ID: 8001

Mr. Guy Mozzicato
Meridian, Inc.
140 Rye Street
South Windsor, CT 06074

Dear Mr. Mozzicato:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on November 16, 1992.

You explained to Mr. Myers that your company, Meridian, Inc., exports used tires and casings from the United States to other countries. You stated that although your company endeavors to export only good quality tires, other used tire exporters are not so quality-oriented and export defective or otherwise unserviceable tires. You further stated that as a result of such unscrupulous practices, the country of Venezuela has asked you what the requirements are for importation of used tires into the United States.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S. Code, 1381 - 1431, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act), provides at Section 1397(a)(1)(A): "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 . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . ." The effect of that language is to require that motor vehicle tires, whether new or used, manufactured on and after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be imported into the United States. Manufacturers must certify such compliance by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Therefore, to be legally imported into the United States motor vehicle tires must either display the DOT symbol or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before the effective date of the applicable safety standards.

The only exception to the above requirement is that used truck tires which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are being imported for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the DOT symbol. This exception is explained in a June 18, 1981 letter addressed to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA (copy enclosed).

The standards that apply to passenger car tires are Standard 109, New Pneumatic Tires, and Standard 110, Tire Selection and Rims, found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.109 and 571.110 respectively. The standards applicable to tires for vehicles other than passenger cars are Standard 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.119; and Standard 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.110. Other regulatory requirements pertinent to tires are Standard 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires; Standard 129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars; 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires; 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping; and 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations. For your information, I am enclosing a fact sheet prepared by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations which explains how and from where the full text of our safety standards and regulations may be obtained.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding any of these matters, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-5830.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

7NCC-20 WMyers:mar:12/2/92:OCC 8001 Ref: #109#110#119#120 U:\NCC20\INTERP\MIS\8001.WKM Coord: NEF; NRM Interps: 109; 119; Redbook (4)

ID: 86-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Larry H. McEntire -- Administrator, School Transportation, Florida Dept of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Larry H McEntire Administrator, School Transportation Florida Department of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32301

I regret the delay in responding to your letter to this office asking whether certain "mini-vans" designed to carry a maximum of eight persons are classified by NHTSA as "passenger cars" or "multi-purpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's), for purposes of complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I would like to begin by clarifying that the classification of a particular vehicle is determined in the first instance by its manufacturer, and not by NHTSA. Under our certification requirements, (49 CFR Part 567), manufacturers are required to specify the type of their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in part 571.3 of our regulations and must certify that their motor vehicles comply with all the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. We define an MPV in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle . . . designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Information we have received regarding manufacturer certification discloses that manufacturers classify cargo-carrying models of the Ford Aerostar, and G.M. Astro and Safari as "trucks". A "truck" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle . . . except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." We understand that passenger models of mini- vans designed to carry up to eight passengers utilize the same type of chassis used in truck models. It is likely, therefore, that the passenger model mini-vans you asked about would be classified by the "MVP" classification given by manufacturers to the Chrysler mini-van and Toyota Van.

On a related matter, you asked for our comments on your Department's recommendation to their school boards that they not condone parent's use of conventional vans (i.e., vans not meeting Federal or State school bus safety regulations) to transport school children to school-related events. Mr. Arnold Spencer of Rockledge, Florida, recently wrote to our office concerning the above recommendation and requested us to explain how our school bus regulations apply to persons owning vans. I have enclosed a copy of our April 25, 1986 response to Mr. Spencer which you might find helpful.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

May 9, 1986

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing in regards to an earlier letter written to you on December 9, 1985 requesting your assistance in clarifying whether mini-vans are defined as "passenger cars" or "multi-purpose vehicles".

Attached is a copy of the earlier correspondence for your information. Your earliest response would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation

LHM/cs

attachment

December 9, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Your assistance is needed in responding to a concern being expressed by various school districts in Florida.

Florida currently has a law, Section 234.051, Florida Statutes, which requires the local school districts to use school buses meeting all state and federal requirements for transporting children to school or school related activities. The same law also specifically exempts passenger cars from having to meet school bus specifications.

Based upon the above law, Florida does not permit local school boards to use conventional vans for transporting students. Only those units which have been converted to meet all federal and state school bus requirements and for which a letter of certification is on file from the manufacturer are permitted to be used by the school districts.

Lately, a number of school districts have inquired to the Department concerning the use of the new "mini-vans" for transporting students. Specifically, the Chrysler mini-vans, Ford Aerostar, General Motors Astro and Safari, Toyota Van and Volkswagon Vanagon which transport a maximum of eight people including the driver.

My specific request to you is how are these units defined under the federal definitions by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? Are they defined as "passenger cars" or "multi- purpose vehicles"?

Along these same lines, the Florida Department of Education has taken the position recommending to school boards that when parents volunteer to transport children to activities which are condoned, sponsored, or under the authority of the school board, they should not permit the transportation of these students in conventional vans. This position is based upon the fact these units do not meet school bus specifications or standards; are not specifically exempt as with passenger cars; and, the risk of liability to the school board becomes highly magnified.

Any comments you may provide regarding this position is also appreciated.

Your assistance in addressing the above issues would be very helpful in my responding to the local school boards in Florida.

Sincerely,

Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation

ID: 1983-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 20, 1983

FROM: F. MICHAEL PETLER -- HEAD, ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, SUZUKI

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS NO. 210; SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-6-83, TO F. MICHAEL PETLER, FROM FRANK BERNDT, NOA-30

TEXT: We are in urgent need of your confirmation of our interpretation of the seat belt assembly anchorage requirements for the rear seat.

Paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 210 states:

"Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars other than convertibles, and for each designated seating position for which a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by @ 571.208 in vehicles other than passenger cars."

In your agency's November 2, 1981 denial of Toyo Kogyo U.S.A.'s petition for rulemaking (46 F.R. 54391-54392) the following statement appears:

"The standard requires all passenger cars, lightweight trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles to be equipped with three-point anchorages for Type 2 belts (combination lap and shoulder belts) at each forward facing outboard designated seating position. Two-point anchorages for Type 1 belts (lap belts) are required at all other designated seating positions (center front and all rear positions)."

We interpret this standard to require that only Type 1 seat belt assembly anchorages must be installed for each seating position of a rear seat, such as in the case of a passenger car. We would appreciate a prompt reply as to whether we are correct in our interpretation of this standard.

ID: 77-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

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

TO: Hon. Clarence D. Long - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of May 9, 1977, to the Federal Trade Commission, on behalf of Mr. Edward L. Armstrong, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland, expressing his concern that new passenger car manufacturers will discontinue supplying spare tires, has been referred to this office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, for additional consideration and reply.

We believe that Mr. Armstrong's concern deals with the recently approved "temporary use" spare tire that will be manufactured and used with some of the new 1978 model automobiles. The use of a temporary use spare tire is not a new concept. These tires have been used with compact sport cars, such as Firebird and Camaro, since 1967. The further development of these spare tires has been fostered by the desire of the U.S. automobile manufacturers to produce small, lightweight cars in furtherance of the national energy conservation program. I am sure that you have noticed the new 1977 models by some domestic automobile manufacturers are, in fact, smaller. Of course, the development of these smaller, lightweight, energy-efficient automobiles has resulted in a substantial reduction in usable car trunk space, and therefore, providing a second reason to develop a spare tire which takes less storage space than a conventional tire.

Since this spare tire is designed for use on the nation's highways, it must conform to the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, for strength, endurance and high speed performance. For your information, we have enclosed a copy of this standard.

ID: 86-5.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Alan Cranston

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Raymond Kesler. He asked for this agency's response to a letter from Mr. Robert R. Phillips concerning the bi-focal mirror developed by Mr. Kesler. In his letter, Mr. Phillips asked whether an outside rearview mirror, which has both a planar surface of unit magnification and a convex surface, complies with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. I regret the delay in responding to this letter.

As we understand the information supplied by Mr. Phillips, the bi-focal mirror would be installed on the driver's side of motor vehicles to give the driver a wider field of view by combining a convex mirror and a planar mirror as the outside rearview mirror on the driver's side. The convex portion would abut the planar portion and be located to the left of the planar portion. Thus, both normal and wide-angle vision would be provided at the same horizontal viewing level.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of vehicles or their equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as rearview mirrors, comply with any applicable requirements. A manufacturer certifies that its equipment complies with all applicable safety standards.

Mr. Phillips asked this agency to confirm his interpretation that this bi-focal mirror meets the requirements of Standard No. 111 if its planar or unit magnification surface has an area of at least 19.5 square inches, regardless of the existence of the convex portion. The 19.5 square inch requirement is one applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses (other than schoolbuses) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Those types of vehicles are required by S6.1 of the standard either to have a set of inside and outside rearview mirrors that comply with the requirements applicable to passenger cars or to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. If Mr. Phillips' mirror meets that size requirement, is located on a vehicle so as to provide the required view and is adjustable in the required manner, it complies with S6.1.

There are no minimum size requirements for unit magnification outside rearview mirrors on passenger cars. Mr. Phillips' mirror can be installed on the driver's side of passenger cars if the mirror's unit magnification portion, independently of the convex portion, meets the field of view and mounting requirements specified in S5.2.

In one drawing accompanying Mr. Phillips' letter, there appears to be a warning on the planar portion of his bi-focal mirror stating "Objects Appear Within Markers: Caution." There is no requirement in Standard No. 111 for such a warning. The agency is concerned that the message conveyed by this warning is unclear and could confuse motorists. The warning ("CAUTION When Vehicle Appears Here") in Mr. Phillips' other drawing seems more easily understood. He might consider providing purchasers with written instructions explaining that the purpose of the message is to warn drivers that the appearance of a vehicle in the convex portion of the mirror means that the vehicle is so close that a lane change would be unsafe.

Unit magnification and convex mirrors on other types of vehicles must meet the specific performance and location requirements for those types of vehicles, as set out in the standard. Again, please note that a vehicle manufacturer installing a bi-focal mirror on different types of vehicles must ensure that the unit magnification portion of the mirror meets any applicable requirements of the standard independently of the convex portion.

If Mr. Phillips' mirror meets the requirements of Standard No. 111 for a particular vehicle type, then it may be installed on new vehicles of that type. It may also be installed on used vehicles of that type. Conversely, if the mirror does not meet those requirements, then it may not be installed on new vehicles. Further, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses would be prohibited from installing it on used vehicles. However, the Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own used vehicle.

Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any product they want on their used vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's rearview mirrors with the performance or location requirements of Standard No. 111.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

SINCERELY

United States Senate

August 19, 1986

To: Congressional Laision Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Enclosure From:

Mr. Ray Kesler

Re: Mr. Kesler would appreciate a letter confirming his bifocal safety mirror conforms to federal safety standards. Is this possible?

I forward the attached for your consideration.

Your report, in duplicate, along with the return of the enclosure will be appreciated.

Alan Cranston

Please address envelope to:

Senator Alan Cranston

August 6, 1986

Dear Senator Cranston,

I am seeking a letter to confirm, yes it does provide the plane flat mirror (unit of manification) on the required amount because it is comformity of the standards. I would expect they would simply state it back to us so I can present it to the S.A,E, (society of automotive engineers) and the automotive industry that they have no question, it does meet the federal safety standards, but that has not happened and would appreciate a answer on this soon. This has held up this project for many monthes. I believe we can start saving lives with the new mirror concept in safety vision soon. I know you will give federal support on this matter. You have been so helpful before and I sincerely thank you.

Ray Kesler

enclosure. Drawings (2)

Instructions on viewing bifocal safety mirror

July 25, 1980

The Honorable Alan Cranston UNITED STATE SENATE

Dear Senator Cranston:

Your concern for public safety is well known to us, and because of your reputation as a strong-willed combatant for causes you believe in, we are soliciting your advice and support for our project.

My client, Mr. Raymond Kesler, has recently developed a bifocal safety mirror for automobiles that has the potential to make a major contribution to the cause or automotive safety. You have previously been kind enough to lend support to Mr. Kesler on this project (i.e. your letter to Diane Steed at NHTSA on Feb. 5, 1985), and we are once again in need of someone to help break what appears to be a bureaucratic logjam.

The enclosed letter was written to Brika Jones, Chief Counsel at NHTSA upon the advice of Dr. Carl Clark, Investor Contact Code NRD-12 in the Office of Vehicle Research. As the letter indicates, we are simply seeking interpretation of the code of federal regulations governing automotive mirrors. Our question is, we believe, specific and clear, yet to date no response from Ms. Jones was received.

If you could assist us in getting some official interpretation as to how the federal regulations affect this bi-focal mirror, we would be most grateful.

Robert R. Phillips Project Manager enclosure: Erika Jones Letter (March 27, 1986)

P.S. We are also enclosing a copy of an article on the mirror that recently appeared in Automotive News.

March 27, 1980

Erika Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ADMIN.

Dear Ms. Jones:

At the suggestion of Dr. Carl Clark in the Office of Vehicle Research, we are seeking from you some interpretation of existing federal regulations regarding outside rear-view mirrors for automobiles.

In particular, we are concerned about a mirror that was recently developed by Mr. Raymond Kesler, a California inventor. The enclosed article in Automotive News plus the other material provides information on the mirror, but our inquiry is, I believe, specific and clear.

It is our interpretation or the NHTSA regulations that this bi-focal mirror (i.e. a planar surface abutted to a convex mirror of fixed radius) does meet the requirements if its planar (unit magnification) surface has an area of at least 19.5 square inches, regardless of the existence of the convex portion.

We would greatly appreciate your comments on this interpretation prior to final approval of the mirror's specific dimensions.

Thank you for your assistance.

Robert R. Phillips

Automotive News

March 24, 1986

engineering

Mirror wipes out blind spot

An inventor in West Hollywood, Calif., believes car mirrors have been overlooked for too long. He has taken what he calls a revolutionary approach to the subject and has eliminated the pesky -- and dangerous -- passing-car blind spot.

The first auto mirror, patterned after one seen on a carriage in Chicago, was used on the winning car in the first Indianapolis 500 race in 1911. Driver Ray Harroun installed the 8-inch-by-3-inch mirror to avoid using the riding mechanic who usually kept one eye rearward in races of the era.

It would appear that little change has taken place over the years, and 47-year-old inventor Raymond Kesler said his latest work will refocus attention of safety authorities on the mirror.

Others say that attention is overdue. They contend that because the U.S. population is aging, the left-side blind spot is growing as a danger point. (Illegible Word) one's peripheral vision diminishes with age.

Kesler said he has combined the positive characteristics of two different optics -- a planar, or flat, surface connected to a curved surface of fixed radius.

"This achieves a remarkably effective enhancement of the field of view without the distortion associated with variable-curvature convex mirrors," he said.

"The Kesler approach uses the flat surface for 70 percent of the mirror with the remaining 30 percent devoted to the convex portion for wide-angle vision."

On the convex surface, there are what Kesler calls "reflective caution arrows" which warn the driver of traffic approaching from the rear and act as a distance finder for position and size of objects.

"The overall unit is rectangular to fit most 1985/86 original equipment mirror housings," Kesler said, "It also it well-suited for the aftermarket manufacturers who utilize the new rectangular design for their mirrors."

A patent is pending, Kesler said.

The inventor has been interested in automotive accessories and automotive phenomena for many years, said Robert R. Phillips, of the Woodland Hills (Calif.) consulting firm that bears his name. Phillips is handling inquiries about Kesler's device.

In most other attempts at bifocal mirrors, distortion has been the major problem, and NHTSA regulations have kept them off the road. Hopes of other inventors have been shattered by NHTSA investigations.

Small, convex anti-blind-spot mirrors that adhere to flat mirrors are sold by parts stores and are not installed as original equipment. Therefore, their distortion escapes the regulatory eye of NHTSA. Also, such mirrors stand out physically from the flat mirror and it is not likely a driver would confus, images seen in them with images in the flat mirror.

A mirror manufacturer in Michigan said some drivers become nauseated from multiple radius mirrors. The eyes see differing images simultaneously, and the brain becomes confused.

Several mirror makers have petitioned NHTSA for regulation changes. European regulations are reported to be similarly rigid, but Saab in 1982 introduced in Europe a mirror it says eliminates the blind spot.

The Saab mirror, as does Kesler's, shows two fields of view at the same time.

The mirror glass has two surfaces. One is a large plane surface closest to the driver. It is separated from the second, a narrow convex surface, by an etched line.

Together, the two surfaces enable the driver to follow a passing vehicle until it becomes visible in the driver's direct vision, even in the blind spot, Saab said.

Saab said European legislation is very strict regarding the design of side mirrors and requires that the division between the two fields be clearly marked. In Saab's case, this is achieved by the etched line, the company said.

Kesler said the Kesler Bi-Focal Safety Mirror meets federal safety standards. He also said there are no other similarly qualified mirrors that have normal and wide-angle vision at the same horizontal viewing level.

The Kesler Bi-focal Wide Angle Automotive Safety Mirror

(Meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111.) D.O.T.

REFLECTIVE CAUTION ARROWS RNS DRIVER OF APPROACHING TRAFFIC

(ACTS AS A DISTANCE FINDER FOR POSITION AND SIZE OF OBJECTS)

PLANAR MIRROR (NORMAL VISION OF STANDARDS) D.O.T.

ABUTTED JUNCTURE TANGENT TO PLANE KESLER PATENT PENDING

(C) 1986 KESLER RESEARCH ENTERPRISES

PICTORIAL CONCEPT OF WIDE ANGLE OPTIC

(Graphics omitted)

Traffic in "BLIND SPOT" Appears Here

CAUTION When Vehicle Appears Here

Traffic Leaves View of Planar Mirror Here

Anti-Blind Spot Mirror

(Graphics omitted)

KESLER RESEARCH ENTERPRISES

"Avoid an Accident at a Glance"

SAFETY ADVANTAGES OF VIEWING BIFOCAL REARVIEW SAFETY MIRROR

1. Plane section of mirror is for normal viewing of traffic with no depth perception loss. This section complies with FMVSS III D.O.T. standards.

2. The constant radius convex section of the mirror provides an extra margin of safety with uniform vision on a horizontal level, allowing extra vision for better view of the far lane, pulling away from curbs, and backing out of driveways.

3. A conventional mirror out of adjustment can cause an accident. The fact is that a convex section of the bi-focal safety mirror provides the extra vision, even when out of adjustment.

4. The reflective caution safety markers on the convex section aid the user for judging distance, position, and size or objects.

5. Both plane and convex mirrors can be viewed to cut glance duration time to a minimum when objects (traffic) appear in the safety markers.

6. Both separate sections can be viewed as one (integrated) mirror when objects meet the transition.

Copyright, 1986 KESLER RESEARCH

ID: aiam5124

"Dear Mr. Timmons: This responds to your letter about our November 199 letter to the Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce. In that letter, NHTSA discussed Federal requirements for tires sold in the United States for passenger cars and other 'motor vehicles.' You wish to ensure that the Under Secretary understands that the term 'motor vehicles' only refers to vehicles 'manufactured primarily for use on highways.' We are glad to clarify the meaning of the term 'motor vehicle.' 'Motor vehicle' is defined in 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 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.' (Emphasis added.) Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function. This agency has issued many interpretations of what is and what is not a 'motor vehicle.' In general, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Likewise, vehicles that are designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of its customers actually would use them on the highway. Vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are considered motor vehicles. Furthermore, even if the majority of a vehicle's use will be off-road but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, this agency has interpreted that to be a motor vehicle. We appreciate your interest in this matter and will provide the Under Secretary with a copy of this letter. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce";

ID: aiam2788

Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the vehicle classification of a proposed new station wagon having a Cadillac commercial chassis. Specifically, you ask whether the vehicle can be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle on the basis that it has the same chassis that is used on hearses and ambulances, which are multipurpose passenger vehicles.; Based on your description, it is the agency's opinion that the propose new station wagon would be classified as a passenger car. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is described in 49 CFR S 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' The vehicle you described does not meet either of the criteria of that definition. The fact that your vehicle would be built on the same chassis as hearses and ambulances does not affect its classification as a passenger car.; The classification of hearses and ambulances as multipurpose passenge vehicles was based upon specific policy considerations. The unique functions of these vehicles are accommodated by a strengthening of their chassis. Because of the special uses to which they are put, other aspects of the vehicles are designed in a manner which inhibits compliance with several passenger car standards. Given the chassis modifications and the special uses of these vehicles, the NHTSA determined that the policy considerations that led to the placing of vehicles with truck chassis into a category separate from passenger cars apply equally to ambulances and hearses, and that the chassis used for these vehicles may reasonably be considered truck chassis for purposes of classification. These policy considerations are not relevant to the vehicle you describe since it is apparently designed to function primarily as a passenger-carrying vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2606

Dear Mr. Flesch: 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) issue 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 Safet 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 mentioned could replace or repair a component of a seat belt assembly if that action would destroy the compliance of the assembly with Standard 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 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, Joseph J Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1210

Dear Mr. Woodroof: This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1973, concerning th effect of our Standard 208 on State laws requiring vehicles to be equipped with sear belts.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 1 U.S.C. 1392(d), reads:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicles or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. . . .<<<; Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208) permits passenger cars to be manufacture under any one of several options for occupant crash protection. One of these options is 'complete passive protection', under which the vehicle must undergo a series of rigorous crash tests in which instrumented dummies without belt restraints show force levels that would not create serious injury to a human occupant in most cases. Manufacturers are not required by the standard to have seat belts at any position that meets the requirements of this option.; The NHTSA considers that Section 103(d), quoted above, clearly render void any State laws or regulations to the extent that they would require a vehicle to be equipped with seat belts at seating positions that comply with the complete passive protection option. Any State requirements that are not 'identical' to those of an applicable standard are preempted by that section, under basic Constitutional principles of the supremacy of Federal law.; I am enclosing some information on the efficacy of air cushio restraints, as you requested. We are pleased to be of assistance.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0246

Dear Mr. Zimmer: Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 15 USC 1381 et. seq., the National Highway Safety Bureau issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 (FMVSS-109). This standard set forth strength, bead unseating, endurance, high speed and labeling requirements for passenger car tires manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, for use on cars manufactured after 1948. This standard does not apply to other types of tires. A copy of FMVSS-109 is enclosed. A manufacturer self-certifies that the tire meets the minimum requirements of the standard by molding the symbol 'DOT' into the tire. Subsequent identification of the tire as a 'second' would not negate the certification.; The National Highway Safety Bureau is currently testing many bran /size tires to verify their conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The tests are conducted at independent laboratories under contract to the Government. Results of these tests are released to the public in a monthly summary.; The test results does not reflect the Bureau's position on the matter Favorable test results should not be interpreted as necessarily establishing that a specific tire is in conformity with the standard, similarly, unfavorable test results should not be interpreted as establishing nonconformance.; Copies of individual test reports con be obtained, for a fee of $3.0 per publication, from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Should sufficient data be left remaining on the tire in question for proper identification you may wish to avail yourself of this service.; There is an organization which could possibly furnish you with the nam of an individual capable of analyzing the causes of tire failures. Their name and address is: America Council of Independent Laboratories, Incorporated. 1714 West Capitol Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007.; I trust this information will be useful to you, and I appreciate thi opportunity to be of assistance.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Compliance, Moto Vehicle Programs;