ID: 06-004732drn

ID: 1983-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mohawk Rubber Company -- T.J. Brown

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T.J. Brown Mohawk Rubber Company Roanoke, Virginia 241017

Dear Mr. Brown:

This is in response to your March 28, 1983, letter to Roger Fairchild of this office, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the effective dates for the recent suspension of treadwear grading under this agency's Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards.

Your understanding of the effective dates is correct. Tires produced in molds manufactured on or after August 8, 1983, must have the new grading format which excludes treadwear information. Tires produced in molds manufactured before which includes treadwater information. We encourage manufacturers to use the new format as soon as feasible, to minimize the dissemination of misleading information with regard.

With regard to labels, the requirement that such labels must contain information regarding treadwater grades was suspended effective February 7, 1983. The preamble to the final rule states that manufacturers will be permitted to exhaust inventories of labels which were in existence as of the date of the suspension. Thereafter, manufacturers should begin using labels without treadwear information.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 28, 1983 Mr. Roger Fairchild Re: 49 CFR Part 575, Docket No. 25, Notice 52

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

Mr. C.D. Frame of Mohawk contacted you on March 28 pertaining to the ruling included in the Federal Register dated Monday, February 7, 1983.

Our particular concern is in interpretation of the treadwear stamping to be included, or not included, in the tire mold. We understand the ruling to state that tires which are produced after August 8, 1983, are not to have the treadwear information only if the molds themselves were manufactured after this date.

On tires produced in molds which were manufactured prior to August 8, 1983, the treadwear information is permitted on the molded tire. It is further our understanding that tire label are to have the treadwear grade and the explanation as to how it was obtained removed from them as new labels are procurred after the date of February 7, 1983. Existing inventories of labels containing he treadwater information are permitted to be used until such time as thi inventory is depleted.

We would appreciate a letter from you in response to our interpretations as to whether they are indeed correct.

Very truly yours

MOHAWK RUBBER COMPANY

T. J. Brown General Manager, Product Services

ID: nht92-7.33

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan Schwartz -- President, Tron Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/29/92 from Allan Schwartz to Taylor Vinson (OCC 7064)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 29, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to the acceptability of your product, Lumitron, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Lumitron is described as "an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product." You state that it is "legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle." You further state that both the Florida Highway Patrol and Kevin Cavey of this agency "confirmed" your findings that Lumitron "falls under" Standard No. 108. However, the State of Louisiana has "not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting." It appears that authorities in Louisiana believe Lumitron is legal but it has to be approved by the Commissioner. You have asked us for "a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that state."

Contrary to your assumption and those of the officials you mention, Lumitron is not covered by Standard No. 108. The only aftermarket equipment directly regulated by the standard is equipment intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as headlamps. Such is not the case with Lumitron.

Standard No. 108 was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We have interpreted that Act as prohibiting the installation on a vehicle of aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that, in the words of the statute, "render inoperative in whole or in part" any of the vehicle's required lighting equipment. We understand that Lumitron casts a light on the pavement under the vehicle. We would, of course, be concerned if the intensity of that light served to mask the intensity of such required lighting items as turn signal and stop lamps, or served to distract other drivers so that the lamps required lamps might be considered partially inoperative.

Regulation of aftermarket equipment such as Lumitron is within the jurisdiction of each State where Lumitron is sold and used, and the Commissioner in Louisiana may proceed as he deems fit. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but if you are interested in how the laws of other jurisdictions may affect Lumitron, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: 86-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive, P.O. BoX 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, and use of the "fanfare" symbol. According to your letter, all Mercedes-Benz passenger cars are provided with a horn that when activated produces an audible tone. The control for so activating the horn is located in the steering wheel hub. In addition to the standard horn, your company also offers an optional system on some models which permits the driver to choose either the standard tone or a higher frequency tone by means of a dash-board-mounted rocker switch. The rocker switch is identified by the fanfare symbol. The audible tone selected is then produced by activating the horn control in the steering wheel in the usual manner. This letter confirms that the use of the fanfare symbol for the rocker switch described above is permissible under Standard No. 101.

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 manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 101 requires that vehicles with any control listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such control. See section S5. Among the controls listed in Standard No. 101 is the 'horn' control. See section S5.1 and column 1 of Table 1.

It is our opinion that the "horn" control referred to by Standard No. 101 is limited to that which activates the horn to produce an audible tone. Thus, a separate rocker switch which permits the driver to choose different tones but does not activate the horn to produce an audible tone is not considered to be a "horn" control within the meaning of Standard No. 101. Since a control of this type is not otherwise covered by Standard No. 101 or any other standard, the identification of the control is at the option of the manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/02/84

FROM: Diane K. Steed -- NHTSA

TO: Jim Burnett -- Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is in further response to recommendations H-83-44 and H-83-45 which your agency made to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Highway Accident Report, "Jonesboro School District Schoolbus Run-Off-Road and Overturn, State Highway 214 at State Highway 18, near Newport, Arkansas, March 25, 1983" (NTSB/HAR-83/03).

NHTSA agrees with the National Transportation Safety Board that properly inspected and repaired school buses are essential to the safe transportation of school children. We also believe that the current provisions in Highway Safety Program Standard 1, Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection, and Highway Safety Program Standard 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, as well as the relevant Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, provide for an adequate level of safety when children are transported to and from school.

Of the 15,840 school districts in the United States, about 15,000 provide pupil transportation. Over 400,000 buses are involved in transporting the Nation's 22 million public, private and parochial school children to and from school each day. These buses are maintained by a number of persons having diverse backgrounds ranging in skill from "grease monkey" to those certified by the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE). This fleet travels over three billion miles a year, and is remarkably free of problems. Information reported at national meetings indicates that accidents due to mechanical failure are estimated to be between three and five percent and very few result in injury or death.

With respect to the specific recommendations, we have the following comments:

RECOMMENDATION H-S3-44 (Class II, Priority Action)

Include in Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) 17 -- Pupil Transportation Safety and in the "Program Manual" for HSPS 17 the requirement that the States institute quality control procedures for schoolbus repairs to determine if needed repairs have been performed adequately or if major repairs are required.

COMMENT

State Directors of Transportation, school business officials and fleet supervisors with whom NHTSA has talked agree that school buses should be kept in good repair. They questioned, however, how quality control procedures could be applied to the repair of school buses when almost every repair is different. Most school buses currently undergo at least two inspections a year, as suggested by Standard 17, which procedure helps to detect major defects that require repair. In addition to this inspection, we understand that most drivers conduct a daily inspection which identifies the need for minor repairs. One supervisor observed that school bus drivers act as a form of practical quality control because they check to determine if the school bus is operating safely after the repair has been made.

A survey of almost 1,000 fleets by the National School Transportation Association revealed that 49 percent operated fewer than 10 buses. To institute quality control procedures for these small fleets would quickly exhaust the limited resources of most States. Instituting formal quality control procedures would be costly to the States, no matter whether facilities were built and equipment purchased, or alternative checking procedures were utilized.

Recommendation H-83-45 (Class II, Priority Action)

This five part recommendation would include in the Program Manual of Highway Safety Program Standard 17 -- Pupil Transportation Safety, the program areas listed below.

1. Specific, well-defined qualifications for hiring schoolbus mechanics;

2. Specific skill areas for schoolbus mechanics for which certification of proficiency is required;

3. A biolography of available courses that can be attended or course curricula that can be used as an example to obtain certification of proficiency in the required skill areas;

Comment

NHTSA plans to use a portion of staff resources to review the literature that pertains to school bus mechanic qualifications and skill areas needed for certification. Upon completion we will disseminate the appropriate information to State and local governments.

Many schools, colleges and vocational training centers offer various courses in auto-mechanics, but few people ever master all the major areas of vehicle repair and become master-mechanics. The majority of small fleet operators could not afford to hire such a skilled mechanic. Car dealers employ many skilled mechanics but many are neither equipped nor do they desire to repair school buses. It is highly unlikely that owners of small fleets would or could hire an ASE certified mechanic. It is also unlikely that most of the garages or service stations that maintain school buses have such a person in their employ because they are small independent private entrepreneures. The extreme diversity of the school bus fleet in the United States would be a major complication for a practical certification program.

In 1978, hearings were held by the House Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance, of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to examine State and local as well as private sector approaches to the problem of unnecessary, incompetent, or fraudulent repair practices. Senator Philip Hart also held hearings in the late 1960s on Mechanic Training and Licensing. In spite of the adverse findings by these two committees, neither the Federal Government nor any State has gone so far as to require certification of mechanics doing work on cars or school buses. Because of the complexity of this problem, and the lack of Congressional action, NHTSA is of the opinion that it cannot go beyond publishing qualifications for school bus mechanics and identifying available training centers.

States whose accident records show the need for better maintenance care can be expected to take remedial action. Michigan, for example, provided workshops especially designed for school bus mechanics for over 10 years.

4. A requirement to institute and enforce procedures to prevent school activity groups from organizing, beginning, or continuing trips in mechanically unsafe vehicles;

Comment

A requirement to institute and enforce procedures to prevent school activity groups from organizing, beginning or continuing trips in mechanically unsafe vehicles is commendable. Such a requirement, however, would be effective only if it were enforced. Standard 17 currently suggests pre-trip inspections and a written report of any defect or deficiency discovered. We believe a reminder to the States of this suggestion would encourage them to give the proper attention to this safety area.

5. Requirements to place fire extinguishers at the front and rear of school buses, post signs in school buses on the location and use of emergency equipment, and brief passengers on the location and use of emergency equipment, both periodically and before beginning activity trips.

Comment

The placement of additional fire extinguishers outside the bus driver's compartment has led to increased theft and vandalism. These essential pieces of emergency equipment need to remain under the watchful eyes of the bus driver. The benefits of placing a second fire extinguisher in the rear of the school bus are so few as to make this requirement unwarranted. In case of a fire, a bus driver's first responsibility is to get the pupils to a place of safety. Having the personal skill and the equipment to handle a small fire are helpful, but not a necessity.

NHTSA suggests that all pupils who ride school buses should have instruction twice a year in safe riding procedures and emergency drills. This should provide sufficient information to students concerning the location and use of emergency equipment carried on the school bus. The location and use of fire extinguishers should be a part of this instruction.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these safety recommendations. If NHTSA can supply any additional information, please let me know.

ID: 12633.WKM

Mr. D. F. Paine
Quality Assurance Coordinator
Dunlop International Technology Ltd.
Post Office Box 504
Erdington, Birmingham B24 9QH, England

Dear Mr. Paine:

Your letter telefaxed on October 2, 1996 to Ms. Jeanette Greenfield of this agency has been referred to this office for reply.

You stated that one of Dunlop's overseas divisions, Dunlop Zambia Ltd., although not intending to export tires to the United States, wishes to "DOT mark its Light and Heavy Truck tire ranges to satisfy a local commercial requirement." You asked whether a manufacturer's identification mark can be assigned to Dunlop Zambia without a resident agent being appointed in the United States or prior to a resident agent being appointed. The answer is no.

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (copy enclosed), requires at section 574.5 that a tire manaufacturer place a tire identification number on the sidewall of each tire it manufactures. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate the recall of tires that are found to be in noncompliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards or that are found to contain a safety defect. The first group of digits in the tire identification number is the manufacturer's identification mark or code, issued in accordance with section 574.6. That code is intended to provide both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the manufacturer the ability to identify the plant in which the defective tires were produced. Thus, issuance of a manufacturer's identification code to one that does not intend to market tires in the United States would not serve the purpose of the tire identification number.

You mentioned in your letter that you have a copy of 49 CFR Part 551, which in pertinent part requires each foreign producer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to appoint a resident agent in the United States for the service of legal process. To enforce that provision, it has long been NHTSA policy not to assign a manufacturer's identification mark unless the manufacturer has appointed a resident agent in the United States.

For the reasons stated above, NHTSA cannot at this time assign a manufacturer's identification code to Dunlop Zambia. If in the future Dunlop Zambia desires to export tires to the United States and files a valid designation of a resident agent, NHTSA will assign a manufacturer's identification code at that time.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:574

d:12/2/96

ID: nht80-3.6

DATE: 06/20/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses - James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/26/88 letter from Erika Jones to Frank Reynolds (Std. 111; A32)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 28, 1980, concerning Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Your letter refers to section 9.1 of the standard, but the questions themselves are concerned with section 9.2 of the standard.

You asked whether the standard requires the use of more than one outside crossview convex mirror on a schoolbus. Section 9.2 provides, in part, "Each schoolbus, except those that are forward control vehicles, shall have a convex mirror . . . ." The use of the singular noun "mirror" means that only one convex mirror can be used to meet the requirements of section 9.2.

You also asked the agency to define the word, "view" as that word is used in the portion of section 9.2 that requires the outside crossview convex mirror to be "mounted so as to provide the driver a view of the front bumper. . . ." As explained in the notice proposing the use of crossview mirrors, the purpose of the requirement is to "address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transportation." The agency explained that "to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children it is necessary that the school bus driver have the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle, including the front" (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975). Use of a crossview mirror allows the driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there, before moving the bus.

The agency used the word "view" in its ordinary, dictionary sense to mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus.

Please note that the agency's November 6, 1978, proposal (43 FR 51657) to upgrade the standard would establish new field of view requirements for the crossview mirror. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

April 28, 1980

Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS #111-76 Rearview Mirrors

Dear Mr. Chief Counsel: The subject standard states in Section S9.1 that each school bus shall have a convex mirror.

Since the singular tense is used, a school bus having one (1) convex mirror would be deemed to be in compliance, is this correct?

Further on in this section, the Standard speaks. . . . "And mounted so as to provide the driver a view of the front bumper . . ."

We would appreciate it if you would furnish us a definition of the word "view" as used in this standard.

Thanking you in advance, we remain

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

James Tydings Specifications Engineer

ID: 1983-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/83

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: CHUCK HOWARD -- PRESIDENT SAFETY ALERT CO INC

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER 06/05/90 ON STD 108 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HIROSHI OZEKI -- MAZDA; LETTER FROM HIROSHI OZEKI -- MAZDA TO STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA DATED 04/10/90 ENTITLED REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF 49 CFR 571.108 "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO JAMES R. MITZENBERG -- FLXIBLE CORP DATED 12/08/86 ON STD 108 INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your petition for rulemaking of April 25, 1983, your letter of May 6 withdrawing it, and your letter of May 5 to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking for an interpretation. All this concerns the applicability of Standard No. 108 to your 'Vehicle Deceleration Warning System.'

As we understand it, this system was originally designed to provide a flashing light through the back-up lamp system, in which yellow bulbs were used as substitutes for the white ones required by Standard No. 108. You were informally advised by agency staff that such a system would render the vehicle noncompliant with the requirement that a back-up lamp be white, and that it be steady burning in use.

You asked Mr. Vinson if there were another alternative for flashing red lights that would comply with Standard No. 108, and in your letter of the 6th, whether use of the hazard warning system was acceptable. You also inquired about retrofitting vehicles manufactured before hazard warning signals were required, so that your system would work through the rear turn signals.

In the context of Federal regulations an optional system such as yours is acceptable as original equipment, or equipment added before initial sale of the vehicle, if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In our view, it is permissible to use any rear lighting system Standard No. 108 allows to flash for signalling purposes. Thus, your system could operate through the rear hazard warning system, or the rear turn signal system (red or amber) as long as the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed.

As an aftermarket device intended for installation on vehicles in use, it must not render inoperative in whole or in part Federally- mandated lighting equipment. Subject to the restrictions noted above, your system would not violate this prohibition were it installed to work through the hazard warning or turn signal systems. However, since your system involves an aspect of performance not covered by Standard No. 108, each State may regulate its use as it sees fit.

Passenger cars built since January 1, 1969, have been required to have hazard warning signal systems. Use of the turn signal system of a vehicle built before that date is not prohibited under Federal regulations but is also a matter to be determined by local law.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.

ID: nht93-6.18

DATE: August 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Durin B. Rogers -- Saperstein (Saperston) & Day, P.C.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard E. Wright (Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 11-29-84 from Frank Berndt to Wayne Ivie (Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 7/8/93 from Durin B. Rogers to John Womack (OCC 8865)

TEXT:

This responds to your question about whether Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR S571.205), applies to side windows in what you refer to as "fifth wheel campers/trailers." A picture accompanying your letter indicates that the camper has a tandem rear axle and is towed by a powered vehicle. As explained below, glazing materials used in new or used trailers are not covered by Standard No. 205.

Each Federal motor vehicle safety standard has an application section which specifies the vehicles or equipment to which the standard applies. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements for glazing used in a wide range of vehicles. It does not, however, apply to trailers, which our regulations define as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle" (49 CFR S571.3).

You also asked about Federal or industrial regulations that require use of Standard No. 205 glazing for window replacements and/or repairs. Standard No. 205 applies to aftermarket glazing materials for certain vehicle types. However, the standard does not apply to replacement glazing for use in trailers. There are no Federal regulations that would require Standard No. 205 glazing for window replacements or repairs, nor are we aware of any industry regulations about the replacement of glazing. You may wish to check with the State of New York which has the authority to regulate the operation and modification of vehicles by their owners. New York may have used this authority to issue regulations about replacing or repairing damaged glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: 86-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Vincent H. Rose -- President, HI-Q Technology, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Vincent H. Rose President HI-Q Technology, Inc. Box 4836 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94596

This will confirm your understanding, as expressed in your letter of June 3, 1986, that Federal requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, do not apply to an aftermarket lamp that "will not replace parts originally governed by regulations".

It is not quite correct, however, to say that "no regulations apply"; a manufacturer of aftermarket lighting equipment to which no standard applies is nevertheless subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product.

Finally, even though Standard No. 108 does not cover an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp such as you propose to market, we encourage manufacturers to design their products as closely as possible to Federal specifications so that the full benefit of the device may be realized.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 3, 1986 Ref: 20nhtsa3

Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th St. SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Ms Jones:

We are planning to market a lighting product for passenger cars in the United States and wish to comply with pertinent regulations and safety standards.

The product is a high-mounted stoplamp. It will be sold in the aftermarket and is intended to be added by the consumer to older automobiles not originally equipped with this device. It is not intended for replacement of high-mounted stoplamps installed by the vehicle manufacturer in newer automobiles.

We need your advice regarding U.S. Government regulations, if any, that must be complied with. It is our understanding that perhaps no regulations apply because this product is an add-on and will not replace parts originally governed by regulations.

Your comments will be most helpful and appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Vincent H. Rose President HI-Q Technology, Inc.