ID: 3269yy

Mr. Joe S. Brito
Preferred Custom Concepts, Inc.
4107 Kaufman County Road
P.O. Box 0069
Crandall, TX 75114

Dear Mr. Brito:

This responds to your letter asking about recent changes in this agency's safety standards as they apply to conversion vans. You stated that, "The recent changes that have occurred in the truck and van conversion industry regarding seats and seat belt restraints have also sparked rumors that this new law will also regulate the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." You asked if in fact there is some new NHTSA regulation of "the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As of September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, "dynamic testing" of manual lap/shoulder safety belts installed at front outboard seating positions of multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. "Dynamic testing" means that, after fastening the safety belts around a test dummy, a test dummy occupying a seating position must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our November 23, 1987, final rule adopting the dynamic testing requirements for light trucks.

Nothing in the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of wood in the interior of conversion vans. Indeed, some 1992 luxury passenger cars, which are also subject to crash testing, have wood installed in the vehicle interior. However, wood is a relatively hard surface in a vehicle interior, especially when compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the head may contact in a crash. It would be very difficult for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test. Thus, the dynamic testing requirements for conversion vans may effectively limit the interior areas where wood can safely be installed.

In addition, van converters are generally small entities that would not have the resources needed to independently certify that their conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. The simplest way for these van converters to certify compliance with the dynamic testing requirements is to convert the vans in accordance with the specifications provided by the original manufacturer of the van (e.g., Chrysler, Ford, or General Motors). Because of the difficulties in complying with the dynamic testing requirements if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test, the original manufacturers of vans may have advised converters in the van specifications not to add wood in the interior areas of the vans. You may wish to contact van converters or original manufacturers to learn if this is the case.

Another safety standard that might limit the interior areas where wood can be installed is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Standard No. 201 specifies performance requirements for certain areas of the vehicle interior compartment, including portions of the instrument panel. Again, while Standard No. 201 does not explicitly prohibit the use of wood, it may be difficult to comply with the requirements of this standard if wood is added to areas subject to Standard No. 201's performance requirements. I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 201 for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:201#208 d:l/3/92

ID: 3270yy

Mr. Tony Llama
President
Davenport Enterprises
301 Almeria Ave., Suite 1
Coral Gables, FL 33134

Dear Mr. Llama:

This responds to your letter of December 13, l99l, with respect to the permissibility of temporarily importing a Fiat from Brazil that is not in conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The purpose of the importation is to design and build an air conditioning system for the car. Upon completion of this work, the Fiat will be exported.

You have enclosed a copy of my letter of August 2, 1990, granting permission for the importation of a van manufactured in the Soviet Union for which you had been asked to design an air conditioning system. In that letter, I informed you that it would be appropriate for you to enter the van pursuant to 49 CFR section 591.5(j), under the declaration that the vehicle is being imported solely for the purpose of research, investigations, and studies or demonstrations. Under the circumstances outlined in your letter, we believe that it would be appropriate for you to enter the Brazilian Fiat as well under section 591.5(j).

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:59l d:l/3/92

ID: 3271yy

Mr. John H. Heinrich
District Director of Customs
U.S. Customs Service
300 So. Ferry Street
Terminal Island, CA 90731

Re: Case No. 92-2704-00015

Dear Mr. Heinrich:

This responds to your letter of December 5, 1991, enclosing a petition for relief from the forfeiture of "200 Spinner Wheel Nuts" seized by the Customs Service as violative of 49 CFR Sec. 571.211. The petitioner expresses the opinion that the wheel nuts should be exempt from DOT regulations, stressing safety considerations and the need to replace worn parts on vehicles manufactured in the l950's. You have also enclosed a copy of the petitioner's own parts list that identifies the wheel nuts as part of a conversion kit, intended to replace disc wheels with wire wheels.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps, 49 CFR 571.211, precludes, for use on passenger cars, wheel nuts that incorporate winged projections. The chrome wheel nuts depicted in the Moss Motors catalogue page which you enclosed (Parts Nos. 200-210 and 200-220) clearly incorporate winged projections, and are the type of wheel nuts that Standard No. 211 addresses and prohibits. As such, they may not be imported for sale in the United States.

We have discounted petitioner's safety arguments. This is the first allegation in the nearly 24 years that the standard has been in effect that the spinners are required to replace original equipment, implying that there is no acceptable substitute that would conform with Standard No. 211. In our view, no justification has been shown for granting the petition.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:2ll d:l/9/92

ID: 3272yy

Mr. Tadoru Yamamoto
Technical Administration Div.
Hino Motors, Ltd.
1-1, Hino-dai 3-chome
Hino-shi, Tokyo 191, Japan

Dear Mr. Yamamoto:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 113, Hood Latch System. You ask two questions about the applicability of the standard's requirements to your vehicle. As explained below, the vehicle must have a hood latch system, but need not have a second latch position on the system or a second hood latch system.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of any vehicle or equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Standard 113 requires that a vehicle's hood must have a hood latch system (S4.1). The standard also requires a front opening hood to have a second latch position on the latch system or a second hood latch system, if the hood has any open position that partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield (S4.2). The standard defines "hood" as "any exterior movable body panel forward of the windshield that is used to cover an engine, luggage, storage, or battery compartment" (S3).

Your first question asks about the general applicability of Standard 113's requirements to your vehicle. You believe your vehicle is not subject to any of the standard's requirements because the front panel of the vehicle is not forward of the windshield, and is therefore not a "hood" as defined by Standard 113.

We disagree. According to the drawing you provided with your letter, the body panel appears to be forward of the windshield. We would consider the panel to be a hood, and subject to S4.1's requirement for a hood latch system.

Whether the hood must have a secondary latch for the hood (either a second latch position on the hood latch system or a second latch system) is the subject of your second question. The answer is that the hood need not have the secondary latch. The secondary latch is required by S4.2 only for a front opening hood. According to the drawing you provided, your hood is essentially vertical, with the opening on the bottom of the hood. We consider a hood such as yours that is essentially vertical not to be a front opening hood.

We note that a secondary latch for front opening hoods is required because such a hood is particularly hazardous if it were to unlatch during vehicle operation. The front opening design of the hood lends itself to flying open while the vehicle is moving, obstructing the driver's view through the windshield. However, an essentially vertical hood such as yours does not lend itself to such openings if it were to become unlatched. The secondary latch is therefore not required by the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:113 d:1/13/92

ID: 3273yy

Sue Ellen Russell, Esq.
Brand & Lowell
923 Fifteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Ms. Russell:

This responds to your letter of October 24, 1991, concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that Glaval Corporation, which you represent, recently notified NHTSA of its intention to conduct a notification and remedy campaign to respond to "an apparent noncompliance with the safety belt anchorage strength requirements as they apply to the rear bench seat in Glaval vans." According to your letter, these seats contain three designated seating positions, and each seat belt anchorage is "mounted on the seat, not the floor." You stated that in the course of evaluating potential remedies, you became aware of an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter sent by this agency to Mr. R.W. Schreyer of Transportation Manufacturing Corporation, in which the agency stated that only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing. Because the Glaval van bench seat anchorages were tested simultaneously in NHTSA's compliance test, you asked the following questions:

1. Consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, should the seat-mounted anchorages of the Glaval bench seat have been loaded sequentially in NHTSA's test? If so, how does NHTSA's test on the Glaval bench seat, where the loads were applied simultaneously, affect NHTSA's tentative conclusion of noncompliance?

You are correct that, consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing under current requirements. However, based on our understanding of the Glaval design, and as discussed below, we consider the anchorages in the Glaval van to be floor-mounted. Therefore, the Schreyer interpretation is not relevant to whether the Glaval van is in compliance with Standard No. 210.

Based on photographs included in the Final Report of FMVSS 210 Compliance Testing of 1991 Glaval Van (Report No. 210-GTL-91-003), it appears that the seat belts are attached to a bar which runs along the floor behind the bench seat. The bar is directly mounted to floor brackets which run along each side of the seat.

Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions are simultaneously tested. The term "seat belt anchorage" is defined in section S3 as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure."

In the design at issue, the seat belt anchorage, or provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure, includes the seat belt bar. Since the seat belt bar is mounted to the floor by means of the two brackets along the sides of the seat, the seat belt anchorage is "floor-mounted."

I note for your information that, on April 30, 1990, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 210 to, among other things, require simultaneous loading of all anchorages common to the same occupant seat. This amendment is effective on September 1, 1992.

2. Since Standard 207 requires simultaneous loading of the forces required by Standard 207 along with those required by Standard 210, does the Schreyer interpretation mean that, for a bench seat with seat-mounted anchorages, the proper loading for a test pursuant to FMVSS 207 should be 20 times the seat weight plus the proper load for one designated seating position on the bench seat?

Your understanding of the Standard No. 207 test is correct.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:207, 210 d:1/14/92

ID: 3274yy

Mr. Takashi Odaira
Chief Representative
Emission & Safety
Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.
46401 Commerce Center Drive
Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Odaira:

This responds to your letter asking about the new dynamic requirements of Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You noted that the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the Part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedure. You asked whether a test dummy should nonetheless be placed on the rear seat of such vehicles when conducting the specified dynamic test. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.

Section S3 of Standard No. 214 includes the following language concerning the dynamic side impact requirements:

Part 572, subpart F test dummies are placed in the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car. However, the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars with a wheelbase greater than 130 inches, or to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7.

Reading these two sentences together, it is our interpretation that a test dummy should not be placed in the rear outboard seating position of passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7. While the first sentence states that the test dummies should be placed in both the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car, that provision is limited by the sentence which immediately follows. That second sentence makes it clear that the rear seat requirements do not apply to certain vehicles with small rear seating areas. Since the sole purpose for placing a test dummy in the rear outboard seating position is to measure compliance with the dynamic side impact requirements, a test dummy should not be placed in the rear seating position of a passenger car for which the rear seat requirements do not apply.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref: 214 d:1/14/92

ID: 77-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Lamar Gudger - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please excuse the delay in my response to your letter of June 15, 1977, addressed to Mr. Norman Sultan, with a copy to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Federal requirement for registration of tires.

Mr. Sultan has reported a tire registration of 10 percent in his area of operation which is considerably less than the national figures of 30 percent for retreads and 70 percent for new tire replacements developed in our studies. Mr. Sultan is urging a change in the law to permit voluntary registration of all tires.

Mr. John Snow, my predecessor, reported to the Honorable Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, that consideration would be given to changing Regulation Part 574 allowing voluntary registration of retreaded tires in lieu of mandatory registration. Since taking office, I have devoted considerable attention to reviewing and analyzing the pertinent factors related to tire registration. I am convinced of the safety benefits of registering new tires and I consider the mandatory recordkeeping provision essential to the purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act. However, because retreaded tires are individually manufactured and therefore could not be recalled as are mass produced items, I am considering proposing revocation of the mandatory recordkeeping requirement for retreaded tires.

For your information I am enclosing a copy of my recent letter to Senator Magnuson in response to his questions on this subject. You may be interested to know that a recent meeting with representatives of the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association (NTDRA) provided an opportunity to discuss basic clerical problems associated with registration. As a result, an interpretation of the regulation was reached which would permit the tire purchaser personally to complete the registration form. Although dealer responsibility remains, the interpretation is considered by NTDRA to provide considerable relief to dealers in time and cost. Hopefully this action will offset much of the objections to the current tire registration process.

SINCERELY,

Encls. Constituent's LTR. To Sen. MAGNUSON DATED AUG. 3, 1977

Congress of The United States House of Representatives

June 15, 1977

Norman Sultan

First, let me apologize for my delay in responding to your letter of May 27, 1977. I have noted your concern over the provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 requiring tire registration and the fact that the rate of response is now less than ten percent and that the added expense for such return "is simply just not worth it".

We were in contact with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the study which you cited which is to be conducted on the advisability of making such program voluntary and were informed that this has been under consideration for some time. In an effort to be of assistance in this matter, I am today taking the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the appropriate officials at this Administration in order that they might have the benefit of your views and an opportunity to supply up-to-date infromation on the study. Upon receipt of a response I will forward you a copy. I also appreciate having your views in regard to an Agency for Consumer Advocacy. Fortunately in Western North Carolina and in many other areas, the Better Business Bureau and private agencies are working effectively to protect the consumer from fraud and oppression. Moreover, the North Carolina Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General each maintain an assistant or a division to prosecute persons who defraud the public by false and fradulent sales practices. For these reasons and because I generally oppose creating new federal agencies and imposing more bureaucratic regulations, I expect to vote against the Agency for Consumer Advocacy.

The House Government Committee reported H. R. 6805 May 10th and it could reach the House Floor soon. I will certainly keep your observations about the bill in mind when it comes up for a vote.

With best wishes and kind personal regards.

Lamar Gudger Member of Congress

bcc: NHTSA CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON

May 27, 1977

The Honorable Lamar Gudger House of Representatives House Office Building

In 1966 the Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains a provision on tire registration. The law went into effect six years ago and has caused tire dealers a lot of expense and very little satisfaction. Our rate of response from small dealers in this registration card mailing is now probably running less than 10% and, in my opinion, during the six years, we feel that the added expense for the return is simply just not worth it.

I have just recently learned that the National Highway Traffic Administration will conduct a study on the advisability of making this program voluntary. We hope that the law can be changed to make the registration voluntary because as we said before, the expense is unnecessary and the customer does not want it.

While I am at it, I might as well tell you that I think the passage of the Consumer Agency Billing which creates an independent agency for consumer advocacy. I am against the creation of this agency because I firmly believe that communications between consumers and retailers, particularly in my industry, can be improved by the establishment of a consumer council "which can be adapted and run by local and area tire dealer groups". You fellows must not have thought too much about this agency yourselves since it only passed by one vote.

I am sure you have gotten acclamated to the ways of Washington by now so with best regards to you and yours.

Norman Sultan

ID: 77-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 31, 1977, letter asking whether a New York state requirement mandating the installation of both side emergency doors and rear emergency doors in school buses would mean that both emergency doors would be required to comply with the school bus exit specifications in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

The NHTSA has determined previously that only those exists required by S5.2.3 must meet the requirements specified for school bus emergency exists in Standard No. 217. Paragraph S5.2.3 requires either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push out window. The side emergency door to which you refer is installed in addition to a rear emergency door. The presence of the rear emergency door, alone, satisfies the requirements of S5.2.3. Therefore, a side emergency door is not required by the standard and need not meet the specifications for school bus emergency exists. Emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 must comply with regulations applicable to emergency exists in buses other than school buses. These requirements are also detailed in Standard No. 217.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 31, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton Subject: FMVSS - 217, Specific to Emergency Doors - Relating to New York State School Bus Regulations - New York State Department of Transportation.

We respectfully request a decision of the legality of the seat placement in the case of side emergency door(s) as noted in S5.4.2.1(b), when you also have a rear emergency door that complies with S5.2.3.1.

Our request speaks only to school buses, and vehicles of 10,000 pounds or greater. New York State required the following emergency doors. Passengers Doors Location 17-30 1 Rear Center 31-48 2 (1) Rear Center (1) Left Side 49-66 2 Same as 31-48 67 or more 3 (1) Rear Center (1) Left Side (1) Right Side

As can be seen by the chart the State of New York exceeds the F.M.V.S.S.-217 Section S5.2.3.1(a) by the addition of one or two extra doors.

Our request is that we be permitted to place a seat in the side door opening (Ref. 5.4.2.1(b). In other words, the last sentence of this section "A vertical Transverse, etc. . . . . . ." be declared null and void, yet the placement of the seat in relation to the door and for seat to the rear would not prevent the door to be used as an emergency exit.

To qualify as an emergency exit, seat placement and the door opening would permit the passage of the ellipsoid as specified in S5.2.2(b).

Should you desire additional information, kindly contact the writer.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: 77-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of August 19, 1977, we advise you that your mistake in referencing S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108 instead of S4.5.1 in your earlier letter of May 13, 1977, does not alter our previous interpretation of June 16, 1977.

Your design appears to meet the specifications of J564a allowing compliance of the headlamp beam switching system with S4.5.1 when installed in a motor vehicle.

YOURS TRULY,

AUGUST 19, 1977

Ref NOA-30

Joseph J Levin, Jr Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject Lucas 21SA Headlamp Switch Circuit

We thank you for your opinion on the subject switch circuitry that we requested in our letter dated May 13, 1977.

Inadvertently, we had referred to section S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 108 when requesting your help, instead of section S4.5.1 of standard 108.

Section S4.5.1 referes to the SAE recommended practice J564a "Headlamp Beam Switching" and it is part 4 of this standard which we are primarily concerned with, that is, "the switch shall be designed so that the headlight circuits are never maintained open" (The absence of a dead spot).

We again submit the wiring circuitry for the subject headlamp switch and ask that you re-evaluate this circuit as per section S4.5.1 and forward your opinion to us.

Eric E Gough Staff Assistant (Technical)

cc: K. J. JONES 21SA HEADLAMP BEAM SWITCH CIRCUIT

[Graphic omitted) (Illegible Text) (Illegible Text)

JUN 16 1977

Eric E. Gough Staff Assistant (Technical) Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

DEAR MR. GOUGH:

This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1977, to the Administrator asking whether the circuitry diagram that you enclosed would allow compliance with S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.5.2 requires that "each vehicle shall have a means for indicating to the driver when the upper beams of the headlamps are on that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, April 1964 . . . ." Your diagram appears to meet the specifications of J564a allowing compliance of the system with S4.5.2 when installed in a motor vehicle. The entity legally responsible for compliance with S4.5.2, of course, is the vehicle manufacturer who must certify that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

YOURS TRULY,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

cc: MR. VINSON; MR. CARTER

MAY 13, 1977 The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our sister company in Birmingham England, Lucas Electrical Limited, requests clarification of Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment - and SAE Recommended Practice J564, which is referenced in Standard 108, Section 4.5.2.

We submit a diagram of a four headlamp installation in which a Lucas Model 21SA switch and a normally closed relay is used to ensure that the headlight circuits cannot be held in the open condition. Manual and auto reset switches are also included in the circuit to ensure correct circuit operation. We are also submitting traces showing the transient voltage conditions when switching from:

a) Main beam to dip beam

b) Dip beam to main beam

This circuitry we have developed allows, as far as we are aware, for us to comply with Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108. We look forward to receiving whatever comments you deem applicable and will be pleased to supply additional material if you so desire.

LUCAS INDUSTRIES NORTH AMERICA INC

Eric E Gough Staff Assistant (Technical)

ENC

21SA HEADLAMP BEAM SWITCH CIRCUIT

[Graphics omitted)

b) LUCAS 21SA SHY DIP BEAM --> MAIN BEAM

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Text)

ID: 77-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bruce Ducker

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 2, 1977, letter requesting copies of regulations issued pursuant to section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).

I am enclosing a copy of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations). This part details the recordkeeping requirements imposed by the agency upon tire manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and manufacturers of motor vehicles. In response to your question concerning the availability of customer lists, the agency has not issued any regulations on that point. You should note that these customer lists are retained by the manufacturer, not by the agency. Therefore, only the manufacturer would be in the position to divulge his customer lists. Should the agency obtain customer lists, they would not be disclosed unless disclosure was determined to be necessary to carry out the purpose of the Act as permitted by section 158(b).

SINCERELY,

BRUCE DUCKER ATTORNEY AT LAW

August 2, 1977

Office of the General Counsel Department of Transportation

Can you please supply me with a copies of regulations adopted by the Secretary pursuant to Section 158(b), of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-492. I am particularly interested in all rules and regulations which "provide reasonable assurance that customer lists of any dealer and distributor, and similar information, will not be made available to any person other than the dealer or distributor . . . ."

BRUCE DUCKER