ID: nht75-2.20

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Firestone Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, which was given to you by Mark Schwimmer on April 16, 1975.

Your letter of February 26, 1975, explained that:

(i) Firestone would produce 100 tires in size D50C-16.5 for use on one of the prototype vehicles in the Urban Mass Transit Administration's Trans-Bus program;

(ii) these tires would be certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 119; and

(iii) D50C-16.5 is a new size, not appearing in any existing tire and rim organization publications.

In such cases, S5.1(a) of the standard requires tire and rim matching information to be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires. Your letter suggested that, because Firestone does not expect the tire to be sold through any dealers, this requirement would be inapplicable. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, that interpretation is incorrect. S5.1 of Standard No. 119 applies to all new bus tires, including prototypes manufactured for prototype vehicles. Therefore, you must furnish the matching information to all dealers of Firestone non-passenger-car tires.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 26, 1975

Mark Schwimmer, Attorney -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

RE: TIRES FOR UMTA TRANS BUS PROGRAM

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

As I advised you in our telephone conversation, Firestone has the contract to produce tires for the prototype vehicles being tested by UMTA currently. We have received an order for an additional 100 tires in size D50C-16.5 for use on the prototype manufactured by The Rohr Industries. Since these tires will be produced after March 3rd, they will be certified by Firestone as being in compliance with FMVSS 119.

Size D50C-16.5 is a new size and is not included in any list showing tire and rim matching information. FMVSS 119 specifies in Section S5.1(a) that where such information is not published in the documents listed it is to be supplied to dealers and to NHTSA.

By copy of the attached letter to the Tire Division, NHTSA, we are supplying the necessary information to NHTSA. However, since we have orders for only 100 tires to be used only on the prototype vehicle and since it is our understanding from the prime contractor that the test will be terminated at the end of this year, thereby precluding any possibility of this size being sold for this purpose through any dealers, we are not planning to send copies of the tire and rim matching information to our dealers.

May I have your confirmation that we will be acting within your interpretation of FMVSS 119 in this matter?

As you know, the testing of the three prototype buses is under the control of UMTA. It is not anticipated that any additional tires will be needed for the other two prototypes, however, if the prime contractors should order additional tires it would most likely be under the same conditions as the order received from Rohr Industrial and we would follow the same procedure as it is agreed will be acceptable with the D5OC-16.5 tires.

In view of the fact that an order has been placed with us, it would appear that the prime contractor anticipates a need in the near future. Therefore, we would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely, A. J. DiMaggio -- QUALITY ASSURANCE, FIRESTONE

February 26, 1975

The Tire Division National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Section S5.1(a) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, this is to advise that tire size D50C-16.5 is to be used with a 6.0 x 16.5 rim.

This size tire is not listed in any of the publications of the organizations listed in FMVSS 119.

Very truly yours, A. J. DiMaggio -- QUALITY ASSURANCE, FIRESTONE

ID: 1984-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BoPeep Nursery Products Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Stephen Sher President BoPeep Nursery Products, Ltd. 101 Portland Street Toronto, Ontario May 1B1 CANADA

Dear Mr. Sher:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if the requirements of Standard No. 213 apply to a system which is designed for use solely by children who weigh more than 50 pounds and is so labeled. Standard No. 213 does not apply to devices intended solely to restrain children who weigh more than 50 pounds.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds" (emphasis added). If your product is designed solely for use by children who weigh more than 50 pounds, it would not be a "child restraint" as that term is defined in Standard No. 213, and so would not be subject to the requirements of the Standard.

You should be aware of the requirements of sections 151-154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414), which specify that when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser. This could become relevant to the sale of your product in several ways. For example, if the seating system were marketed and sold in such a way that it would be likely to be often used by children under 50 pounds, and were not certified as complying with Standard No. 213, it might well be found to contain a safety-related defect.

To prevent such unintended usage, I strongly recommend that the device be clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by this system. I would further recommend that your marketing efforts and point of sale materials highlight the size and age of child which your system is designed to restrain.

Another potential safety-related defect finding which could be made would occur if testing showed that children of the age and size intended to use your seating system were safer using a 3- point belt alone than the seating system with a 3-point belt. To ensure that this finding is not made, I would recommend some testing or engineering analysis by your company to show that your seating system when used with the 3-point belt system is at least as safe for use by its intended occupants as a standard 3-point belt would be when used alone.

Should you have any further questions or need any further information in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by phone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 25, 1984.

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL Room #5219 400 - 7th Street S. W. Washington, DC USA 20590

Attention: Mr. Stephen Kretzke

Dear Mr. Kretzke:

During our conversation of June 20th we had mentioned our need for an interpretation on Section S4 of FMVSS 213 and how our initial inquiry was directed through Calspan.

We have enclosed a copy of Calspan findings for your attention and are requesting confirmation of its contents.

We are also concerned that our point of sale material can highlight that our seat can be used for children 3 years of age and up and for children who are over 50 lbs.

We request your prompt reply to this inquiry as we are looking forward to entering the American market quite soon.

Yours Truly,

BO-PEEP NURSERY PRODUCTS LIMITED

Stephen Sher President

SS:sb Encl.

June 15, 1984

Mr. Stephen Shir BoPeep Nursery Products, Ltd. 101 Portland Street Toronto, Ontario M8Y1B1 CANADA

Dear Mr. Shir:

This letter is in response to your recent inquiry concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213) to your new booster seat, the Shuttle Seat, designed for children over 50 pounds in weight.

Section S4 of FMVSS 213 defines child restraint systems which must meet the specified requirements as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." On June 15, 1984, I received a verbal interpretation of Section S4 from the Department of Transportation's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, in conjunction with the Office of Chief Counsel, that child restraint systems designed and labelled for use by children over 50 pounds are exempt from the requirements of FMVSS 213.

Based upon the above interpretations and our evaluation of your booster seat, it is our opinion that, if the device is labelled for use only by children over 50 pounds that is is exempt from the requirements of FMVSS 213.

I hope this information is of use to you. Please feel free to call me with any further questions.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Walsh, Head Biomechanical Sciences Section Transportation Research/ Physical Sciences Department

Barbara J. Kelleher Staff Associate Transportation Research/ Physical Sciences Department kd

ID: GF008935

Ms. Dana Roeling
Executive Director
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
3327 W. Bearss Avenue
Tampa, FL 33618




Dear Ms. Roeling:

This is in response to your letter concerning legal responsibilities of vehicle modifiers (i.e., entities that modify motor vehicles after the first retail sale) with respect to the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle modifiers are obligated to replace the tire safety information placard required by S4.3, if the relevant information on the placard becomes inaccurate as a consequence of their actions. As explained below, the answer is no.

By way of background, S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less contain a placard showing certain critical tire safety information, including but not limited to, the vehicle capacity weight, the recommended inflation pressure, and the tire size designation. This information enables consumers to ascertain the cargo carrying limitations of their vehicles, and to properly inflate their tires. It also enables consumers to purchase correct size replacement tires.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

In your letter, you ask whether it would be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision if modifiers changed the vehicles such that the information of the tire placard is no longer accurate, but do not update the tire placard.

In evaluating this question, we have focused on the language of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. One of the items of safety information required by that section is identified in paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

"Tire size designation, indicated by the headings "size" or "original tire size" or "original size," and "spare tire" or "spare," for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement "see above" may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word "none" must replace the tire size designation;" [Emphasis added]

Thus, the requirement for one of the critical items of safety information to be provided on the tire placard is specifically expressed in terms of the "tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale." We also note that there is a relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard.

We observe that regardless of what changes a modifier may make to a vehicle, it does not change the size of the tires that were installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale (the information S4.3 of FMVSS 110 requires to be on the placard).Given this, and recognizing the relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard, it is our opinion that it would not be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision, with respect to S4.3 of FMVSS 110, if modifiers change the vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

We note that while our regulations do not require changes to the tire safety information placard if the changes to the vehicle occur after it is first sold for purposes other than resale, the potential inconsistency between the information on the placard and the actual vehicle could in some cases be misleading and dangerous to vehicle operators. Specifically, relying on what has become inaccurate information, vehicle operators could over-inflate or under-inflate their tires, thereby creating a safety hazard. Also, vehicle operators could overload their vehicles, which also would create a safety hazard. Finally, vehicle operators could end up purchasing incorrect replacement tires (e.g., original tire size not appropriate for aftermarket rim), erroneously relying on the placard that is no longer accurate.

In light of these concerns and consistent with previous interpretation letters concerning post-sale modifications relating to a vehicles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (May 24, 1993, letter to Mr. John Paul Barber, Esq., and April 2, 1997, letter to Mr. James Baker), we would urge a party which modifies a used vehicle so that the tire safety information is no longer accurate to either add a new label to the vehicle which indicates the correct tire safety information or add a warning label (preferably proximate to the placard) indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate.

In your letter, you ask several questions highlighting the potential difficulties faced by vehicle modifiers attempting to ascertain accurate tire safety information, especially in situations where a vehicle has already undergone changes after the first sale. For example, the vehicle being modified could have tires that are different in size and recommended inflation pressure from those originally installed on the vehicle, and thus the information on the tire safety placard is already wrong when the vehicle arrives for modifications. As discussed in the previous paragraph, we would encourage vehicle modifiers to either affix a correct label or affix a warning indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate. In situations when the accurate tire safety information is difficult to ascertain, we encourage the latter option of a warning label.

You also ask a question regarding S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110. That section applies to vehicles altered prior to first retail sale and specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid. We caution that this interpretation applies only to modifications occurring after the first retail sale and does not concern alterers.

Finally, we note that with respect to modifications of vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities, 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5) requires modifiers to provide the vehicle owner with a document that indicates a reduction in the load carrying capacity of more than 100 kg (220 lb) after the modifications are completed.

If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.4/7/06

ID: nht94-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: Scott R. Dennison -- Consultant, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TO: Administrator -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/94 from John Womack to Scott R. Dennison (A42; PART 555)

TEXT: Please find enclosed, three copies of the application for exemption on behalf of the Excalibur Automobile Corporation for the standard entitled, Petition For Exemption From The Requirements of FMVSS 208 Paragraph S4.1.4 Automatic Protection Systems.

The petition is written according to the guidelines set forth in 49CFR, part 555 entitled, Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I trust that you will find the petition acceptable, however, should you have any questions or require any further clarification, I may be reached at 414-771-7171 or by fax a 414-771-8941.

4

PETITION OF TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF F.M.V.S.S. 208 PARAGRAPH S4.1.4 AUTOMATIC PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Prepared by: Scott R. Dennison

Consultant to: Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 S. 106th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214 414-771-7171 Fax: 414-771-8941

5

This petition is made according to the guidelines set down in 49CFR, Part 555, entitled 'Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety Standards'.

555.5 PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

This petition for temporary exemption from the requirements of FMVSS 208 is based on the inability of the low volume manufacturer, Excalibur Automobile Corporation, to obtain safety components necessary to produce a compliant vehicle.

555.5.(3)

Applicant: Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 S. 106th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214

Telephone: 414-771-7171 Telefax: 414-771-8941 Organization: Corporation

State: Wisconsin

555.5.(4)

Standard from which exemption is sought: FMVSS 208, paragraph S4.1.4 requiring an automatic vehicle protection system.

Desired length of exemption: One year from date of approval

Model for which exemption is sought: Excalibur Cobra 427

6

The basis for this petition for temporary exemption from FMVSS 208 on behalf of Excalibur Automobile Corporation and its model, the Cobra 427, is founded in the fact that Excalibur is unable to design, purchase, joint venture, contract for, or otherwise obtain the necessary components to fit air bag restraint systems in this vehicle.

Since the inception of this replica of the classic Shelby Cobra 427, Excalibur has tried to find a source for the necessary air bag components in order to fit them to the vehicle. A firm in Arizona was contacted in December of 1993 as they had claimed t o have an air bag system designed to retro-fit to older vehicles as well as limited production vehicles. The company, BST of Phoenix Arizona even had displayed the system at the 1993 SEMA show in Las Vegas.

Excalibur was continually advised that the system existed, had been sold in great quantity to a major airline and would be available within weeks. Groundwork for a joint development program was discussed with Excalibur to be the first small manufacturer to use the bags as OE on their Cobra. The system has never been released to Excalibur nor to anyone Excalibur is aware of to date.

In parallel to the ongoing negotiations with BST regarding air bag systems, Breed Technologies was contacted to develop a program for the creation of a system for Excalibur. Months of telephone contact yielded no results. To the extreme that eventually , project leaders at Breed refused to even take time to quote a development project as the ultimate volumes possible would not be worthwhile to Breed to justify such a project. No other sources of air bag technology have been found as alternatives for E xcalibur.

Equivalent Safety

Excalibur's Cobra 427 has a Type II manual seat belt system in place which meets all standards for such type systems. Model year 1994 offers three convertible vehicles which do not have air bag systems but offer passive belt systems and therefore are fo und to be compliant. These vehicles are the Dodge Viper, the Nissan 240 SX, and the Plymouth Sunbird. Although these systems meet the letter of the law, all require long belts which remain attached to the door when opened requiring the driver and passe nger to slide under the belts in order for them to be "passive". All real world experience has shown these type systems to be awkward and undesirable to the consumer when used in convertible model vehicles. The ability to "dis-able" these systems be me rely unbuckling the belt has virtually converted these systems to conventional Type II seat belt systems.

7

It is based on this logic that Excalibur Automobile Corporation maintains that their Cobra 427 provides a level of safety equivalent to these three compliant model vehicles.

Exceptional Safety Features

Excalibur Automobile Corporation offers a high strength roll over bar as standard equipment on the Cobra 427 to enhance the over level of safety for the general public in the event of a roll over type crash.

In addition, the materials used in the construction of the Cobra frame and steel components far exceeds any used in conventional automobile manufacturing. For instance, the door hinge system incorporated in the Excalibur Cobra has been tested to exceed the FMVSS by over four times the required strength.

Substantiation

There is no claim by Excalibur that the vehicle would be unsalable by compliance with the standard but merely that Excalibur does not posses the technology and to date, cannot purchase the technology required to comply with this standard.

Excalibur Automobile Corporation fully intends to comply with this standard at the end of the exemption period for one of either of two reasons. They are currently developing a passive belt system for implementation as soon as possible. In addition, it is believed that generic air bag technology from either the U.S. manufacturers or those abroad will become available to manufacturers such as Excalibur within the allotted exemption period thus enabling them to fit air bags to the vehicles.

Excalibur Automobile Corporation will produce less than 100 vehicles for sale in the world-wide market during the 12 months this exemption is in place.

ID: nht87-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: K. Shimamura -- (Shiramura) -- Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mazda (North America), Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Dear Mr. Shiramura: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You described a proposed integrated steering column/dashboard display and asked whether controls mounted on such a unit must be illuminated. As discusse d below, the answer to your question is no.

By war of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turing to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standard. The following represent our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 55.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states that "(e)xcept for foot-operated control; or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console, or steering column, or in the windshield area, the identification required by 55.2.1 or 55.2.2 of any con trol . . . shall be illuminated . . . ."

The primary issue raises by your letter is whether the controls mounted on your proposed steering column/dashboard display come within section @5.3.1's exception for controls mounted upon the steering column and therefore need not be illuminated. You des cribed your proposed design as follows:

". . . In addition to the usual plastic trim molding that currently encloses the steering column between the instrument panel and the actual steering wheel, the new design adds an integrated upper section accommodating the vehicle's gauges and displays ( such as speedometer and tachometer). The upper section is completely integrated into the lower, usual column trim molding and the unit is a single molded part.

Several controls are to be placed on the upper section. The turn signal and automatic speed control are to be mounted on the front face. The master lighting switch and wiping system controls will be positioned on either side of the upper section. The haz ard warning control will be at the base on the upper section and on top of thy lower column. . . ."

A drawing enclosed with a subsequent letter indicates that the upper section described above is mounted by brackets onto the energy absorbing shaft, below the steering wheel and above the pivot used to adjust the steering wheel.

Thus, as the steering wheel is adjusted, the upper section is also adjusted, maintaining the same relative position to the steering wheel.

You suggest that the proposed integrated unit can be considered to be a "steering column," citing the definition of that term used in Standard No. 204. We note that Standard No. 204's definition of steering column' does not apply to Standard No. 101. Mor eover, the upper section itself need not be considered a steering column in order to come within Standard No. 101's exception. In a Federal Register notice published on May 4, 1971, NHTSA stated the following about similar language in an earlier version of Standard No. 10".

Ford has asked whether steering-wheel mounted controls are exempt from illumination requirements. Since the steering wheel itself is mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls ext ends to those mounted on the steering wheel as well. 36 ER 8297, May 4, 1971. Since the upper section in your proposed design is, at the least, mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls extends to those mounted on the upper section as well. Therefore, cont rols mounted on the upper section need not be illuminated. We note that it is unnecessary for us to reach a determination of whether the upper section can be considered to be a steering column for purposes of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 8, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20550

Re: Request for Interpretation-Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Sections 571.100 and 571.101; Controls and Displays Dear Ms. Jones:

Mazda (North America), Inc. and its parent company, Mazda Motor Corporation ("Mazda"), request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration consider an interpretive question relating to the above captioned Safety Standard. Although Mazda is aw are that the agency is not authorized to pass on the conformity of and specific product design prior to introduction of that product into the marketplace. the comments of you and your staff have in the past been extremely helpful in better understanding the requirements of the various safety Standards. It is this assistance that is again requested.

The question Mazda submits relates to the provisions of FMVSS 100/101, S5.3.1. Illumination. This section states, "(except for foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor. Floor console, or steering column, or in the windshiel d area, the identification required by 55.2.1 or @5.2.2. or any control...shall be illuminated..."

Mazda has conceived a proposed steering column design that incorporates several unique features. In addition to the usual plastic trim molding that currently encloses the steering column between the instrument panel and the actual steering wheel, the new design adds an integrated upper section accommodating the vehicle's gauges and displays (such as speedometer and tachometer). The upper section is completely integrated into the lower, usual column trim molding and the unit is a single molded part.

Several controls are to be placed on the upper section. The turn signal and automatic speed control are to be mounted on the front face. The master lighting switch and wiping system controls will be positioned on either side of the upper section. The haz ard warning control will be at the base of the upper section and on top of the lower column trim panel. These controls will not be illuminated. 49 CFR Part 571.204, Steering Control Reward Displacement explains in @1. that a "steering column" is a "struc tural housing that surrounds a steering shaft (a component that transmits steering torque from the steering wheel to the steering gear.) Mazda's question, therefore is twofold. Does the proposed integrated steering column/dashboard display constitute a s teering column and, based on the answer to the first question, must controls mounted on this unit be illuminated?

We have considered this question internally and have tentatively concluded that the proposed integrated unit can be defined as a steering column applying the criteria of FMVSS 204. To our knowledge, FMVSS 204 provide; the only official definition of stee ring column provided through the public record. Insofar as this term is specified in FMVSS 100/101. it would seen reasonable to apply this definition. By so doing, it is apparent that the integrated steering column molding is a "structural" housing in th at it provides for the location,

June 17, 1987

Mr. Edward Glancy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC. 20590

Re: Supplemental Information - Request for Interpretation Regarding FMVSS 100/101, Controls and Displays

Dear Mr. Glancy:

Please find attached a rendering of Mazda's new steering column design which is the subject our April 8, 1987 request for interpretation. The illustration depicts the relevant assemblies and corresponding mounting locations that you indicated would be he lpful in your deliberations.

We trust this information will be useful. However; if you should have any other further questions related to the structure and configuration of our new system or on any other topic applicable to this question, please do not hesitate to contact me at this letterhead or telephone the number above.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Steve L. Underwood Assistant Manager Safety Engineering

ID: 86-5.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/13/86

FROM: FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- DIRECTOR OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT NHTSA

TO: PETER CAMERON

TITLE: NEF 32GSH

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/10/88 TO PETER CAMERON FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32; LETTER DATED 06/01/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM PETER CAMERON; OCC - 2120

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cameron:

This is in response to your recent request for information concerning legislation and regulations pertaining to the manufacture/importation of motor vehicles.

As a general rule, all motor vehicles must comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in effect on the date of manufacture. Refer to the enclosed Form HS-189 for the general requirements of the FMVSS.

Section 114 (15 USC 1403) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (th Act) and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567, (49 CFR 567), require that the manufacturer permanently affix a tag or label to a motor vehicle certifying that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

If you determine in good faith that any vehicle manufactured by you does not conform with an applicable FMVSS or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in accordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with section 154 (15 USC 1414).

You should also note that under 49 CFR 566, you are required to submit certain idntifying information and a description of your product to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Prior to offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment form importation into the United States, a foreign manufacturer is required to register an "Agent-for-Service" of process as set forth in 49 CFR 551 45 as well as furnishing the information required by 49 CFR 566.

Federal Regulations concerning anti-pollution emission control devices are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation. For guidance in this area, it is suggested that you write the Environmental Protection Agency, Director, Mobile Source Enforcement Division, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

[If at the time of importation the vehicle is in a kit form items of equipment contained therein for which there is an applicable standard must be certified at the time of importation. They are FMVSS Nos. 106, 109, 116, 205, 209, 211, and 213.]

Generally, completely assembled kit cars must meet all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture in order to be imported into the United States.

You are advised to carefully examine the Act, the FMVSS, as well as other regulations listed below to insure that you fully understand the extent of the responsibilities you incur upon the manufacture of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which there is an applicable FMVSS.

Enclosed for your information and guidance is a copy of the following:

1. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USc 1381 et seq.)

2. 49 CFR 555, "Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards"

3. 49 CFR 567, "Certification"

4. 19 CFR 12.80, "Importation Regulations"

5. "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations"

6. Form HS-189, "General Requirements of FMVSS"

7. Two Letters of interpretation regarding kit cars.

8. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

Should you have other questions, please contact Mr. George Shifflet, a member of my staff, on telephone number 202-426-3876.

Sincerely,

ID: 07-005971as underride guards

ID: nht89-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/89

FROM: T. CHIKADA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF NEW FMVSS NO. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-15-90 TO T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; STD. 108]; ALSO ATTACHED TO FILE MEMO DATED 7-21-89 TO DOCKET SECTION FROM RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE, NHTSA; [85-15-N08-011]

TEXT: Please give us your advice on our Interpretation of New FMVSS No. 108.

Q1) We think the configuration of each indicator which prescribe in New FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2 a).(1) iii) are as follows.

A. Direct reading analog indicator

B. Remote reading indicator

(Graphics omitted)

We would like to know whether our interpretation is correct or not. If it is not correct, what typical configuration will be for each type?

Q2) Is protective cover described in S7.7.2 in FMVSS No. 108 equal to the cover to protect spirit level which is one of the component of VHAD?

Your prompt reply will be highly appreciated.

ID: nht92-8.22

DATE: March 20, 1992

FROM: John W. Phillips -- Project Engineer, Transportation Research Center of Ohio

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from Paul J. Rice to John W. Phillips (A39; Std. 202)

TEXT:

As instructed by Mr. Ed Jetner of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on March 17, 1992, I am contacting you regarding the FMVSS 202, head restraint standard. The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) has scheduled a FMVSS 202 test on April 7, 1992. FMVSS 202 describes a "dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device." The TRC is recommending the use of the Hybrid III large male dummy manufactured by First Technologies, Model Number H3-95-R with the 1992 pelvis upgrade, to conduct this test. TRC believes this dummy represents the most "state of the art" 95th percentile dummy currently available.

Please advise TRC if the Hybrid III large male dummy is an approved equivalent test device for conducting the FMVSS 202 test. Please respond to the undersigned at 513/666-2011 by April 2, 1992. Thank you for your time with this matter.

ID: nht93-1.50

DATE: February 26, 1993

FROM: Vincent Schulze -- Chief, Motor Carrier Inspection and Investigation, State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation

TO: Ron Havelar -- Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration

COPYEE: D. Webb

TITLE: RE: FMVSS No. 217 Bus Emergency Exits MC 83-93

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-2-93 from John Womack to Vincent Schulze (A41; Std. 217).

TEXT: Questions have arisen as to the interpretation of a position of FMVSS 217 pertaining to emergency exits on buses.

This office has always defined an emergency exit on a bus as a window or door that must open PERPENDICULAR to the surface of a bus, such as a car door, for example.

A bus company has presented a bus to this Department for inspection which has side windows that SLIDE OPEN as opposed to opening PERPENDICULAR to the bus surface. This office has rejected the bus for not meeting the requirements of FMVSS 217 (S5.4) which states that the push-out window or other emergency exit shall ... be manually extendable .....

My question is this -- can a bus meet the requirements of FMVSS 217 by having side sliding windows?

Thank you for your anticipated response.