ID: nht92-2.23

DATE: 11/16/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WOLDGANG W. KLAMP

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-92 FROM WOLFGANG W. KLAMP TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7919)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 28, 1992, with respect to problems encountered by your wife in her use of a 1992 Canadian Ford Tempo passenger car.

Your letter indicates that your wife works in Canada, and uses the Ford, a company car owned by her employer, to travel to and from her home in the United States. Because the vehicle is not certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, she has been informed by U.S. Customs officials at the border that it may not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. You have asked for our consideration of this matter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation into the United States of motor vehicles that do not conform, and that are not certified by their manufacturers to conform, to all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a legal matter, each time the Ford crosses the border from British Columbia to Washington, it is being imported into this country. It has been the policy of this agency for many years to regard Canadian and Mexican-registered vehicles engaged in daily cross-border traffic as subject to the importation prohibitions of the Act, and to require their compliance with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This is the reason why your wife is encountering difficulties at the border.

We have several suggestions. If the ford is equipped with automatic occupant protection such as an air bag or automatic belts, it may, in fact, comply with all the U.S. standards. If this is the case, then Ford of Canada may be willing to provide your wife with a letter certifying its compliance to the U.S. standards which she could present at the border.

Customs should honor such a letter, and allow the vehicle to proceed with no further delay. If this is not the case, perhaps her employer could provide her with a Canadian-manufactured car that does meet, and is certified as meeting, the U.S. standards. Otherwise, your wife may have to use a U.S. -registered and certified vehicle and seek reimbursement for travel expenses from her Canadian employer.

ID: 7919

Mr. Wolfgang W. Klamp
8105 Chehalis Road
Blaine, Washington 98230

Dear Mr. Klamp:

This responds to your letter of October 28, 1992, with respect to problems encountered by your wife in her use of a 1992 Canadian Ford Tempo passenger car.

Your letter indicates that your wife works in Canada, and uses the Ford, a company car owned by her employer, to travel to and from her home in the United States. Because the vehicle is not certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, she has been informed by U.S. Customs officials at the border that it may not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. You have asked for our consideration of this matter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation into the United States of motor vehicles that do not conform, and that are not certified by their manufacturers to conform, to all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a legal matter, each time the Ford crosses the border from British Columbia to Washington, it is being imported into this country. It has been the policy of this agency for many years to regard Canadian and Mexican-registered vehicles engaged in daily cross-border traffic as subject to the importation prohibitions of the Act, and to require their compliance with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This is the reason why your wife is encountering difficulties at the border.

We have several suggestions. If the Ford is equipped with automatic occupant protection such as an air bag or automatic belts, it may, in fact, comply with all the U.S. standards. If this is the case, then Ford of Canada may be willing to provide your wife with a letter certifying its compliance to the U.S. standards which she could present at the border. Customs should honor such a letter, and allow the vehicle to proceed with no further delay. If this is not the case, perhaps her employer could provide her with a Canadian- manufactured car that does meet, and is certified as meeting, the U.S. standards. Otherwise, your wife may have to use a U.S.-registered and certified vehicle and seek reimbursement for travel expenses from her Canadian employer.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:591 d:11/16/92

ID: 1984-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Intec -- Christopher Moore

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Christopher Moore Intec 23132 La Cadena Languna Hills, California 92653

This responds to your April 24, 1984 letter regarding the installation of a closed circuit television viewing system in new vehicles, as an alternative to rearview mirror systems. The television system provides a view of the area behind the vehicle from a monitor screen placed on or near the dash.

As you note in your letter, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 specifies the use of rearview mirrors to provide improved rearward and side visibility in new motor vehicles. No provision is made for alternative means of compliance such as closed circuit television systems, so such alternative systems are not authorized. However, the closed circuit system could be used as a supplement to a mirror system which meets the requirements of Standard 111.

The only options available to a vehicle manufacturer seeking to use a closed circuit system as a replacement for the required mirror system would be to file a petition to amend the standard or a petition for an exemption from the standard. Requirements applicable to these petitions are set forth in Title 49 of the Code af Federal Regulations, Parts 552 and 555, respectively. These petitions are only granted in the limited circumstances set forth in those regulations.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 24, 1984

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590 Attention: Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are the manufacturers of the INTEC "Car Vision" System, a closed circuit television system for vehicular applications. The system is used extensively in the recreational vehicle industry, on refuse and construction equipment and various other commerical vehicles.

Recently, we have had an inquiry from a foreign auto manufacturer via Chrysler Corporation asking about the system for automobiles. The company wishes to replace the existing mirrors with CCTV rearview system but was not familiar with the applicable laws.

After discussing the situation with Mr. Michael Finkelstein, the Associate Administrator for Research and Development and his associate Mr. Robert Henderson, they suggested we talk to your office. Our question is to what extent can a CCTV system replace or enhance the rearview mirrors on an Automobile? We know the current NHTSA Standard No. 111 specifies requirements for rearview mirrors, but no mention of alternatives is provided. Would a CCTV system be a possible replacement?

Enclosed is our sales brochure which outlines the system's technical specifications. We are recommending to Chrysler that a chip camera be substituted for the standard tube model. Chip cameras are not subject to tube burn and are durable enough for vehicular applications.

After you have had a chance to review our literature. I look forward to discussing further the system and any comments and suggestions regarding the law.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Sincerely,

INTEC

Christopher Moore Enclosures Sales CM/gw Attachment --

INTEC CAR VISION

"A must to ensure safety on any large vehicle"

(Insert Diagram)

INTEC'S Car Vision can prevent accidents and ensure safety.

INTEC'S Car Vision can prevent traffic accidents by providing the driver in a large vehicle to see backward clearly when changing lanes, backing-up or when towing any other vehicle. With the aid of Intec's Car Vision, the diver can confirm that the tow hitch is in place and that the vehicle he is towing is alright. The field of view of the Car Vision is from directly downward to the rear bumper to outwards 7 times the height of the installed camera. See diagram with field of view height and width.

Attractive and Compact Monitor with distance grid on screen.

The TV Monitor installed in the divers section is attractive and compact in design. The Monitor can be surface mounted or recessed into the instrument panel. The Monitor has 2 modes brightness switch, one for bright sunshine and the other for night usage.

Shock-proof, vibration-proof and weather-proof construction.

The camera and monitor of INTEC'S Car Vision can withstand locks of 4.4 G's. The Camera does not resonate with any kind of vibration emitted by the vehicle. The Camera is completely weatherproof and can be used on tractors, road rollers and just about any self-propelled outdoor equipment with divers cabs or canopies to cover the monitor.

It serves as another eye for the driver.

On many occasions the diver must watch the situation in the rear, including the objects in a blind spot even when driving forward. For example, a tractor diver must watch what is ahead of him and also his tillage performance in the rear. The INTEC'S Car Vision permits him to see directly behind the vehicle and a lane to each side.

Ultra wide-angle lens yield remarkable wide view.

The ultra wide-angle lens of the Car Vision camera has a local length of only 6.5mm. Its field extends from directly below the lens downward to about 15m away from it horizontally. Because of this unique feature, the Car Vision can be used not only on vehicles but also on sea going vessels and aircrafts. Waterproofing permits all weather outdoor use of TV Camera.

The TV Camera has an airtight, waterproof, all-weather type case. It is extremely suitable as an outdoor-operated camera.

*Insert diagrams here

ID: nht72-6.40

DATE: 09/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E.T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: G.W. Balch

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter dated July 29, 1972, you advise us that your Southside Recapping and Tire Company with the assigned retread identification code mark "MBP" ceased operation on or about June 5, 1972, and that you wish the code mark cancelled. We have changed our records in accordance with your request.

Since your production ended at a specific time and the regulation requires that all retread tires be marked with the week and year of manufacture, the tires produced under your management and for which you are responsible are easily identified by the date code.

With proper application to the "Tire identification and Recordkeeping" of the "National Highway Traffic Safety Administration," if requested, the same code mark way be assigned to a new company in order to avoid the cost of reworking the matrices.

We would be pleased to service you with a new retread code mark if you recenter the retread business sometime in the future. We are also forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Buce, the present owner of the matrices, for his information.

SINCERELY,

July 29, 1972

Department of Transportation Tire Safety Section

Gentlemen:

This is to advise that I request you cancel my retreading number of DOT RMBP which was originally assigned to me, operating as Southside Recapping and Tire-Co, 255 East Fleming Road, Montgomery, Alabama 35106.

I ceased operations on or about June 5th or this year and produced no tires bear-the above stated DOT number or date code after that date.

I am particularly concerned about the cancellation of this number in that the landlord indicated that he anticipates commencing operation early in the month of August under a new name but he does not believe he will have to do anything to comply with your departments regulations. I certainly do not want to be liable for any of his production which conceivably could bear my DOT number with or without date code tag.

It is therefore requested that you notify him via letter that the DOT number MBP has subsequently been cancelled and that he must apply for his own identification.

You may contact him at the following address: Fred Buce 255 East Fleming Road Montgomery, Albana 36105

G W Balch f/d/b/a Southside Recapping and Tire

ID: Connreg21936

Harry C. Gough, P.E.
Automotive Engineering
Professional Specialist
State of Connecticut
Department of Motor Vehicles
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161





Dear Mr. Gough:

This responds to your letter asking whether a Connecticut State regulation (Sec. 14-103d-1, Identification of vehicles, May 11, 1984) regarding compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles is preempted by Federal law, in light of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 303 and 304. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You enclosed a copy of the regulation which specifies exterior markings for vehicles powered by pressurized flammable gases. You state that the purpose for the regulation is to quickly identify the fuel type for fire and rescue personnel when responding to crashes.

As discussed below, State safety standards applicable to CNG fuel system integrity are generally preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, and FMVSS No. 303. However, it is our opinion that the Connecticut State exterior marking requirement for CNG vehicles is not preempted under our statute because the aspect of performance it addresses is not fuel system integrity but instead information for emergency personnel. One aspect, however, of the exterior marking requirement for CNG vehicles - the horizontally oriented diamond shaped sign - may be preempted under Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. This issue is briefly touched upon towards the end of this letter.

Connecticut's regulation states, in relevant part:

Any vehicle within the state which carries any pressurized gas as its fuel in a tank attached to the vehicle in any concealed area, including but not limited to, trunks, compartments or under such vehicle pursuant to Public Act No. 83-317 shall have displayed on its exterior the words "Pressurized Flammable Gas" in block letters at least two inches high (50.8mm), which letters shall be contrasting colors and shall be placed as near as possible to the area where the tank is located. In lieu of the above described lettering a vehicle which is required to be so identified may have permanently affixed to its exterior a reflectorized weather resistant sign which shall be a horizontally oriented diamond the center height of which shall be two-thirds (2/3) of the centerline length and of sufficient size to accommodate block lettering of at least 50.8 mm (2 inches) and further described as follows:

(a) In the case of vehicles using compressed natural gas or liquified natural gas, in silver or white letters CNG centered on a blue background. . . .

Further, the regulation states:

(e)(1) each vehicle required to be identified pursuant to Public Act No. 83-317 shall have the required sign, label or placard affixed to either the body of the vehicle as near as is practicable to the filling connection or directly upon the fuel tank at the filling connection so as to be clearly legible when viewed at a distance of 7.6 meters (25 feet) perpendicular to the vehicle upon which it is displayed.

(2) Unless the sign, label or placard required pursuant to subdivision (1) of this section is located as here-in-after provided, each motor vehicle shall in addition to the identification required pursuant to subdivision (1) have an additional sign, label or placard affixed to the back of the vehicle, not including the bumper, within 76 cm (30 inches) of the license plate which shall be clearly legible when viewed at a distance of 7.6 meters (25 feet) directly to the rear of the motor vehicle on which it is displayed.

49 U.S.C. 30103(b) states in relevant part:

When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State...may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

Under 30103, Federal law will preempt a State law if (1) there is a Federal safety standard in effect, (2) the State law covers the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard, and (3) the State law is not identical to the Federal standard.

NHTSA has issued FMVSSs to ensure the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by CNG. FMVSS No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles (49 CFR 571.303), regulates the fuel system integrity of CNG light vehicles and all school buses. FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity (49 CFR 571.304), regulates the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles.

FMVSS No. 303 at S5.3 requires that each CNG vehicle shall be permanently labeled, near the vehicle refueling connection, with the following statements:

(1) "Service pressure _______ kPa (_______ psig)" (S5.3.1), and

(2) "See instructions on fuel container for inspection and service life" (S5.3.2).

Section S5.3 further requires that the required information shall be visible to a person standing next to the vehicle during refueling, in English, and in letters and numbers that are not less than 4.76mm (3/16 inch) high.

FMVSS No. 304 at S7.4, Labeling, states that each CNG fuel container shall be permanently labeled with the following statements or information:

(a) "If there is a question about the proper use, installation, or maintenance of this container, contact ______," inserting the CNG fuel container manufacturer's name, address and telephone number.

(b) "Manufactured in ______," inserting the month and year of the manufacture of the CNG fuel container.

(c) "Service pressure ______kPa, (psig ______)."

(d) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the CNG container manufacturer that the container complies with all requirements of this standard.

(e) The container designation (e.g., Type 1, 2, 3, 4).

(f) "CNG Only."

(g) "This container should be visually inspected after a motor vehicle accident or fire and at least every 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, for damage or deterioration."

(h) "Do Not Use After ______," inserting the month and year that mark the end of the manufacturer's recommended service life for the container.

Section S7.4 further requires that any label affixed to the container in compliance with this section shall remain in place and be legible for the manufacturer's recommended service life of the container. The information shall be in English and in letters and numbers that are at least 6.35 mm (1/4 inch) high.

Our statute would preempt State requirements of general applicability which address CNG fuel system integrity, including ones governing labeling intending to insure the integrity of the vehicle fuel system. The State requirements you asked about, however, are intended to allow fire and rescue personnel to quickly identify the fuel type when responding to crashes involving CNG vehicles and thus would not be regarded by NHTSA as relating to the same aspect of performance as the labeling requirements of FMVSS Nos. 303 and 304. Therefore, the State regulation would not be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b).

Even if a State requirement is not expressly preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), it may be impliedly preempted if it creates an actual conflict with a NHTSA safety standard, either because it would be impossible to comply with both State and Federal requirements or because the judgment would "stand as an obstacle to" or "frustrate the purpose of" Federal law. We do not see any reason why the Connecticut exterior marking requirement would create a conflict with our safety standards, since the markings required by Connecticut law would not need to be in a location at which a Federally-required label must appear.

In addition to the Federal laws we administer, there could be preemption issues concerning Federal laws administered by the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. We suggest that you contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4009 for information concerning possible preemption under its program.

Another agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized under the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce and to preempt non-Federal requirements under certain circumstances. RSPA informs us that a state, local, or tribal placarding requirement is preempted if it is not substantively the same as Federal placarding requirements. RSPA states that while in this instance neither Federal hazmat law nor the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 C.F.R. parts 171-180) require placarding of CNG vehicles, one aspect of Connecticut's exterior marking requirement for CNG vehicles - the horizontally oriented diamond shaped sign - may be preempted under Federal hazardous materials transportation law because of its physical similarities to the hazardous materials placards required under HMR, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. We suggest that you seek an interpretation on this issue from RSPA. You may contact RSPA at (202) 366-4400.

In closing, we want to make clear that we are not providing any views with respect to the merits of the State requirement regarding the identification of vehicles using pressurized gases as motor vehicle fuels. This letter only addresses the preemption issue you raised.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address of by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:303#304
d.4/19/01

ID: nht88-4.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JACK MCCROSKEY; GLENDA SWANSON LYLE -- REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT DENVER COLORADO

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/13/88 TO LARRY COOK FROM JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE, OCC - 2539; LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO MARVIN ORNES FROM RE MORGAN; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 TO R. ROGERS FROM RE MORGAN, RE GOODYEAR MILEAGE TIRES

TEXT: Dear Mr. McCroskey and Ms. Lyle:

This responds to your letter of September 13, 1988, asking for our advice on potential safety hazards and legal liabilities that might result from ignoring the speed restrictions on the tires used on your transit buses. You stated that your entity opera tes three types of bus service in the State of Colorado. The first type is a local bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph); the second type is an express bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 55 mph; and the third type is a regional bus, operated primarily on freeways with speed limits of 55 to 65 mph. You were interested primarily in the tires used on your express buses.

You stated that you use two types of speed-restricted tires "almost interchangeably" on the express buses. One of your speed-restricted tire types is the XT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 55 mph. The other is the DXT, which is speed-r estricted to a maximum speed of 35 mph. Since the express buses are operated primarily at speeds of 55 mph, you contacted the tire manufacturer to get its advice on the acceptability of using tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on these buses. Yo u enclosed copies of correspondence you received from the manufacturer, stating that its DXT and XT tires are identical, except that the DXT tire has 7/32 of an inch more undertread. The manufacturer's advice was that the tire that is speed-restricted t o a maximum of 35 mph "may be used at higher speeds; but not for sustained operation." You asked whether it is advisable for your entity to continue using the tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on your express buses, which operate primarily at 55 mph. We strongly recommend that you not do so.

There are some notable advantages associated with speed-restricted tires, including enhanced load-carrying capabilities and greater resistance to tire damage from hitting objects in the road or curbs. However, the greater undertread on speed-restricted tires also means that the tires will generate higher temperatures at high speed than a comparable non-restricted tire. Higher temperatures inside the tire increase the chances of a tire failure at high speeds.

2

NHTSA carefully considered both the advantages of speed-restricted tires and the need to ensure that such tires are properly used when it was developing Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @571.119; copy enclosed). Every new bus tire must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with this standard. This agency decided that Standard No. 119 should permit the continued production of speed-restricted tires, but with appropriate safeguards to ens ure that these tires would not be used at higher speeds. Accordingly, Standard No. 119 specifies less stringent high speed and endurance test requirements for speed-restricted tires. Speed-restricted tires for use on vehicles other than motorcycles are exempted from the high speed performance requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 119. This exemption reflects the fact that the tires are not designed for high speed use. For the same reason, the endurance test schedule for speed-restricted tires consists of a lower test speed and fewer total revolutions of the test wheel, as shown in Table III of Standard No. 119. Hence, the manufacturer of these speed-restricted tires has not certified that these tires comply with the performance requirements of Standa rd No. 119 under conditions exceeding the speed-restriction marked on the tires.

To ensure that the user of speed-restricted tires would not operate the tires at higher speeds than those at which the tires are designed to operate safely, section S6.5(e) of Standard No. 119 requires every speed-restricted tire to have the marking "Max speed mph" on the sidewall. This marking is intended to alert the tire user of the limitations of this tire, so that it will not be repeatedly used at higher speeds. Since your express buses operate primarily at speeds of 55 mph, we urge you not t o equip those buses with tires labeled "Max speed 35 mph." Similarly, since your express and regional buses typically operate at speeds exceeding 55 mph on their routes, we recommend only tires without speed restrictions for these buses.

With respect to your question about potential legal liabilities in the event one of these speed-restricted tires fails while in service on one of your express buses, that is a question of State law. Since I am not familiar with the Colorado law on this subject, I must decline to offer an opinion. However, the Attorney General for the State of Colorado or other local counsel would be able to accurately advise you on Colorado's law in this area.

Sincerely

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-4.63

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 20, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wayne Trueman -- Plant Manager BX-100 International

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to NHTSA Information sheet entitled Information For New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles And Motor Vehicle Equipment, dated 9-85 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from W. Trueman to B. Felrice (OCC 5229); Also attache d to drawings of Brake Equalizer, Quick Release Valve, and Relay Valve (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements for items to be placed in a truck's air brake system. You are particularly interested in requirements that would apply to two new products you are developing. According to your letter, the products will "have the BX-100 Brake Equalizer integrally combined with a Quick Release valve and another with a Relay valve."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering brake equalizers, quick release valves, or relay valves. However, since these devices are tied into a vehicle's air brake system, they could affect a vehicle's compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle S afety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If one of your devices is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If the device is adde d to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any dev ice 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.

You should also be aware of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end

fittings. That standard applies to new motor vehicle equipment as well as to new motor vehicles. You should check to see if any parts of your brake devices are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106.

I am enclosing a copy of an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. I regret that we are unable to provide information concerning regulations other than those of NHTSA which may apply to your products. You may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Standards concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to your products. You may also wish to contact appropriate State authorities, and/or a local attorney, for advice about state and local regulations.

ID: 1983-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Able Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jim Cowen Manager Able Body Company P.O. BOX 1868 Joplin, MO. 64802

Dear Mr. Cowen:

This is in reply to your letter of May 26, 1983, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Standard No. 302 existing in truck sleeper berths that you manufacture is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

We do not believe that Able Body has the legal responsibility to file a petition of this nature. Your description of the company as a manufacturer of "sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks" indicates that Able Body is a supplier of original equipment which is installed in trucks rather than the manufacturer of the truck itself. While Able Body may have a contractual obligation with truck manufacturers to provide them with evidence of compliance with Standard No. 302, the truck manufacturer itself assumes ultimate responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act for compliance with that standard by affixing a label to each truck certifying compliance with all applicable standards. This means that the truck manufacturer has the legal responsibility to notify purchasers and remedy noncompliances in its products involving Standard No. 302, even though the component concerned was produced by another company. As the obligation to notify and remedy rests upon the truck manufacture, only that party may petition for an inconsequentiality determination.

When noncompliances occur, they must be reported to the agency pursuant to 49 CFR 573 Defect and Noncompliance Reports. Under this regulation either a component or a vechicle manufacturer may report a noncompliance to NHTSA if the noncompliance exists only in original equipment of a single vehicle manufacturer. However, if the noncomplying component has been used in the vehicles of more than one manufacturer, the manufacturer of the component and all vehicle manufacturers must file individual noncompliance reports. We have no record that Able Body has filed a Part 573 report on this matter. I enclose a copy of Part 573 for your information.

We would appreciate prompt filing of a Part 573 report by Able Body and/or relevant truck manufacturer(s). You may advise your customers of their right to file an inconsequentiality petition.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

May 26, 1983

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

Dear Administrator:

Able Body Company, P.O. Box 1868, Joplin, Missouri, a corporation chartered in and under the laws of the state of Missouri, wishes to petition the NHTSA for exemption from notification and remedy requirements on the grounds of an inconsequential noncompliance to FMVSS 302.

Able Body Company manufactures sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks. During a routine update of testing for compliance with FMVSS 302 on April 8, 1983, a specimen of the speaker grill mesh from a Motorola speaker grill (Motorola Part Number RV 1001) failed the burn test. The specimen burned at a rate of 6.48 in/min. Motorola was contacted and further samples were tested. As a result, on May 3, 1983, it was determined that all of the Motorola grills that had been installed by Able Body Company were out of compliance. The speaker grills were installed in pairs in 1371 sleeper berths made between May 1977 and May 1983.

Able Body Company feels that the noncompliance in this case is inconsequential for the following reasons:

1.) The grills in question measure 6 inches by 6 inches. This represents 0.5% of the surface area of the passenger compartment of a sleeper berth. Since the speaker grills are such a small area, the probability of their involvement in a fire is correspondingly small.

2.) The grills in question weigh one ounce each. This represents 0.19% of the total lining material available to burn. If a fire did occur and if it involved the grills, they would be consumed in approximately one minute each and be of no further support for combustion.

3.) The grills are located 27 inches above the mattress. This location is above the most likely risk area, from reclining smokers.

4.) Since the most likely source of fire is from a passenger who smokes, a test was made to try to ignite a grill with the coal of a cigarette. While the coal melted a hole in the mesh it did not ignite the grill. Since the grill will only readily ignite from an open flame, the probability of involvement is futher reduced..

5.) The Motorola RV 1001 grills were installed in 1371 Able Body sleeper berths. This represents a small number compared to the total number of berths. During the same period (1977-1983), Able Body manufactured 2158 other sleeper berths that did not include the Motorola grill.

Able Body Company feels that the above reasons are sufficient and therefore make this petition. If there are any questions regarding this matter, please notify us at once.

Respectfully submitted. Jim Cowen, Manager

ID: nht70-1.35

DATE: 01/26/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: Request for Interpretations By Suzuki

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1969, requesting confirmation of your interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations, and further asking whether or not certain other areas of vehicle performance are presently regulated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.).

In your letter you state that your request results from the fact that Suzuki is considering the production of a multipurpose passenger vehicle for expert into the United States sometimes in 1970, and attach a sketch of this vehicle. The vehicle represented by the sketch, however, appears to be a truck, and not a multipurpose passenger vehicle. "Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in the regulations (49 CFR 371.3(b)) as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry(Illegible Word) persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." "Truck" is defined to mean (49 CFR 371.3(b)) "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or(Illegible Word) equipment." The distinction between a truck and multipurpose passenger vehicle, therefore, is whether the vehicle is designed primarily to carry persons or property. The sketch you enclose is of a vehicle designed to carry property, and for this reason I have answered your questions with reference only to trucks. Your questions are repeated below, with our replies following them:

Subject No. 1 - Glazing Requirements - Rear Windows

1. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top with no rear window if an outside mirror was installed on the right side of the vehicle."

You are correct in saying you may use a fabric soft top with no rear window. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 specific glazing materials for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, motorcycles, trucks and buses. It does not require a rear window or the use of glazing material therein. If a rear window is installed, however, the referenced United States of America Standards Institute "American Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," AGA Standard 325.1-1966, July 15, 1955, specifies the types of material which must be used.

There are no National Highway Safety Bureau requirements for mirrors on trucks.

2. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, with an open section in the back, utilizing no installation of glazing material, but just an open area which would permit viewing to the rear using the inside rear view mirror."

Your understanding is correct. As stated before, Standard No. 205 does not require the use of glazing material.

3. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, using a rear window such as found in the tops of convertible automobiles, in which the rear window's composition has utilized a ASA plastic material conforming to 325.1-1966 regulations.

"If this is correct we would appreciate being informed which plastic materials can be utilized."

That is incorrect. The criterion for "a rear window such as found in convertible automobiles" is inappropriate for trucks. The only plastics which may be used in trucks are S4 and S5, rigid plastics, and then only "where other means to afford visibility of the highway" are provided.

4. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, using a rear window such as found in the tops of convertible automobiles, in which the rear window's composition has utilized a ASA safety glass material conforming to 325.1-1966 regulations.

"If this is correct we would appreciate being informed which safety glass materials can be utilized."

As indicated in our comment to number 3 above, the criterion for rear window glazing used in convertible automobiles is inappropriate for trucks. ASA Standard 325.1-1966 allows the use of Items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11 glass in the rear window of trucks. Item 3 or 9 glass may only be used, however, "where other means to afford visibility of the highway" are provided.

Subject No. 2 - Gross Vehicle Weight

"It is our understanding that, at present, there is no requirement that a manufacturer attach a label to the vehicle stating the gross vehicle weight of . . . [trucks] in the weight category of 2,000 lbs. or less."

Your understanding is correct. The National Highway Safety Bureau does not presently have a requirement for gross vehicle weight labeling.

Subject No. 3 - Fuel Tank Requirements

"It is our understanding again that there is no present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard retaining to gas tanks on . . . [trucks]. I understand that there may be future standards implemented in the near future regarding this subject."

Your understanding is correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, "Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler(Illegible Word) and Fuel Tank Connection-Passenger Cars", applies to only passenger cars at this time. Docket No. 3-2 (F.R. 14232), currently under consideration, contemplates extending the requirements of Standard No. 301 to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and motorcycles.

Subject No. 4 - Vehicle Noise Level "It is our understanding that, at the present time, there is no special noise level requirements pertaining to . . . [trucks]. We would appreciate your comments as to any future standard presently under discussion regarding this subject."

Your understanding is correct. There are no Federal requirements or proposals at present concerning vehicle noise level, There are states and municipalities, however, that have requirements concerning this subject.

Subject No. 5 - Speedometer Error

"There are several questions we have regarding this subject.

1. Is there a stipulation regarding allowance of percentage of speedometer error.

2. Would it be considered the manufacturer's responsibility for speedometer error in case the user or person was to change the tire size."

There are presently no Federal requirements concerning speedometers. A substantial speedometer error resulting from a reasonable tire size change might be considered a safety related defect for which the manufacturer would be responsible.

Subject No. 6 - Special Label for Non-Conforming Vehicle Entry Into The United States

"I would like to confirm the following information regarding the placement of a special label to be placed on the inside of the vehicle's windshield so that it is readable from the outside of a vehicle being imported into the United States. This would be placed on a vehicle that does not have the This would be placed on a vehicle that does not have the required Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard items readily attached in their respective place on the vehicle.

"It is my understanding, for instance, that if the outside rear view mirror was not attached to the vehicle, but packaged in a box to prevent damage or pulferage while in transit to the United States, that in such a case a label would be required to be attached to the vehicle stating essentially the following message.

THIS VEHICLES DOES NOT CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD # 111 BECAUSE THE OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR HAS NOT BEEN ATTACHED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF SHIPMENT. THIS VEHICLE WILL BE BROUGHT INTO CONFORMITY BY ATTACHMENT OF THE OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR BEFORE IT IS OFFERED FOR SALE TO THE FIRST PURCHASER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESALE.

"If we have interpreted this requirement correctly would you please advise us of the full requirements for this label. It is also our understanding that at the time of importation of these vehicles the importer would be required to submit in duplicate the Federal Highway Administration Form Number HS-7."

Your interpretation of the above is correct. A label such as you have described, used in conjunction with the certification label required in 49 CFR 367, would meet the requirements. Your understanding regarding the HS-7 form is also correct.

We trust this will clarify the situation for you.

ID: 1984-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. J. DiMaggio Manager, Gov. and Customer Relations The Firestone Tire a Rubber Co. 1200 Firestone Parkway Akron Ohio 44317

Dear Mr. DiMaggio:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1983, to the Administrator, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The noncompliance consists of omission of the "DOT" certification symbol. You have represented that tires so affected nevertheless meet Standard No. 117 in all other respects.

It has been the policy of this agency since 1977 to treat omissions of the DOT symbol ss failures to certify pursuant to Sections 114 and 108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act rather than as failures to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires or allows that method of certification. The symbol is not considered to establish a minimum standard of motor vehicle performance. This means that manufacturers who fail to provide the symbol are not required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, and that accordingly the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not required to publish notices of petitions requesting inconsequentiality determinations.

Your petition is therefore moot. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 8, 1983

Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FOR INCONSEQUENTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 117

Dear Ms. Steed:

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company hereby petitions, in accordance witn the provisions of 49CFR 556, for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a noncompliance with the requirements of FMVSS 117 (49CFR 571.117). The basis for this petition is that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it pertains to motor safety.

Section S5.2.3 (a) of FMVSS 117 requires that the symbol DOT be permanently molded onto the sidewall of each retreaded tire. Section S6.1 states that this symbol certifies that the retreaded tire on which it appears meets tne requirements of FMVSS 117. One mold, number 49, put into production at our retread plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, was found to have all the required stamping except the DOT symbol. The tire identification number area in this mold reads -R-DBL 49 XXX instead of DOT-R-DBL 49 XXX. All other molds in this size, L, LR7815 Town & Country were found to be correctly stamped.

The fact that the aforementioned symbol was missing was detected when a tire from the subject mold was submitted to our testing facility as part of our compliance surveillance program. The tire met all other requirements of FMVSS 117, indicating that the plant was eligible for continued certification of compliance insofar as the quality of the product was concerned.

Inventories in the plant of tires from the subject mold were impounded and branded correctly. It is estimated that in the period during which this mold could have been in use, a maximum of 1,340 retreaded tires could have been produced. During this period, weeks 320 to 373, the plant was producing product which was in compliance with the quality of product test requirements of FMVSS 117. Further, all casings used bore the DOT symbols indicating compliance of the original tire with the requirements of FMVSS 109. Only passenger casings with this DOT stamping are used by us for retreading.

The bases upon which this petition is being submitted are as follows:

1. The quality of the subject tires met the requirements of Firestone and NHTSA. Retreaded casings cured in the subject mold all were certified by the original tire manufacturer as being in compliance with FMVSS 109. The plant follows Firestone Retread Shop practices intended to produce high quality, safe retreads. These practices include submitting tires for compliance surveillance testing. 2. The symbol -R- is stamped in the mold in the vicinity of the serial, leaving no doubt that the tire can be identified as a retread. 3. The absence of the symbol DOT does not adversely affect the quality or safety capabilities of the tires cure in the subject mold.

In view of the above, we conclude that the stamping noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and respectfully request exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act.

Thank you for your consideration of this petition.

Very truly yours,

A. J. DiMaggio MANAGER, GOV. AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS

AJD:g