ID: nht73-4.29

DATE: 06/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Southern Connecticut Gas Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Mr. David Snyder of this agency regarding information on tests performed on recapped tires, specifically, data comparing failure characteristics of retreaded tires with those of new tires.

The NHTSA does not presently have test data of the specific type you request. We are attempting to obtain that data through research contracts with outside parties, and results of that research, when they are received, will be placed in the rulemaking docket regarding retreaded tires. Other test data for retreaded tires have been placed in this docket (Docket No. 1-8), which is open for public inspection at NHTSA headquarters, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

Certain studies have been conducted on the failure rates of tires, and some comparative data have been compiled. One volume with which we are familiar summarizes studies which provided information of this type. It is, Brenner and Harvey, Tire Use Survey, The Physical Condition, Use and Performance of Passenger Car Tires in the United States of America, NBS Technical Note 528, (National Bureau of Standards U.S. Department of Commerce). Copies are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. It should be ordered by SD Catalog No. C13.46:528, prepaid, at 60 cents a copy.

Yours Truly

May 29, 1973

David Synder DOT/NHT SA

Mr. Litant suggested I write to you for information on tests performed on recapped tires.

(Illegible Words) interested in the safety-failure characteristics of recaps vs. standard tread(Illegible Word) tires. Any information in this area would be appreciated. The size of your sampling is pertinent and this figure would be helpful.

I wish to thank you in advance for your cooperation.

James W. Livsey Supervisor, Claims, Safety & Security

ID: 04-005893drn1

Mr. S. Y. Hong
Dae Kwang Special Glass Ltd.
25-1, Palyong-Dong, Changwon-si
Kyeong-Nam
South Korea

Dear Mr. Hong:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials.You inform us that on April 13, 1998, your company was assigned DOT glazing code mark number 660. You ask three sets of questions about the assignment of the DOT code mark number.

First Set of Questions

As background, you state that over the past 6 years, Dae Kwang Special Glass Ltd. (Dae Kwang) has not yet used its DOT code mark number. Therefore, you ask:

1. Does Dae Kwang need to apply to be assigned a DOT code mark number again?
2. Is there an expiration date for the DOT code mark number?

The answers are that Dae Kwang does not need to apply again for a DOT code mark number, and that there is no expiration date for the DOT code mark number.

3. Does Dae Kwang need to provide sample tests and test results to NHTSA in order to update "DOT code 660?"

The answer is no. Unlike the practice in many European and Asian countries, in the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, before selling or offering to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to the public, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The self-certification procedures for glazing manufacturers are specified in FMVSS No. 205 at S6, Certification and marking.

Each of NHTSAs safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA follows these specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. In the case of FMVSS No. 205, NHTSA will follow specified test procedures established for AS-1 or AS-2 glazing (depending on how your company certifies the glazing) when it tests the glazing for compliance with FMVSS No. 205.

To provide a basis for its certification of compliance, when self-certifying glazing material, a manufacturer may choose any valid means of evaluating its products to determine whether the glazing complies with FMVSS No. 205. However, NHTSA may require a manufacturer to provide its data in determining whether the glazing meets FMVSS No. 205 requirements.

Second Set of Questions

You state that Dae Kwang is presently manufacturing glazing materials for off-road vehicles, but in the future, would like to manufacture glazing materials for passenger cars or other motor vehicles that use highways. Therefore, you ask:

1. When Dae Kwang was assigned DOT code mark number 660, was the assignment of the code mark number only for off-road vehicles?

The answer is no. NHTSA assigned the DOT code mark number so that Dae Kwang can use this code mark number to mark glazing manufactured for "motor vehicles". "Motor vehicle" is defined in NHTSAs statute as: "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways "(Title 49 United States Code Section 30102(a)(6)).

2. What is the procedure to be assigned a DOT code for passenger cars and other motor vehicles using the highways?

The answer is that DOT code mark number 660 was assigned so that Dae Kwang could mark glazing that will be used in passenger cars or other motor vehicles using the highways.

Third Question

You state that Dae Kwang manufactures laminated glazing (AS-1) and tempered glazing (AS-2) for your customers. You therefore ask:

1. Does our "DOT code 660" include both items?

The answer is yes. Whenever Dae Kwang manufactures glazing for use in passenger cars or other motor vehicles using the highways, it must mark the glazing with:

1. the glazing type (i.e. , AS-1, AS-2 or whatever the glazing type is),
2. the symbol "DOT," and
3. Dae Kwangs code mark, "660".

These three marks mean that Dae Kwang is certifying that the glazing it manufactures meets NHTSAs requirements for that glazing type (at FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205)).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address. Our office fax number is:(202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.10/21/04

ID: 10755

Mr. David T. Holland
President
Europa International, Inc.
1570A Pacheco Street
Santa Fe, NM 87505

Dear Mr. Holland:

This responds to your letter of February 24, 1995, regarding the passive restraint phase-in requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether an importer which "imports Canadian specification MPV's (multipurpose passenger vehicles), such as the Chrysler Minivan, that meets (sic) the MPV passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 ... can count these vehicles toward the required percentage."

Section S4.2.5.6.1(a) states, "(a) vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer." Thus, to determine compliance with the passive restraint phase-in requirements, Europa International should (1) count all trucks, buses, and mpv's with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, (2) count all such vehicles which meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208, and (3) determine if that class of vehicles is a sufficient percentage of the first class of vehicles to satisfy the phase-in requirements. However, as Mary Versailles of my staff cautioned you on the phone, some manufacturers are installing European (face) air bags but are not certifying that vehicles with such air bags meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208. Therefore, you should verify that any vehicle with an air bag is in fact certified to FMVSS 208's passive restraint requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:208 d:4/3/95

ID: nht70-2.9

DATE: 05/13/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 2, 1970, petitioning for amendments to Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 205-Glazing Materials. I apologize for the delay in this response to your petition.

The first amendment you propose would require each manufacturer to mark each piece of glazing material with his name, the model number and "AS" classification. A manufacturer electing the certification alternative now in S3.4 must provide the same information you request, except that a code number is substituted for the manufacturer's name. In this connection, the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau is considering the issuance of a notice of proposed rule making which would require all manufacturers of glazing materials to adopt the certification method in S3.4. Consequently, while we are not granting your petition on identification requirements, we are actively considering your suggestions for future rule making.

The second amendment you propose would add to the standard a definition of "area requisite for driving visibility." Subsequent to the writing of your letter, the Director issued an advance notice of proposed rule making concerning a new standard, Direct Fields of View. In this notice, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience, the Director announced that he was

considering the establishment of performance requirements for (1) direct fields of view outside the vehicle in all directions to provide adequate visibility for the driver from specified eye reference loci; (2) light transmission characteristics (including maximum

levels of tinting) of vehicle glazing materials; and (3) shade band boundaries of vehicle glazing materials. (Emphasis added)

Requirements developed with regard to items (3) and (3) would supercede provisions regarding shade band boundaries and tinting in standard No. 205. If this new standard is issued, it will deal with the problem which you mention.

We would welcome any additional comments you may have on these matters.

ENCLOSURES

ID: 22592.ztv

Mr. Art Tan
President
CNA Industries, Inc.
985 Los Lagos
Pomona, CA 91766





Dear Mr. Tan:

This is in reply to your undated letter which we received on January 8, 2001. You have informed us that you are making "small off-road utility vehicles mainly for golf courses." You have asked us to advise you "what category our vehicles fall in according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations."

The information you have submitted demonstrates your familiarity with the five factors that we use in our interpretations on whether certain vehicles are motor vehicles. You have addressed each of these factors in a manner to support a determination that the vehicles in question are not motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Specifically, according to your letter, the vehicles "are for ground maintenance work on golf courses," which is to say, their intended use is in an off-road application. The vehicles "will be distributed through "our turf & tractor dealers only." That is to say, they will not be sold by dealers in motor vehicles. Each owner will be provided a certificate advising that the vehicle has been manufactured for off-road applications only, and you will not provide any manufacturer's document that may help the owner register the vehicle for on-road use. That is consistent with a conclusion that the vehicles in question are not manufactured for on-road use. You will advertise only in publications for turf and ground maintenance. That is consistent with the purpose for which the vehicles have been manufactured. Finally, you will affix four labels to the vehicle advising that it is an "off road" vehicle and must not be used on the public roads. Whether a vehicle will bear warning labels is the fifth factor we examine, and you have answered this, too, in a manner that permits us to conclude that your vehicles are not motor vehicles.

Therefore, based on the representations in your letter and considering all the five factors discussed above, on balance, we believe that your vehicles are not "motor vehicles." However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn, for example, the vehicles are in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:571

d.3/27/01

ID: 77-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Donald H. Carter

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of August 24, 1977, and October 8, 1977, concerning your Ford F-150 pickup truck.

The November 1976 date on your truck's certification label refers only to the date of actual manufacture of the vehicle, not its model year. Virtually all manufacturers, including Ford, utilize a model year which does not correspond to the calendar year. Typically, for American manufacturers, this model year begins on September 1 of the previous calendar year, i.e., model year 1977 began on September 1, 1976. Manufacturers usually begin manufacture of their vehicles as early as July in order to have sufficient vehicles in their showrooms by the September start of the model year.

All Federal motor vehicle safety standards specify a date on which their requirements become effective. Thus, the manufacturer must indicate by the certification label that its vehicles are in compliance with all Federal standards in effect on the date of the vehicles' manufacture. Whether a vehicle is marketed as a particular model year vehicle depends upon the manufacturer's own marketing practice. The certification date does not represent the model year date.

Finally, your first letter stated that your vehicle was ordered on November 4, 1976, with a 3 month delivery interval. Every manufacturer produces a large number of vehicles before there are orders for a specific vehicle, and maintains them in various storage locations around the country. When the manufacturer receives an order from a dealership for a specific vehicle, it will first determine whether it already has such a vehicle in stock, and if it does, it will ship that vehicle rather than specially manufacture a new vehicle.

However, if there is no identical vehicle in stock, it will manufacture one specifically for that order, which can take from a few days to several months to program into the assembly line and produce. As a dealership has no way to know in advance whether the vehicle it ordered is in stock or will have to be specially manufactured, it will often state a delivery date that anticipates the longest possible delay which would result from special manufacture. There is thus no reason for concern over the fact that your vehicle was manufactured in the same month it was ordered. Either Ford had such a vehicle in stock, or was able to manufacture one with very little delay.

I hope that this letter has answered your concerns.

ID: 1982-2.27

DATE: 08/01/82 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Bob McEwen - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your July 8, 1982, letter to Mr. William Dabaghi of the Department enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr. Donald M. Robinson. Mr. Robinson would like to know whether Federal regulations prohibit him from purchasing a pickup cab and chassis without the body attached. The answer to his question is no.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration only requires that all vehicles be manufactured in compliance with the applicable motor vehicle safety standards. We have no requirement, nor do we know of any other Federal regulation, that would prevent Mr. Robinson from purchasing just the cab and chassis of a vehicle that he desires. When he adds his own utility body to the cab and chassis, he would become the final-stage vehicle manufacturer and would be required to certify that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. I am enclosing copies of the regulations pertinent to such an operation.

If I can be of further assistance to you or Mr. Robinson, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Administrator

Enclosures: Constituent's Correspondence 49 CFR Parts 567 & 568

Mr. William K. Dabaghi Director of Congressional Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Dabaghi:

The enclosed correspondence regarding regulations governing truck equipment sales was sent to me by Mr. Donald M. Robinson, Manager, Buckeye Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., P.O. Box 279, Gallipolis, Ohio 45631.

If you could assist me in replying to this inquiry by asking someone on your staff to investigate the matter and provide to me the appropriate information, I would be most grateful.

Again Mr. Dabaghi, thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If I may provide any additional information necessary to you, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

With personal regards,

Sincerely,

Bob McEwen Member of Congress

BM:ly Enclosure

June 23, 1982

Congressman Robert McEwen 124 Joy Avenue Hillsboro, Ohio 45133

We have asked truck dealers in the area for bids on two one-half ton cab and chassis and one three-quarter ton cab and chassis trucks upon which we intended to install utility beds so that the trucks would be equipped properly to be used as service trucks on our distribution system.

We have been told by the dealers that they cannot order just the cab and chassis but have to include the pickup bed for which we have absolutely no use. This is our first knowledge of this and, quite frankly, it shocks me.

We are told that this is a federal law, regulation or whatever.

Could you check into this matter at your convenience to see if there is any recourse?

We will appreciate whatever you can do.

Yours truly,

Donald M. Robinson, Manager

DMR/mb

ID: nht90-3.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 8-2-90 to R. L. Van Iderstine from S. Watanabe; (OCC 5094)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 2, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Although rulemaking notices provide the name of a NHTSA staff engineer, such as that of Mr. Van Iders tine, to contact for further information, correspondence asking for interpretations of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards should be addressed to the Chief counsel.

It is your understanding that as of September 1, 1990, "lamp manufacturers such as Stanley, not car manufacturer) have to manufacture the external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps which conform to the downward torque deflection requirement s." You ask for confirmation of your understanding.

Your understanding is correct. The last sentence of Section S7.7.5.1(a) of Standard No. 108 states that "Each headlamp system that is designed to conform to paragraph S7.5 and that is designed to use such external aiming devices, and which is manufactur ed on or after September 1, 1990, shall comply with the downward torque deflection requirements of S7.7.5.1(a). Because it is the headlamp system that must comply with the requirement, it is the manufacturer of such system that is required to comply on a nd after September 1, 1990.

As you appear to understand, vehicle manufacturers need not equip their vehicles with the new systems on September 1, 1990, and may continue to manufacture vehicles with the old systems until their inventory is exhausted.

ID: GF000167

[ ]




Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter dated December 29, 2004, asking whether an LED lighting design concept for school buses being contemplated by your company could be used to comply with applicable Federal regulations.

Before I address your questions, I note that you requested confidential treatment of your letter. During a February 15, 2005, telephone call, George Feygin of my staff explained to you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not respond to confidential requests for an interpretation because our interpretations are made publicly available. However, NHTSA is able to keep your identity and that of your company confidential. You agreed to this approach. Thus, I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [ ] will be kept confidential from the public. Your incoming interpretation request will be redacted before being made publicly available.

By way of background, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

In your letter, you describe a dual function school bus signal lamp that flashes amber when the bus is slowing down and red when it has stopped. You indicate that the lamp meets all "SAE light output requirements". You ask whether using one lighting device for both functions is permitted by our standards.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to school bus signal lamps is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires each school bus to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, or four red and four amber signal lamps designed to conform to the same SAE standard (with certain exceptions for the amber lamps).

Additionally, S5.1.4(b) requires, in pertinent part, that if the bus is equipped with four amber lamps, their candlepower must be at least 2 1/2 times that specified for red signal lamps. Further, the amber signal lamps can be activated only by manual or foot operation, and must automatically deactivate when the red signal lamps automatically activate because the bus entrance door is opened.

While the language of FMVSS No. 108 contemplates separate sets of red and amber signal lamps, it is our opinion that dual function school bus signal lamps that flash both red and amber could be used to meet the standards requirements. We note that S5.4 of FMVSS No. 108 permits combining two or more lamps if the requirements for each lamp are met. In this case, the following requirements of S5.1.4(b) would need to be satisfied:

1. The candlepower of the amber lamp must be at least 2 1/2 times that specified for the red signal lamp in SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964.
2. The amber signal lamps can activate only by manual or foot operation
3. The amber lamps must automatically deactivate when the bus entrance door is opened
4. 4) The red lamps must automatically activate when the bus entrance door is opened

We also note that under SAE J887, the portion of the lamp that emits red light and the portion of the lamp that emits amber light must each provide an effective projected illuminated area of not less than 19 sq. inches.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

/s

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/17/05

ID: nht94-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: Martin M. Sackoff, Ph.D. -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TO: Office of Chief Counsil -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To Martin Sackoff (A42; Std. 109)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

The subject of this request is in reference with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 - New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars.

The specific question is with reference to S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength, which states "S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength. Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table 1 when tested in accordance with S5.3".

I shall very much appreciate receiving a reply concerning the definition or interpretation of the term "breaking" of the tire. Does this mean a blowout of the tire, or simply the breaking of the tire caused by forcing the steel plunger into the tread?

Thank you.

Sincerely,