ID: 1982-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/82; JANUARY 13, 1982

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pathfinder Auto Lamp Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 25, 1981, letter to Roger Tilton of this Office regarding the applicability of vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements to trailer kits manufactured by your company.

It is our view that these trailer kits must comply with the VIN requirements of FMVSS 115. Your kits contain all components necessary to assemble a complete trailer, and are advertised as capable of being readily assembled with simple tools such as screwdrivers and wrenches. We see no relevant basis for distinguishing between such kits and completed trailers for purposes of determining the applicability of FMVSS 115.

While the VIN requirements do provide anti-theft benefits, they also are important to this agency in administering the defect recall program as well as to State motor vehicle departments and insurance companies. Further, even if this agency exempted trailer kits from VIN requirements, purchasers of your kits would likely face difficulties when they attempt to register their trailers with the States. We expect most states to soon begin checking VIN's as part of the vehicle registration process, and vehicles without a VIN or with a nonconforming identification number might face rejection by the state motor vehicle departments notwithstanding a technical exemption from NHTSA. We feel that in the long run, the best and simplest solution is for vehicle manufacturers to assign a VIN which meets the requirements of FMVSS 115.

Should you still wish to seek an exemption from the standard, procedures for obtaining exemptions are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555, a copy of which is enclosed. Such exemptions are available for not more than three years.

You should also be aware that certification labels must contain both the month and year of a vehicle's manufacture. See 49 CFR 567.5(b)(5). The copy of the label you sent us contains only the year of manufacture.

If you have further questions on this matter, feel free to contact us again.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

Pathfinder Auto Lamp Company

November 25, 1981

Roger Tilton -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: V.I.N. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPACT UTILITY TRAILER KITS

Dear Mr. Tilton:

In accordance with our telephone conversation of November 24, 1981, I have enclosed information on our trailer kit consisting of the following:

- Sales Brochure

- Picture of the Unit

- Copy of the Nameplate Label

- Copy of the M.S.O. (C.O.)

A question has occurred in one state regarding the application of FMVSS 115 (576.115) requirements for Vehicle Identification Numbers (V.I.N.) to these trailer kits. The problem being that to comply with the requirements of 115 would impose a workload on us that cannot be justified based on the unit volume and low selling cost of these units.

We have no problems in working with the various agencies in the several states and meeting their various legal, administrative, taxing, and construction requirements for these units, even though they represent a new or separate category in some cases. However, the 115 requirements present a burden which can cause restricted availability in jurisdictions imposing them. This is unfortunate for consumers in those locales, particularly since these units are a natural adjunct to down size cars with limited trunk space.

While the requirements of 115 are a definite improvement in regard to protecting motor vehicles and other high dollar items from theft, we feel that the requirements are not completely logical for these kits. The reason being that these units are low in dollar value at retail and are not a theft prone item. The latter is true especially prior to assembly since the kit still in the box is not very mobile due to the size and weight of the box. We therefore seek your assistance in resolving this matter since our customers are anxious to sell these units in all states.

I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call me if I may be of further help to you.

Very truly yours,

James S. Nasby -- Director of Engineering

enclosures (4)

COMPACTUTILITY TRAILER 1/2 TON CAPACITY

(Graphics omitted)

STORAGE

Unique design of recessed tail lights permits trailer to be easily stored in an upright position. This exclusive feature saves considerable storage space in garage, shed or basement.

CLAM SHELL

The 48 x 41 trailer frame is designed to accommodate most clam shell car top carriers. The rear cross member of the trailer frame adjusts to fit the various mounting spans of manufactured clam shell carriers.

FLAT BED

A versatile flat bed trailer can be built in minutes by simply bolting on a 48' x 41' plywood board to the trailer frame. Additional mounting holes are provided on all four sides of the frame to accommodate tie down cords.

EASY TO ASSEMBLE

All that is required to assemble the trailer is a screwdriver a (Illegible Word) allen wrench and two adjustable wrenches. The assembly time can be greatly reduced with the use of a 1/4" socket set and several open and wrenches.

(Graphics omitted)

Demountable wheel permits easy tire changing and lubrication. Spare tire available separately CT-1010 (02010)

This beautifully designed consumer oriented package contains self selling features which includes explicit application information and product specifies. The entire unit is packaged in a surprisingly compact box and measures 49 1/2" x 21 1/2" x 5 5/8".

Optional fenders constructed of heavy gauge steel are available as separate item. CT-1020(02020)

BOX

The versatility of the frame is enhanced to its utmost when converting the unit to a box trailer. Complete building plans are provided in the instruction manual which will make this an easy job for the "do it yourselfer."

WINTER USE

The 1,000 lb. load capacity of the trailer gives it a wide assortment of winter season uses ranging from hauling a snowblower to most snowmobiles. This added feature gives truth to the fact that it is truly an item for all four seasons.

MOTORCYCLE

The trailer frame can be easily converted to transport most motorcycles and bicycles. It is ideal for off road dirt bikes as well as family bicycle outings.

GARDEN TRACTOR

In whatever configuration the trailer frame is transformed, it can be used with most garden tractors. The compact utility trailer is at least less than 1/2 the cost of most standard garden tractor trailers and yet has greater universal application.

* Each trailer comes complete with easy to read assembly instructions.

* A certificate of origin, which is required in most states for title and licensing, is included with each trailer.

* The trailer is equipped with DOT approved class "A" lighting which meets legal requirements in all 50 states and Canada.

* Pathfinder's hub and sprindle are fully assembled with bearings and seal factory greased and installed.

Master Master Model IBM Carton Carton Carton No. No. Pack Weight Cube CT-1000 02001 1 125 3.39

MANUFACTURED BY Pathfinder Niles, IL, U.S.A. 60648

Date of Manufacturer: 1980

Model No.: CT 100

Serial No: 2275

GVWR 1100 LBS. WITH 480/400x8 TIRES AT 60 P.S.I. COLD

GAWR 1100 LBS. WITH 480/400x8 TIRES AT 60 P.S.I. COLD

MAXIMUM LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY 1000 LBS.

THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE.

Manufacturer's Statement or Certificate OF ORIGIN TO A UTILITY TRAILER

The undersigned manufacturer hereby certifies that the new Trailer kit described below, the property of said manufacturer has been transferred this day of 19 on Invoice No. to whose address is

Trade Name of Trailer kit: Compact Utility Trailer

Serial No.

Shipping Weight: 123 lbs.

Maximum Load Carrying Capacity: 1,000 lbs.

G.A.R.W.: 1,100 lbs.

Date of Manufacture (and Model Year)

MONTH

YEAR

Series or Model Name: CT1000

No. Wheels: 2

Width: 40 (Illegible Word)

Length: 44"

G.V.W.R.: 1,100 lbs.

Other Data: Steel Construction Black

(Illegible Line)

Said manufacturer hereby certifies that this written instrument constitutes the first conveyance of said vehicle after its manufacture and that the manufacturer's serial number set forth above has not been and will not be used by the manufacturer on any other vehicle manufactured by said manufacturer, and that there are no other manufacturer's certificates issued by the manufacturer for the vehicle described above.

PATHFINDER AUTOLAMP CO. NILES, ILLINOIS 60648

MANUFACTURER

By:

(SIGN NAME TITLE OR POSITION)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht87-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C. D. Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. C. D. Black Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, New Jersey 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This responds to your December 11, 1986 letter to me concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we interpret Standard No. 206 to permit inst allation of a particular type of door locking system which you referred to as a "child safety lock." The answer to your question is yes.

You explain that a "child safety lock" is a special locking system installed in addition to the locking system mandated by Standard No. 206. You state that the required locking system (hereinafter referred to as "the primary locking system") is operated by a vertical plunger located in the door top trim roll (window sill). The child safety lock (which I will refer to as a "secondary locking system") consists of a lever that is located in the shut face of the rear doors which can only be reached when the door is open. When the lever is set in the "active" position, it renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows:

S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

As you know, the standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadverte nt door openings due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles. Other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from insi de the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.

Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the interior latch release controls (door handles) to operate the door latches when the door locking mechanism is disengaged. As explained be low, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past agency interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems which interfere with the engagement of the primary locking system. Since y our child locking systems do not interfere with the manner in which the primary locking system engages, their installation on the vehicles you manufacture is permitted.

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1. 3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door lo cks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is enga ged. Since we have determined that S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the requ ired locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

While the agency stated in its April 1968 notice amending Standard No. 206 that one purpose of requiring an interior means of operating door locks was to allow a reasonable means of escape for vehicle occupants, the agency did not go further in facilitat ing escape by also including a provision to require in all circumstances that door handles be operative when the primary locking systems are disengaged. Since the agency could easily have included such a provision to address this reverse situation, but d id not do so, the implication is that the agency did not intend to impose requirements regarding that situation. In fact, the notice included a contemporaneous interpretation that the standard permits a secondary locking device which rendered the inside rear door handle inoperative even when the primary locking mechanism was disengaged. This affirms that NHTSA did not even intend to impose a requirement that the handles always be operative when the primary locking mechanism is disengaged.

In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 206 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to "minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a re sult of impact." Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in Collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside o perating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.

Another issue related to your inquiry is whether the location of the operating means for the child locks is regulated by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no. Secondary locking mechanisms discussed in the final rule adopting the doo r lock requirements and in past agency letters all were designed so that the operating means for the secondary mechanism was inaccessible when the door was closed. In none of those documents did the agency take exception to that location of the operating means, much less suggest that those means, like the means for the primary locking mechanism, must be located in the vehicle's interior.

This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies past agency statements concerning issues raised by secondary locking systems such as "child safety locks." To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations made by NHTSA in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 11, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We request your interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 206 as it relates to child safety lock systems currently fitted to Jaguar sedans destined for U.K. and European markets and which we would like to fit to USA cars.

The Jaguar rear door primary locking system is activated or deactivated from a vertical plunger situated in the door top trim roll. It functions in the manner described in FMVSS 206, paragraph 4.1.3.2., (also pages 12 and 13 of the Jaguar drivers handboo k attached.)

To operate the additional child safety lock (special locking system), the door must first be opened and a small lever, situated in the door shut-face, activated. The door, when subsequently closed, cannot then be unlocked or opened from inside the vehicl e regardless of the position of the primary locking system vertical plunger. However, the door can be opened using the outside handle. The child safety lock can be deactivated only by opening the rear door using the outside door handle and then reversing the position of the lever in the door shut-face.

However, the preamble to FMVSS 206 amendment of 27 April 1968 (33 FR 6465) contains a phrase that we believe could be interpreted to preclude fitment of these locks for USA cars:

"At the same time, by affording occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle, a reasonable means of escape is provided for such occupants in the post crash phase of an accident." (Emphasis added).

We would like a clear statement that such a system as described above would not contravene the requirements of FMVSS 206.

On behalf of Jaguar Cars Yours sincerely,

C.D. Black

Manager - Engineering CDB:as Legislation & Compliance

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

Attach.

ID: 2347y

Mr. Cadwallader Jones
President
Jones Ford Inc.
P.O.Box 10267
North Charleston, SC 29411

Dear Mr. Jones:

This is in response to your letter to NHTSA in which you asked questions concerning the circumstances in which Ford vans with more than ten designated seating positions would be considered school buses for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in this response.

Your letter asked whether the vans that you describe would be considered school buses if used to transport adult education students, college students, high school students (including athletic teams), playground teams with no connection to schools, day care center clients, or children transported by churches that do not have day schools, but occasionally transport children.

The starting point for the agency's analysis of when vehicles used in these circumstances would be required to comply with FMVSS requirements applicable to school buses is Section 102(14) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). That provision defines "Schoolbus" as a "passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools."

When interpreting this provision, the agency has always looked to the nature of the particular institution purchasing the buses. If its central purpose is the education of primary, preprimary or secondary students, the agency has determined that the buses purchased must comply with the FMVSS requirements for school buses. If the institution is concerned primarily with the education of post-secondary students, or serves a function that is custodial rather than educational, NHTSA has said that the buses need not comply with the school bus requirements.

The agency has already explained the application of this provision to several of the circumstances raised in your letter. On July 12, 1977, in a letter to Mr. Jim Thomason, the agency said that buses used to transport adults and other post-high school students to vocational training need not comply with the FMVSS school bus requirements because these passengers do not fall in the categories of "primary, preprimary or secondary students." However, that interpretation also noted that a bus used by a vocational school connected with a secondary school would fall within the scope of the school bus requirements.

The agency has also determined, in a March 17, 1976 letter to Mr. W.G. Milby (and reaffirmed several times since then), that buses used to transport college students need not comply with the standards for school buses. The same letter also includes our opinion that a bus used to transport school athletic teams to activities falls within the scope of the definition of school bus, and must comply with the applicable FMVSS.

A May 10, 1982 interpretation letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin determined that vehicles used to transport children to day care centers need not comply with the school bus standards. The rationale for this decision is based on the fact that these facilities serve an essentially custodial function, although they may have some educational components, and are not considered to be schools.

Your letter also asks about transportation of children by churches which do not operate day schools. In a November 20, 1978 letter to Mr. J. Perry Robinson, this office determined that the term "school" does not include church schools such as Sunday schools, or those providing other religious training. As noted in that letter, however, a normal preprimary, primary or secondary school operated under the auspices of a church would be required to comply with the the school bus requirements.

Finally, your letter asks whether vehicles used to transport "playground teams" with no connection to a school would be required to comply with the school bus requirements. The agency has not addressed this question in any past interpretations. However, it is my opinion that a bus used to transport "playground teams" that are organized independently of any school or educational organization would not be required to comply with the school bus standards. The term "school" cannot be construed to include athletic teams not connected with any school or educational organization.

I hope you have found this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:VSA#571 d:3/20/90

ID: Cardinali1

ID: GF009787

Mr. Dale Kardos
Dale Kardos & Associates, Inc.
3906 Huntington Street, NW
Washington, DC 20015




Dear Mr. Kardos:

This responds to your letter asking whether a "keyless-go" key-locking system being contemplated by your client would meet the requirements of S4.2 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 114, Theft protection.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.  The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter.

Your letter describes a "keyless-go" system that unlocks the door when an electronic key code is transmitted from the key to the vehicle.If the door is opened following transmission of the key code to the vehicle, the steering column is automatically unlocked.For engine activation, an operator must insert the key into the electronic ignition lock. As soon as the key is removed from the electronic ignition lock, the steering column locks, the immobilizer is activated, and the electronic key code is removed from the system.

You ask if S4.2 of FMVSS No. 114 permits a system that unlocks the steering column when an electronic key code is transmitted from the key to the vehicle, and the driver opens the door.

S4.2 of FMVSS No. 114 reads as follows:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents:

(a) The normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and

(b) Either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

We note that the standard does not specify under what conditions a steering column may become unlocked.However, the system described in your letter appears to operate in the manner consistent with the requirements of S4.2 because removal of the key from the electronic ignition lock prevents activation of the engine and locks the steering.

NHTSA has issued several letters of interpretation pertaining to keyless systems similar to the one described in your letter (see our 7/17/2002 and 8/15/2002 letters to unnamed parties).You may find these letters useful in ascertaining whether your system complies with other requirements in FMVSS No. 114.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures
ref:114
d.2/22/05

ID: nht95-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 23, 1995

FROM: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

TO: Orron Kee -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretation of 49 CFR 575.101

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LANCE TUNICK (REDBOOK 2; PART 575; STD. 105; STD. 135)

TEXT: Dear Orron:

This is to request that NHTSA clarify how it interprets the requirements of 49 CFR 575.101 (disclosure of vehicle stopping distance) when a manufacturer uses newly promulgated FMVSS 135 to certify its vehicle. The question arises because 575.101(c) refe rs to FMVSS 105, but makes no mention of FMVSS 135.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: 1982-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sure-View, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mar 25, 1982

Mr. M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridan Street Wichita, KA 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of February 8, 1982, concerning compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, in particular compliance with Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors.

You are correct that section 102(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(2)) defines; in part, a motor vehicle safety standard as "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance...." Thus, each of the agency's safety standards sets a minimum level of performance which must be met by every manufacturer. Manufacturers are free to utilize designs that exceeds the minimum level of performance set by a standard as long as their products still comply with the standard. Thus, in the case of schoolbus rearview mirrors, a manufacturer must at least comply with the requirements of section 9.1 of Standard No. 111 regarding mirror size, and may voluntarily provide a mirror of a larger size. As explained in the enclosed letter, the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the agency to regulate aspect of design, such as mirror size.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 8, 1982

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to direct your attention to the enclosed copy of a letter from the State of Texas.

It is my opinion and belief standards established by the NHTSA are minimum and should not probibit the use of an item that is Superior in Safety Performance.

This Design Standard requires 50 square inches of flat glass mounted firmly on each side of a Van Type vehicle in such a manner that if any portion of each mirror is visible to the driver, it meets the requirement of the NHTSA.

In the interest of Safety, the mirror system should minimize the obstruction of the forward view to the driver--NO more than you need and NO less than you need. The driver and children riding scbool buses should not be subjected to the hazards involved with separately adjustable flat and convex mirrors and/or mirrors reflection rearward that may reflect false and/or mis-leading information to the driver.

I cannot agree this Design Standard is in accord with the intent of The Congress. I believe it was the intent of The Congress to make a contribution to the Prevention of Accidents as clearly defined in Section 102(2) of the Transportation Act.

Please advise the position of the NHTSA as to permitting the use of items Superior in Safety Performance when a Design Standard of this type has been issued.

Sincerely,

SURE VIEW, INC.

M. W. Urban

MWU/h1 Encl.

cc: Congressman Dan Glickman 1507 Longworth Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515

February 4, 1982

Reference: 070-36-1D

M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 North Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Gentlemen:

This is in response to your letter of February 1, 1982 about rearview mirrors and Your sample mirror model number 3004.

We are familiar with the revision of section 393.80 issued on April 13, 1979 and published in the Federal Register May 1, 1979. This revision amends the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and not FMVSS 111. In addition, this revision speaks to the number of rearview mirrors required and not their dimensions. The language in section 393.80 clearly requires conformance with FMVSS 111.

Section S9.1 of FMVSS 111 requires rearview mirrors on both sides of all school buses and these mirrors must contain 50 square inches of flat reflective surface.

He are therefore required to withdraw approval of your 3000 series mirrors for use on Texas buses.

Please advise what disposition you wish made of the sample mirror you sent.

Yours truly,

Don Miller, Specification Technician Specification Section (512)475-2231

DM/dh cc: Max Walton

ID: 1982-2.6

DATE: 04/19/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 1, 1981, letter asking whether it would be permissible to attach a label to a door stating "To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down". You indicate that the door is not an emergency door in compliance with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. You question whether the addition of the label in conformance to a contract with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would make the door an emergency door that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA requires that door to be so labelled because it desires the door to be used as a means of escape.

The standard states that buses shall be equipped with a minimum number of emergency exits and that all emergency exits shall be labelled properly and comply with the requirements of the standard. One purpose of the standard is to provide sufficient emergency exits. Another purpose is to provide uniform emergency exit markings and operating instructions. You have stated that your vehicle has the requisite number of emergency exits, properly marked, so that the door in question is not required in counting the total number of exits for purposes of complying with the standard.

As you know, not all doors are required to be emergency exits. For example, the front entrance door of a vehicle need not be an emergency exit. If it is not labelled an emergency exit, it need not comply with the requirements of the standard relative to emergency exits. Similarly, the door to which you refer need not comply with the emergency exit requirements if it is not labelled as an emergency exit. However, since your proposed label refers to the emergency nature of the door, it appears to place the door within the category of an emergency exit that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA intends the door to be used as an emergency exit and the label will indicate to riders that the door is suitable for such purposes. You may not, therefore, refer to the door as an emergency door unless the door complies with all of the requirements.

SINCERELY,

M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORPORATION

October 1, 1981

General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am writing today to ask for your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 to the extent that it affects the language of an instructional decal that we intend to affix at the front and rear entrances of our new series of articulated transit buses.

As we understand it, FMVSS 217 is a standard whose intent is to prescribe the amount of emergency exit area to be provided on buses, the nature of the emergency exits to be provided, and the way in which such exits must be identified.

We further believe that the vehicles we are preparing to manufacture in the United States more than meet the requirements of the standard. That is, through a combined use of push-out side windows and escape roof hatches that function and are identified according to FMVSS 217, the escape area requirement is exceeded. Therefore, we believe that the main passenger doors are not also required as emergency exits to qualify the bus under the 217 standard.

However, the language of the specification describing the buses of our current contract with the Chicago Transit Authority demands that additional escape area be provided by the main entrances. Manual operation of the main doors is accomplished via a two-step procedure. First, an operator with a red ball handle, located overhead on the door engine compartment, is pulled to release the air pressure that keeps the door closed. Second, the door panels are pushed open by the passenger. (For a better idea of the conditions at the entrances, please refer to the enclosed sketch.)

CTA further requires that this manual operation of the main doors be described in the following way by an instructional decal that is placed in close proximity to the red-handled operator:

TO OPEN DOOR IN EMERGENCY PULL DOWN.

It is the language of this decal that concerns us. Specifically, though the bus easily exceeds requirements of FMVSS 217, without the inclusion of the main doors as emergency exits, we are unsure that those doors could qualify as emergency exits under 217, and we therefore seek assurance from your office that the use of the word "emergency" in the decal does not violate the standard, as you interpret it.

We thank you in advance for your early response to this question.

Joseph R. Karner Project Engineer

cc: M. R. HOWARD; L. K. MIKALONIS; G. E. PICKETT; L. ROGERS; K. M. SIMON

NOTE: THIS IS A GENERAL CONFIGURATION SKETCH, NOT INTENDED TO ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE DOOR AREA.

(Graphics omitted)

SKETCH OF DOOR ARRANGEMENT M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORP. (CTA) DRAWN BY: J. R. KARNER 10-1-81

ID: nht87-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John B. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager, Product Engineering Michelin Americas Research & Development Corp. P.O. BOX 1987 Greenville, SC 29602

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that you currently mark a tire with the size designation 385/65 R 22.5 Load Range J. You also stated that this tire has the same dimensions as a 15 R 22.5 Load Range J tire. You asked whether Standard No. 119 would prohibit the following size designation from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 LRJ (15R22.5)

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Section S5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual man ufacturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations.

With respect to the 385/65 R 22.5 Load Range J tire size, Michelin has not furnished any individual information for this tire size to the agency. The only standardization organization that has published tire and rim matching information for this tire siz e is the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO), which did so in its 1987 yearbook. Accordingly, section S5.2 of Standard No. 119 provides that the information for this tire size in the 1987 ETRTO yearbook is considered to be information fo r Michelin's tires of that size.

The 1987 ETRTO yearbook shows the tire size only as 385/65 R 22.5. As noted above, section S6.5(c) requires that the tire size designation on the sidewall be "as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1". Reading this requirement as na rrowly as possible, S6.5(c) prohibits Michelin from marking the tires as both 385/65 R 22.5 and 15 R 22.5, since the size is shown only as 385/65 R 22.5 in the publication designated in S5.1 of Standard No. 119.

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical infor mation necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohi biting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

File: FMVSS 119

15 May 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

This is in regards to the marking requirements of FMVSS 119. We have a tire which is marked with the tire designation 385/65R22.5 LRJ. This tire has the same dimensions as the 15R22.5 LRJ and therefore can replace that tire. Would the following marking m eet the requirements of FMVSS 119?

385/65R22.5 LRJ (15R22.5)

We would appreciate a prompt reply to this question.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

John B. White Engineering Manager Product Engineering

ID: 86-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carol Dingledy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking several questions about the effects of an amendment to the buckle force requirements in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213). Buckles used on child restraints manufactured on or after February 16, 1986, must release with a minimum of 9 pounds force and a maximum of 14 pounds force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981, and February 15, 1986, were required to release with a minimum of 12 pounds applied force and a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured before January 1, 1981, were required to release with a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. You asked with which buckle release force requirements replacement buckles provided by your company should comply. Assuming that the replacement buckles are to be installed by you or dealers, distributors, or repair businesses, the answer is that the buckles may, at your option, comply with either the release force requirements applicable to child restraint buckles as of the date of manufacture of the child restraint or with the current buckle release force requirements.

Standard No. 213, like all of our safety standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, does not apply to the equipment after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Please note that these prohibitions do not apply to the child restraint owner rendering inoperative some element of design installed on his or her child restraint. Hence, replacement buckles that are sold to and installed by child restraint owners are not required to comply with the provisions of Standard No. 213.

However, if you as a manufacturer, or any dealers, distributors, or repair businesses were to remove complying buckles from a child restraint and replace them with buckles that did not comply with Standard No. 213, this would violate section 108(a)(2)(A). This result arises because buckles with the specified release force levels were installed on an item of motor vehicle equipment (the child restraint system) in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (Standard No. 213). Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies that each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) subjects the violator to a potential $ 1,000 civil penalty.

Assuming that you or your dealers and distributors will be installing the replacement buckles, section 108(a)(2)(A) gives you an option of which release force requirements the replacement buckles must meet. In connection with several other standards that have been amended, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has stated its opinion that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business does not knowingly render inoperative an element of design by replacing components installed in satisfaction of a safety standard with other components used in newer items of the same type in satisfaction of the same standard, even if the newer version of the standard imposes less stringent performance requirements. See, for example, the enclosed opinion issued when Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, was amended; 42 FR 26279, May 23, 1977. In this context, this opinion means that child restraint manufacturers may install replacement buckles that either:

1. comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213 as of the date the child restraint was manufactured; or

2. comply with the current requirements of Standard No. 213.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

COSCO INC.

OCC 0062

Steve Kratsky -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

January 16, 1986

Dear Mr. Kratsky,

I am interested in receiving clarification about the FMVSS 213 amendment for reduction of pressure required to operate buckles on child restraints. This amendment, effective February 16, 1986, will require child restraints to have buckles with a release pressure of not less than 9 or more that 14 pounds, instead of the original 12 pounds minimum.

My questions regarding the provision of replacement buckles for child restraints are as follows:

1. Which type buckle will need to be provided for child restraints manufactured prior to January 1, 1981?

2. Must we provide 12 pound minimum pressure buckles for child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981 and February 16, 1986 so they will continue to be in compliance with the FMVSS 213 standard in effect at time of manufacture?

3. Must we provide buckles meeting the amendment requirements for child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981 and February 16, 1986 so they will be in compliance with the current FMVSS 213 standard as amended?

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Carol Dingledy -- Communications Supervisor