ID: 1983-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 10, 1983, letter asking whether the requirement for audible alarms at school bus emergency doors applies only to emergency exit doors or to both doors and emergency exit windows.

Paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, states specifically that the alarms shall be installed for emergency exit doors. There is no similar requirements for alarms at emergency window exits. Accordingly, alarm devices need be provided for emergency doors only.

SINCERELY, TRUCK BODY & EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION

March 10, 1983

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attn: Roger Tilton

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This will confirm our telephone conversation of March 10th regarding FMVSS 217. One of TBEA's members would like a written interpretation of whether or not buses (not school buses) with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds require an audible alarm system for emergency exits, in this case push out windows so designated, other than doors.

The confusion is caused by S5.2.1 of FMVSS-217 which states in part -- "by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 through S5.5". S5.3 specifically requires the audible alarm for emergency doors only. The standard clearly and consistantly delinates between emergency doors and emergency exits.

Is it reasonable to assume that on buses (not school) with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds that the audible warning system applies only to emergency doors and does not apply to emergency exits?

Your kind assistance in this matter will be appreciated.

James E. Forrester Manager, Engineering Services

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: 1983-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cummins Engine Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 26 1983 NOA-30 Mr. J. N. Uranga Cummins Engine Company, Inc. Box 3005 Columbus, Indiana 47201

Dear Mr. Uranga:

This is in further response to your January 28, 1983, letter in which you asked about the defect reporting requirements in Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. We responded by letter to you on March 24 indicating that as an original equipment manufacturer you might have some reporting responsibilities if a component of your original equipment was found to be defective.

In a conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff, you have indicated that you manufacture the engine of a certain vehicle and another manufacturer produces the fan. Both pieces of equipment are then sent to the vehicle manufacturer for assembly with the vehicle. In this instance, you ask whether you would have reporting responsibilities if the fan were determined to be defective. The answer to your question is no.

In the situation that you pose, you do not install the fan on your equipment nor does the fan ever come within your control. Therefore, you would not have responsibility for that part. The fan manufacturer and the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for any defects in that equipment. In instances where you might install a fan on your equipment prior to sale to the vehicle manufacturer, you might have reporting responsibilities if a defect is discovered in that part, since the part would be a component of the overall engine that you supplied to the vehicle manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd. -- Kenneth M. Bush, Staff Engineer, Government Relations Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush Staff Engineer Government Relations Department Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. 3251 E. Imperial Highway P.O. Box 1100 Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Bush:

This is in reply to your letter of February 245, 1983, asking for an intepretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays.

The last sentence of paragraph S5.3.1 is:

"If a motorcycle is equipped with self-proportioning or antilock braking devices utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control."

You have asked if your interpretation is correct that this sentence does not preclude the use of single control braking systems which do not incorporate "self-proportioning" or "antilock" braking devices. Your interpretation is correct; The sentence establishes a requirement that applies only to those self-proportioning devices with single control. It does not require a second control nor does it preclude a single control system without proportioning devices.

You have also asked that we provide clarification as to what self-proportioning means. This term includes any brake input device the actuation of which applies braking torque to both the front and rear wheels. Use of such a self-proportioning device does not preclude additional brake actuation devices. Examples include certain current model Moto Guzzi motorcycles.

As you have requested, the publicly available copies of your letter and this response shall not include your name and address. If you have any further questions, we shall try to answer them.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Enclosed is a request for interpretation of a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Because this request related to specific future product designs, we ask that this letter not be made publicly available with the request. For the same reason, we ask that our name and address be deleted from publicly available copies of your response.

Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD.

Kenneth M. Bush Staff Engineer Government Relations Department

This is to request clarification of some of the language contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays (49 CFR 571.123). In particular, we have two questions concerning the last sentence of S5.2.1 which states "If a motorcycle is equipped with self-proportioning or antilock braking devices utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control.

First, we interpret this sentence not to preclude the use of single control braking systems which do not incorporate "self-proportioning" or "antilock" braking devices. Is this interpretation correct?

Second, we ask that you provide clarification as to what "self-proportioning" means as used in S5.2.1. If you could list examples of self-proportioning devices, this would be helpful.

ID: 1983-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. C. H. Percy, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 28 1982 NOA-30

The Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Percy:

This responds to your letter of April 11, 1983 (Ref. 3098500010) requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. D. Parutti. Mrs. Parutti is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. She believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Following is a discussion of the implications under Federal law of installing these tinting films.

A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances, precludes the practice referred to by Mrs. Parutti. 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. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such as the type referred to in Mrs. Parutti'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. 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 tinting 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 solar 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. Mrs. Parutti 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 solar film on their automobile windows.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

April 11, 1983

TO: Ms. Carole Walls Liaison Officer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

FROM: Charles H. Percy United States Senator

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, will be greatly appreciated.

Please reference our file number, 3098500010 and respond to:

Office of United States Senator Charles H. Percy Washington, DC 20510

Our File 3098500010

ID: 1983-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck & Body Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 2 1983 NOA-30

Mr. James E. Forrester Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body & Equipment Association P.O. Box 70409 Washington, D.C. 20088-0409

Dear Mr. Forrester:

This responds to your March 15, 1983, letter asking whether emergency doors in school buses may be marked as "emergency exits" and still comply with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Paragraph S5.5.3 states that each school bus exit shall have the designation "Emergency door" or "Emergency exit" as appropriate. The agency has previously determined that emergency doors are considered to be emergency exits and thus can be marked as either doors or exits. Emergency windows must be marked only as emergency exits.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 15, 1983

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

Attention: Mr. Roger Tilton

Dear Sir:

One of our members has become involved in a difference of opinion with his customer over the labeling of Emergency Doors and Exits of School Buses, S5.5.3 of FMVSS 217-76.

The issue is that the school bus was manufactured with the emergency doors identified and marked as "doors" and the emergency exits as "exits" in accordance with S5.5.3 of FMVSS 217, now the customer wants the manufacturer to remark the emergency doors as emergency exits. The manufacturer maintains that in so doing he would violate FMVSS-217. Is the manufacturer correct in his interpretation? Your early response will enable a timely resolution to this difficulty.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

James E. Forrester Manager of Engineering Services

ID: 1983-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/03/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Teledyne Continental Motors -- T.A. Eschbaugh, General Products Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/8/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Talbot Engineers Inc.

TEXT:

Mr. T. A. Eschbaugh Teledyne Continental Motors General Products Division 76 Getty Street Muskegon, Michigan 49442

Dear Mr. Eschbaugh:

This responds to your letter of March 22, 1983, asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) specifies wiped area requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The answer to your question is no.

FMVSS No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, specifies requirements for windshield wiping and washing systems. As discussed in an enclosed letter of interpretation, while the standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses, the standard's wiped area requirements only apply to passenger cars. Neither FMVSS No. 104 nor any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifies wiped area requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

(Enclosure omitted here.)

22 March, 1983

Chief Counsel for Legal Interpretation, NHTSA Subject: Clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Requirement 104 Re: Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.104 Paragraph S.2 and S.4.1.2

Dear Sir:

Paragraph S.2 of the above cited reference states that Requirement 104 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Paragraph S.4.1.2 specifies wiped area requirements for passenger cars. Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses are not mentioned in Paragraph S.4.1.2.

Question: Are wiped area requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses specified by FMVSS requirement?

If these requirements are specified, what are the appropriate references?

Very truly yours,

TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS General Products Division

T. A. Eschbaugh

TAE/js cc: Messrs. A. Saporito, E. Blackburne, R. Schuler, T. Schwallie

ID: 1983-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 17, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Akihiko Muraoka, Manager Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Dear Mr. Muraoka:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard. Your letter indicated that Nissan is considering the installation of towing hooks on the bumpers of some future vehicles. You asked if Nissan would be permitted to remove the towing hook before conducting the test. Assuming that the towing hook is mounted on the bumper face bar, the answer to your question is that the towing hook must be removed if it is optional equipment but must not be removed if it is standard equipment. You also asked if a breakage or deformation of the towing hook as a result of the pendulum test would be regarded as a noncompliance with Part 581. The answer to that question is yes. These answers are discussed below at further length.

By way of background information, I would point out that this agency does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

I will first deal with your question of whether the towing hook may be removed before testing. One of the test conditions specified by the standard is that "(t)railer hitches, license plate brackets, running lights, fog lamps, other optional equipment mounted on the bumper face bar and headlamp washers are removed from the vehicle." Section 581.6(a)(5). We interpret this section to mean (1) that all trailer hitches, license plate brackets and headlamp washers be removed from the vehicle and (2) that running lights, fog lamps and other equipment mounted on the bumper face bar be removed if and only if they are optional equipment. Thus, a towing hook should be removed only if it is mounted on the bumper face bar and is optional equipment.

(The current language of section 581.6(a)(5) became effective on July 6, 1982. Prior to that time, the section simply specified that "(t)railer hitches and license plate brackets are removed from the vehicle." As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, published in the Federal Register (47 FR 21820, 21828) on May 20, 1982, the purpose behind the change was to expand the specified equipment that should be removed. The agency did not intend any change in the requirement that all trailer hitches and license plate brackets be removed. The agency plans to make that point clear in an interpretive amendment.)

Your second question concerned whether a breakage or deformation of the towing hook as a result of the pendulum test would be regarded as a noncompliance with Part 581. This question would be applicable, of course, only where the towing hook is not removed, i.e., where it is standard equipment. Section 581.5(c)(8) requires that:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contour 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact, except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame.

Based on your drawing, the towing hook protrudes through the bumper and is therefore an exterior surface. Also based on the drawing, it is our interpretation that the towing hook is not a part of the bumper face bar or the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. The bumper face bar is defined in section 581.4 as "any component of the bumper system that contacts the impact ridge of the pendulum test device." It is our conclusion that the towing hook is not a component of the bumper system. It is therefore irrelevant whether contacts the impact ridge of the pendulum test device. Our conclusion is based on the apparent fact that the towing hook does not perform a load bearing function for the bumper system and is not associated with the bumper system's functions. Therefore, the towing hook does not come within the exception provided by section 581.5(c)(8) for damage to exterior surfaces, and breakage or deformation of the towing hook under the specified tests is prohibited.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 9, 1982 Ref: 82-158-S

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We sincerely request information concerning the Bumper Requirement: Part 581 of the Code of Federal Regulations in response to the following questions.

We are considering installing a towing hook on the bumper of a future Nissan vehicle model, as shown in the following drawings.

" Insert Diagram

We'd like to know if the towing hook is considered a part of "the exterior surfaces" indicated by Section 581.5(8) of the standard, and if a breakage or deformation of the towing hook as a result of the pendulum impact test would be regarded as noncompliance to the bumper requirement.

In addition, we'd like to know if we can conduct the pendulum test by first allowing the towing hook to be removed.

Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to our inquiry.

We are looking forward to receiving your response in the immediate future.

Very truly yours,

Akihiko Muraoka Manager Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

ID: 1983-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Boschung Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 4 1983 NOA-30

Mr. James E. Benson Sales Manager Boschung Company, Inc. 530 Armory Drive South Holland, Illinois 60473

Dear Mr. Benson:

This is in reply to your letter of March 23, 1983, asking whether a stop lamp is required on a Boschung vehicle which has a top speed of 16 mph. You also asked for a copy of the "Rules for Manufacturer Standard Specs."

The agency does not consider a vehicle, which cannot exceed 20 mph and has an abnormal configuration, to be a motor vehicle. These vehicles, typically, are highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled pavers, sod handler, fork lift, and other similar vehicles. It would not appear, therefore, that the low-speed Boschung is a "motor vehicle." The question of whether it is required to have a stop lamp, therefore, is dependent upon the laws of the municipality in which it is operated.

I assume the "Rules" you wish are the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You should write the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, enclosing a check for $8, and ask for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400 to 999." The safety standards are at Part 571, and you will find all other regulations in the 500 series which apply to motor vehicles and their manufacturers.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel March 23, 1983

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. U. S. Dept. of Transportation Legal Council (Mr. Taylor Vinson) Rm. 5219 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear sir:

I would appreciate some information, regarding The Boschung vehicle, (literature enclosed). This unit is basically used off-road, however, at certain times it would be on the street. One that travels 16 mph does not have a stop light on it, but the faster vehicle (24 mph) does. My question is this, "Is a stop light required on the slower moving vehicle?"

I will also appreciate your sending me a copy of the "Rules for Manufacturer Standard Specs".

We look forward to hearing from you, regarding the stop light, and thank you, for your help.

Sincerely, BOSCHUNG COMPANY, INC.

James E. Benson Sales Manager

JEB/dd Enclosure

ID: 1983-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Western Waste Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Kosti Shirvanian President and Chairman of the Board Western Waste Industries P.O. Box 214 Gardena, California 90247

Dear Mr. Shirvanian:

This is in reply to your letter of December 22, 1982, informing us that the California Highway Patrol has advised one of your divisions to remove certain tires from service for failure to "display the Department of Transportation's symbol on both sidewalls in violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 effective March 1, 1975." You have also stated that the tires are acceptable in all other respects.

Paragraph S6.5(a), requiring use of the DOT symbol on tires covered by the standard specifically states, "This symbol may be used on only one sidewall." Therefore, the tires in question would not fail to comply with Standard No. 119 by having the DOT symbol on only one of the two sidewalls.

It there should, in fact, be other items of information missing from the tires which render them technically non-compliant with the standard, we would be pleased to advise you further.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

cc: Ms. Susan Williams Bracy, Williams & Co.

Suite 304 1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

December 22, 1982

Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Pneumont Tire - Federal Marketing Problem

Dear Mr. Berndt:

It is my understanding that Susan Williams has spoken to you about the problem that I am having in California in regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119. A division of Western Waste Industries, Western Bandag, purchased over 100 Pneumont tires from Interstate Tire Warehouse in Denver, Colorado. These tires were then subsequently sold to Associated Bus Company in Los Angeles. During certification procedures, the Highway Patrol informed Associated Bus that the tires failed to display the Department of Transportation's symbol on both sidewalls in violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 effective March 1, 1975. The Highway Patrol enforcement officer, Mr. David English (213/736-2996) advised Associated Bus and my office that although this Act had been passed March 1, 1975, it was not placed in an information bulletin by the California Highway Patrol Enforcement Services Division until January 27, 1982.

As a result of Mr. English's findings, he has advised Associated Bus Company to remove all of the tires from their fleet which fleet services Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr. English and the Highway Patrol officers who inspected the tires have indicated that there is nothing wrong with the tires themselves except for the fact that they fail to have the DOT symbol displayed on one of the two sidewalls. Specifically, the tires are Pneumont Tires, I.D. #K52LGB2R191 tube-type with no regrooving information. They are rayon tires with a 110 pound weight, 14-ply rated, single-axle, with a maximum load of 6,610 pounds. The air pressure set forth for acceptable driving is 100. The dual weight limitation is 5,950 pounds. Moreover, the DOT symbol is found on each tire on one side of the sidewall.

As the purchaser of the tires, my company is in a position of now having to face the wrath of subsequent purchasers of these tires who are being advised by the California Highway Patrol that these tires are illegal.

We are requesting from your offices a letter addressed to the Department of California Highway Patrol, Enforcement Services Division, with a copy forwarded to Mr. David English of the Los Angeles Highway Patrol office, directing that these specific tires remain in service.

The company feels that given the seven-year lapse between the time the safety standard was effective and the time that the California Highway Patrol advised their offices of the Law, this is a situation over which we as consumers had no control. Moreover, it appears that the Customs Department of the United States failed to enforce this standard and allowed these tires into the country illegally. We are hopeful that this situation can be rectified so that our company is not subject to lawsuits from our purchasers.

Your cooperation in attempting to resolve this situation is greatly appreciated. If we need to provide you any further information, we will be at your service. Thank you again for your time.

Very truly yours,

WESTERN WASTE INDUSTRIES

KOSTI SHIRVANIAN, President and Chairman of the Board

KS/ses

cc: Susan Williams