ID: nht76-5.64

DATE: 05/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William T. Coleman; NHTSA

TO: Charles E. Wiggins; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 9, 1976, concerning the Tire identification and Recordkeeping Requirements administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments concerning this program and your obvious efforts to familiarize yourself with the way it is administered. It is clear from your letter that you share my view that these requirements should be made as effective and efficient as possible, thereby increasing consumer safety while lessening the burden on tire dealers.

As you are aware, the Congress in 1970 amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require manufacturers and retreaders of tires to maintain the names and addresses of purchasers so that they could be notified of any defect. This step was taken only after attempts by manufacturers and the NHTSA to inform owners of defective tires proved ineffective. As you point out, Congressional action would be necessary to eliminate the program.

In your letter, you address four areas in which you believe the tire registration program is either ineffective or inefficient. I would like to discuss each one individually to ensure that your questions are answered comprehensively.

The first question you raise deals with the cost your constituent, a small tire dealer, is obligated to incur to satisfy the requirements of the program. In order to understand fully the cost involved, it would be useful to consider precisely what is required by the regulation.

1. A dealer must fill out a tire identification form supplied by the manufacturer for each purchase. This requires entering the name and address of the purchaser, the tire identification number which appears on the tire(s), and the company's name and address or number on the form. Only several minutes are required to complete the form.

2. Once a month, the dealer must send the forms to the manufacturer of the tires.

We are unable to understand how the regulation appreciably increases a small businessman's cost of doing business. It is our view that additional staff is not necessary to carry out the registration of tires, and we have no information which would suggest the contrary.

The situation would be somewhat more complex if your constituent sold tires manufactured by more than one firm, as each manufacturer supplies its own form which must, of course, be returned to the appropriate manufacturer. In this case, however, we have required that manufacturers supply to the dealers upon request a form with a standardized format to simplify completion.

The second matter you raise is the failure of some dealers to complete the registration forms. I share with you a concern that despite provision for substantial penalties, some dealers insist on breaking the law. It had been the policy of the NHTSA to delay strict enforcement of the regulation in the belief that dealer unfamiliarity with the regulation might be the cause of the poor response and that the situation would improve. In view of the continued unsatisfactory rate of compliance, the NHTSA has advised me that it will increase enforcement action to eliminate competitive advantage based on noncompliance.

Another issue raised in your letter is the cost of administering the regulation as compared to its benefit. I have queried the NHTSA as to their estimate of this cost and have been advised that the one dollar figure which you cited in your letter relates to all costs of both the manufacturer and dealer to register and maintain records for all four tires on a vehicle rather than a single tire. I am sorry for any confusion which might have arisen. Even utilizing a higher cost figure, however, it is NHTSA's view, in which I concur, that the expense of tire registration is not exorbitant in terms of helping to insure that a motorist will be advised if a tire he purchased is defective and could lead to death, a serious injury, or damage to his vehicle. As I am sure you realize, the purpose of any insurance program, be it fire insurance for the home or health insurance for the individual, is to protect all insured individuals against the catastrophic loss that only some of the insured individuals will actually experience.

It is of course difficult to associate a dollar figure with the potential damage which could be caused by a defective tire. In this regard, however, you may be interested in knowing that a Federal jury in Florida last year returned a $ 2,300,000 judgment against Sears Roebuck & Company in a tort action involving a defective tire.

You also suggest in your letter that only 25,000 tires were recalled in 1974. Our records, however, indicate that 1,098,000 tires were recalled in 1974 in 31 recall campaigns. Further, 2,526,480 tires have been recalled in the 119 recall campaigns initiated since the inception of the program. It is my view that the program should continue in light of the defect potential inherent in the sale of 200,000,000 tires annually.

In addition to planning increased enforcement, the NHTSA is evaluating the consumer response rate in tire defect notification campaigns to determine whether it can be improved and whether the low response rate is due in large part to tires no longer being in the hands of the initial purchaser. I have already requested the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council to conduct a broad study of the safety defect and recall problem, which includes a consideration of the adequacy of the tire recall effort. Based on these evaluations, the NHTSA should be able to determine if legislative action is necessary.

Let me assure you I appreciate your personal interest in this matter.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

March 9, 1976

The Honorable William T. Coleman, Jr. Secretary of the Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Recently a constituent of mine who sells motor vehicle tires at retail took time to explain to me the "Tire Identification and Recordkeeping" program which you administer and which directly affects him.

I hadn't heard of such a program, but have since learned that Section 1402(f) of Title 15 of the United States Code requires that manufacturers of tires maintain a record of names and addresses of the purchasers of their products. Regulations implementing the requirement are in Section 574 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The obvious purpose of the law is to make efficient the recall of defective tires.

My constituent informed me that the requirements of this program are widely ignored by retail tire dealers who are the conduit of the purchasers' identity to the manufacturers. He complains that the program costs him money, and being a small businessman, he must pass this cost onto his customers. His competitors who ignore the requirements don't have the cost and so gain a competitive edge. Furthermore, he believes the program is not worth the effort to begin with; due to the fact that only a miniscule percentage of those notified they have a defective tire respond to the recall notice.

On January 21, 1976, Mr. Elwood Driver, an employee of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration came to my office with a number of his associates, to explain the program to me. Mr. Driver made it clear that DOT plays virtually no role in overseeing the registration program. He had no information to offer on how efficiently the program operated, nor how many defective tires were removed from motor vehicles because of it. Subsequent to the meeting he contacted several manufacturers, and informed me by letter that they had informed him that 90% of the manufacturer owned tire dealers and 40-50% of the independent dealers complied with the program. Those manufacturers stated that only 30% of the tire owners notified that they owned a potentially defective tire responded to the recall notice.

I was informed by Mr. Driver that more than 200 million tires are sold each year and that a conservative price for the paperwork required to properly "register" a single tire is one dollar. If 50% of the dealers are complying with the registration program, that represents a pass through to the American consumer of $ 100 million.

I have been informed from industry sources that approximately 25,000 tires were recalled in 1974 as being potentially defective. Only a certain percentage of owners of those tires were notified because only a percentage of the dealers comply with the program. However, if compliance was 100% and all the purchasers were notified, only 30% would respond. That means this $ 100 million program optimally would result in 7,500 potentially defective tires being removed from automobiles. (Parenthetically, if all the tires manufactured were properly registered this would be a $ 200 million program.)

I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that you could review this program to determine whether in your opinion it should be continued. Without question, it doesn't work efficiently or effectively. Without question, it is enormously expensive to the American consumer. On the other hand, if defective new tires pose a serious national threat, then this program should be made to operate efficiently. It is my opinion, that the appropriate Committees would seriously consider any constructive recommendations in this regard that you care to offer.

CHARLES E. WIGGINS Member of Congress

cc: HON. HARLEY O. STAGGERS;

HON. SAMUEL L. DEVINE;

HON. JOHN E. MOSS;

HON. JAMES COLLINS;

HON. FRED B. ROONEY;

HON. JOE SKUBITZ

ID: nht74-2.46

DATE: 12/04/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Andrew G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 74-0203) concerning trailers equipped with Standard Forge axles which may have defective brake shoes.

The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject trailers does not completely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter describes the defect as existing in the brake shoes. Part 577.4(b), however, requires that in cases where a vehicle manufacturer is notifying owners of vehicles, the letter must state that a defect exists in the vehicle itself. The reference to motor vehicle equipment applies only to equipment campaigns where vehicles are not directly involved. Your letter also fails to adequately evaluate the risk to traffic safety as required by Part 577.4(d) since it does not state that the vehicle crash without warning may occur. Although the statement that reduced braking power or lockup may result may suggest the possibility of a crash to many owners, it is not entirely adequate.

Although mailing of a revised notification letter will not be required, it is expected that in the event that another defect notification campaign ever becomes necessary in the future, the notification letters conform completely with the regulations.

A copy of Part 577 is enclosed. If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840.

Sincerely,

Andrew G. Detrick -- Acting Director, Office of Defects Investigation Motor Vehicle Programs

Enclosure

ATTACH.

MATLOCK TRUCK BODY & TRAILER CORP.

February 11, 1975

Wolfgang Reinhart -- Office of Defects Investigation Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: N41-62 re

Dear Mr. Reinhart: I received Mr. Andrew G. Detrick's letter of December the 4th, 1974 in regard to our defect notification campaign (#74-0203). He stated that my letter did not completely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR) in two specific items. I am returning a copy of his letter with the two points in question underlined in red and marked 1 and 2. Also, I am enclosing a copy of my letter of defect notification with the "answers" underlined in red and marked 1 and 2.

Please note that in the point marked 1 that my letter states that the defect exist in the brake shoes on Matlock MTE (electronic trailers).

In the second point, perhaps we were not specific enough about the possibility of a crash, but we were only quoting the statement in Standard Forge's letter to us.

We sent all the information to Standard Forge concerning the recall after receiving a letter from Mr. Detrick on January the 6th, 1975. In accordance with his letter, we will not submit the quarterly reports. A copy of the letter to Standard Forge is also enclosed.

Yours truly,

Curtis Eddy Vice President - Engineering

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the brake shoes of Standard Forge axles with 12 1/4" x 7 1/2" brakes on Matlock Model MTE (electronic trailers). These axles are used only with 15" wheels and on trailers produced between February 1, 1974 and October 31, 1974.

Standard Forge and Axle Company, one of the world's largest manufacturers of trailer axles, made a change in the brake shoe attachment on some of the axles made for highway trailers early in 1974. After several months of operation, some of these axles have caused brake problems.

Standard Forge has been very prompt in their actions to correct any problems of approximately 5000 axles that are involved. Matlock received only 438 of these axles or about 9%. The other 91% have gone to others, including most of the leading trailer manufacturers.

The axles concerned are only those with 15" wheels with 12 1/4" x 5 1/4" or 12 1/4" x 7 1/2" brakes. Matlock uses only the heavier 12 1/4" x 7 1/2" brakes. If you have a trailer other than a Matlock, as a safety precaution, you might check the brakes yourself or contact your trailer supplier.

Approximately 200 of the 438 axles supplied to Matlock have been corrected already, or are in our plant and will be corrected prior to shipment of new trailers.

For your information, a copy of the letter from Standard Forge alerting trailer companies of a possible problem is enclosed.

The second paragraph of Standard Forge's letter explains the condition that might cause the malfunction and the result of such an occurance. Note that breakage can occur without warning, resulting in reduced braking power or lockup.

We instruct you to remove from service immediately any trailer that has an axle in the list that follows until the brake shoes can be replaced.

Also enclosed is a drawing showing both the correct and incorrect brake shoes. The casting number on the brake shoe will be 201103 on both the correct and incorrect brake shoe. However, the two can be easily distinguished by the shape of the end of the brake shoe. The ones that should be replaced have had the ends milled off; the replacement, or newer parts, have a closed end.

Matlock is attempting to do everything possible to minimize any inconvenience to you. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Please follow the procedure as outlined below:

1. Check the serial number on each axle used with 15" wheels. The serial number is located in the center of the axle on the name tag. If it is a Standard Forge axle and has one of the serial numbers in this list, the brake shoes should be checked and changed if they are the incorrect brake shoes. Some of the axles in this list, however, have already had the brake shoes replaced. If the brake shoes are the correct type on one end of the axle, it will not be necessary to pull the drums on the other end. We will allow one and one-half (1 1/2) hours labor per axle for checking only. In order to be reimbursed for this labor, you MUST send us the trailer serial number and the axle serial number. Be sure that the axle serial number is contained in this list, as we will not pay for labor for axles not contained in this list. 14074 thru 14083 33207 thru 33242 20199 " 20212 34011 " 34035 20213 " 20226 34036 " 34060 24535 " 24634 34111 " 34210 25128 " 25137 36406 " 36465 25348 " 25357 42395 " 42494 27572 " 27589 46360 " 46365

NOTE: If you have a Matlock trailer with 15" wheels, and you cannot read the serial number on the axle, pull the brake drum on one side of each axle to be sure that you do have brake shoes that are the correct type.

2. You may bring your trailer to our plant in Nashville or to our branch in Knoxville for the required rework. You may do the work in your own shop, or you may take it to any reputable trailer repair shop such as, but not limited to, Dorsey, Fruehauf, Great Dane, Lufkin, Nabors, Strick, Timpte, Trailmobile, or Utility. If you have any question as to where you should take your trailer for repair, you may call Mr. Jim Waters of Standard Forge and Axle Company, in Montgomery, Alabama, (205) - 269-1271.

3. The replacement parts are available now and should be ordered from Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation, 1070 Visco Drive, Nashville, Tennessee 37210 - (615) - 259-2000.

The replacement parts will be shipped and invoiced to you at regular parts prices. We will allow up to five (5) hours labor per axle to replace these parts, although we believe that four (4) hours will be sufficient in most cases. Oil seats will be furnished and must be replaced.

You will be given full credit for parts, labor and freight both ways when the parts that are replaced are returned to us in Nashville, freight prepaid. The parts should be returned to the above address and marked to the attention of Mr. Tom Hartigan.

IMPORTANT: All parts returned MUST have the trailer serial number and the axle serial number on the shipping crate and on your invoice to us.

If you have sold or otherwise disposed of a trailer that was built between February 1, 1974 and October 31, 1974, please send us the name and address of the buyer or the disposition of the trailer.

We want to tell you that when you deal with Matlock, you are dealing with a reliable supplier that wants to correct this safety defect. We appreciate your business and would like to take this opportunity to solicit your order for the coming year for your trailer and truck body needs.

Yours truly,

Curtis Eddy Vice President - Engineering

ID: nht75-5.39

DATE: 03/10/75

FROM: JAMES C. SCHULTZ FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Dealers Assoc..

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 27, 1975, concerning the use of Form AADA-65 for purposes of disclosing odometer mileage when a vehicle is sold.

The NHTSA disagrees with your apparent contention that the portion of the preamble you cited, authorizing use of disclosure forms other than the one prescribed in Part 580, covers the use of Form AADA-65. That language limits the use of odometer forms which do not simulate the form contained in the regulation to situations where a State requires execution of an odometer statement which "contains equivalent information" to the Federal one. It is our understanding that the AADA form was adopted by the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association upon recommendation of the National Automobile Dealers Association. We are unaware of any Arizona State law that mandates use of the AADA form as a basis for compliance.

While the NHTSA appreciates the efforts of the NADA to develop a useful and effective odometer disclosure document, we cannot approve a format that is not substantially the same as the Federal form without following standard rulemaking procedures of notice and comment. We welcome your suggestions as to how you feel the odometer form can be improved, and suggest that you submit them in the form of petitions for rulemaking under the procedures specified in 49 CFR 553.31.

As pointed out in your letter, the NHTSA has determined that the AADA-65 form does not fulfill the requirements of Part 580. We appreciate your cooperation in notifying your membership of this decision. A changeover to use of the Federal odometer form by April 1, 1975, is considered reasonable by the agency. We thank you for your comments and look forward to receiving your ideas on the matters mentioned in your letter.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

National Automobile Dealers Association

December 27, 1974

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Re: N40-30 (kk)

Dear Sir:

Recent discussions have been held between Attorney Karen Kreshover of your office and Mr. Dave Hunt of my staff and myself concerning the odometer mileage statement form currently being utilized by the franchised new car dealer members of the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association (Form AADA-65). Questions have recently been raised as to whether Form AADA-65 satisfies the requirements of the Federal odometer law (Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Title IV, P.L. 92-513, 86 Stat. 947).

It is my understanding that John J. Relihan, Esq., of Solomon, Relihan & Blake, Law Offices, Suite A, 1819 West Osborn Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85015, has contacted your office (Mr. Relihan's letter dated September 9, 1974) requesting your Agency's views as to whether AADA-65 complies with the Federal odometer requirements. In addition, Mr. Relihan also inquired as to whether NHTSA had 'approved' Arizona Form AADA-65.

In your letter dated September 27, 1974 (September 30, 1974?) you state that you, ". . . (A)re unaware of any past correspondence between this office and either the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association or Norwick Printers of Oklahoma concerning the validity of a disclosure statement." You also state that, ". . . The Form AADA-65 enclosed in your letter fails to comply with our regulation in several respects." You then specifically discuss those areas of the form which in your opinion do not satisfy the requirements of the Federal odometer law and regulations of NHTSA promulgated pursuant thereto. Your suggestions for correcting those items which are deficient are also set forth.

A bit of historical background may be most helpful in explaining the 'birth' of AADA-65, and will explain NADA's involvement and interest in this matter. As I am sure you are aware, NADA was one of the prime backers of enactment of Title IV of the MVICSA. During your Agency's consideration of appropriate regulations to implement the mandate of the Congress, NADA supported the earliest effective date possible with respect to the odometer requirements. As events unfolded, this proved to be March 1, 1973. NADA also provided your Agency with its suggestions as to content and format for the suggested Federal odometer mileage statement form which your Agency developed.

After evaluating the odometer mileage form developed by your Agency, NADA reached the conclusion that perhaps more information than that required by your Agency's form, along with a somewhat different format, might prove to be more effective in reaching our common goal of devising an odometer mileage statement which would -- a) require at least the minimum substantive information to fulfill the intent of the Federal law; b) clearly and easily be understood by the average seller and buyer of motor vehicles; and c) be as concise as possible while maintaining and satisfying the objectives of (a) and (b) above. The use of such an alternative form was authorized by your Agency in your notice of rule making published in the Federal Register of January 31, 1973 at page 2978.

". . . To avoid the need for duplicate State and Federal disclosures in States having odometer disclosure laws or regulations, the section (Part 380.4) permits the State form to be used in satisfaction of the Federal requirement, so long as it contains equivalent information and refers to the existence of a Federal remedy."

(Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 20, pg.2978)

Pursuant thereto, NADA developed its own version of an odometer mileage form which differed format-wise in some respects from the form developed by your Agency. NADA's form also required several additional items of information which were not required on the form developed by NHTSA. NADA then utilized its various publications to acquaint dealers at ATAM Managers of the various state franchised automobile dealer associations of the new requirements which were to go into effect March 1, 1973. NADA provided sample copies of both NHTSA's recommended form and the form which NADA had developed. Arizona's Form AADA-65 is an exact duplicate of the odometer mileage form developed by NADA.

In your notice of January 31, 1973, you state that an alternative State form may be utilized, ". . . . (S)o iong as it contains equivalent information and refers to the existence of a Federal remedy." (Emphasis added.) NADA believes that AADA-65 falls within these broad parameters, at least to the extent of satisfying the legal requirements of the Federal odometer law. However, NADA also firmly believes in the old adage 'experience is the best teacher.' After viewing the various ways in which several of the Arizona odometer forms have been filled out, NADA has come to agree with Attorney Kroshover that its form (of which AADA-65 is an example) simply has not met the test of actual field experience, and that at least some transferrors have become confused as to the proper method of filling out the form. In short, it has not been successful with respect to objective (b) as outlined above.

I want to make it very clear that NADA strongly supports maximum compliance with the requirements of the Federal odometer law, and therefore wishes to have its member franchised new car and truck dealers comply not only with the 'letter' but also the 'spirit' of the law. While believing that use of the NADA developed form in the past has satisfied the legal requirements of the Federal odometer law, I would like at this time to formally notify your Agency that NADA is in the process of notifying its membership of the preferability of discontinuing the use of the NADA developed form. NADA is recommending that the Federal odometer form as published in the Federal Register of January 31, 1973, be utilized in its stead. With the necessary and reasonable delays which are naturally being encountered in the changeover, i.e. new forms must be printed, distributed, etc., NADA at this time anticipates completion of the changeover in approximately 60 days, or about March 1, 1975.

NADA sincerely hopes that this action on its part will further the common goal of both your Agency and the franchised new car and truck dealers who comprise the membership of NADA of effectuating full compliance with the requirements of the Federal odometer law. NADA would like to note, however, that its original objections to the Federal form's limited content and format as developed by your Agency still exist. It is our intention, therefore, to request in the near future further formal rule making proceedings in this area. The practical field experience gained during the past year and one half (which exposed the weaknesses of the NADA developed form) should also be put to use, in NADA's view, to determine whether similar problems have been encountered in the use of the Federal form. Such an ongoing program review should serve a very useful function in insuring that the form utilized, to the maximum extent, is as clear and understandable as possible to the average consumer who must fill out an odometer form when selling his or her automobile.

It is NADA's hope that the action which it has taken with respect to the matters discussed above meet with the approval of your Agency. I think it can safely be said that our action in this matter fully confirms our stated support, from the inception of the Federal odometer law, for a fair and effective odometer mileage disclosure law to protect consumers from the occasional unethical and deceptive practices in this area encountered in the past. Your formal response in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Awaiting your response, I remain

Sincerely yours,

Kevin P. Tighe -- Legislative Counsel

ID: nht94-1.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wolf Ebel -- President, Schroth Restraint Systems Biomatik USA Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/94 to Mary Versailles from Stephen M. Monseu (OCC-9550)

TEXT:

This responds to a September 22, 1993, letter from Mr. Stephen M. Monseu of your company, asking whether the products manufactured by Schroth Restraint Systems (the Rally 3, Rally 4, and Autocontrol harness belt systems) meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The September 22 letter stated that these are after-market belt systems, intended for installation in addition to the factory-installed occupant protection system. This al so responds to a January 5, 1994, letter asking whether the Schroth restraint systems would meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 if they were installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial produc ts. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, while I cannot advise concerning whether or not the Schroth r estraint systems comply with applicable safety standards, I can explain how the standards would apply to these products.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the Schroth restraint systems.

The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CF R S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and locatio n requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the Schroth restraint system occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible f or certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the Schroth restraint system installed in the vehicle.

Standard No. 208 requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross-veh icle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. The belt installation requirements can be divided into three categories:

. Automatic crash protection systems which protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a v ehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

. Type 2 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints."

. Type 1 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint."

The Schroth restraint-systems would not be considered automatic safety belts, and therefore could not be used in place of an air bag to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for seating positions requiring automatic crash protection.

The Schroth restraint systems would be considered Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Therefore, if the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (discussed later in this letter), and if the anchorages for the Schroth restraint system s meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, they could be installed to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This would include installation of the Schroth restraint system with an air bag. Please note, however, that the dynamic testing requirement must be met both with and without the Schroth restraint system. In addition, because Standard No. 208, like all safety standards, is a minimum standard, the Schroth restraint systems co uld be installed to

satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Please note however, that the Schroth restraint system does not appear to comply with certain sections of Standard No. 208, specifically:

. S7.1.1.3, which requires emergency locking retractors on the lap belt portion of safety belts in the front outboard seating positions.

. S7.1.2, which requires the intersection of the upper torso belt with the lap belt to be at least six inches from the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant.

. S7.2(c), which requires release at a single point.

Unlike the other three standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle."

Because the Schroth restraint systems would be considered "seat belt assemblies," the systems must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209 before they can be sold.

Installation Prior to First Sale

Because your September 22 letter indicated that the Schroth restraint systems might be installed in addition to existing belt systems, I would like to also discuss such an installation prior to the vehicle's first sale. If a Schroth restraint system was added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the Schroth restraint system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, suc h installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That sect ion provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Schroth restraint system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition is subject to a potential civil pen alty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encou rages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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

ID: Wheeler.1

Ms. Angela Wheeler
California Department of Transportation
Division of Equipment
34^th Street & Stockton Boulevard
P.O. Box 160048
Sacramento, CA 95816-0048

Dear Ms. Wheeler:

This responds to your letter in which you seek clarification regarding the implications under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) of modifying the seat assemblies of 20 medium-duty trucks to convert them from having intermediate seat backs to high seat backs. The purpose of these modifications would be to improve driver safety in the event of a rear impact. According to your letter and a subsequent phone conversation with Eric Stas, you stated that the California Department of Transportation, Division of Equipment (CalDOT) is a final-stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and it affixes certification labels in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. You stated that CalDOT owns the vehicles in question and would make such modifications itself. Your letter also described in detail both the original seat assembly delivered with the vehicle and the replacement seat assembly (whose back portion you wish to install), both of which you state conformed to FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems, at the date of manufacture. We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to our standards.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not issue approvals of these products, but instead, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must self-certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards, prior to offering such products for sale. Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, in order to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces.

Before answering your specific questions, I would begin by discussing a few general matters of relevance here. First, it should be noted that under our certification requirements, every completed vehicle must be certified as complying with applicable

FMVSSs. Final-stage manufacturers that complete vehicles for their own use are subject to this requirement. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person may not "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, unless such vehicle complies with safety standards and is so certified. Ongoing use of a vehicle by its manufacturer on the public highways would constitute introduction of the vehicle into interstate commerce. Therefore, a manufacturer would need to certify the vehicle prior to such use, even if the vehicle has not been sold.

In a phone conversation, you also asked about CalDOTs responsibilities at the time of sale of these vehicles (i.e., after they have been used on the public highways by CalDOT). As indicated above, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits a person from selling a vehicle unless it complies with applicable safety standards. Your question raises the issue of whether a vehicle that has been used by its manufacturer on the public highways, but has never been sold, must continue to meet the safety standards at the time it is eventually sold. If the user-manufacturers (in this case CalDOTs) use of the vehicle has been bona fide, we would consider CalDOTs actions in using the vehicles on the public highways to be equivalent to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. This would have an impact upon CalDOTs ongoing responsibilities, because under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1), "This section [49 U.S.C. 30112] does not apply to (1) the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment in good faith other than for resale." Thus, when CalDOT sells these trucks, they would be sold as used vehicles, and no additional certifications or alterations would be required under our regulations prior to sale.

As a general matter, Federal regulations do not prevent final-stage manufacturers, dealers, or repair businesses from modifying an original seat. For modifications made prior to initial vehicle sale, the entity must ensure that the new or modified seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207, as is required under 49 U.S.C. 30112. For modifications made after the vehicle is certified and sold, the business must ensure that its modifications do not violate the "make inoperative" provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits actions that would take a vehicle out of compliance with any applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

We now turn to the three specific questions presented in your letter. For ease of reference, we repeat each question, followed by our response:

(1) "Does the nominal change in weight and CG [center of gravity] require the new assembly to be tested to S4.2 [of] FMVSS No. 207?"

Each of our safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment when testing for compliance with that particular standard. NHTSA follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions in effect at the time of product certification when conducting its compliance testing. In this case, S4.2, General performance requirements, of FMVSS No. 207 provides:

When tested in accordance with S5, each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces, in newtons.

(a) In any position to which it can be adjusted20 times the mass of the seat in kilograms multiplied by 9.8 applied in a forward longitudinal direction;

(b) In any position to which it can be adjusted20 times the mass of the seat in kilograms multiplied by 9.8 applied in a rearward longitudinal direction;

(c) For a seat belt assembly attached to the seatthe force specified in paragraph (a), if it is a forward facing seat, or paragraph (b), if it is a rearward facing seat, in each case applied simultaneously with the forces imposed on the seat by the seat belt assembly when it is loaded in accordance with S4.2 of 571.210; and

(d) In its rearmost positiona force that produces a 373 newton meters moment about the seating reference point for each designated seating position that the seat provides, applied to the upper cross-member of the seat back or the upper seat back, in a rearward longitudinal direction for forward-facing seats and in a forward longitudinal direction for rearward-facing seats.

However, we note that a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards (including actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means), provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567.

In evaluating the need to conduct testing, relevant considerations here would include whether the new seat would require increased loading (due to greater mass) and load application at a greater height (due to higher center of gravity), as these factors could potentially induce greater stress on the seat and seat attachment hardware.

(2) "If re-testing is required as a final stage manufacturer, can we perform the required testing within our own testing facilities to ensure conformance to FMVSS No. 207?"

Consistent with our response to Question (1) above, if CalDOT chooses to conduct testing pursuant to FMVSS No. 207, it may do so at its own testing facilities.

(3) "If testing is required, does the seat belt attachment shown in Figures 3 and 4 require test S4.2c to be included?"

We note that your letter included several photographs (i.e., Figure 1 (original seat); Figure 2 (proposed seat); Figures 3 and 4 (depicting seat belt attachment)). However, we cannot determine from these photographs whether your proposed seat modifications would warrant your conducting testing under S4.2(c) of the standard. The responsibility for this determination lies with the entity that makes the modifications.

We note generally that S4.2(c) applies in those instances where a seat belt assembly is "attached" to the seat, in order to account for associated forces that may act on the seat in the event of a crash. In a July 10, 2000 interpretation letter to Mr. Gil De Laat, we examined whether a webbing guide permanently attached to the seat, but which did not have any "structural benefit" for purposes of seat or safety belt performance, is an "attachment" for purposes of S4.2(c). As presented by Mr. De Laat, the webbing guide in question served no structural purpose and would not transfer safety belt loads to the seat itself. Because the seat would not be loaded in a crash by the forces generated by the safety belt loads to the seat itself, we determined that it would not be necessary that the seat be capable of withstanding the load from the belt, so use of the webbing guide would not require that the seat be subjected to the seat belt anchorage loads of FMVSS No. 210, as described in S4.2(c) of FMVSS No. 207.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.6/16/05

ID: 10-004142 -- Toyota CAFE credit transfer banking -- 5 Jul 11 final for signature

ID: 06-002617as

ID: nht87-2.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director, Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Office of Commissioner Nashville, TN 37219-5335

This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking how our regulations apply to the refurbishment of used school buses. I would like to apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter, you explained that the Tennessee Department of Correc tions plans to use prison labor to "refurbish" used school buses. The refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. You are concerned that this undertaking might conflict in some way with our regulations applicable to school buses, and posed five specific questions as to how our regulations would apply to your planned refurbishment.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. gives this agency the authority to regulate the manufacture and sal e of new vehicles. Thus, all new school busses must be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to school buses. Additionally, the Safety Act prohibits commercial establishments, such as repair businesses or school bus dealers, from performing modifications to school buses after they have been sold, if those modifications cause the used bus no longer to comply with the safety standards. As a general rule, however, vehicle owners are not subject to this p rohibition, and are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the modified vehicle complies with the safety standards.

It is possible that a vehicle owner's modifications would be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle instead of just a modified vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified as complying with all applic able safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when a modified truck or school bus has been so substantially altered that it is considered a new vehicle, we have set forth specific criteria in 49 CFR @571-7(e) of our regulations. In past interpretations of our regulations, NHTSA has applied @571.7(e) to school buses that are assembled combining new and used components, because school buses are typically manufactured with a truck chassis. Under @571.7(e), a modified school bus or truck is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new an d at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.

I will now address your specific questions in the order they were presented:

1. Has NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of school buses?

Yes, we have. As explained above, we have set forth specific criteria to allow refurbishers to determine whether a refurbished school bus is a new bus, subject to all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, or a refur bished used bus.

Further, while we encourage effective school bus maintenance programs, we would be concerned if a refurbishment program has the effect of avoiding the replacement of obsolete school buses. The school bus safety standards do not apply to school buses that were manufactured before April 1, 1977. It is possible that a refurbishment program could be used to continuously recondition these old buses that do not comply with any school bus safety standards, and use them for pupil transportation. We believe that school buses complying with the Federal school bus standards are one of the safest means of transportation, and that school bus safety will improve as complying school buses replace older non-complying school buses. We certainly hope that school bus own ers will ensure that their fleets are replenished with complying school buses. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a Federal Register notice we published on September 23, 1985, (5O FR 38558 ), which denied a petition for rulemaking from the Blue Bird C ompany concerning the remanufacture of school buses. In this notice, we expressly encouraged school bus operators to consider voluntarily meeting Federal school bus safety standards when they refurbish their school buses.

2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer' s certification?

The original school bus manufacturer's certification means that the school bus as sold was manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification does not mean that a school bus continues to comply with the safety s tandards after it is sold, since that obviously depends on many factors beyond the manufacturer's control, such as maintenance, any accidents, any modifications, and so forth. Since the original manufacturer's certification is limited to the vehicle's co ndition at the time of sale, it cannot be "voided" by any subsequent actions of the vehicle owner.

If you were asking whether a refurbisher is required to make a separate certification in addition to the original manufacturer's certification, the answer depends on whether the refurbished school bus is considered "new" or simply refurbished, according to the criteria set forth in @571.7 (e). If the refurbished school bus is new according to those criteria, the refurbisher is required to certify that the school bus complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and affix its own certification label to the school bus. If the refurbished school bus is not considered new, the refurbisher is not required to affix another certification label. Instead, the refurbisher simply allows the original manufacturer's certificati on label to remain on the school bus.

3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to recertify all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?

The answer to this question depends on whether the refurbished buses are considered new under @571.7(e). If the buses are not new according to those criteria, no additional certification is necessary as explained above. However, the specification sheet f or the refurbishment that has enclosed with your letter indicates that the refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. Every school bus that is equipped with a new engine or dr ive axle would be considered a new school bus, according to @571.7 (e). Additionally, each school bus on which the engine, transmission, and/or rear axle are replaced with used components will be considered a new school bus, unless two of those three com ponents came from the same vehicle. If your refurbishing constituted the manufacture of a new vehicle, the State of Tennessee would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles.

As explained above, each refurbished school bus that is new, according to the criteria of @571.7(e), must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. However, the manufacturer d oes not make any certification directly to the agency. Instead, the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to furnish a certification with the vehicle. We have promulgated a regulation that sets forth how each vehicle must be certified as complying which t he Safety Act (49 CFR Part 567: copy enclosed). As you will see, this regulation requires that the manufacturer permanently affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed for your information an information sheet that describes generally the responsibilities of manufacturers of new motor vehicles.

4. Is the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTSA standards?

As explained above, the refurbishment program is permitted, provided that it complies with the applicable requirements.

5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by the Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?

If the State of Tennessee engages in operations during school bus refurbishing that make it a manufacturer of new vehicles, according to @571.7 (e) , the State would be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Safety Act itself and this ag ency's regulations issued pursuant to the Safety Act. The State would also be responsible for remedying any vehicles that either do not comply with applicable safety standards or that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not provi de advice on the State's potential liability under State law for manufacturing and refurbishing school buses. Therefore, you might wish to consult an attorney familiar with Tennessee law for information on these matters.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions on this program.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Diane Steed NHTSA - U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed,

The Tennessee Department of Correction is planning to construct a refurbishment facility that will be relying on prison labor to supply the work force required to keep it operable. We have no problem with their wanting to keep inmates busy but we are som ewhat concerned about their intent to keep them busy by working on our older school buses, especially when such may be in conflict with certain standards in your agency.

Your prompt response to the following questions will be appreciated. 1. Has the NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of school buses?

2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer's certification?

3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to re-certify all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?

4. Id the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTSA standards?

5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by the Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?

Thank you for any assistance you may provide.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer, Director Pupil Transportation

EF/lr

Enclosures omitted (Specification sheet for refurbishment.)

ID: nht76-1.34

DATE: 06/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your March 12, 1976, letter to Mr. Robert Aubuchon of this agency, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.

You have inquired whether such vehicles may be equipped with tires that --

(i) "Carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH -- S.6.5."

(ii) "Have passed the endurance test -- S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III -- speed restricted service: 35 MPH"

(iii) "have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 -- in fact they are speed restricted . . ."

and otherwise comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119.

I assume that, where your letter refers to the marking "MAX SPEED", you intended "MAX SPEED 35 MPH". Although such labeling is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Tires for motor driven cycles are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires. In particular, the schedule for endurance testing is that found in the "motorcycle entry of Table III, rather than the "35 m.p.h." entry. Similarly, these tires are subject to the high speed performance requirements of S.6.3 without exception. An amendment of Standard No. 119 on this subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.

Standard No. 119 prohibits the manufacture of the tires that you have described on and after March 1, 1975. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles equipped with such tires on and after September 1, 1976.

SINCERELY,

PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION

March 12, 1976

NHTSA

Att: Robert Aubuchon

In reference to the phone conversation of March 9, 1976, we would like to have the following Information:

1) Is it permissible (with respect to the safety requirments stated in Standards 119 and 120) to equip motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 MPH or less (see definitions R571 paragraph 571.3 - B and references in part 571, ST 123 - PRE 5 ST 108 - S.4.1.1 26/27, St 122 - S.5.4/S/5.5) with tires meeting the requirements of Standard 119 inasmuch as they:

a) are indicated in ETRTO data book S.5.1.B

b) carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH - S.6.5.

c) have tread wear indicators S.6.4

d) have passed the strength test - S.6.2., S.7.3, in accordance with tables I and II - plunger 5/16

e) have passed the endurance test - S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III - speed restricted service: 35 MPH

f) have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 - in fact they are speed restricted, moreover they may be included in the requirements of Standard 120 - see paragraphs: S.2, S.5.1.1, S.5.1.2, S.5.3. D"

N.B. There is no indication anywhere in Standard 119 and 120 that the speed restrictions apply only to trucks.

2) As discussed by phone, we have requested that a copy of the letter sent by ETRTO to the DOT be forwarded to you as soon as possible. We would appreciate if you would look into this matter and inform us of the outcome.

Thanking you in advance for a prompt reply, we remain

Francesa Robinsons for Mr. Buzzi

G. Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager

Industrie Pirelli spa

MARCH 15, 1976

Robert Aubuchon N.H.T.S.A. Office of Standard Enforcement

We have been informed by Pirelli Tire Corporation N.Y. your request for a copy of the ETRTO Submission to NHTSA concerning an amendment to FMVSS 119 and precisely 'Tyres for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability'.

A copy of it is here with enclosed.

Recently, February 26th, Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel of NHTSA has promised to Mr. Trimble, ETRTO General Secretary, that a Federal Register notice on the subject will be issued in the near future.

(P.G. Malinverni) Tyre Standardization

EUROPEAN TYRE AND RIM TECHNICAL ORGANISATION

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

RD/MS 048/75

SUBMISSION N degree 6/119

FMVSS 110 - TYRES FOR LOW-POWER MOTORCYCLES WITH RESTRICTED SPEED CAPABILITY

In the preamble to Docket 71-18 Notice 6, published in the Federal Register Volume 39, No.29 dated Monday February 11th 1974, page 5192, reference was made to an E.T.R.T.O. proposal for new test values for certain motorcycle tires, which proposal was deemed to be "unclear as to the meaning . . . "

For convenience of reference the paragraph in question is quoted as follows:

"The E.T.R.T.O. proposed new test values for some motorcycle tires, but the request was unclear as to the meaning of the 62 mph criterion and the unsupported request cannot be granted. If in future, the E.T.R.T.O. petitions for rule making to revise the table, an explanation of the criterion and a justification for the test values would permit an informed decision."

In response to the invitation, implicit in this paragraph, to E.T.R.T.O. to petition "for rule making to revise the table" by submitting explanation and justification of its requirements E.T.R.T.O. submits the following petition for consideration on this subject.

FMVSS 119 recognises all data standardised by the various international and national standards organizations (Illegible Words) (Illegible Line) (Illegible Words) in tables II (strength) table III (endurance) and in paragraph S7-1 (high speed).

In accordance with the "invitation" instanced (Illegible Word) ETRTO formally requests reconsideration of the requirements of Standard 119 insofar as two categories of light motorcycle tires are concerned, these being the speed-restricted ranges of such tires listed on pages (Illegible Word) through 119 of the 1974/75 E.T.R.T.O. Data-book.

In requesting certain (Illegible Word) from the terms of Standard 119, E.T.R.T.O. is evoking (Illegible Words) which resulted in amendments to the requirements of (Illegible Words) 122 (Illegible Word) 123, as published in the Federal Register Vol. 39 No. 72 (Illegible Words) 12th 1974, in that the existing Standard 119 is "not reasonable, (Illegible Words) appropriate" to the light motorcycle tires in question.

a) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles With Speed Capability up to 50 mph

These tires are especially designed to be fitted to motor-driven cycles with a (Illegible Words).

They can be recognised from having the word "Moped" (or alternatively "Cyclomoteur", or "Ciclomotore" or "Circlomotor") in the vicinity of the (Illegible Word) designation (e.g. (Illegible Word) - 17 Moped).

E.T.R.T.O. requests that for tires to be mounted on motor-driven cycles with a top speed capability of 30 mph of less, tires known as moped tires in Europe and with a speed restriction of 30 mph, the following specifications be adopted:

1. Strength: the minimum static breaking energy should be the one allowed for rayon cord tires even for other types of cords such as cotton, which is widely used for this tire range and which has breaking energy properties almost identical to rayon.

2. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 100 rpm

The test leads could be (in percent of maximum lead rating): 100% for 4 hours, 108% for 6 hours and 117% for 24 hours.

3. High Speed Test: no high speed test will apply to these tires since they are "speed restricted".

4. Treadwear Indicators: in view of the low speed usage and the fact that these tires have very shallow tread patterns, (circa 3 mm) similar to cycle tires, E.T.R.T.O. (Illegible Word) that the requirement to add treadwear indicators at 1/32" (0,8 mm) is unrealistic and against the interests of the consumer.

b) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)

This is the category of tires previously referred to as "up to 62 mph", this being strictly equivalent speed to 100 km/h.

These tires are specially designed to be fitted on lightweight motorcycles with maximum speed not exceeding 60 mph.

(Illegible Line) is considered that a (Illegible Words) rating for these tires (Illegible Words) in a restricted-speed category. In consequence E.T.R.T.O. requested (Illegible Word) (Illegible Lines)

1. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 200 rpm, the test load in percent of maximum load rating 100 for 4 hours, 108 for 6 hours, 117 for 24 hours

2. High Speed: since the first step of the high speed test is 375 rpm equivalent to a speed on highway largely in excess of 75 mph and that speed is higher than the maximum allowed for the tire we would propose that category to be considered a speed restricted category therefore the high speed test will not be necessary for them.

3. Treadwear Indicators: for the reasons outlined in paragraph (a) (4) above the requirement for treadwear indicators be waived for this range of tires.

c) For case of consideration of these requests it should be noted tha the (Illegible Line) ranges of (Illegible Words) -speed motorcycle tires by their size designation as follows: (i) light motorcycle tires, 30 or 60 mph category - the size designations are in inches and fractions of an inch e.g. 2 1/2 - 17.

(ii) unrestricted speed motorcycle tires - the size designations are in inches and decimals e.g. 2.75 - 17.

E.T.R.T.O. requests that early consideration be given to this petition in order that appropriate steps may be taken for implementation prior to the March 1st 1975 effective date of Standard 119.

Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration of the matter,

R. DERESSON General Secretary

ID: 1985-04.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Tony P. Hall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to Administrator Steed on behalf of your constituent, Mr. C. Daniel Raisch, Superintendent of the Oakwood City School District, regarding the school bus regulations issued by this agency. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Superintendent Raisch is concerned with the manner in which our regulations are applied to school vans that carry 10 or more passengers. He believes that only 10 persons are allowed to be transported in a van, and requests that this number be increased to 12. You inquired into a waiver from this agency that would permit the Oakwood City School District to transport more than 10 school children in a school van.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. To begin, I would like to emphasize that Federal law does not prohibit schools from carrying more than 10 passengers in a school van. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. Our regulations would permit the sale of new 12-passenger vans to the Oakwood City School District if the seller can ensure that the van meets all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, including the safety standards we issued in 1977 for school buses.

Some background information on this subject may be helpful. Our agency has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress expressly amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards on various aspects of school bus performance, such as seating systems, fuel systems, windows and windshields, and emergency exits. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date.

The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under our regulations, a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered to be a "bus," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. 49 C.F.R. 571.3(b). Thus, new 12-passenger vans sold to the Oakwood City School District are included in our definition of a "school bus," and may be sold to the school district if they meet our school bus safety standards. If any new vehicle does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties.

Superintendent Raisch suggested that NHTSA grant a waiver permitting manufacturers to sell 12-passenger vans as school buses when those vans do not comply with the school bus safety standards. While section 123 of the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue temporary exemptions of motor vehicles from our motor vehicle safety standards, our agency has no general waiver authority. Under @ 123, our authority to grant exemption is limited to certain very specific conditions involving a limited number of vehicles. Therefore, NHTSA has no authority to provide the type of relief your constituent requests.

Mr. Raisch may also be suggesting that we change our definition of a "school bus" to permit the sale of new 12-passenger vans as school buses when those vans do not meet our school bus safety standards. At this time, we have no reason to believe that such a change would be in the interest of school bus safety. Our safety standards for school buses were developed to specify comprehensive requirements for school buses that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Amending our definition of a "school bus" along the lines suggested by Mr. Raisch would restrict the applicability of our school bus safety standards to a smaller group of vehicles than buses presently subject to those standards. The safety record of school buses since the issuance of our school bus safety standards in April 1977 has been remarkable, and we believe that school vans carrying 10 or more passengers should continue to afford the high levels of passenger protection currently required for school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States house of Representatives

September 30, 1985

Honorable Diane Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed:

I am enclosing copies of correspondence I received from C. Daniel Raisch, Superintendent of School for Oakwood, Ohio. You will note that Mr. Raisch is seeking a waiver of the number of students which can be transported in school vans. He makes the point that today's vans are built to accommodate twelve individuals.

I would appreciate your review of this suggestion and your comments with respect to the possibility of waivers being permitted.

Tony P. Hall Member of Congress

ENCLS.

September 18, 1985

Rick Carne

Dear Mr. Rick Carne: Earlier this month I discussed with one of the representatives from your Dayton office the issue concerning the minimum number of student passengers permitted transportation in a van before the van must be equipped as a bus.

Currently, the number is ten persons allowed transportation in a van. I am requesting the number be elevated to twelve. This request is based primarily upon the fact that most vans built today are designed to accomodate twelve passengers.

Attached is a document which should aid in your review of the request.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

C. Daniel Raisch Superintendent

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Notice Expires September 1, 1977

SUBJECT: Guidelines for Implementing Highway Safety Program Standard 17, Pupil Transportation Safety

PURPOSE:

To provide new NHTSA information regarding:

a) definition of "school bus;"

b) interpretation of "to and from school;" and,

c) implementation/affect for NHTSA and the various State and local jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND:

1-Definition of "School Bus":

NHTSA regulates the manufacture of school buses under the National Traffic and Motor Vehilce Safety Act of 1966 and the operation of school buses under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Regulations under these Acts have provided somewhat differing, although not conflicting, definitions of school bus.

Congress, in passing the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Almendments of 1974, defined "school bus" in terms of function rather than design. In line with this undate, all vehicles manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, which are designed for carrying more than 10 persons and which are sold or introduced in (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, shall be considered school buses. In keeping with the (Illegible Word) of Congress as reflected in the legislative history of the 1974 amendments, these vehicles will be required to be equipped with a system of signal lamps conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Discussion related to the change may be found in the Federal Register for December 31, 1973, 40 FR 60033 (See Attachment "A") and August 26, 1976, 41 FR 36026 (See Attachment "B").

2 - Interpretation of "to and from school":

In an opinion dated May 5, 1977, the NHTSA's Chief Counsel has ruled that the phrase," to and from school in paragraph III of Highway Safety Program Standard 17, as interpreted in Notice 900, (dated April 11, 1974) is excessively narrow, and that the phrase should include any trip for a school-related event. However, buses in operation prior to April 1, 1977, for use soley in the transportation of students to and from school related events will not be required to meet the requirements of Standard 17. For ease of reference, see:

Attachment "C" Notice 900, Q and A #5, dated April 11, 1974 Attachment "D" Counsel Memo, May 5, 1977.

IMPLEMENTATION/EFFECT:

1 - Definition of "school bus" and identification and marking requirements:

Effective April 1, 1977, the definition of "school bus" in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR @ 571.3) reads as follows:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold or introduced in interstate (Illegible Word), for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

The definition for "bus" (49 CFR @ 571.3) will continue to read as follows:

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

Therefore, the impact on ESPS #17 is as follows:

In addition to all Type I vehicles, this new definition of "school bus" will include many of the van-type vehicles that are classified as Type II school vehicles under ESPS #17. If a Type II van is designed to carry more than 10 persons, and if it is sold for purposes that include "carrying students to and from school or related events," it will have to be sold with all the equipment specified for school buses by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It will, therefore, have to have school bus lights as specified by the Standard on lighting (49 CFR @ 371.108).

Since these vehicles will be equipped with the school bus lighting system, ESPS #17, Section IV.3.5, requires that they comply with two other requirements for identifying school buses; i.e., they must be painted, "National School Bus Glossy Fellow," and be identified format and rear with the words SCHOOL BUS. Of course, vehicles manufactured before April 1, 1977, will not be subject to this new requirement.

2 - Interpretation of "to and from school" Effective May 5, 1977, NHTSA's position is that "to and from school" includes any trip to and from school or school related events.

Previous interpretation/definitions in NHTSA Notices, correspondence, or program manuals/materials are hereby superseded.

Fred W. Vetter

ATTACHMENTS