ID: nht79-4.23

DATE: 10/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Uniroyal GmbH

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 12, 1979, asking whether the character height of 5/32nds of an inch, stated in the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104, Figure 1), is considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to specify the only acceptable height for UTQG sidewall molding, or whether the agency interprets this measurement as a minimum value.

The specification of 5/32nds of an inch tire sidewall characters was intended by NHTSA to establish a minimum requirement to assure readability of the UTQG information presented. The agency has no objection to the use of characters of a height greater than 5/32nds of an inch, so long as all characters used to convey UTQG information are of the same height.

ID: nht79-4.24

DATE: 08/14/79

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Uniroyal GMBH

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 20, 1979, concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTGQ) Standards (49 CFR 575.104). You ask whether it is permissible under the regulation to mold UTQG grades on only one sidewall of a tire and, in the case of a symmetrical black sidewall tire, whether the grades may be molded on the same sidewall as the tire identification number required by 49 CFR 574.5.

The UTQG Standards require that tire grades need be molded on only one sidewall of a tire. Since the regulation presently does not specify the sidewall on which tire grades must be molded, Uniroyal is legally permitted to mold UTQG grades on either sidewall of its tires. However, in order to facilitate consumer access to the grading information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) encourages manufacturers to mold tire grades on the sidewall intended to be visible when the tire is mounted on a vehicle. NHTSA will monitor the placement of tire trades to determine whether further action is necessary to assure the accessibility of the grading information.

ID: nht79-4.25

DATE: 05/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oestreicher; Sternberg & Manes

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1979, asking whether your client, a tire brand name owner, is permitted to bill its dealers and distributors directly for the costs of supplying Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104 and maintaining records of tire sales pursuant to 49 CFR 574.7.

The UTQG regulation requires that tire manufacturers and brand name owners "provide" grading information for each of their tires (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)). Similarly, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation requires these parties to "provide" upon request tire registration forms to dealers and distributors (49 CFR 574.7(a)) and directs tire manufacturers and brand name owners to maintain or have maintained for them records of the information acquired on these registration forms (49 CFR 574.7(b)).

A billing arrangement of the type your client suggests would in effect make the tire manufacturer or brand name owner the agent of the dealer or distributor for purposes of grading and registering tires. Such a practice would run counter to the intention of the agency that manufacturers and brand name owners bear primary responsibility for implementation of tire grading and registration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will take whatever action is necessary, including possible revision of the regulations, to prevent manipulation of the tire regulations in this manner.

Apart from the legal implications of your client's proposa, NHTSA would question the soundness, from a business standpoint, of a plan for direct billing of UTQG and tire recordkeeping costs. Your client's proposed course of action appears to have the aim of generating dissatisfaction with Federal tire regulations among dealers and distributors, and could, by lessening cooperation at the retail level, interfere with your client's ability to fulfill its obligations under the regulations.

SINCERELY,

OESTREICHER, STERNBERG & MANES

March 13, 1979

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This office represents a corporation, which distributes private brand tires through its dealers on a wholesale basis. Grade labeling and registration of tires is an extremely expensive administrative procedure. My client certainly will comply with the law, however, answer to our inquiry would be appreciated.

Can the cost of grade labeling and registration be passed on directly to the wholesaler or purchaser of our dealers? The question is one of direct billing for such items rather than burying the cost of such administrative work in the cost of the tire.

Your prompt answer would be appreciated and any other information you feel might be helpful.

MARVIN G. MANES ATTORNEY AT LAW

ID: nht79-4.26

DATE: 10/12/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Harley-Davidson Sales Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking how long you should retain certain records relating to the sale of motorcycles and motorcycle parts.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has some record retention requirements that apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Dealers are required to aid manufacturers in the maintenance of their records. For example, you must supply manufacturers with information relating to the purchasers of motor vehicles that you sell so that the manufacturer can maintain a list of purchasers.

Dealers are not required by the NHTSA to maintain records on vehicles or equipment they sell. Accordingly, with respect to the records indicated in your letter, you may use your own business judgment as to when to dispose of them.

SINCERELY,

Bob Maxant's

ILLINOIS HARLEY-DAVIDSON SALES, INC.

Dear Mr Tilton,

We are a dealer selling Harley Davidson Motorcycles and Parts. We are in process of cleaning out our old files but not sure how long things have to be held.

Do you have any list giving time to hold items like cycle sales to customers, cash receipts for sales of parts over counter, paid accounts receivable for parts bought by other dealers and cities.

Any help you can be would be appreciated.

Mary Ann McClure Secretary

PS I already have to Record Retention Gick 1979

ID: nht79-4.27

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to memorialize the telephone conversation you had with Kathy DeMeter of my staff on Thursday, October 4, 1979, concerning the motor vehicle manufacturers' certificate of origin. You indicated to Ms. DeMeter that the new standard certificate of origin has an assignment form on the reverse side for the transfer from the first dealer to the consumer. This assignment contains odometer information, including identifiers of the vehicle, a reference to Federal law, a statement of the odometer reading, a statement that the reading is actual unless one of two other statements (mileage not actual or mileage over 99,999 miles) is checked, the names and addresses of the buyer and the seller, and the signature of the seller. Ms. DeMeter informed you that in order for the certificate to substitute for a separate Federal odometer disclosure statement, it must include the signature of the buyer. Ms. DeMeter also indicated that when the assignment form is being used to transfer the vehicle from the dealer to another, the odometer information is not required under Federal law.

ID: nht79-4.28

DATE: 02/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 19, 1978, asking whether the odometer statement is required for transfers between dealers which take place price to the sale of a vehicle to an individual. The answer is no. Exemption 580.5(b) (49 CFR @ 580.5(b)) states

A transferor of a new vehicle prior to its first transfer for purposes other than resale need not disclose the vehicle's odometer mileage.

This statement is intended to exclude all transfers of new vehicles prior to the first sale to a customer. For example, when the manufacturer transfers the vehicle to a dealer, no statement needs to be issued because the transfer is for resale purposes. If that dealer makes a trade with another dealer, no disclosure statement needs to be issued because this transfer is also for resale purposes. The second dealer is purchasing the vehicle merely to resell it. If that dealer then sells the vehicle to a customer, private or commercial, who is going to use that vehicle for some purpose other than reselling it immediately, then a disclosure statement needs to be issued. This transfer is the first transfer of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale. Beginning with this first transfer to a customer, each transfer of the vehicle from then on must be accompanied by a disclosure statement.

The Federal law does not, however, prohibit the State from requiring such disclosures. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration supports all affirmative steps which the States take with regard to combating odometer misrepresentation.

ID: nht79-4.29

DATE: 08/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 3, 1979, asking several questions concerning the definition of "designated seating position" (49 CFR 571.3), as that term was recently amended (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979).

In your first question, you ask for confirmation that any bench or split-bench seat with less than 50 inches of hip room may never be required to have three or more than three designated seating positions, notwithstanding the capability of accomodating a person at least as large as fifth percentile adult female. Your assumption is incorrect. As noted in the (Illegible Word) to the recent amendment, the 50-inch specification does not mean that some vehicle seats with less than 50 inches of hip room should not also have more than two designated seating positions, if the vehicle and seat design is such that three positions would likely be used (44 FR 23232). The specification is nerely the amount of space the agency will consider as conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions. The 50-inch caveat was included in the definition to simplify determinations of proper seating capacity by both manufacturers and the agency.

Your second question involves technical aspects of the amended definition of "designated seating position". The definition specifies that "hip room" is to be measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). That standard defines "hip room" as,

"the minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the 'x' plane through the (Illegible Word) front Vithin 1.0 in. (25mm) below and 3.0 in. (76mm) above the SqRP-front and 3.0 in. (76mm) force and aft of the SqRP-front." (Area A in your diagrams.)

Your question includes diagrams and asks whether various portions of vehicle seats or other components would be considered "trimmed surfaces" within SAE Standard J1100(a).

Specifically, you ask whether slightly soft surfaces such as arm rests, seat back contours or other raised portions of the seat cushion would be considered "trimmed surfaces", for purposes of determining the minimum hip room dimension. The answer to your question is yes. The agency would probably consider all of the surfaces illustrated in your letter "trimmed surfaces" and, strictly speaking, within the meaning of the SAE procedure. This interpretation must be qualified, however. The procedure specifies that "hip room" is the minimum dimension "between trimmed surfaces". If a particular bench seat has distinct sections, the total dimension must be determined by adding the minimum dimensions of each section. For example, your Figure 5 illustrates a bench seat that includes a slightly raised center surface on the tunnel (in the center of the seat over the driveshaft). The lowest portion of Area A as defined in SAE J1100(a) would strike the side of this elevated center section, even though the top portion of Area A would be above the elevation. In such case, there would be three distinct portions of the seat (the driver's seat, the passenger seat, and the center seat position) that should be measured separately and then added together to get the total dimension. Otherwise, only the portion of the seat on the driver's side of the center elevation would be measured under the strict wording of the SAE procedure--an absurd result.

Regarding these questions about the measurement procedure, I must make several candid remarks. The agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition of "designated seating position" by finding loopholes in the measurement procedure. Further, as noted above, even if the hip room as measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a) is less than 50 inches, a manufacturer may still be required to designate three seating positions. If the measured dimension is less than 50 inches only because of slight elevations or contours on the outside seat cushion, a manufacturer must designate at least three positions if these elevation or contours are not real impediments to three persons occupying the seat.

Determinations of designated seating capacity under the amended definition should not cause manufacturers any real problems. If a manufacturer truly only intends to market a particular bench or split-bench seat for two occupants, he can and should make this obvious by the seat design, regardless of whether the total seat dimension is more than 50 inches or less than 50 inches. One simple way to do this is to install a permanent arm rest or console in the center portion of the seat.

I hope this response has clarified our position and will alleviate any problems you might have in making future determinations of proper designated seating capacity.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

July 3, 1979

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing this letter to you to ask you for your interpretation concerning the 49 CFR Part 571, "Designated Seating Position," final rule in the April 19, 1979 Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 77. Your earliest reply to the attached questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Hisakauz Murakami Staff Safety

cc: RALPH HITCHOCK; GUY HUNTER

Question 2.1 (a) General

Generally speaking, would the so-called trimmed surfaces within Area A in SAE J1100(a) include the slightly soft surface (for example, seat cushion surface, seat back surface and arm rest surface) which changes its form somewhat when an occupant is sitting?

Question 2.1 (b)

If your answer is "no" in Question 2.1 (a), please show me the detailed definitions of the trimmed surfaces (for example, body panel).

Question 2.2

Surface of the Arm-Rest

Would the surface of the arm rest be considered the trimmed surfaces within the Area A when the hip-room will be measured?

Arm Rest

Figure 2

(Graphics omitted)

Question 2.3

Surface of the Seat-Back

Would the surface of the seat-back on the wheel-house portion be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Portion of the seat-back

Figure 3

(Graphics omitted)

Question 2.4

Surface of the Outside Seat-Cushion Side

Would the surface of the outside seat-cushion side be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Outside seat-cushion side

Figure 4 Question 2.5

Surface of the Inside Seat-Cushion Side

Would the surface of the inside cushion side on the tunnel be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Inside seat-cushion side

Figure 5

(Graphics omitted)

NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD. ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

May 10, 1979

Guy Hunter Crashworthiness Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Hunter:

During my May 4th visit to your office, I requested your interpretation concerning the measurement procedure of the "Hip Room" with regard to SAE J 1100a, which was adopted in the 49 CFR Part 571, "Designated Seating Position". The final rule was issued in the April 19, 1979 Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 77.

At that time, you suggested that I submit my questions, along with a letter, to your office for response.

I would, therefore, like to take this time to submit my questions to you and ask for your interpretation.

Thank you for your fine cooperation with regard to this particular matter. We look forward to hearing your interpretations in the near future.

Should any questions arise, please feel free to contact me at (201) 871-3555.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

Q-1 The "X" plane through the SgRP

SAE J 1100a states the following as the definitions of the Three-Dimensional Reference System and the Hip-room:

ZERO "Y" PLANE - (Centerline body zero plane) is a vertical plane which passes through the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

ZERO "X" PLANE - Vertical body zero plane is a plane normal to the "Y" plane.

ZERO "Z" PLANE - Horizontal body zero plane is a plane normal to the "X" and "Y" planes.

W5-HIP ROOM-FRONT - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in (25 mm) below and 3.0 in (76 mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in (76 mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.

W6-HIP ROOM-SECOND - Measured in the same matter as W5

The above-mentioned definitions are identical to those in SAE J 182a as shown in Fig. 1.

It is my understanding that the "X" plane through the SgRP (I think we should call this "X" plane the "Y-Z" plane through the SgRP, mathematically speaking) in W5 or W6 of SAE J 1100a is the one as shown in Fig. 2. Is my understanding correct?

Q-2 The measurement procedure of "Hip-room

Assuming that your answer to Q-1 is "yes", it would then be my understanding that there can be two (2) different ways of interpreting the measurement of W5 (or W6) as shown below.

(a) The case of emphasizing "the "X" plane through the SgRP"

In this case, W5 will be defined as follows, and the words of "and 3.0 in (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front"will not be significant as shown in Fig. 3.

W5-HIP-ROOM - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in (25mm) below and 3.0 in (76mm) above the SgRP-front.

(b) The case of emphasizing "within 1.0 in . . . . aft of the SgRP-front"

In this case, W5 will be defined as follows, and the words of "through the SgRP-front" will not be significant as shown in Fig. 4.

W5-HIP-ROOM - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane within 1.0 in (25mm) below and 3.0 in (76mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.

Which is correct, (a) or (b)?

FIG. 1

(Graphics omitted) FIG. 2

"X" plane through the SgRP

FIG. 3

FIG. 4 (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-4.3

DATE: 08/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Webster & Chamberlain

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as applicable to vehicles sold to the U.S. Postal Service.

Under the general requirements of paragraph S4.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, Type II seat belt assemblies are required for outboard designated seating positions. That paragraph does provide optional requirements, however, for certain vehicles that are designed to be exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service. Under the optional requirements, these vehicles can instead meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 which allow the use of Type I seat belts at outboard designated seating positions in convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type vehicles and for outboard seating positions that do not include the windshield header in the head impact area. Therefore, if the "X-1" vehicles described in your letter are any of these vehicle types and are sold exclusively to the Postal Service, they may legally be equipped with either Type I or Type II assemblies, at the manufacturer's option.

Regarding your second question, whether or not the "X-1" vehicles conform to Postal Service specifications is a matter of contractual agreement that must be determined by the contracting parties. The most the agency can say is that the "X-1" vehicles would be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 208 if they qualify as one of the vehicle types discussed above.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry.

SINCERELY,

August 2, 1979

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We would like to respectfully request a ruling from your office concerning the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 S4.2.2, 49 CFR @ 571.208 S4.2.2, to the fact situation set forth below. Since clarification of this issue is necessary to enable the affected parties to submit accurate bids for a government contract by mid-August, we would greatly appreciate a response from your office at the earliest possible time.

The specific fact situation with respect to which this ruling is requested is as follows: Corporation A enters into a contract with the Federal government to sell to the United States Postal Service certain vehicles meeting the specifications set forth by the Postal Service in its request for bids. The Postal Service specifications state, in relevant part, that, "The restraint system hardware, mounting, and performance shall conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208, 209 and 210, . . ." All vehicles sold to the Postal Service by Corporation A (hereinafter referred to as "type X-1" vehicles) have "Type 1" seat belt assemblies in conformance with the requirements of Standard 208 S4.2.1.2. Corporation A sells type X-1 vehicles exclusively to the Postal Service.

Corporation A also manufactures "type X-2" vehicles, which are identical to type X-1 vehicles, with one exception: all type X-2 vehicles have seat belt assemblies which meet the requirements of Standard 208 S4.1.2.1, Standard 208 S4.1.2.2, or Standard 208 S4.1.2.3. Corporation A sells type X-2 vehicles to various public and private purchasers.

The questions with respect to which a ruling is hereby requested are the following:

1. In the fact situation presented above, are all type X-1 vehicles manufactured by Corporation A and actually sold to the Postal Service "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service" within the meaning of Standard 208 S4.2.2, so that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would not require such type X-1 vehicles to be retrofitted with seat belt assemblies which meet the requirements of Standard 208 S4.1.2.1, Standard 208 S4.1.2.2, or Standard 208 S4.1.2.3?

2. Assuming that the "Type 1" seat belt assemblies installed in all type X-1 vehicles conform to Standard 209 and Standard 210, do all type X-1 vehicles sold to the Postal Service conform to Standard 208 by virtue of the provisions of Standard 208 S4.2.2, so that all type X-1 vehicles would be in compliance with the requirement of the Postal Service specification that the seat belt assembly "shall conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208, 209 and 210?

Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Charles E. Chamberlain

ID: nht79-4.30

DATE: 05/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Department of Education; Oregon

COPYEE: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 6, 1979, letter asking several questions about the applicability of the school bus safety standards to van-type vehicles.

First, you ask whether a vehicle that transports more than 10 persons and is constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards must be painted, lighted and marked as a school bus. As you know, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly permitted Type II school vehicles, under 16 passengers, to be marked, painted, and lighted at the option of the school district. As a result of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492), all school buses must be equipped with school bus lights. Since they must have lights, they must also be painted and marked as school buses. Therefore, all school vehicles carrying more than 10 persons must be properly painted, marked and lighted.

In your second question you ask whether a school can purchase and use a noncomplying used van manufactured after April 1, 1977. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates, for the most part, vehicles up to the point of first purchase. Therefore, the sale of a noncomplying used vehicle would be beyond the control of this agency. However, we caution schools purchasing such vehicles that they may be unable to insure them, and they may be responsible for significantly increased liability in the event of an accident. Further, we encourage States not to license such vehicles for the transportation of school children.

Third, you ask whether the standard applies to leased or rented vehicles. The answer to your question is yes. Part 571.3 of our regulations (49 CFR 571) defines school bus as "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, . . . " The phrase introduced in interstate commerce includes the lease or rental of vehicles for school use. Since these leased or rented vehicles are considered school buses, they must comply with the safety standards.

In your fourth question, you ask whether a contractor or school can remove seats from a van that it inadvertently purchased so that as modified it will transport 10 or fewer persons. A school or contractor can modify its own vehicles any way that it chooses. A dealer, manufacturer, or repair business, on the other hand, cannot alter a vehicle in any manner that would render inoperative its compliance with Federal safety standards. The agency notes that if a school removes seats from the van in the manner suggested in your letter, the van would no longer be required to comply with the school bus safety standards. However, a new van-type vehicle that transports 10 or fewer persons must comply with safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV). Your modified vehicle probably would not comply with these MPV requirements. You should remember that the operation of a noncomplying school bus or a noncomplying MPV does not subject a school to liability to the NHTSA.

However, a school's private liability in the event of an accident might be increased.

In your final question, you ask whether the NHTSA is enforcing the school bus regulations. The agency has taken extensive steps to enforce its school bus regulations. These include a major testing program of buses manufactured in compliance with the standards. As a result of these tests, some noncompliances have been determined and some remedies have occurred. With respect to the sale of vans as school vehicles, the agency has warned many dealers of the illegality of this practice, and in most instances, these dealers have repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law.

We encourage States to adopt licensing practices that ensure that vehicles used to transport school children and manufactured after April 1, 1977, comply with the safety standards. Many States now have such licensing programs, and the problem of van misuse is rapidly diminishing in those areas. We further encourage States to report instances of violations to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. That Office will take the necessary steps to enforce the law.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF OREGON

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

April 6, 1979

Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Redifinition of a "School Bus" Standard

Dear Sir:

Since April 1977, when many of the school bus safety standards became effective, we have had a difficult time understanding the extent of the applicability of the standards to the van type vehicles. There has been a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding by various segments of pupil transportation and many have requested clarification from this department on the rules.

In the past few months we have been asked several questions which we have not felt qualified to answer. School districts, bus contractors, and bus body and chassis dealers have repeatedly requested this information. We would appreciate it very much if we could receive answers to the following questions.

1. Can a vehicle that has a capacity of more than 10 person, which will be used to transport school children, be sold without the school bus flashing warning lights, school bus identification, and be painted school bus yellow as long as the other applicable school bus standard are incorporated into the vehicle?

2. Does the "Definition of a School Bus" standard apply to used vehicles? Can a used regular production line van manufactured after April 1, 1977, with a capacity of more than 10 persons, be sold for pupil transportation purposes?

3. Does the standard apply to vehicles which are leased or rented by schools or bus contractors?

4. Can a school district or bus contractor who has inadvertently purchased a regular production line van that has a capacity of more than 10 persons, reduce the capacity to 10 or less by removing seats?

5. Is there any enforcement of this standard and is there an obligation for the state if we learn of flagrant violations?

If possible we would like to receive answers to these questions soon, as several transactions and budgets will be determined by the answers received.

Thanks for your assistance.

Jack W. Sperr Coordinator Pupil Transportation

ID: nht79-4.31

DATE: 06/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 1, 1979, regarding the provision of Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information to vehicle first purchasers (49 CFR 575.104(d)(l)(iii)). You ask whether UTQG information must be provided to first purchasers of vehicles manufactured after the UTQG sidewall molding effective date for the type of tire used on the vehicle, if the vehicle is equipped with tires manufactured prior to the effective date.

Section 575.104(d)(l)(iii) requires that tire grading information be furnished, in the case of bias-ply tires,

". . . to the first purchaser of a new motor vehicle, other than a motor vehicle equipped with bias-ply tires manufactured prior to October 1, 1979, . . ."

Thus, UTQG first purchaser information is not required for vehicles manufactured after the bias-ply sidewall molding effective date of October 1, 1979, but equipped with tires manufactured prior to that date. The regulation applies in the same manner to vehicles equipped with bias-belted and radial tires manufactured prior to April 1, 1980, and October 1, 1980, respectively.

In order to avoid confusion regarding the date of manufacture of tires installed on particular vehicles, manufacturers may choose to supply UTQG information to all first purchasers of vehicles manufactured after the effective date for sidewall molding for the tire type used as standard equipment on the vehicles.