ID: nht81-2.18

DATE: 04/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Weinblatt & Knee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 5, 1981, in which you requested a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You are apparently trying to determine what types of glazing material may be used in "caps" installed on truck bodies.

Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing materials to be used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.1-1966 (ANS Z26). Copies of both standards are enclosed. ANS Z26 and Standard No. 205 list 13 "Items" or types of glazing that vary in terms of the performance tests each item must pass and the locations in which each type of glazing may be used. While the meaning of the word "cap" as used in your letter is somewhat unclear, we presume you are referring to a "pickup cover." A "pickup cover" is defined in paragraph S4 of Standard No. 205 as a camper having a roof and sides but without a floor, designed to be mounted on and removable from the cargo area of a truck by the user. All 13 items of glazing may be used in pickup covers. However, some items (e.g., Item 6) may not be used in forward-facing windows, and others (e.g., Item 5) may not be used at levels requisite for driving visibility.

Certification and marking requirements for glazing are found in paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

March 5, 1981

U.S. Department of Transportation -- Attn: Regulatory Division

Gentlemen:

I have been informed by a client that there is a Federal regulation promulgated by your Department requiring a certain safety stamping with a number of every peice of glass or plastic substitute for glass used on any auto, truck, camper, cap, etc.

I would greatly appreciate a copy of that regulation since it involved a legal question as to what my client is allowed to install as part of his business of selling caps that go on truck bodies.

Thank you for your immediate attention in this matter.

Very truly yours,

SEYMOUR S. WEINBLATT -- WEINBLATT & KNEE COUNSELLORS AT LAW

ID: nht81-2.19

ID: nht81-2.2

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sutphen Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Robert L. Poe General Manager Sutphen Corporation 7000 Columbus-Marysville Road P.O. Amlin, Ohio 43002

Dear Mr. Poe

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 19, 1980

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Subject: Submittal of Vehicle 407th Street, S.W. Identification Number (VIN) Washington, D.C. 20590 Application Breakdown

Attention: Vin Coordinator Gentlemen:

Please find, enclosed, a copy of the Sutphen Corporation forms which will be utilized in assigning VIN numbers to apparatus manufactured after February 1, 1981.

It is assumed that submittal of these tabulations are satisfactory to fulfill our requirements as applicable to FMVSS 115 (amended).

If further information is needed, please contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT L. POE General Manager

rs enc.

ID: nht81-2.20

DATE: 05/06/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. G. Frail

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

May 6, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. John G. Frail P.O. Box 581 Bronxville, New York 10708

Dear Mr. Frail:

This is in reply to your letter of April 9, 1981, to this agency asking, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured outside of the lamp or inside of the lamp." You have asked this question in behalf of an "OEM supplier" in Germany.

The requirement in Table IV of Standard No. 108 is that the minimum edge to edge separation distance between a turn signal lamp and a tail or stop lamp be 4 inches while the turn signal lamps themselves must have a minimum separation distance of 9 inches between their centerlines. (Your design is somewhat confusing as it depicts centerlines of stop lamps and turn signal lamps at 9 inches.) We interpret this as meaning the minimum separation distance between the edge of lighted area to be 4 inches, as depicted in "B" in your design. Of course, final responsibility for compliance with this requirement rests on the vehicle manufacturer rather than the equipment manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

John G. Frail Post Office Box 581 Bronxville, New York 10708

April 9, 1981

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: FMVSS 108 interpertation.

Gentlemen:

The attachment from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations from ULO-WERK of West Germany questions the following:

The contents of the attachment are that of Table III & Table IV (Part 571; S 108 11/12). They are interested, as illustrated by the client, the interpertation as to whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured outside of the lamp or inside of the lamp.

They have not specified their concern other than being OEM suppliers. This question may have risen as a result of two manufacturers supplying the lamp for one vehicle. The outside ornamentation of the lamp may be the question resulting in how one should measure the distance. Also, if we assume the distance is basically for light output of the lamp (night time driving) they may have a reasonable question.

So that I may inform our client, please advise in writing the proper interpertation of the subject specification as to wether the measurement of 4 inches regarding the distance between tail-stop-lamp and indicator lamp will be measured at the inside or outside of the spare lens.

Please forward your answer to my above post office box address at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

John G. Frail

Attachment Omitted

ID: nht81-2.21

DATE: 05/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 8 1981

Mr. William G. Finn, Merchandizing Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

Dear Mr. Finn:

This is in response to your letter of April 22, 1981, regarding marketing of Continental's ContiContact steel belted mud and snow tire as an all-season tire. You ask whether there are any governing criteria for what constitutes an all-season tire, and, if a tire is advertised as an all-season tire, whether it must be graded under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards. You also ask whether it would be legal to market this tire as an all-season tire.

As you know, deep tread, winter-type snow tires are not within the coverage of the UTQG regulation (49 CFR S575.104(c)(1)). On May 24, 1979, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published in the Federal Register its interpretation that all-season tires are not considered deep-tread, winter-type snow tires within the meaning of the regulation (44 F.R. 30139). All-season tires were described in that notice as those with a tread depth which permits safe operation throughout the year. The notice indicated the agency's intention to exempt from the coverage of the standard "a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger cars inadvisable." Thus, a tire offered for sale by its manufacturer or brand name owner as suitable for all-season use could not be considered a deep tread, winter-type snow tire for UTQG purposes.

With regard to the legality of marketing the ContiContact tire as an all-season tire, mud and snow tires must meet Federal safety standards in the same manner as other passenger car tires. Also, a tire not suitable for its intended use could be considered to contain a safety-related defect in performance, construction, or materials, for purposes of the recall authority of Title I, Part B of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq.). Beyond these limitations, statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA do not restrict the sale of all-season tires. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Richard Hipolit Dept. of Transportation Legal Dept. Washington, DC 20590 April 22, 1981

Dear Dick,

Thank you for taking the time to speak to me on the phone yesterday.

As per our discussion, Dick, we are considering marketing our ContiContact steel belt M + S tire as an "all season" tire in the fall of 1981. Enclosed is a photograph of the tze, should such a recall be necessary. As long as Michelin maintains accurate records of the size codes assigned to the various tire sizes, it would be permissible to assign more than one size code to each tire size.

At the outset, it is important to note that the size code in the tire identification number is not the means used by the consumer to determine the size of the tires on his or her car. Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 and section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specify that the tire size designation must be labeled on both sidewalls. The size designation is the exact size and is not the same as the size code. To satisfy this requirement, Michelin should label all tires of the same size with just one size designation.

For purposes of record keeping, paragraph S574.5 requires that each tire be labeled with a tire identification number, and that this identification number contain four groupings of information. The first grouping is a symbol identifying the manufacture.

ID: nht81-2.22

DATE: 05/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. F. Gordon, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 8, 1981 NOA-30

Richard F. Gordon, Esq. 610 Arendell Street P.O. Box 489 Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

Dear Mr. Gordon:

This responds to your recent request for information on any safety standards this agency may have published for retreaded tires. We have a Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117) which applies to all retreaded passenger car tires. I have enclosed a copy of this standard and Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109), which is referenced in Standard No. 117.

As you will see, Standard 117 requires that the retreaded tires pass certain size and strength requirements, that the casings of the original tires which are retreaded meet certain requirements, and that certain information be labeled on the retreaded tires.

I hope that this information will be useful. If you have any further questions in this area or need further information on tire safety standards, feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 18, 1981

General Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: Regulations governing the manufacture of retread automobile tires.

Dear Sir:

We earlier wrote your department seeking copies of the regulations governing the manufacture of retread automobile tires. We got back a pamphlet on Uniform Tire Quality Grading.

What we are seeking are the regulations promulgated pursuant to 15 USCS 1426. There is not a set of CFR's in this county. We have a situation where a young girl was injured when a recently retreaded radial tire failed on a paved surface and examination of the tire disclosed rusty steel in the wall of the tire. We need to determine whether the manufacturer should have retreaded that tire.

Your assistance is appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Richard F. Gordon Attorney at Law

RFG/lmw

ID: nht81-2.23

DATE: 05/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gateway Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 12 1981

NOA-30

Mr. John S. Miskowicz Gateway Industries, Inc. 17512 Carriage Way Drive Hazel Crest, Illinois 60429

Dear Mr. Miskowicz:

This responds to your letter of March 2, 1981, to Vladislav Radovich concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your letter was forwarded to this office for reply.

You asked whether a child restraint belt buckle must meet the buckle force release requirements when tested in an unloaded condition. As explained below, the answer is no. The buckle force requirements only apply to buckles tested in a loaded condition. In addition, you asked whether section 4.3(a) and 4.3(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, are the only requirements of that standard which apply to buckles in child restraint systems. The answer is yes.

Section 5.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 provides that each child restraint belt buckle, when tested in accordance with S6.2, must not release when a force of not more than 12 pounds is applied before the dynamic sled specified in S6.1 is conducted. The buckle must release when a force of 20 pounds is applied after the dynamic sled test. Section 6.2 provides that in conducting the belt buckle release force test, the appropriate test dummy is placed in the restraint and either a pull force of 20 pounds is applied, in the case of 6 month-old-test dummy, or a 45 pound pull force is applied, in the case of the three-year-old test dummy. Thus, the buckle is not tested in an unloaded state.

Section 5.4.2 of the standard provides that each belt buckle has to conform to the "requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209." No other provisions of Standard No. 209 apply to belt buckles used in child restraints.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 2, 1981

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Vladislav Radovich

Dear Mr. Radovich:

Enclosed please find three prototype samples of our child seat buckle we would like to market. Gateway Industries is a major supplier of seat belts to General Motors and Chrysler and we hope to expand our product line by offering this item to child seat manufacturers.

We feel that our buckle meets all of the specifications of Standard 213, however, there is one area we wish you would clarify in regard to the 12 lb. to 20 lb. release force. (You may recall my phone call to you in the first week of January.)

Our buckle meets the letter of the spec as written. That is, as specified in S5.4.3.5 we meet S6.2 before and after the test specified in S6.1. Standard 213 makes no mention of how to test the buckle in an unloaded state. Does the 12 to 20 lbs. apply to the unloaded condition?

The three enclosed buckles do meet the 12 lb. minimum in the unloaded state, however, we are marginal and I doubt we can consistently obtain this on a large volume product basis. I theorize that on cccasion we will have release efforts of 10 lbs. in the unloaded state. Would this mean that we do not comply with Standard 213? With the slightest load applied to the buckle (approximately 5 lbs.), the release efforts increase and we again are in compliance. Also, in the "Summary of Final Rule Provisions", No. 5 states the requirements in 209 apply and S5.4.2 states S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of 209 apply. Does this mean that only the requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) apply or do all the requirements of 209 apply?

We thank you for your time in reviewing this matter and would appreciate your written response. Please feel free to include any comments you may have concerning our product.

I would like to add that our buckle has been dynamically tested to Standard 213 on a Strolee Seat System at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and proven successful. We can guarantee a tensile load of 750 lbs.

Truly yours,

GATEWAY INDUSTRIES, INC.

John S. Miskowicz Manager, Design Engineering

ID: nht81-2.24

DATE: 05/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Severy, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. James J. Schultz Severy, Incorporated 2233 El Segundo Boulevard El Segundo, California 90245

Dear Mr. Schultz:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether a 4-wheel drive pickup truck must comply with Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. You also ask whether the definitions of vehicle classifications under Federal regulations are mutually exclusive.

The application section of Safety Standard No. 216, section 3, specifies that the standard applies to passenger cars. This means that the standard applies only to passenger cars. Therefore, the standard does not apply to a pickup truck.

The definitions of the basic vehicle classifications found in 49 CFR Part 571.3 are mutually exclusive. If a vehicle falls within the definition of a "truck," the vehicle is not also within the definition of a "passenger car." The definition of a passenger car does not specifically exclude trucks because the definition is based on the function of the vehicle. Thus, a passenger car is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying persons. A truck, on the other hand, is defined as a vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. Since a pickup is designed primarily for carrying property and not persons, it is a truck and not a passenger car. Each motor vehicle has a certification label attached to its door which specifies the vehicle's classification.

I hope this has clarified any questions you had concerning vehicle classification under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 15, 1981

Chief Council NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 ATTENTlON: MR. OATES

Gentlemen:

We have been retained in numerous instances in litigation which involve the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and in particular their application. The issues usually involve the definitions of various vehicle types ad to what category a given vehicle belongs. Currently we are working on a case that involves a 4-wheel drive pickup truck with bucket seats. The allegations being made are that this vehicle must conform with FMVSS 216 since the definition of passenger car does not exclude this type of pickup. In order to satisfy that question and others, please send me a letter of interpretation that is specific for this instance and also general to cover other such questions. These questions are:

(1) Does federal law require a 4-wheel drive pickup with either bucket seats or a bench seat to conform to FMVSS 216?

(2) Are the definitions of vehicles in the act mutually exclusive and if so, how does one determine which category applies to any given vehicle.

Please have the letter of interpretation made official and certified.

Very truly yours,

James J. Schultz

JJS:ln

ID: nht81-2.25

DATE: 05/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gregory Equipment & Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 13, 1981, with respect to placement of identification lamps on the boat trailer you wish to manufacture.

You have informed us that the trailers are not built for transporting boats on the highways and your sales sheet reiterates that point: "These trailers are for in marina use only. Not for over the road use." Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a vehicle that is not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads is not a vehicle subject to our regulations. From your letter and advertising enclosure, it appears that your intent is to build a vehicle that will be used primarily on private property. Therefore, our lighting requirements would not apply to it.

I hope that this answers your question.

SINCERELY,

Gregory Equipment & Manufacturing Co.

April 13, 1981

Chief Consul National Hwy. Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir;

I would like a ruling on the 3 cluster light for the rear of trailers. The boat trailer we are starting to manufacture doesn't have a place which such light may be mounted as shown in Picture #1. If lights were placed on the rear they would be jammed into the mud in the bottom of the river as shown in picture #2.

These lights are for the movement of the empty trailers from the plant to the sales designation. These are not built for transporting boats on the highways.

Inclosed is a brouchure. The trailer in this brochure is not equiped with lights because it is our prototype.

If any further information is needed please call me at 319-372-5314.

James E. Gregory

ID: nht81-2.26

DATE: May 12, 1981

FROM: Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Doris Perlmutter -- Betty-June School

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-11-90 from Ron Marion to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 4915); Attached to letter dated 11-11-77 from James Tydings to Roger Tilton; Also attached to letter dated 12-21-77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to James Tydings; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ron Marion (A37; VSA 102(14) Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from Frank Berndt (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

This responds to your March 20, 1981, letter asking that we reconsider our interpretation that the school bus safety standards apply to vehicles that transport 10 or more children to or from nursery schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unable to alter this interpretation.

The Congress in Public Law 93-492 stated that school bus safety standards shall apply to vehicles that transport more than 10 persons to or from preprimary, primary or secondary schools. A nursery school is considered a preprimary school and thus falls within the ambit of that law. We cannot alter the requirements of the law.