ID: 24183

Mr. James F. Flint
Grove, Jaskiewicz & Cobert
Suite 400
1730 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036-4517





Dear Mr. Flint:

This responds to your letter of March 8, 2002, in which you ask whether the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) manufactured by your client, Col-Ven SA of Argentina, for large commercial motor vehicles will be subject to the pending rulemaking on TPMSs. As discussed below, the agency did not propose to require TPMSs on medium and heavy vehicles in its proposed rule. However, we cannot give you a definitive answer at this time as to what the final rule will require.

In your letter, you state that Col-Ven SA manufacturers a TPMS intended for commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating over 26,000 pounds, including large trucks, truck tractors, tractor/trailer combinations, passenger buses, and large recreational vehicles.

In your letter you also refer to an April 29, 1998, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpretation letter (see enclosure) regarding another TPMS manufactured for heavy vehicles. In that letter, NHTSA stated that there was no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to TPMSs. However, the agency cautioned that the installation of any such system, either as original equipment or as after-market equipment, is prohibited if it makes "inoperative any device or element of design that was originally installed on or in the vehicle pursuant to any FMVSS." The agency indicated that such a system might impact air brake systems (covered by FMVSS No. 121) or brake hoses (FMVSS No. 106).

You ask whether this interpretation letter has been superseded or altered by the passage of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act, ⁽¹⁾ and whether TPMSs manufactured for large commercial motor vehicles will be subject to the rulemaking on TPMSs required by Section 13 of the TREAD Act.

Section 13 of the TREAD Act mandates the completion of "a rulemaking for a regulation to require a warning system in new motor vehicles to indicate to the operator when a tire is significantly under inflated." On July 26, 2001, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a new FMVSS (No. 138) with requirements for TPMSs. ⁽²⁾ The agency proposed to require TPMSs on light vehicles, i.e., passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. The agency did not propose to require TPMSs on medium (10,001 - 26,000 pounds GVWR) and heavy (greater than 26,001 pounds GVWR) vehicles.

NHTSA also noted in the NPRM that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is addressing tire maintenance issues for heavy vehicles. FMCSA plans to conduct a comprehensive study, including possible fleet evaluations of different TPMSs, of all the issues related to improvement of heavy vehicle tire maintenance. The agency plans on working with FMCSA in examining the desirability of proposing a TPMS standard for heavy vehicles.

The agency received one comment requesting that we initiate a separate rulemaking to consider TPMS requirements for medium and heavy vehicles. We will address that comment in the final rule. In the meantime, we can tell you that the April 28, 1998 interpretation letter discussed above is valid with respect to medium and heavy vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on TPMSs, please feel free to contact Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.4/22/02

---

¹ P.L. 106-414, November 1, 2000.

² 66 FR 38982.

ID: 2743y

Mr. W. C. Glasscock
Sun-Cool & Co.
2201 North Fifth Street
Springfield, Illinois 62702

Dear Mr. Glasscock:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows. According to your letter, you have been involved in the window tinting business for many years but only recently became aware of the fact that Federal law prohibits businesses from adding tinting film to motor vehicle windows if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard. You expressed concern that there appears to be a conflict between Federal and state law in this area and that there has been a lack of enforcement of the Federal requirement.

We are pleased that you have become aware of the Federal requirement in this area and that you are apparently now complying with it. As you may have heard, we have brought suit against six tint businesses in Florida. Those cases are pending in Federal court. We also plan to take appropriate steps to enforce the Federal requirement in other parts of the nation.

I will now discuss the relationship between Federal and state law in this area. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperative" within the meaning of Standard 205.

You stated that state laws differ from the Federal law, citing as an example an Illinois law which, according to your letter, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles as long as the vehicle's owner has a letter from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois that explains the medical basis for the need.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which after market tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

However, no state has the authority to grant any exemptions from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of state law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:ll/9/90

ID: 2622y

Herr Hanno Westermann
Hella KG Hueck & Co
Postfach 28 40
4780 Lippstadt
W. Germany

Dear Herr Westermann:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency with respect to "multi bulb devices", specifically "how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure lb have to be interpreted. . . ." You have asked this question because "Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have --opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb." Your question assumes that Standard No. l08 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-compartment lamps.

We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September l988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, l990, an amendment to Standard No. l08 was published, effective December 1, l990, the effect of which is to restrict Figure 1b to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

Your question relates to "signalling devices" for new motor vehicles, and Figure 1b shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December l, l990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width. SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width. In the May l990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for "Multiple Compartment Lamp". Such a lamp is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens." The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition.

SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5.1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395 applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections". Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:8/22/90

ID: 6962

Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein
Senior Counsel
PACCAR Inc.
P.O. Box 1518
Bellevue, WA 98004

Dear Mr. Brownstein:

This responds to your letter, requesting that the agency clarify a provision in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. (49 CFR 571.120) Specifically, you asked whether under section S5.1.3, a vehicle manufacturer could, if requested by the purchaser, install retreaded tires procured by the manufacturer on a new vehicle. You stated that allowing the vehicle manufacture to buy retreaded tires would be more efficient and would help the truck owner to avoid having to make a separate purchase. I welcome this opportunity to respond to your request for an interpretation.

Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 states:

In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol.

For the vehicle manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new truck, bus, or trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that five conditions must be satisfied. These are:

(1) the purchaser must request such a retreaded or used tire, (2) the vehicle must be equipped with the retreaded or used tire at the vehicle's place of manufacture, (3) the retreaded or used tire to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser, (4) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle, and (5) used tires equipped on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 (and contain the DOT certification symbol).

Your letter indicates that in buying the retreaded tires at the purchaser's request, PACCAR's actions would comply with the first condition (and presumably the second condition). However, since PACCAR and not the vehicle purchaser would supply the tire, your requested action clearly would not comply with the third condition which requires the retreaded or used tire to be owned by the purchaser. This condition permits a purchaser to order a new vehicle without any tires and install any tire it may choose. It is not clear from your letter whether the fourth condition would be satisfied. The fifth condition is not applicable to retreaded truck tires, since such tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on their sidewalls. Based on the above, we conclude that having a vehicle manufacturer supply a retreaded or used tire for a new vehicle would not comply with S5.1.3.

We disagree with your view that the purpose of section S5.1.3 is to allow the purchaser to choose whether the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure it has knowledge of this fact. As discussed in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the purpose of the provision is to accommodate a practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to the vehicle manufacturer for installation on new vehicles they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been taken off vehicles no longer in service. (49 FR 20822, 20823, May 17, 1984).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref:120 d:3/23/92

ID: 7027

Mr. Neil Friedkin
Attorney at Law
325 Exterior Street
Bronx, NY 10451

Dear Mr. Friedkin:

This responds to your letter asking about the certification of a converted vehicle. You explained that your client leased a 1986 Mercedes and that as part of the lease agreement, Coachbuilders Ltd converted the vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. In a pending lawsuit, your client is alleging that Coachbuilders did not recertify the vehicle after conversion and that the conversion did not conform with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381). You asked the agency to explain our regulations about conversion and recertification. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The agency's certification regulation requires the manufacturer of a new vehicle to certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture (567.4 and 567.5). Persons that alter certified vehicles before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale are required to allow the original certification label to remain in place and to add an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered continues to conform to all applicable standards (567.7).

Once a vehicle is purchased for purposes other than resale, there is no requirement for an alterer to certify the vehicle's compliance with the standards. The Safety Act, in 114, requires manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles to certify the vehicles' compliance, but does not extend this requirement to other persons. The Safety Act further provides, in 108(b)(1), that the requirement for a vehicle to comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

In this case, we would consider the purchase by the leasing company to be the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. If the modifications were made before that purchase, the modifier would have been required by 567.7 to certify that the altered vehicle continued to conform with the applicable safety standards. If, however, the modifications were made after the leasing company had purchased the vehicle, the modifier would not have been required to make any certification that the modified vehicle continued to conform to all applicable safety standards.

If modifications were made after the leasing company purchased the vehicle, the only provision of Federal law that would apply would be section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides in relevant part 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from a hard-top to a convertible) do not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition, as long as the converted vehicle complies with those safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type.

In the case of your client's 1986 Mercedes, there would be no violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition if the car, as modified, complied with those standards that were applicable to 1986 convertible passenger cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref:567#VSA d:4/13/92

ID: 7027r

Mr. Neil Friedkin
Attorney at Law
325 Exterior Street
Bronx, NY 10451

Dear Mr. Friedkin:

This responds to your letter asking about the certification of a converted vehicle. You explained that your client leased a 1986 Mercedes and that as part of the lease agreement, Coachbuilders Ltd converted the vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. In a pending lawsuit, your client is alleging that Coachbuilders did not recertify the vehicle after conversion and that the conversion did not conform with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381). You asked the agency to explain our regulations about conversion and recertification. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The agency's certification regulation requires the manufacturer of a new vehicle to certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture (567.4 and 567.5). Persons that alter certified vehicles before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale are required to allow the original certification label to remain in place and to add an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered continues to conform to all applicable standards (567.7).

Once a vehicle is purchased for purposes other than resale, there is no requirement for an alterer to certify the vehicle's compliance with the standards. The Safety Act, in 114, requires manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles to certify the vehicles' compliance, but does not extend this requirement to other persons. The Safety Act further provides, in 108(b)(1), that the requirement for a vehicle to comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

In this case, we would consider the purchase by the leasing company to be the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. If the modifications were made before that purchase, the modifier would have been required by 567.7 to certify that the altered vehicle continued to conform with the applicable safety standards. If, however, the modifications were made after the leasing company had purchased the vehicle, the modifier would not have been required to make any certification that the modified vehicle continued to conform to all applicable safety standards.

If modifications were made after the leasing company purchased the vehicle, the only provision of Federal law that would apply would be section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides in relevant part 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from a hard-top to a convertible) do not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition, as long as the converted vehicle complies with those safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type.

In the case of your client's 1986 Mercedes, there would be no violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition if the car, as modified, complied with those standards that were applicable to 1986 convertible passenger cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref:567#VSA d:4/13/92

ID: 77-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/77

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

TO: TTMA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 16, 1977, letter in which you ask for an interpretation of the certification label requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, as they apply to trailers.

In your first question, you ask whether a trailer manufacturer may conform with the certification requirements in any one of three ways: list the GVWR and GAWR with the corresponding tires, rims, and inflation pressure with which the trailer is equipped; list all suitable combinations with the required information as shown in the example appearing in Standard No. 120; or list only the maximum GVWR and maximum GAWR with the proper tires, rims, and inflation pressure, plus the GVWR and GAWR of the trailer with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure with which it is equipped. According to the requirements of Standard No. 120, any of the three methods outlined above would appear to be acceptable.

Your second question presents a sample certification plate which lists all of the axles on the trailer. You ask whether it is permissible, where the data for all axles is identical, to list the proper tires, rims, and inflation pressure for the front axle then merely state "Same as Front" for the remaining axles rather than repeat the same data for all axles. The label requirements of the standard do not permit the approach you suggest. You must list all data for each axle. You should note that there is a proposal to amend Part 567, Certification, to permit a simplification of label requirements when the data for all axles is identical. I am enclosing a copy of this proposal for your information.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

March 16, 1977

Fred Koch Office of Crash Avoidance National Highway Safety Administration

S. 120 - Tire Clarification

It is our understanding that if a trailer manufacturer has several tire options for a trailer model, such as 10.00 x 20, 10.00 x 22, and 10.00 radial x 22, then he may note this at least three different ways on the certification label per S. 120.

(a) He may list the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure as the trailer is equipped. That is, he may have three labels to choose from, depending on the tires selected by the purchaser.

(b) He may list the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tire, rims, and inflation pressure for each option as shown in the example in S. 120.

(c) He may list the maximum GVWR and the corresponding maximum GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure yielding the maximum rating and the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure for the trailer as equipped.

Since some European tire manufacturers do not use the "R" in their tire size designation to indicate radial it is understood that the trailer manufacturer may add the note that the stated inflation pressure is for radial tires.

It is also our understanding that where all axles on a trailer are similar, that the certification plate may state:

GVWR: x x x x

GAWR: Front - x x x x with x x x x tires, x x x rims, at xx psi cold dual.

First Intermediate - Same as Front

Second Intermediate - Same as Front

Rear - Same as Front

Please inform us if our understanding of S. 120 is correct.

Don W. Vierimaa Engineering Manager

cc: TTMA ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

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: nht79-3.33

DATE: 08/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Institute For Safety Analysis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 9, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts.

Your research concerning the history of the standard is correct. The first notice of proposed rulemaking on Standard No. 201 (31 F.R. 15212, December 3, 1966) proposed a definition and requirements for the "unrestrained child impact area." When the standard was originally issued in final form (32 FR 2408, February 3, 1967), the unrestrained child impact area definition and requirements were deleted. In the same issue of the Federal Register, the agency issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking stating that it intended to develop requirements to reduce impact hazards for unrestrained children (32 FR 2417). Although the agency did not subsequently publish any additional notices on Standard No. 201 specifically developed for the unrestrained child, the agency continued work on Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and developed Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, both of which provide improved protection for children riding in motor vehicles.

The agency is currently studying the potential benefits of built-in interior padding, child restraint devices and other means of making the vehicle rear seat a safe environment for child transportation. This work may provide the basis for future rulemaking.

You are also correct that there were administrative law hearings held on Standard No. 201. The record of those hearings, which were held May 22 and 23, 1967, in Detroit, Michigan, and May 24 and 25, 1967, in Washington, D.C., can be found in Docket 1, microfilm roll number 2. Please contact Ms. Hardee (426-2768) of the agency's docket section to make arrangements to view this material.

I hope this information will be of assistance. If you have any additional questions, please let me know.

SINCERLY,

July 9, 1979

Frank Berndt Deputy Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Institute for Safety Analysis (TISA) is a private organization providing assistance in auto safety matters to clients across the country. Our president, Dr. Robert Brenner, was the first Chief Scientist of NHTSA. We are currently working with a Florida law firm which has a case involving General Motors. In that connection, our staff has been reviewing some of the regulatory dockets at the Technical Reference Branch. We have encountered what appear to be some gaps, and we are writing to you for guidance.

During the course of our research of dockets concerning FMVSS 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact -- Passenger Cars," questions have arisen regarding the phrase "unrestrained child impact area." This phrase was included in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, (Illegible Word) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards," Docket 3, Notice 1 issued November 30, 1966. On January 31, 1967, in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making Docket 7, Notice 67-1, the phrase was deleted. The Agency noted its intent to develop requirements to reduce impact hazard for the unrestrained child. However, we have been unable to locate in any subsequent dockets any specific reference to the problem of the unrestrained child. We are hoping that you may be able to assist us in determining why later dockets did not identify requirements directed to the unrestrained child.

We also believe there were administrative law hearings on Standard 201. We have not found any materials from these hearings in our docket searches. Perhaps your office could direct us to a record of these proceedings, if they did, in fact, take place.

Thank you for your time and concern. Any assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Maureen Lindsey Director of Legal Research

ID: nht80-1.6

DATE: 01/21/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Edison Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1979, inquiring if it is permissible for your suppliers to cut off the DOT serial numbers on used tires before selling those tires to your company. You stated in your letter that your company buys used tires from several companies. These tires generally either have cuts in the tread or sidewalls or are out of round. Your company then resells the tires to another company, which resells the tires to the public.

The answer to your question is no. The presence of the DOT identification number on tires is required by several of this agency's regulations. Our tire identification and record keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) requires that each manufacturer place the DOT number on at least one sidewall of each tire that it manufactures. The number serves several purposes. It is indispensable in aiding consumers to identify tires subject to a recall campaign for safety defects and noncompliances with the safety standards. It also aids this agency in enforcing its tire safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109 (Passenger car tires, 49 CFR 571.109) and 119 (Tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.119) require that each tire manufacturer certify that its tires conform to all applicable Federal safety standards by branding or molding the DOT number on the tire.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), states 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. . . an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." By removing the DOT identification number from a tire, the person would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tire which is included on the tire for compliance with the requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 9, 1979

Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Kratzke,

This letter is to follow up the several phone calls I have had with you regarding the legality of cutting Department of Transportation serial numbers off of used tires.

At your earliest convenience, please send me a written reply to the question following the two situations described below:

1. My company, Edison Rubber Company, buys tires that have cuts in the sidewall or tread from several companies. Edison Rubber Company then sells these cut tires to another company which repairs the cuts and then resells these tires to the general public.

2. My company, Edison Rubber Company, also buys from several companies tires that are out of round (the customer felt that their car did not ride smoothly). Edison Rubber Company then resells these tires to another company which resells them to the general public.

My question relates to both of the above situations: Are the companies that sell these tires to Edison Rubber Company allowed to cut the serial numbers off of these tires legally so as not to get them back as adjustment tires?

Your speedy response is appreciated as it would save my suppliers much time and effort in disposing of their junk tires. Please call me if you have any questions.

Yours truly,

Jeffrey Libman, President -- Edison Rubber Company