NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 6441 - 6450 of 16515

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam5156 Open Mr. Donald L. Anglin 706 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903; Mr. Donald L. Anglin 706 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville VA 22903; "Dear Mr. Anglin: This responds to your letter in which you aske whether removing the self- adjusters on a motor vehicle's drum brakes constitutes a violation of the 'anti-tampering' provisions of several Federal laws, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this agency's regulations. You will need to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for an interpretation of the Clean Air Act. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act') requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the standards issued by NHTSA are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. NHTSA recently amended these standards to require vehicles to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. (57 FR 47793, October 20, 1992) This rule takes effect on October 20, 1993 for vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes and on October 20, 1994 for vehicles equipped with air brakes. Until these effective dates, a vehicle is not required to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. You specifically asked about the agency's 'anti-tampering' provisions. While the agency has no provision called this, the Safety Act does include a provision known as the 'rendering inoperative' provision which is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. For vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the new requirements for automatic adjusters, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses will be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) from rendering the devices inoperative. For vehicles manufactured before that time, such an entity should ensure that removal of the adjusters does not otherwise render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with a safety standard. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ";
ID: aiam3981 Open Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your two letters to the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. We apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.; Your December 6, 1984 letter asked about paragraph S5.4.1 of Standar No. 217 and the ellipsoid used to measure the unobstructed opening of a pushout window or other emergency exit. To simplify matters, I will refer to the illustration you attached with your letter. You asked whether you may rotate the ellipsoid in such a way that axis C-D may be horizontal instead of axis A-B.; By way of background information, I would like to explain that NHTS does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letters.; Paragraph S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217 states that: >>>After the release mechanism has been operated, each push-out windo or other emergency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall...be manually extendable by a single occupant to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches.<<<; Since the language of section S5.4.1 requires only that 'a majo axis' of the ellipsoid to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the emergency exit, you are not prohibited from positioning the ellipsoid with only a single major axis, such as C-D, horizontal. If there is unobstructed access of the ellipsoid through the opening, with major axis C-D horizontal, then the emergency exit meets the requirement of S5.4.1 as that section is written.; Even if the design of the exit would not violate S5.4.1, however, w urge you to ensure that the design would not complicate efforts of the passengers to use the emergency exit. It appears that the intent of the agency was for the plane generated by the major axes to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the exit. Otherwise, since a major axis of the ellipsoid will at all times be horizontal, no matter how the ellipsoid is passed, the benefit of such a requirement would be reduced. Further, the opening to the emergency exit could be significantly reduced when the only horizontal major axis is C-D.; The agency issued an opinion in April 1977, stating that S5.4.1 an S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 require the long side of a rectangular roof exit to be parallel to the center line or the side wall of a bus. That opinion interpreted S5.4.1 as requiring the ellipsoid to be passed through the exit with more than one of its major axes horizontal. That interpretation relied on the intent of the standard, but not the language of S5.4.1. This letter reconsiders the 1977 opinion and holds that the language of S5.4.1 requires only one major axis of the ellipsoid to be horizontal.; The two questions in your December 13, 1984 letter dealt with a outside release mechanism for pushout rear emergency windows. In a telephone call to this office on February 5, 1985, you said that the rear emergency pushout windows would be on school buses and buses other than school buses. You also asked whether an outside release mechanism may be installed on rear emergency doors on buses other than school buses.; Your first question was whether the following interpretation wa correct:; >>>FMVSS 217 does not require emergency exits to have outside releas mechanisms, except for school bus emergency doors. Therefore, if we provide an outside handle to operate a pushout rear emergency window, it does not have to meet any force level or type of motion requirements.<<<; You are correct that Standard No. 217 does not require emergency exit on school buses to have outside release mechanisms, with the exception in S5.3.3 for school bus emergency doors. We assume that there are release mechanisms for the pushout rear emergency windows located within the bus which meet all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. If the emergency exit meets all applicable requirements of the standard, an outside release mechanism for a pushout rear emergency window that is provided in addition to the release mechanisms required by the standard need not meet any force application and type of motion requirements.; Your second question was whether the outside handle on the pushout rea emergency window could be equipped with a key operated mechanism that disengages the handle from outside the bus for security purposes. The handle, even when locked from the outside, does not ever prevent operation of the window's release mechanisms from inside the bus. The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 217 does not prohibit the type of handle you described when all applicable requirements of the standard can be met.; Our answers given above apply to outside release mechanisms on pushou rear emergency windows on school buses and buses other than school buses.; An outside release mechanism on rear emergency doors on buses othe than school buses would likewise not have to meet any force application and type of motion requirements, if the emergency door meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. The outside release mechanism can be equipped with the locking device you described, provided that Standard No. 217's requirements are met.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5443 Open Mr. Ralph Harpster Laguna Manufacturing, Inc. P.O. Box 3236 Turlock, CA 95381; Mr. Ralph Harpster Laguna Manufacturing Inc. P.O. Box 3236 Turlock CA 95381; "Dear Mr. Harpster: This responds to your letter of June 21, 1994 requesting information on whether a 'replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars' complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. During a July 1, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the seat could be installed either before or after the first retail sale of the police car. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to a prisoner transport seat. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth strength requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location 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 prisoner transport seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios. Installation as Original Equipment Standards No. 207, 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 for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the prisoner transport seat installed in the vehicle. Unlike the other four 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. The manufacturer of the seat belt system provided with the prisoner transport seat is responsible for certifying that the seat belt complies with Standard No. 209. Your letter specifically asks whether the safety belt system installed with the prisoner transport seat complies with all applicable requirements. Currently, Standard No. 208 requires an integral Type 2 (lap and shoulder) seat belt assembly at all forward-facing rear outboard seating positions, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear seating positions. Standard No. 208 also requires the lap belt portion of the Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing rear outboard seating position to have an emergency locking retractor. Thus, because the seat belt assembly for the prisoner transport seat has a manual retractor, the seat cannot be installed at a forward-facing rear outboard seating position. We note that Standard No. 208 requires emergency locking retractors to ensure improved comfort and convenience for safety belts. The purpose is to make it more likely that the typical vehicle occupant will use his or her safety belts, and also to reduce the likelihood of excessive slack in safety belts during use. You wish to use manual retractors because of special circumstances that arise when the rear seats of police vehicles are used to transport prisoners, i.e., a desire to keep the prisoners solidly restrained in the seats. However, Standard No. 208 specifies the same occupant crash protection requirements for police vehicles as other vehicles, and does not include an exception in this area. A possible solution to your problem may be to install your belt system (with manual retractors) in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208. Provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such 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. Your belt system would, of course, still have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209, since it would be considered a 'seat belt assembly.' Installation Prior to First Sale If a prisoner transport seat were 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. 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 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a prisoner transport seat if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the seat did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty 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. Thus, if a police department were to modify its own vehicles to install a prisoner transport seat, it would not be a violation of this provision, even if the original belts were replaced by belts with manual retractors. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2386 Open Mr. Joseph G. Bishop, President, W.S. Coach Corp., Suite 100 Brookhaven Office Park, 3001 LBJ Freeway, Dallas TX 75234; Mr. Joseph G. Bishop President W.S. Coach Corp. Suite 100 Brookhaven Office Park 3001 LBJ Freeway Dallas TX 75234; Dear Mr. Bishop: This is in response to your July 7, 1976, request for informatio regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to 'rumble seat kits' for installation in passenger cars. The answers to your questions are as follows:; (1) 'Is there any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or Regulation that would preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?'; >>>The answer to your question is no.<<< (2) 'What are the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards an Regulations that would be specifically applicable to the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?'; >>>Installation of the rumble seats could affect compliance of th vehicle with the following safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims.; We are assuming that the rumble seats would be installed in complete vehicles that are already certified, in which case the alterer would be required to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.7 requires one who alters a previously certified vehicle, prior to its first sale, (by other than readily attachable components) to affix an additional label to the vehicle, stating that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards after the alteration. It should be noted that any additional weight created by the rumble seats or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.; We also would point out that 49 CFR Part 575 requires manufacturers t provide consumer information regarding vehicle stopping distance, tire reserve load, and acceleration and passing ability, at the point of first sale of the vehicle and along with the purchased vehicle. The increased weight created by the rumble seats could require modification of the information that would have to be provided.<<<; (3) 'Is there any State or Local Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that t your knowledge may preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>We are not aware of any State or local regulations that woul preclude installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles.<<<; (4) Can you furnish a list of Government approved independent testin facilities for FMVSS compliance testing?'; >>>The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend that any particular testing center be utilized. You might wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators concerning this subject, at 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.<<<; (5) 'Can the NHTSA make any design recommendations related to th installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>The NHTSA does not provide engineering expertise regarding th manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, the agency will answer specific questions that a manufacturer might have concerning the basis for a particular performance requirement.<<<; (6) 'Is there any future or pending legislation that may be related t the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>At the present time there is no pending Federal legislation relatin to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles, nor is any such legislation anticipated by the NHTSA in the immediate future.<<<; The statements made above are directed primarily to the situation i which rumble seats would be installed prior to first sale of the vehicle, and in which the vehicle would have to be certified as being in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Please note, however, that the aftermarket installation of rumble seats might also be subject to Federal requirements.; Section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966 provides that, with one exception, 'no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .' Therefore, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may install the rumble seats in a motor vehicle if he knows that such installation would alter the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. For example, installation of rumble seats could possibly affect components of the vehicle that are subject to the requirements of safety standards such as Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, or Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0641 Open Mr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1972, in which yo discussed some problems that you have encountered with the regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568), as applied to the school buses of which you are the final-stage manufacturer. Since the receipt of your letter, Mr. Rumph of your company and Mr. Sweet of the Truck Body and Equipment Association met with Mr. Dyson of this office to discuss the issues raised in your letter. Also, on March 8 you sent a sample letter that you proposed to send to your customers.; As we understand the problem from your letter and the subsequen discussion, it is essentially that you are receiving chassis-cowls from school bus buyers, for mounting of your bodies as a final-stage manufacturer, which are inadequate for the purpose according to the gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings now included with the incomplete vehicles under our multistage vehicle regulations, 49 CFR Part 568. The problem as you describe it appears to have arisen in the negotiation between the school bus buyers and the dealers from whom they bought the incomplete vehicles, in that the dealers sold chassis that were too lightly equipped with tires and axles for the loaded weight implicit in the buyer's specification, under both our certification regulations and accepted industry practice. You state that your company bears the immediate burden of the problem, because you have invested in the production of several dozen bodies whose installation is held up pending resolution of the problem.; From your discussion we assume that all parties are agreed that th bodies that the customers ordered (and you have built) are the ones that are to be used, and that the chassis that have been furnished to you can be economically modified to meet the requirements of our regulations and be safe for their intended use.; With these assumptions, we suggest the following course of action o your part:; 1. Complete each vehicle as planned. 2. Affix a certification label to each vehicle as you normally do stating on the label weight rating figures that will satisfy our regulations (Part 567) and the axle capacity requirements of the vehicle.; 3. Deliver the vehicle, but concurrently send a written statement b certified mail to the vehicle buyer to the effect that the vehicle must be modified in order to conform to the GVWR and GAWR figures on the certification label, both for purposes of safety and to conform to Federal regulations. The letter should advise the buyer to take the vehicle to a dealer of the chassis manufacturer for these modifications immediately upon receiving it. The sample letter you sent on March 8 will be satisfactory if you modify the second and third paragraphs to read as follows:; >>>'Federal Regulations 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, requires Blu Bird to certify the front and rear gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of completed vehicles, and specifies a minimum GVWR based on seating capacity.; 'Your vehicle may be shipped as it is, however, the values of GAWR an GVWR shown on the certification plate will be contingent on the chassis modifications indicated above. These changes must, in the interest of safety, be made before the vehicle is placed into service, and you should take the vehicle to your chassis dealer as soon as you receive it.'<<<; 4. Send copies of each such statement to (a) Office of Standard Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, (b) the manufacturer of the chassis that was delivered to you, and (c) the dealer from whom the buyer ordered the chassis, if any and where known to you.; This procedure is allowed only as to chassis that have already bee received by Blue Bird as of the receipt of this letter, and it should not be viewed as precedent for future action by any other persons. In the future, Blue Bird as the final-stage manufacturer must take responsibility for the vehicle as completed by it, to the extent of its knowledge of relevant facts.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1953 Open Mr. J. W. Kennebeck, Manager, Emissions, Safety & Development, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. J. W. Kennebeck Manager Emissions Safety & Development Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition fo rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.; Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive bel system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.; Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warnin provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.; Our January 16 letter states 'additional [safety] devices could not b installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply.' This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.; For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additiona warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;
ID: aiam5013 Open The Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-2301; The Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510-2301; "Dear Senator Durenberger: Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1992 concerning a product developed by your constituent, McNaughton Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The product is a device to prevent a child from opening the buckle of a safety belt without adult assistance. You requested information on any regulations that pertain to this product. The agency has received inquiries about similar products in the past. While we understand parents' concerns that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about these types of products because they could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. I am enclosing an August 6, 1986, letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Ms. Ann Boriskie. As this letter explains, your constituent's product could not be installed by a commercial entity without violating Federal law. In addition, installation of your constituent's product by any person would be inconsistent with this agency's policy to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. You also asked for information on how McNaughton Incorporated could become involved in the national safety belt campaign. The Agency is currently working with a variety of public and private sector organizations to increase safety belt use to 70 percent by the end of 1992. The strategy focuses on increased law enforcement efforts coupled with aggressive community-based public information. There are many ways McNaughton can support these efforts. They can consider developing and implementing an in-house safety belt education program targeting their employees or applying for the 70 percent Honor Roll Program. They might be interested in supporting community awareness initiatives that promote the campaign, including the posting of billboards and the inclusion of safety belt messages in their on-going advertising. An expanded list of ideas is attached. If McNaughton Incorporated is interested in additional campaign information, they can contact Susan Gorcowski, Office of Occupant Protection, (202) 366- 2683. I appreciate your interest in the safety of motor vehicles and hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosures";
ID: aiam0211 Open Messrs. Ganglberger and Goerter, Semperit, Oesterreichish-Amerikanishe Gummiwerke Aktiengesellschaft, Werke 2, A-02514 Traiskirchen, N.Oe., Austria; Messrs. Ganglberger and Goerter Semperit Oesterreichish-Amerikanishe Gummiwerke Aktiengesellschaft Werke 2 A-02514 Traiskirchen N.Oe. Austria; Gentlemen: Thank you for your reply to our letter of December 11, 1969 concernin tires marked with the legend 'Farm Use Only Tires'.; Concerning the question you raise in your letter relating to the DO symbol, Standard No. 109 requires that the symbol be between the maximum section width and the bead to protect the lettering from obliteration during use. Therefore, placing the DOT symbol at the widest place on the side wall rib as illustrated in your enclosed drawing would not be permitted.; With regard to your question asking if the approved symbol and th manufacturer's code mark is necessary, the approved symbol signifies that the manufacturer certifies that the tire complies with the Standard and is, therefore, necessary. Tires exported to this country without the symbol would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The code number is only required if your company manufactures a tire with a brand name other than its own, The purpose of the code number is to identify the manufacturer of the tire.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel, Moto Regulations;
ID: aiam3597 Open Mr. F. E. Bettridge, Board Chairman, Middlekauff, Inc., 1615 Ketcham Avenue, Toledo, OH 43608; Mr. F. E. Bettridge Board Chairman Middlekauff Inc. 1615 Ketcham Avenue Toledo OH 43608; Dear Mr. Bettridge: This is in reply to your petition of July 16, 1982, for a temporar exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.; You have told us that 'as a seller and installer of truck bodies, w are frequently called upon to install a body on an incomplete vehicle furnished to us by a major manufacturer through his dealer.' Our regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) requires the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle to furnish, with the vehicle, statements with respect to each of the standards which inform the final stage manufacturer of the vehicle's compliance status. With respect to Standard No. 301, each manufacturer should provide you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform or, alternatively, a statement that the vehicle when completed will conform if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle.; These statements afford a basis for your certification of complianc with Standard No. 301 without the necessity of testing. We would like to know which of these statements have been provided and why you may believe your manufacturing operations are such that you could not certify compliance with Standard No. 301.; We would also like to make clear that there is no legal requiremen that you crash test a $10,000 vehicle in order to demonstrate compliance. Certification may be based upon computer simulation, mathematical calculation, or engineering studies. Upon reflection you may decide that you have an adequate basis for certification with Standard No. 301.; Until we hear further from you, we shall hold your petition i abeyance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4252 Open Mr. G.T. Doe General Manager - Product Design Lotus Engineering, Ltd. Norwich, Norfolk NR14 8EZ England GREAT BRITAIN; Mr. G.T. Doe General Manager - Product Design Lotus Engineering Ltd. Norwich Norfolk NR14 8EZ England GREAT BRITAIN; "Dear Mr. Doe: This responds to your letter in which you asked how th conversion of a convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new two seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a 'factory manufactured and approved' hardtop conversion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216. I would like to set the foundation for answering your specific questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as 'a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.' In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer. The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would not permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception. Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on selling nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or to a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certificate of conformity from Lotus or the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certificate of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have reason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requirements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR /567.7. The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth in sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were: 1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any car that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the rollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216. 2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you are referring. However, you stated in your letter, 'It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area.' The requirements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a 'designated seating position.' This term is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as follows: 'Designated seating position' means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designated seating positions. The required occupant restraint system would also be affected by converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purposes of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would not be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: J. Douglas Hand, Esq. Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232 /";