ID: 1983-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bertman; Johnson and Sahli

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John Bertman, Esq. Bertman, Johnson and Sahli 401 Twelfth Street (Route #54) P.O. BoX 440 Hammonton, New Jersey 08037-0440

Dear Mr. Bertman:

This responds to your recent letter to this office, seeking information on retreaded passenger car tires. You asked for the name of the retreader of a tire with the code letters "BJE" marked on the sidewall. That retreader is Trio Tire Service, Inc. of Clementon, New Jersey. You also asked if there were any regulations applicable to the retread of radial tires. All retreaded passenger car tires (whether bias or radial) must be certified by the retreader as complying with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117). I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.

Should you have any further questions or need further information in this area, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address and at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

October 10, 1983

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Retread Radial Tire Bearing Markings: DOT R BJE R33 481 Our file no. 9479-1B

Gentlemen:

Will you please advise me of the manufacturer or the retread manufacturer of the tire bearing the above markings.

Please also advise me whether or not there are rules, regulations or standards regarding the retread of radial tires and forward a copy to me. If there is any charge, please advise.

Very truly yours,

John Bertman

ID: 1983-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Young; Member of Congress

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Robert A. Young Member of Congress 4150 Cypress Road St. Ann, MO 63074

Dear Mr. Young:

Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the potential hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the use of opaque glass in automobiles. Through the exercise of its motor vehicle safety authority, the agency has addressed a part of this potential problem. However, given the limitations on the agency's authority, additional State action is needed to eliminate this potential problem.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the agency has issued 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 specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

In past interpretation letters, the agency has said that solar film and other materials used to make windows opaque 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 resistance requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to the first 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.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter the vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting or other film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not the installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the 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 to comply with a Federal safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a tinting or other film on a vehicle for an owner if that action would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance perfomance of the vehicle's glazing. Violation of the render inoperative provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to ,000 for each violation.

State law, rather than Federal law, governs the operational use of vehicles by their owners. Thus, it is up to the States to preclude owners from applying tinting or other films to their vehicle windows. A number of States have already adopted such laws. The agency would be glad to provide technical assistance on glazing requirements to the appropriate Missouri highway safety officials working on this problem.

I hope this explains the agency's authority to address the potential problems posed by tinting and other films. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

Ms. Diane Steed Administrator-Designate National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed,

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. James Stewart, Director of the National Institute of Justice, in regard to potential safety hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the presence of opaque glass in automobiles. As you will note, Mr. Stewart feels your Agency might be of some assistance in this matter.

I would appreciate your review of the potential dangers of this situation. Please advise me of your findings by writing my district office in St. Ann, Missouri.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Robert A. Young Member of Congress

RAY:wv

Enclosure

The Honorable Robert A. Young House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Young:

This is in response to your letter on behalf of Overland Police Chief Eddy Williams concerning the problem of opaque glass in automobiles.

As a former chief of the detective division of the Oakland, California, Police Department, I can appreciate Chief Williams' concern about this possible hazard to law enforcement officers. At present, the National Institute of Justice has no information on this problem. However, I have asked my staff to look into the matter and will keep you apprised of our findings.

Meanwhile, I would suggest that Chief Williams contact the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, regarding this growing danger. The NHTSA conducts programs relating to the safety of motor vehicles and provides Federal matching funds to assist States with their motor vehicle safety programs. Perhaps the NHTSA could help in alerting States and automobile manufacturers to the danger opaque glass in autos presents to police officers who must stop and approach such vehicles without being able to see the persons inside.

Thank you for your interest in the well being of the Nation's public safety officers. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

James R. Stewart Director National Institute of Justice

ID: 1983-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland State Police

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

B.E. Diehl, Captain Commander, A.S.E.D. Maryland State Police 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie, MD 21062

Dear Captain Diehl:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1983, asking three questions about the use of sun screening devices on vehicle glazing materials. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The interpretations of Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, stated in this agency's letters to the State of Hawaii concerning the use of sun screening device on vehicle glazing materials will be uniformly applied by the agency from State-to-State. If you are aware of vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair shops that are in violation of those interpretations, please provide that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

2. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements for all glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Those performance requirements may vary depending on where in the vehicle the glazing is used. For example, only glazing materials used at levels requisite for driving visibility must comply with the luminous transmittance requirements.

3. Standard No. 205 specifies abrasion resistance requirements for glazing materials. Therefore, the use of solar screening materials, which do not meet the abrasion requirements of the standard, would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with the standard.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Tom Ridge; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 21, 1983 The Honorable Tom Ridge House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Ridge:

This responds to your letter of November 28, 1983, requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. William H. Hull, Sr. Mr. Hull is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. He believes that this is a dangerous practice because it prevents police officers from seeing inside the vehicles. You asked if we were considering the issuance of a regulation outlawing the use of such film and, if so, when such a regulation might be promulgated.

While our authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) enables us to limit the practice of installing tinted film on vehicle windows, it does not permit us to issue a regulation prohibiting every individual from engaging in that practice. As explained below, while commercial establishments are prohibited from adding the film, we cannot prohibit a vehicle owner from doing so.

Pursuant to the 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. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

Tinting films such as the type referred to in Mr. Hull's 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.

A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment to have the film installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the 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. 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.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mr. Hull may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing tinting film on their automobile windows.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

November 28, 1983

The Honorable Elizabeth H. Dole Secretary U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Secretary Dole:

I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. William H. Hull, Sr., of Erie, Pennsylvania, regarding his interest in outlawing certain equipment on automobiles, specifically black plastic window coverings allowing occupants to see out, but preventing individuals from looking into the car. Mr. Hull takes an active interest in police work and feels cars equipped with these heavily tinted windows can pose a serious threat to the safety of a police officer, mainly by preventing him from observing activities inside a suspect car.

In view of Mr. Hull's interest, I would appreciate being advised if the Department has given consideration toward outlawing the use of this equipment, and if this has indeed occurred, do you have an indication when such a regulation may be promulgated.

Thank you, in advance, for your kind cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Tom Ridge Member of Congress

TJR:ef

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