NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 31 - 40 of 2915

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3965 Open Mr. Tom Cooney, Executive Editor, Tire Review, 11 South Forge Street, Akron, Ohio 44304; Mr. Tom Cooney Executive Editor Tire Review 11 South Forge Street Akron Ohio 44304; Dear Mr. Cooney: This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, askin several questions about the removal of the DOT numbers from the sidewall of tires. In a February 5, 1985 telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, you stated that the answers to all of your questions except number 7 should address the situation only for tire dealers and distributors. With that limitation, I have set forth below the answers to each of your questions in the order presented in your letter.; 1. Under what circumstances, if any, may a DOT number be removed fro a passenger car tire?; There are no circumstances in which a tire dealer or distributor ca legally remove a DOT number from a passenger car tire. It is unclear when you refer to a 'DOT number' whether you are referring to just the tire identification number required to be on every new and retreaded tire by 49 CFR Part 574, or that identification number together with the DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is required to appear on all new tires for highway use and retreaded passenger car tires as a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire fully complies with the applicable Federal safety standard.; In any case, Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires - passenger cars (49 CFR S571.109) applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 requires that the symbol DOT be on the tire, and section S4.3.1 requires that the tire identification number be on the tire. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) specifies '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 an...item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' By removing the DOT identification number, a dealer or distributor would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tire which is included on the tire in compliance with Standard No. 109. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108. This agency would consider each tire from which the DOT number had been removed to be a separate violation.; 2. If the answer to question 1 is none, is there any situation in which a passenger car tire can b sold for farm or off- road use provided that the DOT number has been removed?; There is no situation in which a passenger car tire with the DOT numbe removed can be sold for any purpose. Section S6 of Standard No. 109 reads as follows:; S6 Nonconforming tires. No tire that is designed for use on passenge cars and manufactured on or after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to all the requirements of this standard, shall be sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, for any purpose.; A passenger car tire without the DOT number does not conform to al requirements of the standard, so its sale for any purpose is expressly prohibited. A violation of this section would subject the seller to a potential penalty of up to $1000 for each nonconforming tire sold.; 3. Under what circumstances can tires for use on motor vehicles othe than passenger cars have the DOT number removed and the tires sold for off-road or farm use only?; This is really a two part question. Again, there are no circumstance in which a tire dealer or distributor can legally remove the DOT number from these tires. Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119) applies to these tires. Section S6.5(a) requires the DOT symbol to be on those tires, while section S6.5(b) requires the tire identification number to be on the tires. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits tire dealers and distributors for removing those symbols from the tire, and the penalty for removing those symbols is up to $1000 for every tire from which the symbols are removed.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) also prohibits manufacturers from removing DO numbers from tires and then selling the tires to distributors as tires for off-road use. It is theoretically possible that a tire dealer or distributor could acquire a small quantity of tires from which the DOT number had been removed by a party other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Assuming that a tire dealer or distributor did acquire some of these tires from which the DOT number had been removed, the tires could be sold for off-road use only. This is because Standard No. 119 has no comparable provision to section S6 of Standard No. 109. However, these tires may never legally be sold for used on the public roads (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). A tire dealer or distributor who acquires tires from which the DOT number has been removed would be well advised to have some written statement to that effect on the sales slip. The purpose of such statement would be to prove that it was not the tire dealer or distributor who removed those numbers. When selling these tires for off-road use, the dealer or distributor should have some means of proving that he or she sold these tires with the caveat that they could only be used off-road. Either of your suggestions in question 4 (noting off-road use only on the sales slip or having the customer sign a document that the tires will only be used off-road) would be helpful for the dealer or distributor.; 4. If a tire can be sold as described in Question 3, what must a tir distributer or dealer do to sell a tire?; As noted above, either of your suggestions would be helpful for th dealer or distributor selling tires exclusively for off-road use. What the dealer must be able to do when selling these tires is show that he or she was not selling tires which do not comply with Standard No. 119 for use on the public roads.; 5. If a tire in Question 4 is sold with no-highway use intended an the customer uses it on the highway, will the tire dealer or distributor be held in violation of the provision provided he met the requirements for noting that the tire was sold for non-highway use only?; If a tire dealer or distributor can show that he or she did not remov the DOT numbers from the tires and that he or she sold the tires with the express understanding that the tires could not be used on the public roads, the dealer or distributor would not have violated any Federal requirements.; 6. Is it possible that if the tire in Question 5 fails on the highwa and causes property or personal injury as a result that the tire dealer or distributor could be held liable for the damages or injuries? Even if he did not mount the tire on a rim for the customer? This is a question of state law, which I cannot answer. However, I can say that it would be helpful for the dealer or distributor to have some proof that the customer was clearly told that these tires did not comply with the applicable Federal safety standard and could not be used on the public roads.; 7. Who, if anyone, is allowed to remove DOT numbers? a) A tire manufacturer may remove DOT numbers from its tires, as a wa of showing those tires do not satisfy the applicable standard Once a manufacturer does this, this tires may not legally be sold.; b) A retreader may remove the DOT numbers on the casing he or she i retreading. The retreader is generally required to mark its own identification number on each tire it retreads.; c) Once a tire has been sold for purposes other than resale, any perso or entity, other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, may remove any or all markings from the tire.; 8. If a retreader is allowed to remove DOT numbers, is he required t replace the removed number with his assigned DOT shop code number?; Generally speaking, the retreader is required to permanently mark tire identification number on the sidewall of each tire it retreads. 49 CFR 574.5 specifies: 'Each tire retreader...shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall...a tire identification number...' There are two minor exceptions to this provision. A tire retreader who retreads tires for his own use is not required to mark a tire identification number on those tires. Also tires which are retreaded exclusively for mileage contract purchasers are not required to bear the retreader's tire identification number if the tire contains the phrase 'for mileage contract use only' molded into or onto the tire sidewall. In all other instances, a retreader must mark its tire identification number on each tire it retreads.; 9. Tire definition: since many tire sizes and styles are use interchangeably from passenger cars to light trucks and vans, especially mini-vans, how will the DOT decide whether Standard No. 109 or 119 applies to a case of DOT number removal and subsequent sale for off-road use?; In the process of certifying their tires, manufacturers indicat whether that tire size is designated primarily for use on passenger cars or primarily for use on light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (vans). This is occasionally done by an individual manufacturer for a particular tire size, but is most often done through the publications of standardization organizations. (A standardization organization is a voluntary association composed of representatives of each of the member tire companies. The purpose of these standardization organization is to establish and promulgate sound engineering standards for tires, rims, and their allied parts.) The agency uses these listings to determine whether a tire is certified for compliance with Standard No. 109 or No. 119. If you have any questions about particular tire sizes, you may wish to contact the American standardization organization, The Tire an Rim Association, at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313.; 10. Since DOT requires certain information to appear on the sidewal of the tire, whether passenger car or other type, what, if anything can be removed from the sidewall?; A tire dealer or distributor can never legally remove any of th required information from the sidewall of tires. In the case of passenger car tires, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: The size designation, maximum permissible inflation pressure, maximum load rating, the generic name of each cord material used in the plies of the tire, the actual number of plies in the sidewall and in the tread, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type', the word 'radial' if the tire is a radial tire, the DOT symbol, the name of the manufacturer or the brand name, and the identification number. In the case of tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: the DOT symbol, the tire identification number, the tire size designation, the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure, the speed restriction of the tire if 55 mph or less, the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material in the sidewall and in the tread, the word 'tubeless' or tube type', the word 'regroovable' if the tire is designed for regrooving, the word 'radial if the tire is a radial tire, and the letter designating the load range of the tire. Removal of any of these required items of information by a tire dealer or distributor would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained above in my answer to Question 1.; 11. a.If a dealer is removing DOT numbers from tires then sellin those tires to a distributor who sells them to another dealer for resale to the customer, who is in violation of the Federal requirements?; The answer to this question depends on whether the tires are for use o passenger cars or other motor vehicles. If the tires are passenger car tires, both dealers and the distributor have violated Federal requirements. The dealer removing the DOT numbers has violated Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 1 above. The distributor and dealer selling tires which do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 109 have violated section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 11.b below.; If the tires are for other motor vehicles, the dealer removing the DO numbers has violated section 108(a)(2)(A) of the safety Act. If the tire distributor and the dealer selling the tires to a customer can show that neither one removed the DOT numbers and that the tires were sold with the express understanding that they could not be used on the public roads, neither has violated any Federal requirement.; b. If a customer buys tires with no DOT number and takes them t another dealer for mounting on his car, is that dealer in violation of Federal requirement because he mounted the tires, even though he did not sell them?; Since this question deals with passenger car tires, a dealer mountin tires without DOT number would be in violation of Federal law. Section 1089a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies, ' No person shall manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the Unite States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard...' A tire is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and a passenger car tire without DOT numbers is not in compliance with Standard No. 109. We have stated in previous interpretations that the use of noncomplying tires on pubic roads is an introduction of those tires in interstate commerce, and therefore a violation of this provision of the law. A dealer mounting noncomplying tires on a passenger car would also be considered to be introducing those tires into interstate commerce, and, therefore, also in violation of this provision.; 12. Please sum up the intent of Standards No. 109 and 119 and indicat if the tire dealer or distributor has an obligation to report to DOT any tire dealer who is removing DOT number and/or other required sidewall information and then selling these tires. Also indicate how this would be done and what steps would follow?; Standards No. 109 and 119 are intended to provide the tires purchase with necessary information for the safe operation of those tires on the purchaser's vehicle. Tire dealers and distributors cannot remove this information from the sidewall of the tires.; A tire dealer or distributor does not have a legal obligation to repor violations of these requirements, although we would appreciate if they did so. NHTSA prefers reports of violation to be in writing and addressed to: NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. If for some reason the report cannot be made in writing, a person who suspects a violation of the requirements should telephone Mr. James Gilkey at (202) 426- 2834. When the agency learns of a violation, normal enforcement procedures are begun. First, the agency investigates to see if the allegations of violations are true. If the investigation concludes that there are violations, proceedings to collect the civil penalties are instituted against the violator. As noted above, a tire dealer or distributor removing DOT number from tires would face penalties of up to a maximum of $800,000 if the dealer or distributor had removed the DOT number for 800 or more tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject please contact Mr Kratzke a the above address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4298 Open Mr. Paul J. Ryan, Staff Engineer, SEMA, 11001 E. valley Mall, Suite 200, El Monte, California 91734; Mr. Paul J. Ryan Staff Engineer SEMA 11001 E. valley Mall Suite 200 El Monte California 91734; Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking about th applicability of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor vehicles Other Than passenger Cars, to aftermarket rims.; Your first assumption that vans and light trucks models are classifie as vehicles other than passenger cars is correct. Accordingly, rims manufactured for use in these vehicles must comply with the requirements of the standard. Where the rims may be used in the aftermarket either on passenger cars or vehicles other than passenger cars, they must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120.; On a related matter concerning the aftermarket, you question whethe Standard No. 120 has applicability to rims sold for use on used vehicles. Section S3 of the standard states that the requirements apply to motor vehicles other than passenger cars and to rims for use on those vehicles. This indicates that the standard is both a motor vehicle and an equipment standard. Since it is an equipment standard, the requirements apply to all rims manufactured for use on the specified vehicles regardless of whether the rim will be original equipment or sold in the aftermarket.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4938 Open Mr. Takashi Odaira Chief Representative Emission & Safety Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc. 46401 Commerce Center Drive Plymouth, MI 48170; Mr. Takashi Odaira Chief Representative Emission & Safety Isuzu Technical Center of America Inc. 46401 Commerce Center Drive Plymouth MI 48170; "Dear Mr. Odaira: This responds to your letter asking about the ne dynamic requirements of Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You noted that the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the Part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedure. You asked whether a test dummy should nonetheless be placed on the rear seat of such vehicles when conducting the specified dynamic test. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no. Section S3 of Standard No. 214 includes the following language concerning the dynamic side impact requirements: Part 572, subpart F test dummies are placed in the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car. However, the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars with a wheelbase greater than 130 inches, or to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7. Reading these two sentences together, it is our interpretation that a test dummy should not be placed in the rear outboard seating position of passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7. While the first sentence states that the test dummies should be placed in both the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car, that provision is limited by the sentence which immediately follows. That second sentence makes it clear that the rear seat requirements do not apply to certain vehicles with small rear seating areas. Since the sole purpose for placing a test dummy in the rear outboard seating position is to measure compliance with the dynamic side impact requirements, a test dummy should not be placed in the rear seating position of a passenger car for which the rear seat requirements do not apply. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam4588 Open Mr. Richard L. Story, Sr. 34855 Annapolis Ave. Wayne, MI 48184-2133; Mr. Richard L. Story Sr. 34855 Annapolis Ave. Wayne MI 48184-2133; "Dear Mr. Story: This responds to your letter asking whethe manufacturers are required to install rear seat lap/shoulder belts in cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts at no additional cost to the consumer. The answer to this question is no. The lap belts that are installed in the rear seat of your car are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on this agency's analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone. Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. For cars made in earlier model years, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. You indicated in your letter that Ford offers a rear seat lap and shoulder belt retrofit kit for your car, the 1988 Thunderbird. We encourage consumers to consider having rear seat lap and shoulder belts fitted into their cars when manufacturers have made a retrofit kit available for the car, because of the additional crash protection afforded to rear seat passengers. However, NHTSA has no authority to require manufacturers to provide these retrofit kits and installation free of charge to the consumer. Thus, the individual consumer who desires the added protection of lap and shoulder belts in the rear seat will have to pay for that additional protection. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam0118 Open Mr. Max Walter, Citroen Cars Corporation, 415-421 Third Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11215; Mr. Max Walter Citroen Cars Corporation 415-421 Third Avenue Brooklyn NY 11215; Dear Mr. Walter: By your letter of October 8, 1968 you ask if the glazing material i the rear window of passenger cars can be 4 millimeters thick and be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks, and Buses.; Standard No. 205 requires that glazing materials conform to the AS Standard Z26.1-1966. The ASA standard Z26.1- 1966 does not set forth how thick glazing material must be but requires the glass used to meet certain tests, depending on the type of vehicle the glass is being used in and the location of the glass in that vehicle.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations
ID: aiam4499 Open Ms. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager, Regulatory Affairs MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075; Ms. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager Regulatory Affairs MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; "Dear Ms. Bakker: This letter is in response to your request for a interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you asked about a situation in which a car line (the Mitsubishi Galant) was designated as a high theft line beginning in the 1987 model year, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 542. Mitsubishi applied for and received an exemption from the marking requirements of the theft prevention standard because of a standard equipment antitheft device to be installed in the Galant. This exemption, issued pursuant to Part 543, applied beginning in the 1987 model year. For the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and a new nameplate was assigned to the line. It is now called the Galant Sigma. Additionally, Mitsubishi plans to introduce a new car line in the 1989 model year called the Galant. This line is, according to your letter, completely redesigned from the 1987 line that was called the Galant, bears no resemblance to the Galant Sigma, and will cost less than either the Galant Sigma or the 1987 line called Galant. You posed the following questions: 1. Should a new theft determination be made for both the Galant Sigma and the redesigned Galant? ANSWER: No. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is a new model within the Galant line. As a general matter, section 601(2) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021(2)) defines the term 'line' as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design.' As noted in your letter, the agency uses the same language to define the term 'line' in 541.4. This language treats groups of motor vehicles as a continuation of an existing line if the groups have the same name and are similar in construction or design. We have applied this language in the following manner. With respect to the redesigned Galant, I addressed such a question in my March 6, 1987 letter to Mr. Jeffrey Link (copy enclosed) as follows: The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the predecessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles. The redesigned Galant obviously has the same name as the 1987 model year Galant. Additionally, the redesigned Galant is similar in construction and design to the 1987 Galant, notwithstanding the new sheet metal and different drivetrains. Accordingly, we believe that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line. This means that the redesigned Galant is subject to the previous high theft determination for the Galant line. With respect to the Galant Sigma, we conclude that this is a new model within the Galant line, not a new line. In our preamble to the insurer reporting requirements in 49 CFR Part 544, we discussed the application of the terms 'model, make, and line' as follows: 'Make' refers to the general name used by the vehicle manufacturer. For example, Dodge, Ford, and Pontiac are makes of vehicles. 'Line' refers to the nameplate assigned by the manufacturer to a group of vehicle models of the same make. For example, Dodge Charger, Ford Thunderbird, and Pontiac 6000 are lines of vehicles. 'Model' refers to a specific grouping of similar vehicles within a line. For example, the Dodge Charger 2.2 2-door, Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and Pontiac 6000 LE 4-door are models. 52 FR 59, at 65, January 2, 1987. In general, if a manufacturer calls a group of vehicles by the same general name as it applies to another group, but adds a further description to that name (e.g., Honda Civic CRX, Volkswagen Golf GTI, and Porsche 911 Carrera), we presume that the further description indicates a unique model within that line. This presumption can be overcome only if the vehicle with the further description in its name is not 'similar in construction or design.' Thus, we have determined, for example, that the Honda Civic CRX is simply a model within the Civic line, notwithstanding the fact that its driveline and body styling are different from all other Honda Civic models. It is similar in construction or design (all are front-wheel drive passenger cars) and bears the same name as other Civics. On the other hand, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is not considered a model within your Colt/Mirage line. The Station Wagon bears the same name as other Colt/Mirage models. However, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, while the other Colt/Mirage models are passenger cars. This difference is substantial enough that the vehicles are not 'similar' in construction or design. In the case of the Galant Sigma, we agree that it is not identical in construction or design to the other redesigned Galant models. However, it is similar in construction and design to the other Galant models, since all are front-wheel drive passenger cars. Hence, the Galant Sigma is simply a model within the Galant line. 2. If a new high theft determination should not be made for the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma, which of the vehicles is designated as high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the old Galant be used? ANSWER: As explained above, the Galant Sigma is not a separate car line, but is simply a model within the Galant line. The redesigned Galant line is a continuation of the older Galant line. Thus, the previous high theft determination applies to all models in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma. The exemption that was granted to the older Galant line can be used for the redesigned Galant line if the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma. If the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is not installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, you would be required to mark all cars in the redesigned Galant line to conform to Part 541. 3. If one or both the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma are newly designated as high theft lines, can the exemption granted for the Galant in the 1987 model year be used for either or both car lines, or would the exemption be invalidated because of the change in body style? ANSWER: Because the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is just a model within the redesigned Galant line, as explained above, the exemption granted under Part 543 to the 1987 Galant line continues in full effect for the redesigned Galant line. Your company has the option of installing anti-theft devices as standard equipment in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma, in accordance with the 1987 exemption, or marking all major parts in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, in accordance with Part 541. 4. If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with Part 541, can installation of the anti-theft device be discontinued at any time? ANSWER: Yes. Exemptions are granted only, among other things, after a determination has been made that the line in question is a high theft line that should be listed in Appendix A of Part 541. Section 541.3 states that the parts marking requirements of Part 541 apply to all lines listed in Appendix A. Section 541.5 requires each major part that is original equipment on a line designated as high theft to be marked with certain information. Section 541.6 requires each replacement major part for high theft lines to be marked with certain information. Thus, each line listed in Appendix A must comply with the requirements of sections 541.5 and 541.6. There is a single exception to this requirement. Part 543 sets forth procedures by which a line that has been determined to be a high theft line can be exempted from the marking requirements of Part 541. To be eligible for an exemption under Part 543, an antitheft device must be installed as standard equipment in all cars in the line. The lines that have been granted exemptions under Part 543 are listed in a special subset of Appendix A, Appendix A-I. When a manufacturer gets an exemption for a line under Part 543, it is given two options to comply with the requirements of Part 541. First, the manufacturer can install the antitheft device that was the subject of the exemption proceeding under Part 543 as standard equipment on all cars in that line, in accordance with the terms of the exemption. However, the manufacturer is not required by Part 543 or any other provision to install standard equipment antitheft devices in that line. If the manufacturer chooses not to use the antitheft device exemption for that line, the manufacturer must choose the second option -- that is, marking the major parts of every car in the line, in accordance with 541.5, and marking the replacement major parts for that line, in accordance with 541.6. If a manufacturer has complied with both of these options in a particular model year, by marking every vehicle and every covered major replacement part for a line and by installing an antitheft device that was the subject of a Part 543 exemption proceeding in every marked vehicle, as posited in your example, the manufacturer is free to discontinue either, but not both, of the courses of action at any point during the model year. When the manufacturer chooses to discontinue either course of action for even a single vehicle in the high theft line, it is then required to follow the other course of action until the end of the model year in question. Please note that this choice exists only if the manufacturer has complied fully with the requirements of Part 541.5 and Part 541.6 and with the terms of the exemption granted under Part 543. If some vehicles in a line or some of the replacement major parts were not marked in accordance with Part 541, the manufacturer must install the antitheft device that was the subject of the Part 543 proceeding in all vehicles in that line for the rest of the model year. When the next model year for the subject line begins, the manufacturer is permitted to discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and to comply with the requirements of Part 541 for that line in the new model year. However, for any particular model year, each of a manufacturer's lines must fully comply with either the requirements of Part 541 or the exemption granted under Part 543. Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam5258 Open Mr. Toshi Tanaka General Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept. Sensor Technology Co., Ltd. 1-3-3 Yaesu, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 103, JAPAN; Mr. Toshi Tanaka General Manager Sales & Marketing Dept. Sensor Technology Co. Ltd. 1-3-3 Yaesu Chuo-ku Tokyo 103 JAPAN; "Dear Mr. Tanaka: This responds to your FAX of August 4, 1991, to Ms Delmas Johnson of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions and the answers to each follows. Is it true that the belt fastening law now goes into a part of the federal law? The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Federal requirements do not, however, regulate the use of vehicles. While there is no Federal requirement mandating safety belt use, a recent final rule will impose penalties on states which do not have both a safety belt and a motorcycle helmet use law by 1994. Currently, all the states and territories have some type of mandatory belt use law except Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Is it true that the cars with airbag do not need to perform 'Roll Over Test'? Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars 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). The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection systems are required to comply with certain injury criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. In addition, the automatic crash protection must either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements or have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly. A passenger car equipped with an air bag does not have to comply with the rollover test if it has a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at that position. To our knowledge, all vehicles currently being manufactured are certified to the automatic crash protection requirement by installing Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies. A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags and Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. I am enclosing a copy of the recently published final rule implementing these requirements. These requirements will make the option of complying with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements moot. 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. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam4195 Open Mr. Andrew A. Kroll, 1401 East Girard, 207, Englewood, Colorado 80110; Mr. Andrew A. Kroll 1401 East Girard 207 Englewood Colorado 80110; Dear Mr. Kroll: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standar No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically you asked whether that standard is applicable to foam-filled passenger car tires that do not have any air in the inner tire cavity. Standard No. 109 does not apply to foam-filled passenger car tires.; Section S2 of Standard No. 109 specifies that '[t]his standard applie to new pneumatic tire for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948.' In section S3 of the standard, the term 'pneumatic tire' is defined as 'a mechnaical(sic) device made of rubber, chemicals, fabric and steel or other materials, which, when mounted on an automotive wheel, provides the traction and contains the gas or fluid that sustains the load' (emphasis added). Thus the relevant question is whether the foam filling the tires in question is considered a 'gas or fluid'. In a February 14, 1975 letter to Mr. J. F. Hutchinson, NHTSA stated that foam-filled tires 'should not be considered pneumatic tires.' This conclusion means that foam-filled tires for use on passenger cars are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 109.; One result of this determination is that foam- filled tires can not be installed as original equipment on any new passenger car. Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims* (49 CFR S571.110) sets forth requirements for new passenger cars. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 110 reads as follows: 'Passenger cars shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of S571.109.' Since foam-filled tires are not subject to Standard No. 109, they are still 'item of motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Among other things, this means that, if there is a determination that the tires contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of the foam-filled tires is required to notify purchasers and dealers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge to the purchasers, if the tire was purchased less than 3 calender years before the determination of defect was made.; If you have any further questions on this subject or need mor information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4276 Open Mr. John F. Doerr, 100 Lefferts Ave. 4D, Brooklyn, NY 11225; Mr. John F. Doerr 100 Lefferts Ave. 4D Brooklyn NY 11225; Dear Mr. Doerr: This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Secretary Dol on your 'Safety Light Warning System.' You have asked if your system 'could legally be implemented' and for advice 'how I may go about marketing this system.'; The patent drawing of your device depicts a light bar mounted in th rear window area with a green lamp in the center flanked by amber lamps, with two red lamps at the end. This system would be acceptable neither as original equipment on passenger cars, nor as replacement equipment on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. As of that date, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be manufactured with a red stop lamp in the approximate location of your green lamp. There is no Federal prohibition against offering the system in the aftermarket for retrofitting on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, but the system would be subject to the laws of each State in which it would be sold or used. I understand that Oregon and California allow green-amber-red deceleration warning systems when the lamps are mounted on the rear of the car, but restrictions may exist as to their mounting in a vehicle's interior.; I hope this information is useful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4429 Open Mr. Paul Utans Vice President, Governmental Affairs Subaru of America Subaru Plaza P.O. Box 6000 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000; Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Governmental Affairs Subaru of America Subaru Plaza P.O. Box 6000 Cherry Hill NJ 08034-6000; "Dear Mr. Utans: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210). Specifically, you stated that Subaru would like to offer lap/shoulder belts at the rear outboard seating positions on mid-1989 model year station wagons sold in the United States. Standard No. 210 requires these station wagons to be equipped with an anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder belt assembly at each forward-facing outboard seating position (S4.1.1) and requires such anchorages to be located within a specified range (S4.3.2). You stated that the subject station wagons would have such an anchorage located in the specified area. However, the upper torso portion of the lap/shoulder belt assemblies would not be attached to the required anchorages in the subject vehicles. Instead, Subaru would provide another anchorage outside of the range specified in Standard No. 210, and the upper torso portion of the rear seat lap/shoulder belt assemblies would be attached to these additional anchorages. You stated your belief that, since Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) does not require manufacturers to install lap/shoulder belts in rear seating positions of passenger cars, Subaru's voluntary installation of rear seat lap/shoulder belts and additional anchorages for those belts is not subject to any of this agency's regulations, provided that the voluntarily installed items do not impair the functioning of any devices or elements of design required to be installed in the vehicles. Your belief is correct. The anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210 apply to all anchorages required by the safety standards, except for those anchorages explicitly exempted by S4.3 of Standard No. 210 (anchorages for automatic and dynamically tested manual belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208). The question then becomes whether the upper anchorage to which the rear seat shoulder belts will actually be attached in these vehicles is required by the safety standards. If that upper anchorage were required by the safety standards, it would have to comply with the location requirements set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. However, we conclude that that anchorage is not required by any safety standard. If Standard No. 208 required rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts, it would require that the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt was actually attached to the vehicles comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. This is because S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a 'seat belt anchorage' as 'the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure.' The point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle is necessarily a part of the 'provision' for transferring belt loads to the vehicle structure. Thus, the attachment point of the upper end of the shoulder belt to the vehicle would have to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 210, if the shoulder belt were required to be provided at that seating position by Standard No. 208. However, Standard No. 208 does not currently require rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts. Instead, section S4.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 208 requires that rear seating positions in passenger cars be equipped with either Type 1 (lap belts) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder belts) belt assemblies. Even though Standard No. 208 does not require lap/shoulder belts to be installed at rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars, section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires shoulder belt anchorages to be installed for each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in passenger cars. When lap belts only are installed at these seating positions, the shoulder belt anchorage required by S4.1.1 is not, strictly speaking, a provision for transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, since there are no shoulder belt loads to transfer to the vehicle structure. Accordingly, the requirement of S4.1.1 was interpreted as meaning that an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure had to be provided for such seating positions, and that anchorage point had to comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 210. According to your letter, your station wagons would be equipped with an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, and that point would comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. Accepting this as true, we believe that Subaru could satisfy all the requirements of the safety standards by installing lap belts only at the rear outboard seating positions in these cars. Subaru's decision to install lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions and an additional anchorage point for the shoulder belts is a voluntary choice, not a response to any regulatory requirement. NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis (copy enclosed), I said that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorages for voluntarily-installed lap belts outside of the area specified in Standard No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for the upper end of voluntarily installed shoulder belts outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed anchorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages and lap belts to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. There is no reason to believe that shoulder belts and the additional anchorages would in any way impair the ability of required equipment to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. You are already aware of the fact that NHTSA has initiated a rulemaking to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, 52 FR 22818, June 16, 1987. You should note that if the agency adopts a final rule requiring rear seat lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, the shoulder belts that are the subject of this interpretation would no longer be voluntarily installed. If such a final rule were issued, the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle would have to comply with both the anchorage location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210 and the anchorage strength requirements of S4.2.2 of Standard No. 210, as explained above. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";