ID: nht95-4.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Borje Kukka

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/11/95 letter from Gerald R. Stewart to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC 11281)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kukka:

This response to your request for an interpretation whether NHTSA's statutes and regulations would apply to a process you intend to market, in which two horizontal parallel grooves are etched into the lower portion of motor vehicle windshields. The grov es apparently facilitate windshield cleaning by scraping water and debris off the windshield wipers as the wipers pass over the grooves. You provided a videotape on the process and a portion of a windshield etched with the grooves.

I am enclosing two interpretation letters, one dated March 1, 1985 and another dated October 28, 1988, both addressed to Mr. Andrew P. Kallman of Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Kallman asked NHTSA's opinion of a process that is very similar to your process. Th e letters explain how NHTSA's regulations would apply if your process were used on new vehicles or windshields and on windshields of a used vehicle.

Please also note, NHTSA has no authority to "approve" or certify your process. If you understood any previous correspondence from agency personnel to mean that NHTSA approves of your product, has endorsed it an any manner, or has made commendations about it (e.g., it "can improve a driver's ability to drive safely,") that is incorrect, and we apologize for any confusion.

State laws may affect operations that you conduct in that State. If you decide to do business in a particular State, you should seek legal advice on requirements for conducting your type of business in that State, including requirements the State may ha ve for persons modifying windshields or for vehicles with modified windshields.

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions concerning NHTSA's legal authority, please write to me at this address or contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820. I am, un der separate cover, returning your videotape and windshield portion.

ID: nht73-1.11

DATE: 09/27/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Southwestern Transportation Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1973, requesting information on an NHTSA ruling that you understand prohibits tire companies from surrendering damaged tires to carriers for salvage purposes.

The NHTSA has not issued a ruling in the precise terms you describe. However, a recent amendment (copy enclosed) to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to passenger car tires, Standard No. 109, could be viewed as having that effect. That amendment prohibits the sale, the offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any tire designed for use on a passenger car that fails to meet the requirements of the standard, unless the tire is altered so that it cannot be used or repaired for use on a motor vehicle (including a trailer). Tire manufacturers may be understandably reluctant to claim that damaged tires will still conform to the safety standard, and when that is the case they cannot sell them unless they are altered so that their use as motor vehicle equipment is prevented. This may reduce their value for salvage purposes. There is no specific prohibition to their surrender for use as salvage, however, and they may have salvage value if a purpose, such as scrap, unrelated to motor vehicles, is intended for them.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

Southwestern Transportation company

July 18, 1973

Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

We recently received a claim from Firestone Tire & Rubber Company for damage to a passenger tire. Since they were claiming the full value of the tire, we questioned them concerning salvage. They replied by stating that the Department of Transportation ruled that tire companies could no longer surrender damaged tires to any carrier for salvage purposes.

As we are not familiar with this ruling, we would appreciate your furnishing us with a copy. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation.

Yours truly, C. C. King

MGR. OF FREIGHT CLAIMS

ID: ODI.approximationofproduction

Memorandum Regarding Estimates Of Production
Under The Early Warning Reporting Rules

NHTSA has received inquiries whether under the early warning reporting (EWR) rule, a manufacturer must estimate annual production of its vehicles to determine whether it likely will be above the production threshold for full reporting, and if so, whether it must then submit quarterly reports before its actual production-to-date reaches the threshold. We have also received inquiries on how to report production where the manufacturer does not know, and cannot determine with reasonable effort, the number of reportable items it manufactured.

The early warning reporting rule divides manufacturers of motor vehicles into two groups with different responsibilities for reporting. The first group, which includes larger manufacturers of motor vehicles that produce, import, offer for sale or sell 500 or more vehicles per year of one or more of four defined categories of vehicles, is subject to comprehensive reporting. See 49 CFR 579.21-24. The second group, which includes relatively small manufacturers of less than 500 vehicles per year in those defined categories, is subject to limited reporting. See 49 CFR 579.27. (Manufacturers of tires and child restraint systems are also required to make comprehensive reports.) As we explained in an interpretation, manufacturers are required to make good faith estimates of their expected annual production for purposes of determining whether to report under 49 CFR 579.21-24 or 579.27. See Letter of July 24, 2003, to Mr. Lance Tunick.

While we require estimation of future production for purposes of determining whether the manufacturer is likely to be at or above the 500 vehicle threshold, ordinarily reports of production-to-date will be actual numbers. However, manufacturers will be permitted to approximate production information in those situations where it is not possible for a manufacturer to quantify the number of vehicles, tires, or child restraint systems it manufactured. We anticipate and expect that such approximations of past production will be few and far between, given that manufacturers would usually keep production records in the ordinary course of their business.

Additional questions concerning EWR should be directed to Andrew DiMarsico of this office at 202-366-5263.

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.12/3/03

ID: 77-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: D. T. Schellhase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter inquiring whether you may inlay whitewall rings on black tires. You state that in the process a groove is cut around the tire and a white compound is inserted into the groove.

Assuming that you are discussing applying this process to new passenger car tires, whether the process is permissible depends upon whether or not it adversely affects the tire's compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, which prescribes performance requirements for all passenger car tires sold in the United States. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

If after using the process the tire will not comply with Standard No. 109, the use of the process is prohibited, and its use can result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per tire and of other sanctions as well (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1), 1398, 1399). In addition, it is the responsibility of the one who wishes to use the process to determine whether it will cause the tires to fail the standard.

SINCERELY,

February 23, 1977

David T. Schellhase

This is in response to your letter of February 17, 1977, concerning the manufacturing of tires.

I have forwarded your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of this Department, which has regulatory jurisdiction over highway safety matters, including the establishment of safety standards, enforcement of standards, and the investigation of apparent defects in motor vehicles or automobile components.

You will hear from NHTSA directly.

(Miss) Antonia P. Uccello Director Office of Consumer Affairs

Feb. 17, 1977

Dear Sirs,

I have been refered to your office by the Highway Patrol. My question is this. I have been offered a business opportunity which consists of servicing car dealers and making whitewall tires out of existing blackwall tires on both new and used cars. This is done by a machine which cut a grove into the sidewall of the tire and then a white compound is flowed into the grove. My insurance agent told me that because of the cutting of the tire he could not write me business insurance. Is the alteration of tires like I have explained illegal, as I myself question weather the process may cause tire failure or a blow out. I would certainly appreciate, any information you could offer. Thank you!

David T. Schellhase

ID: nht94-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 12, 1994

FROM: Connie Mack -- U.S. Senate

TO: Department of Transportation, Intergovernmental & Consumer Affairs

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/17/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Connie Mack (A43; Std. 109); Also related to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Bob Graham (A43; Std. 109); Also related to 12/15/94 letter from Bob Graham to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find correspondence from my constituent.

I would appreciate your advising me of your action in this matter and returning the letter with your reply. Please respond to Helen Bina at my Fort Myers Regional Office, located at 1342 Colonial Boulevard, Suite 27, Fort Myers, Florida 33907, (813) 275-6252.

Thank you for your prompt attention.

Sincerely

ENCLOSURE 1:

December 5, 1994

The Honorable Connie Mack Constituent Service Center 1342 Colonial Blvd. Suite 27 Fort Meyers, FL 33907

Dear Senator Mack:

Thank You for your efforts on our behalf regarding the proposed bill before the Puerto Rican Senate regarding the importation of used tires. We have not as of yet received any response.

In these days of the NAFTA and G.A.T.T. Treaties this proposed bill seams like an attempt by the new tire manufactures for a restraint of trade that started in South America and has now spread to American Soil.

On November 3 we had written to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on the advise of the U.S. Department of Commerce but have not received a response as of today. We are trying to find out from them if Puerto Rico is under their jurisdict ion and what the laws are regarding tire tread depth.

With your help I am sure we will get the answers to our inquiries.

Sincerely,

Howard J. Levy -- Vice-President, USED TIRE INTERNATIONAL

enclosures

ENCLOSURE 2:

December 5, 1994

Dr. Ricardo Martinez Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Martinez:

On November 3, 1994 I wrote to you about the proposed bill before the Senate in Puerto Rico. As of this letter I have not heard from you or your agency. As I stated in my first letter to you this bills passage will mean the end of our industry in Puert o Rico.

WE NEED YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER!!!!!

Would it also be possible for you to send a copy of the laws pertaining to tread depth in the U.S. and it's territories.

Sincerely,

Howard J. Levy Vice-President, USED TIRE INTERNATIONAL

ID: nht95-5.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer; Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JANE DAWSON TO WALTER MYERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office regarding the May 9, 1995, amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. For your future reference, Mr. Myers is no longer assigned to our school bus standards. You may address requests for interpretation directly to me.

The May 9 amendment (60 FR 24562) to FMVSS No. 217 permitted, among other things, bus manufacturers to meet the additional emergency exit area (AEEA) requirements of S5.2 by permitting manufacturers to install two emergency exit windows as an alternative to an emergency exit door. You asked what the location requirements (fore and aft) are for the emergency windows that are used as the first additional emergency exit.

FMVSS No. 217 contains no explicit fore and aft location requirements for the two additional emergency exit windows. However, the intent of the final rule was to substitute the location requirements of the side exit door when the windows are used to satisfy the requirement for the first additional emergency exit. This intention is reflected in the use of the conjunctive word "or" in Tables 1 and 2 of the May 9, 1995, amendment. If a left side exit door would have been installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i), then S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires that it be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. The same fore-aft location should be used for the windows. In cases where the fore-aft location is not specified, such as a right side exit door installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b)(2)(i), then the windows should be placed so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable.

Also note the explicit location requirement in S5.2.3.2(c) that exit windows be evenly divided between the left and right sides of the bus. For example, if two exit windows are used instead of a left side exit door, they should be placed on opposite sides at the midpoint of the bus.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek at this address or by calling (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer; Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JANE DAWSON TO WALTER MYERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office regarding the May 9, 1995, amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. For your future referen ce, Mr. Myers is no longer assigned to our school bus standards. You may address requests for interpretation directly to me.

The May 9 amendment (60 FR 24562) to FMVSS No. 217 permitted, among other things, bus manufacturers to meet the additional emergency exit area (AEEA) requirements of S5.2 by permitting manufacturers to install two emergency exit windows as an alternative to an emergency exit door. You asked what the location requirements (fore and aft) are for the emergency windows that are used as the first additional emergency exit.

FMVSS No. 217 contains no explicit fore and aft location requirements for the two additional emergency exit windows. However, the intent of the final rule was to substitute the location requirements of the side exit door when the windows are used to sat isfy the requirement for the first additional emergency exit. This intention is reflected in the use of the conjunctive word "or" in Tables 1 and 2 of the May 9, 1995, amendment. If a left side exit door would have been installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a )(2)(i), then S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires that it be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. The same fore-aft location should be used for the windows. In cases where the fore-aft location is not specified, such as a ri ght side exit door installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b)(2)(i), then the windows should be placed so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable.

Also note the explicit location requirement in S5.2.3.2(c) that exit windows be evenly divided between the left and right sides of the bus. For example, if two exit windows are used instead of a left side exit door, they should be placed on opposite sid es at the midpoint of the bus.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek at this address or by calling (202) 366-2992.

ID: 19019.wkm

Ed Leboeuf, Legal Assistant
Office of the Chief Counsel
Kansas Department of Transportation
779-S, Docking State Office Building
915 SW Harrison
Topeka, KS 66612-1568

Dear Mr. Leboeuf:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff, subject: Approval of a new type of stud tire. You stated that an inventor in Oklahoma, Mr. Allen D. West, acquired a patent on a stud tire in which the studs do not contact the road when the tire is fully inflated, but the studs are exposed when the tires are deflated to a certain pressure. You enclosed a copy of Mr. West's letter to your office and a copy of a letter to Mr. West from the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. He stated in his letter to your office that he saw a Kansas statute giving the state the authority to approve such tires. You stated that the Kansas Department of Transportation does not do this, however, and you wanted to give Mr. West another place to turn to.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S.C., commonly referred to as the Safety Act, gives this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which the manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment themselves certify that their product complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA enforces compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them. The agency also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Because of the self-certification system, NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, endorse, or determine compliance of any motor vehicle or item of equipment prior to the product's introduction into the retail market.

NHTSA has issued six FMVSSs applicable to tires, found at 49 CFR 571.109, 110, 117, 119, 120, and 129. Stud tires must meet the same requirements as non-stud tires. State laws may apply to the use of stud tires. We regret that we cannot provide information on the laws of individual states.

I am providing Mr. West a copy of this letter for his information.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you or Mr. West need any further assistance or additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Mr. Allen D. West, P.E.
Drawer 310
Catoosa, OK 74015-0310
ref:109
d.4/16/99

ID: 20176.ztv

Ms. Debra Taylor
Vice President - Finance
Mercury GSE
135 Sheldon Street
El Segundo, CA 90245

Re: Classification of Airfield Bus as "Off Road" Vehicle

Dear Ms. Taylor:

We are replying to your letter of June 19, 1999. You have asked for confirmation that the Cobus 3000 is an "off road" vehicle, and "as such with which Federal and State specifications and regulations, if any we must comply with to legally sell our bus to Covington Airport in northern Kentucky."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to regulate "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined in pertinent part as a vehicle "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" (49 U.S.C. 30103(a)(6)).

You have enclosed a brochure on the Cobus 3000 and tell us that it is "built specifically for airfield use, to transport passengers between a remotely parked aircraft and the terminal or from terminal to terminal." The brochure identifies the Cobus 3000 as "the airport star" and depicts it in various applications around airfields.

We do not consider airfields to be "public roads," nor such service roads as may lead from terminal to terminal or from parking lots to terminals. Therefore, we do not consider the Cobus 3000 to be "manufactured primarily for use on the public roads," and a "motor vehicle" subject to our jurisdiction (we have no definition of an "off road" vehicle as such).

This means that there are no regulations or specifications of this agency that apply to the Cobus 3000. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has jurisdiction over vehicles that are not motor vehicles. We are unable to advise you whether the CPSChas issued regulations covering airport buses. I am sorry that we are also unable to advise you whether either Kentucky or the Covington airport authority has issued rules or regulations on airport buses.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.9/9/99

ID: nht79-3.30

DATE: 01/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NSTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Jan. 26, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P. O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your recent letter asking for confirmation that hoses running to air pressure gauges would not be considered "brake hoses" that are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74. Mr. Fred Redler of the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards apparently discussed this matter in a telephone conversation with one of your engineers.

Safety Standard No. 106-74 specifies performance requirements for brake hoses used in motor vehicles. That standard defines a brake hose as,

"a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes."

If the hose in question is only connected to an air pressure gauge and does not transmit any fluid or pressure used to apply force to a braking system, it would not be considered a brake hose and would not be required to comply with Standard No. 106-74. This letter, therefore, confirms Mr. Redler's statements.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 30, 1978 Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

This is to follow up a conversation between our Staff Engineer, Mr. Robert DuMond, and Mr. Fred Redler at NHTSA.

I am seeking confirmation of an interpretation given to Mr. DuMond by Mr. Redler relative to FMVSS 106-74, Brake Hoses and Fittings.

The question asked was whether FMVSS 106 applied to hoses running to air pressure gauges. Mr. Redler said that it did not because FMVSS 106 applies to brake hoses "...used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." (Ref. S4). Would you please confirm this at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services