ID: nht88-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MARTIN CHAUVIN -- CHIEF, CARRIER SAFETY BUREAU STATE OF NEW YORK, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-29-87, FROM MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, TO ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, OCC-745

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of last year where you asked us to address a statement allegedly made by an unidentified "school bus" manufacturer that a school bus driver's seat equipped with an "upper torso restraint" or "shoulder harness" violates, "head impact protection", requirements contained in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Nothing in our Federal standards prohibits a manufacturer from installing a seat belt assembly that includes a " lap belt" and upper torso restraint at the driver's seat of a school bus.

Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies "occupant protection" requirements for the driver's seat of all buses. Section S4.4 of that standard gives a manufacturer the choice of equipping a bus driver's seat either with a complete automatic res traint system, a Type 1 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap belt), or a Type 2 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap and shoulder belt). There are no, "head impact protection", requirements in Standard No. 208 for the driver's seating posi tion in a bus. Thus, the driver's seat of all buses may be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt if the manufacturer chooses to do so.

Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, sets forth additional requirements for occupant crash protection for school buses. Section S5.3 of standard 222 refers to a "head protection zone," and establishes head impact requirements within the head protection zones. However, the head protection zones are established with respect to passenger seats in the school bus. Standard 222 does not contain any head impact protection requirements for the driver's seat in school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1988

FROM: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VICE PRESIDENT, METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE

TO: LARRY COOK -- NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MAY 31, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO GALLAGHER

TEXT: Thank you for your help, over the phone on February 9, 1988 in regards to additional wording to be added to the sidewall of our ME88 Marathon model motorcycle tire. To refresh your memory, I inquired as to adding the word "reinforced" to the sidewall. Your verbal response, after checking with legal council, was that there is no problem with adding the word "reinforced".

I would now like to request a written confirmation and approval to add the word "reinforced" to the sidewall of our ME88 Marathon rear tire model. Please let me know if you need any further information on this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: BETH WHITMAN -- MARKETING SERVICES MANAGER KEN-TOOL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/09/87 FROM LEO CAREY TO BETH WHITMAN; LETTER DATED 01/21/87 FROM SL LEPOSKY TO DISTRIBUTORS; UNDATED LETTER FROM SL LEPOSKY TO ALL DISTRIBUTORS AND SALESMEN RE NON USE OF DUCK BILL STEEL TIRE HAMMERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Whitman:

This responds to your letter of September 25, 1987, concerning the use of "steel duck-billed hammers" to change farm and truck tires. You expressed concern that a competitor is using a safety chart produced by NHTSA to support its claim that the use of these tools is prohibited.

The NHTSA safety chart, "Safety Precautions for Mounting and Demounting Tube Type Truck/Bus Tires," includes two specific references to hammers/hammering. Under the heading "Deflation and Assembly," the chart states: "Never use a steel hammer to assemble or disassemble rim components--Use a lead, brass, or plastic type mallet. Proper tools are available through rim/wheel distributors." Under the heading "Assembly and Inflation," the chart states: "Never hammer on components of an inflated or partially inflated assembly." These precautions apply to steel hammers and hammering in general, and the chart does not state that steel duck billed hammers should not be used for other applications in changing tires.

We note that you enclosed a copy of a July 13, 1987 letter from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), stating the following:

[OSHA] does not prohibit the proper use of a steel duck billed hammer for servicing wheels used on large vehicles such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines.

Under the OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1910.177(d)(6), employers are required to furnish and assure that only tools recommended in the rim manual for the type of wheel being serviced are used to service rim wheels. Further, under 29 CFR 1910.177(f)(8), the regulations specify that: No attempt shall be made to correct the seating of side and lock rings by hammering, striking or forcing the components while the tire is pressurized.

You state that you are concerned that your competitor's tool may not meet OSHA regulations and may be less than safe to use. We suggest that you

contact OSHA about this concern. You may also wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning your belief that your competitor's advertising is misleading.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht88-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: JERRY SMITH -- MINNESOTA BODY AND EQUIPMENT CO

TO: SHARON L. FORD -- HEAD START DIRECTOR SOUTHEAST IOWA ACTION ORGANIZATION, INC.

TITLE: FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF SCHOOL BUS USER'S

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO R.C. ROAST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 03/18/88 TO CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA, FROM R C ROST RE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COLO R OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED, OCC - 1763; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/25/88 TO SHARON FORD, FROM JERRY SMITH; UNDATED BROCHURES ON SCHOOLBUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: Dear Sharon:

As per our telephone conversation of February 9, 1988, I am enclosing copies of communications regarding and/or effecting what type of bus that can be sold to, or purchased by the Head Start organization.

Please note that this is not Minnesota Body Company's policy, nor is it our wish to cause you any inconvenience. However, due to the interpretation by the U.S. Department of Transportation, we are bound to provide a vehicle that meets all applicable sch ool bus criteria including warning lights CATCH 22. I further realize that warning lights are not allowed in Iowa for non-school use. Therefore, the warning lights would have to be removed or de-activated before you placed the bus in service.

Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can be of further service

Sincerely,

Dear Sharon,

I have contacted the following people in an effort to resolve the interpretation of school bus user's etc.

Dwight R. Carlson Assistant Chief Bureau of School Administration and accreditation Grimes State Office Bldg Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0146 (515) 281-5811

J.P. Golinvaux District Representative Iowa Department of Transportation Air and Transit division State Capitol Des Moines, iowa 50319 (515) 281-4265

Jerry Smith

ID: nht88-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allan J. Lameier -- Defense Electronics Supply Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/1/80 letter from Frank Berndt to E.C. Elliott

TEXT:

Mr. Allan J. Lameier Quality Assurance Specialist, Defense Logistics Agency Defense Contract Administration Services Management Area, Dayton C/O Defense Electronics Supply Center Dayton OH 45444

RE: A. Lameier 513-684-3915

This is in response to your letter requesting clarification concerning the classification of a Davey mobile compressor. You state that the manufacturer of the compressor indicates that the wheeled compressor need not comply with Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and related equipment, because the compressor is not a trailer. Based on the information provided with your letter, we believe that the compressor is not a motor vehicle and is therefore not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 108 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act: 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Nati onal Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its product s meet all applicable safety standards.

A "trailer" is defined at 49 CFR 5571.3 as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The mobile compressor shown in the brochure enclosed with your letter appea rs to be designed for carrying property (the compressor) and for being drawn by a motor vehicle. The answer to your question of whether this compressor is a trailer, then depends on whether the compressor is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Sa fety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles such as forklifts and mobile construction equipment which are sold primarily for off-road use, but which incidentally use the public roads to travel from one job site to another, are not considered m otor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles which regularly use the public roads and stay off-road for only limited periods of time are motor vehicles and are subject to our safety standards.

The agency has previously concluded in a July 1, 1980 letter to Mr. E.C. Elliott (copy enclosed) that his company's portable air compressors were not motor vehicles, based on statements that these devices spend the bulk of their useful lives on construct ion sites and are seldom drawn over public roads by mechanical power. If the Davey portable compressors are used in the same fashion as the compressors discussed in the July 1, 1980 letter, we believe that the Davey compressors were properly classified b y the manufacturer as something other than a "motor vehicle". This means that the Davey compressors are not subject to any of the federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information has been useful. My apologies for the delay in responding to your letter.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

IN REPLY REFER TO: A. LAMEIER 513-684-3915

SUBJ: APPLICABILITY OF FMVSS #108 TO PORTABLE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES

1. Enclosed is a photocopy of a brochure showing a compressor being bought on navy contract DLA-700-86-C-8263. This contract requires compliance with " All Applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in effect on the Date of manufacture." 2 . Davey Co. insists STD#108 (Lighting and Reflectors) is not applicable because a wheeled compressor is not a "Trailer."

3. Please send me copies of any rulings or opinions which would clarify this requirement.

Allan J. Lameier Quality Assurance Specialist

Attch 1 Photocopy omitted.

ID: nht88-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: DONALD N. STAHL -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY; JOHN T. FORTH -- CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR, OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY MODESTO CA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO. CF696

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DONALD N. STAHL; REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119; LETTER DATED 03/01/88 FROM DAVE TAYLOR TO JOHN FORTH; LETTER DATED 07/13/87 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO JACK DENIJS; LETTER DATED 05/19/87 FROM JACK D ENIJS TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC - 500; RE COVERED DOT NUMBERS ON REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Our office is currently conducting an investigation pursuant to Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code (unfair business practice).

The case was brought to our office's attention on January 28, 1988, by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). A routine inspection of a local school district's buses disclosed new recapped tires on a bus which had no D.O.T. markings on the tire casing. The CHP learned during the course of their investigation that these tire casings were originally designed for use by a rubber tire train in Japan and were new tires that had been imported for recapping purposes. The CHP investigation disclosed the tir e casings were imported as slicks (no tread design) and the slick was removed. The tires were then recapped using the "bondag" process and resold by the captioned company to the school district.

We contacted Mr. Dave Taylor, Regional Manager/Field Engineer of Bridgestone (USA) Inc., as the tire casings were manufactured by Bridgestone. Attached as Exhibit 1 is his response regarding these tires. His response also indicated the tire was spec ifically designed for rubber tire subway trains in Japan. He also wrote, ". . . is not suitable by any means for highway use", referring to the tires themselves in his letter.

Mr. Taylor also included in his letter a copy of an opinion by your office (date unknown) indicating that tire casings could be imported for recapping use. The letter refers to a June 18, 1981, letter from former Chief Counsel Frank Bundt to Mr. Ray L ittlefield. Attached as Exhibit #2 is a copy of a letter from your office to Mr. Jack DeNijs which refers to these two mentioned opinions.

I have also included as Exhibit #3 a CHP drawing of the tires in question depicting all the markings on the tire casing. Three (3) of these tires are currently being held as evidence by the CHP.

We are requesting an opinion as to the following: 1. Is it permissible to import this type of tire casing?

2. If it is permissible to import this tire casing, does this particular type of tire casing meet Department of Transportation standards?

Your prompt handling of this matter would be greatly appreciated as the above captioned company wants the tires back. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at telephone number (209) 525-5550.

Enclosures

ID: nht88-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/88

FROM: FRANK H. MILLER -- GERRY BABY PRODUCTS QUALITY ENGINEER

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/02/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRANK MILLER -- GERRY BABY PRODUCTS; RED BOOK A33; FMVSS 302

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

This is in further reference to my communication to you dated October 19, 1987 and also to your response received December 3, 1987. Both were in reference to paragraph S4.2.1 of Safety Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials".

I appreciate your response regarding the testing of threads used in the manufacture of seat cushions and testing them as a part of the component and now would like to know if the binding we use on the edges of the cushion should also be tested as a part of the material. We currently test it as an independent entity but it would ease our testing if it were to be done as a portion of a cushion assembly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jeffrey W. Sullivan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey W. Sullivan Rt. 1, Box 3 Jackson, NC 27845

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This is in reply to your letter of October 27, 1987, to this agency asking for Information on Federal safety and pollution requirements for kit cars.

We are unable to advise you on emission control regulations, and you should address this inquiry to the Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

You have given us, as an example of the type of vehicle you would manufacture for resale, "a '76 year drivetrain on a modified or not original frame/chassis" and asked whether it will have to meet 1976 model or new model standards. You have also asked wh ether you can relocate the engine and transmission, and whether it is would have an effect upon the standards you must meet.

New model Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles built upon the chassis of a vehicle previously in use. However, under certain circumstances the 1976 safety standards could apply. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safe ty Act a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if a manufacturer re moves a body from a chassis and installs a new one, he must ensure that the resulting vehicle continues to comply with the Federal safety standards with which the vehicle originally complied. A "Manufacturer" is defined in part as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles. This definition would seem to encompass your planned activities. Accordingly, if you removed the 1976 body from its chassis, there is no restriction against your relocation of the engine or transmission, but upon installation o f a new body you are required to ensure that the new vehicle meets 1976 Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

On the other hand, if you purchase the chassis after the body has been removed by another person, there would be no Federal safety standards applicable to it upon installation of the body. However, the vehicle would have to meet State standards necessary for its registration and operation.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mike Kaizaki -- Manager, Truck Tire Engineering, Yokohama Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/1/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Gary M. Ceazan (A32; Std. 109; Std. 119); Undated letter from Erika Z. Jones to E.W. Dahl; 8/18/88 letter from Gary M. Ceazan to U.S. Dot (OCC 1951)

TEXT: Mr. Mike Kaizaki Manager, Truck Tire Engineering Yokohama Tire Corporation Corporate Office 601 S. Acacia Fullerton, CA 92631

Dear Mr. Kaizaki:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger cars. You asked whether it is permissible to place two tire size designations, 385/65R22.5 in larger letters and 15R22.5 in small letters, on the same tire. The answer to your question is no.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 the manufac turer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

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

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section 56.5 of the standard. Section @6.5(s) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications d esignated in @5.1. Section @5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual manuf acturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section @6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section @6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in @5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire si ze. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 17, 1987

Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We at Yokohama Rubber Co., LTD are considering the double tire size designations (equivalent but different) marked on the tire sidewall of the medium truck tire.

We believe that it is in compliance with Standard No. 119. New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars as far as the tire size designations are equivalent to each other and the tire dimensions, and other markings, meet with the estab lished standard, TRA, ETRTO, and so on.

Accordingly, would you respond to our specific question below regarding this marking:

Yokohama places 2 tire size designations, 385/65R22.5 in larger letters and 15R22.5 in small letters. These sizes are different but equivalent to each other. The max load/inflation pressure marking is one specified by ETRTO for 385/65R22.5 but larger tha n one specified by TRA for 15R 22.5.

Is this compatible with FMVSS 119?

I would appreciate your specific response in writing at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Mike Kaizaki Manager, Truck Tire Engineering

ID: nht88-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHARLOTTE E. O'NEIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-27-87, TO NHTSA FROM CHARLOTTE E. O'NEIL

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the location of the clutch, brake and accelerator controls in a school bus that you drive. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that the seat of the school bus is about four inches too far to th e right, and that these controls are therefore not in the usual location relative to the seat. You stated: "In order to reach the brake pedal I have to cross my right foot over my left," and expressed concern that a driver might accidentally hit the acc elerator instead of the brake. You asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, prohibits placing controls in such difficult to reach locations and, if not, whether there is any way to get the law changed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards covering new motor vehicles and/or new motor vehicle equipment. Since these standards do not apply to used vehicles, the issue of whether the bus you drive was required t o meet Standard No. 101 depends on its date of manufacture.

As you noted in your letter, Section S5.1 of Standard No. 101 requires that certain controls, including the service brake; accelerator; and clutch; be "operable by the driver" when the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment required by St andard No. 208. You asked whether, with this wording, any control that can be reached at all, even with difficulty, must be considered "operable." One of the stated purposes of Standard No. 101 is "to ensure the accessibility . . . of motor vehicle cont rols . . . in order to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting controls." Thus, it is the intent of section S5.1 to ensure that drivers are able to operate specified controls as part of the normal driving task. We note, however, that neither Standard No. 101 nor any other standard specifies the precise location of the service brake, accelerator and clutch controls, either relative to each other or to the seat.

In answer to your question concerning how you may be able to get requirements changed "to forbid putting controls in difficult to reach locations," interested persons may petition the agency to commence rulemaking to issue or amend safety standards. I a m enclosing a copy of the agency's regulation which sets forth procedures for submitting petitions for rulemaking.

I am forwarding your letter to NHTSA's Office of Enforcement, which investigates consumer complaints about safety. A copy of this correspondence is being placed in the public docket. ENCLOSURE