ID: RMAmetric22869

Mr. Steven Butcher
VP Technical and Standards
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005





Dear Mr. Butcher:

This responds to your March 12, 2001 letter asking whether four labeling sample proposals, subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (571.119), are acceptable in terms of placement of the metric units under the Final Rule for the Metric Conversion of Tire Standards, Docket No. NHTSA-98-3837, Notice 1 ("Final Rule") (May 27, 1998, 63 FR 28912).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample markings appear to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 119, as amended by the Final Rule.

A review of the labeling illustrations you supplied indicates that you have used a different format than illustrated in our Final Rule of May 27, 1998. For example, the amended FMVSS No. 119 does not dictate repetition of the existing English measurement label after the metric measurement label, e.g. "MAX LOAD 1020 KG AT 350 KPA COLD (MAX LOAD 2250 LBS AT 50 PSI)" but, rather, the placement of the existing English measurement in parenthesis after the metric measurement, e.g. "MAX LOAD 1020 KG (2250 LBS) at 350 KPA (50 PSI) COLD". This specification resulted from comments by manufacturers that unnecessary words needlessly increase the amount of labeling required on the tires.

The example of marking information shown in S5.6 of FMVSS No. 119 in the Final Rule is intended only as a guide to manufacturers. A manufacturer can vary the illustrated format somewhat as long as the requirements of S5.6, as amended, are satisfied. Since the additional words in your proposed labels do not obfuscate the required markings, the labels appear to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 119, as amended by the Final Rule.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:119
d.5/3/01

ID: Triplex

Mr. Paul Katz
President
Triplex Manufacturing Company
2700 West 50th Street
Chicago, IL 60632

Dear Mr. Katz:

This responds to your letter seeking our opinion whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, would preempt State laws seeking to establish requirements for insurers or repair businesses to install only vehicle lamps and lighting parts that are made by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).

Your letter was prompted by the case of Avery v. State Farm, which we understand is now on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court, and various proposed state laws that would make distinctions between OEM and non-OEM parts. You asked two questions.

First, you asked whether OEM and non-OEM lamps and lighting parts are of "like kind and quality" under FMVSS No. 108. In your letter, you state that the term "like kind and quality" is a term that was used by the court in Avery v. State Farm. The term does not appear in the statutes we administer or in our regulations. We note that the requirements under FMVSS No. 108 for original equipment and non-original equipment are the same, and further that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards establish minimum performance requirements. Because FMVSS No. 108 allows a wide range of performance, and does not include specifications that apply to non-safety characteristics such as fit and finish, different lamps may not be of "like kind and quality" yet still comply with Federal requirements.

Second, you asked whether Federal law preempts states from establishing standards for vehicle lamps and lighting parts that are different than those of FMVSS No. 108 based solely on whether the manufacturer is an OEM or non-OEM. Federal law preempts states from enacting laws that impose different requirements from those mandated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. States may, however, regulate in various areas including enacting operational, inspection and insurance requirements. In this way, states may be able to establish rules with respect to the repair of crashed vehicles without acting in a manner that is inconsistent with Federal law.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Mr. Edward Glancy of this office (202-366-2992).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
cc: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.

ref:108
d.1/21/04

ID: 08-004730 marzolf march 20

ID: garbage.crs

Mr. Richard G. Parks
Supervisor
Engineering Research Center
BTI Consultants
1937 East Broadway Road
Tempe, AZ 85282

Dear Mr. Parks:

This is in response to your letter of April 18, 1997, requesting confirmation of an interpretation that you state I gave you over the telephone on March 5, 1997 regarding the required contents of an incomplete vehicle document specified at 49 CFR 568.4, and one of the requirements for seating systems specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, 49 CFR 571.207.

Because your letter assumed knowledge of matters that we discussed on March 5 and because I did not recall that conversation in all particulars, I asked Coleman Sachs of my staff to contact you so that we could gain a better understanding of your request. You informed Mr. Sachs on June 3, 1997 that your company is providing consulting services for a party litigating an action involving a garbage truck rollover incident. You stated that the garbage truck was completed by a final stage manufacturer from a chassis cab furnished as an incomplete vehicle by a major truck manufacturer. You further stated that the final stage manufacturer removed the bench-style seat that was furnished with the chassis-cab and replaced it with a bucket-type seat at the driver's position. Additionally, you stated that the final stage manufacturer equipped the vehicle with a steering wheel and a complete second set of controls on the right side of the vehicle so that it could be operated from that side while picking up trash. You noted, however, that the vehicle was not equipped with a driver's seat where the auxiliary controls were located.

You have raised two questions with regard to these modifications. The first concerns the contents of the incomplete vehicle document that the chassis-cab manufacturer was required to furnish under NHTSA's certification regulations for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages at 49 CFR Part 568. Section 568.4(a)(7) of those regulations requires this document to list each standard in effect at the time of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle that applies to any of the vehicle types into which the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured. As your letter notes, section 568.4(a)(7) further requires the incomplete vehicle document to state, alternatively, after each standard listed, either (i) that the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, (ii) the specific conditions of final manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard, or (iii) that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

You have asked whether the incomplete vehicle document must contain the statement specified in subparagraph (i) of section 568.4(a)(7) if a foreseeable modification of the incomplete vehicle involves moving the driver's seat. If the incomplete vehicle is equipped with a driver's seat, its manufacturer would ordinarily ensure that the driver's seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207, and that the seat was installed in compliance with the standard. Assuming the manufacturer has taken these measures, the statement in subparagraph (i) of section 568.4(a)(7) would be the most appropriate of the three statements in that section to cover the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 207.

That answer would not change even if the incomplete vehicle manufacturer could reasonably anticipate that the driver's seat would be replaced or that other modifications would be made to the driver's seat at a subsequent manufacturing stage, since the incomplete vehicle document should properly reflect the compliance status of the incomplete vehicle at that stage of manufacture. If the final stage manufacturer replaces the driver's seat or makes other modifications to it, before that manufacturer certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, as required under 49 CFR 567.4, it must ensure that the new or modified seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207 and that the seat is installed in compliance with the standard.

Your second question is whether the final stage manufacturer was required to equip the garbage truck that is the subject of your inquiry with a driver's seat at the right-side location where auxiliary controls were installed. You note that paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 207 provides that "[e]ach vehicle shall have an occupant seat for the driver." You interpret this language as requiring a seat for the driver "wherever the driver may be located," including two driver's seats if the vehicle may be operated from two separate locations.

In the one previous opportunity that we have had to address this issue, we did not interpret the requirements of paragraph S4.1 in this way. In a letter dated July 30, 1975 to Mr. Byron A. Crampton (copy enclosed), we stated that "a garbage truck that contained an auxiliary driver's position on the right side of the vehicle, with a separate set of controls" did not require a seat at the auxiliary location. The letter explains that this conclusion was reached because this office considers "the standards relating to the driver's position as relating to the normal position, and not to an auxiliary driving position." Lending suport to this interpretation is a letter to Mr. Glenn S. Park (copy enclosed), in which we stated that a "stand-up, right-hand drive position in a truck with a mounted side loader" would not be considered a designated seating position under Federal safety standards. Consistent with our past interpretation, we must disagree with your conclusion that two separate driver's seats must be installed in the vehicle you have described.

If you have any further questions about vehicle certification requirements, please call Coleman Sachs of this office at 202-366-5238. Any further questions that you may have regarding the seating system requirements of FMVSS No. 207 should be directed to Otto Matheke of this office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:207#568
d.7/15/97

ID: 11-000697_Trooper_Kile_205

ID: 3117yy

David A. McClaughry, Esq.
Harness, Dickey & Pierce
5445 Corporate Drive
Troy, MI 48098

Your ref: 0364-50108

Dear Mr. McClaughry:

This responds to your letter of July 11, l991, with respect to the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to a sale of motor vehicles to the United States Navy.

The Navy has proposed specifications for the design of a zero-emission motor vehicle which may not meet some of the FMVSS. You are aware of the exemptions that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides for military vehicles, and that l5 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(C) provides, upon the Administrator's grant of a petition, for low-emission motor vehicles. These raise certain questions which you have asked us to answer.

First, you would like our interpretation of "military vehicle." The definition of "military vehicle" is that contained in section 571.7(c): a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. This means any vehicle that the military purchases. However, if the contractual specifications require compliance with the FMVSS, the military vehicle must be manufactured to conform to the FMVSS.

You have asked whether the exclusion extends "only for FMVSS or all safety standards." The exclusion of section 571.7(c) is only from the FMVSS. However, vehicles that are owned by the United States Government bear Government registrations. They are not subject to State licensing laws, and, therefore, are exempt from State vehicle safety standards.

You have also asked if there are other military safety standards that the vehicles must satisfy. We are unaware of any military safety standards, but, if such standards exist, they would be standards of the Department of Defense, and not those of the Department of Transportation.

Finally, you have asked whether your client should attempt to obtain a low-emission vehicle temporary exemption under section 1410(a)(1)(C). Because of the existing exclusion from FMVSS compliance, we see no need for such an exemption if the vehicle is sold exclusively to the Navy or another branch of the military. However, if your client intends to sell the military-specification vehicle to an entity other than the Armed Forces of the United States, it must either comply with all applicable FMVSS at the time of manufacture and sale, or be exempted under one of the four subsections of section 1410(a)(1).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:57l d:8/2/9l

ID: nht91-5.13

DATE: August 2, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David A. McClaughry -- Harness, Dickey & Pierce

TITLE: Your ref: 0364-50108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-11-91 from David A. McClaughry to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1991, with respect to the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to a sale of motor vehicles to the United States Navy.

The Navy has proposed specifications for the design of a zero-emission motor vehicle which may not meet some of the FMVSS. You are aware of the exemptions that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides for military vehicles, and that 15 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(C) provides, upon the Administrator's grant of a petition, for low-emission motor vehicles. These raise certain questions which you have asked us to answer.

First, you would like our interpretation of "military vehicle." The definition of "military vehicle" is that contained in section 571.7(c): a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. This means any vehicle that the military purchases. However, if the contractual specifications require compliance with the FMVSS, the military vehicle must be manufactured to conform to the FMVSS.

You have asked whether the exclusion extends "only for FMVSS or all safety standards." The exclusion of section 571.7(c) is only from the FMVSS. However, vehicles that are owned by the United States Government bear Government registrations. They are not subject to State licensing laws, and, therefore, are exempt from State vehicle safety standards.

You have also asked if there are other military safety standards that the vehicles must satisfy. We are unaware of any military safety standards, but, if such standards exist, they would be standards of the Department of Defense, and not those of the Department of Transportation.

Finally, you have asked whether your client should attempt to obtain a low-emission vehicle temporary exemption under section 1410(a)(1)(C). Because of the existing exclusion from FMVSS compliance, we see no need for such an exemption if the vehicle is sold exclusively to the Navy or another branch of the military. However, if your client intends to sell the military-specification vehicle to an entity other than the Armed Forces of the United States, it must either comply with all applicable FMVSS at the time of manufacture and sale, or be exempted under one of the four subsections of section 1410(a)(1).

ID: 06-006236drn

ID: nht79-4.6

DATE: 09/18/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph Hitchcock; NHTSA

TO: Safety Engineering Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which has been forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, regarding lap belts and/or shoulder belts for fire trucks.

The enclosed Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are relevant to the installation of safety belts in fire trucks. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to new vehicles and require trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle rating of more than 10,000 pounds to have either a lap belt or a lap and shoulder belt combination seat belt assembly at each designated seating position.

The term "designated seating position" is defined as "Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating." If the Tillerman's seat is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion it would be a designated seating position and would have to be equipped with a lap belt or a lap and shoulder belt.

If a particular fire truck were not required to be equipped with seat belts when originally manufactured, it would not subsequently have to be equipped with belts, slace our regulations only apply to new vehicles. For example, a fire truck manufactured before the applicable sections of FMVSS No. 208 became effective did not have to be equipped with belts. Further, no OSHA regulations would require retrofitting of belts in vehicles not originally required to have them.

If we can be of further service in this matter, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht92-5.47

DATE: June 24, 1992

FROM: Peter E. Reinert -- Counsel - Transaction, GE Plastics

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- General Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: G. Robert McAllister

TITLE: Request for Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 (the "Request")

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/4/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Peter E. Reinert (A39; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Dorothy Nakoma from your staff recommended that we direct our Request to your attention. Ms. Nakoma told us that it was not necessary that we contact anyone at the AAMVA for an interpretation of FMVSS 205 since the interpretation from NHTSH would be controlling over AAMVA. We also understood that we could expect to receive a response to our Request within sixty days from receipt.

Statement of Facts. General Electric Company ("GE") manufactures at its Mt. Vernon, Indiana plant LEXAN polycarbonate sheet (the "Sheet") which is used in applications for motor vehicles which FMVSS No. 205, S6--Certification and Marking--applies. GE and its distributors have agreed contractually that the distributors will be responsible for marking the Sheet with GE's DOT number in accord with section 6 ANZ 26 after the distributors receive the Sheet from GE and before the distributors ship the Sheet to the customer. The distributors are responsible contractually for marking the Sheet with GE's DOT number in the same manner as the distributors, if they cut the Sheet, are required by FMVSS No. 205, S6.4 and S6.5 to mark pieces after cutting with the GE DOT number.

Question. May GE, as a prime glazing material manufacturer having its own DOT number and being required to mark and certify in accordance with FMVSS No. 205, S6.1 and S6.2 the Sheet it manufactures in Mt. Vernon, ship the Sheet unmarked to its distributors?

Provided that the above question is answered affirmatively then what is the timing required in order to implement the new procedure wherein GE will not mark the Sheet initially? For example, would GE be required to file a notice in the Federal Register? Also, if GE is to continue as a registered prime glazing material manufacturer can GE cancel its existing DOT No. 94 and replace it with another new number.

If you have any questions regarding the above, or require any additional facts please do not hesitate to contact me at (413) 448-4672. We look forward to hearing from you.

G. Robert McAllister