal, such as the one enclosed with your letter, in the area of those doors is labeling the door as an emergency exit. It is reasonable for riders of the bus to assume that a door which is labeled by the manufacturer with instructions in case of an emergency and which is intended by the local transit authority to be used as an exit in case of an emergency is in fact a door which can be used as an emergency exit. Given the likelihood of the use of the door as an emergency exit when it is so labeled, it is important that the door comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, and this agency has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in case of an emergency.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a letter reaching this same conclusion which was sent to another manufacturer. Contrary to the understanding expressed in your letter, this agency has never sent a letter to a manufacturer stating that doors labeled with emergency instructions were not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 217 applicable to emergency doors.

Should you need any further information or have further questions on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 12, 1983

Dear Mr. Krazke:

Re: Clarification of FMVSS - 217

As per our discussion on the phone, Flyer's transit bus models 900, 901 and 902 are equipped with 8 large windows and 3 fixed ones. The eight large windows are classified as emergency exits and they satisfy the FMVSS - 217 requirement of:

51 seats x 67 = 3,417 square inches (minimum) Therefore, the entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency exits and do not have to be tested for FMVSS - 217 requirements.

Both emergency exit windows and fixed windows were tested in 1980, and approved by your department - see Report No. 217-OYS (copy attached).

The question remaining is that most transit authorities have been requesting that bus manufacturers add a decal instructing people how to open the doors in case of an emergency. (Copy of decal drawings attached). In our view, the decals do not change the status of the doors to an emergency door status and, therefore, they are still not required to meet FMVSS - 217 push forces.

My understanding is that this interpretation has been given to other bus manufacturers before and we at Flyer would like to have a similar clarification from your office to straighten the records out specifically in regard to the letter marked NOA-30 and sent to Mr. Bill Moss, Flyer's test engineer by Mr. Frank Berndt (copy attached).

Your assistance on the phone was greatly appreciated and I hope to hear from you soon.

Yours truly,

Moni Marcus, P.Eng. Chief Engineer FLYER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Enclosure (4//5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Flyer Industries Limited Omitted here.)

ID: 19832.ztv

Mr. Jonathan Ward
CEO and President
TLC, Inc.
14743 Oxnard Street
Van Nuys, CA 91411

Dear Mr. Ward:

This is in response to your letter to Coleman Sachs of this Office which we received on April 8, 1999. You asked for an opinion on your plan "to sell restored pre-1974 Toyota Land Cruisers comprised of new and used parts."

You intend to begin with "an assemblage of new motor vehicle equipment including body, frame, steering, suspension, brake, axle, differential, glazing, interior and trim assemblies

. . . ." The equipment taken from the "U.S. spec. pre-1974 donor vehicle" includes "the front and rear driveshaft assemblies including yokes and flanges, complete rear drive gear assembly, front right frame extension, vin plates and title." You believe that "pursuant to 49 CFR 571.7(E) and 15 U.S.C. 1391(3)" you "would satisfy DOT's standards of minimum donor vehicle parts content and definition of assemblage of motor vehicle equipment." You then comment that "the restored vehicle will meet or exceed DOT standards of the donor vehicle's year of manufacture," and ask whether you "can legally sell the vehicle complete with drivetrain or do we have to sell it as a kit and have the customer pay a separate corporation to supply and install the drivetrain?" You conclude by saying that "if we must, our third step would be that a separate corporation will be contracted by the customer to install an EPA and CARB compliant drivertrain. The vehicle will then be offered for sale by TLC Inc."

The Toyota Land Cruiser for 1974 and previous years appears to be a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for purposes of compliance with 49 CFR Part 571, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in pertinent part as one that "is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." (Sec. 571.3(b)). You cited 49 CFR "571.7(E)." The provisions of Sec. 571.7(e) Combining new and used components apply only to trucks, not to multipurpose passenger vehicles that may be built on a truck chassis. This section was adopted in 1975 to accommodate the use of glider kits in the reconstruction of trucks (40 FR 49340). This section is not applicable to other types of motor vehicles. We do not understand your citation of 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). That section (now recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)) is simply the statutory definition of "motor vehicle."

The vehicle you describe cannot, in our opinion, be termed a "restored" 1974 Land Cruiser, even though you intend the completed vehicle to carry the VIN and title of one. The original Land Cruiser will be disassembled to the point that it is no longer a motor vehicle. Only the original "front and rear driveshaft assemblies including yokes and flanges, complete rear drive assembly, [and] front right front frame extension" will be used again. As we understand your letter, the rest of the vehicle, including its body and frame, is new. Under these circumstances, when the vehicle is assembled it will be a motor vehicle manufactured as of the assembly date and one that has not been delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. That is to say, the vehicle will be a new motor vehicle to which current Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations apply. As a new vehicle, we believe it cannot carry the VIN of an earlier vehicle, but must be equipped with a new VIN meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. We are not conversant with state titling practices, and cannot provide information about them.

Our interpretation means that the vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer (TLC or the "separate corporation") as conforming to current Federal safety standards as required by 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567. You should contact EPA and CARB for information about their regulations. The certifying manufacturer must also file an identification statement with this agency pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.5/21/99