ID: 1985-04.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Dennis Johnston

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 12, 1985 Mr. Dennis Johnston Director, Pupil Transportation Office of School Standards Division of Elementary and Secondary Education Department of Education and Cultural Affairs 700 N. Illinois Pierre, South Dakota 57501 Dear Mr. Johnston: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1985, asking for an interpretation of the school bus lighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With the desire of warning motorists that a school bus is preparing to stop at a railroad crossing, you ask about the appropriateness of using the amber lights in a red and amber lamp school bus warning system for this purpose. The amber lamps would be activated 300 to 500 feet before the crossing, and remain activated when the bus had halted and its door had opened. However, the red lamps would remain deactivated, and not flash as they do when the bus has stopped to take on or discharge passengers. This would be accomplished by means of a switch which would be used only for the warning purpose described above. Paragraph S4.1.4(b)(2) of Standard No. 108 prescribes the method of operation of a red and amber school bus warning system: "(ii) The system shall be wired so that the amber lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened." We interpret this as meaning that the system must operate in the prescribed manner whenever the bus entrance door is opened for whatever purpose, after the initial activation of the amber lamps. Therefore the system you describe is not permissible under Federal school bus lighting requirements. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-6.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bryan Couch -- Systems Zone Leader, Motor Coach Industries

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/8/95 LETTER FROM BRYAN COUCH TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11122)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Couch:

This responds to your FAX of August 8, 1995, asking for our comments on a "preliminary drawing showing our proposed location for the front marker lamp and supplementary front marker lamp." The front marker lamp will meet all photometry requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and, in your opinion, will be placed as far forward as practicable on the vehicle. The supplementary lamp will not meet the 45 degree rearward photometry requirement.

We have only a couple of comments. The first is that initially the determination of practicability of the location of the front side marker lamps is that of the vehicle manufacturer who certifies compliance with Standard No. 108, and NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. In this instance, we see no reason to question your opinion.

Our second comment is that a supplementary side marker lamp need not meet any of the requirements for side marker lamps; it must not, however, as provided in paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment installed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. Given the small size and candela output of side marker lamps, we do not believe that your supplementary side marker lamp would have this effect.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-3.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bryan Couch -- Systems Zone Leader, Motor Coach Industries

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/8/95 LETTER FROM BRYAN COUCH TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11122)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Couch:

This responds to your FAX of August 8, 1995, asking for our comments on a "preliminary drawing showing our proposed location for the front marker lamp and supplementary front marker lamp." The front marker lamp will meet all photometry requirements of Fe deral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and, in your opinion, will be placed as far forward as practicable on the vehicle. The supplementary lamp will not meet the 45 degree rearward photometry requirement.

We have only a couple of comments. The first is that initially the determination of practicability of the location of the front side marker lamps is that of the vehicle manufacturer who certifies compliance with Standard No. 108, and NHTSA will not ques tion that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. In this instance, we see no reason to question your opinion.

Our second comment is that a supplementary side marker lamp need not meet any of the requirements for side marker lamps; it must not, however, as provided in paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment install ed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. Given the small size and candela output of side marker lamps, we do not believe that your supplementary side marker lamp would have this effect.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).

ID: nht89-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: KENNETH E. TOMPOR -- AUTO BROKERS AND LEASING LTD

TO: JOSEPH THRASHER -- NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/30/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO KENNETH E. TOMPOR; REDBOOK A35; PART 593; LETTER DATED 04/26/90 FROM KENNETH TOMPOR TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; RE IMPORT OF 1985 FERRARI 288 GTO AS OF TODAY 04/26/90; OCC 4706

TEXT: PURSUANT TO OUR PHONE CONVERSATION OF JUNE 15, 1989, I AM WRITING AT YOUR REQUEST TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. RAYMOND DEANGELO.

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE FACTS RELATED TO THE PURCHASE AND SUBSEQUENT THEFT OF MY 1985 FERRARI, VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ZFFPA16B000054245.

MR. TONY CARLIN OF 5 GENEVE NEWPORT BEACH, ACTING AS MY AGENT, BOUGHT THE VEHICLE, PAID FOR THE VEHICLE AND RECEIVED ALL PAPERWORK ON THE CAR FROM MR. RAYMOND DE ANGELO ON OCTOBER 10, 1988. MR. DE ANGELO CASHED THE CHECKS ON OCTOBER 11, 1988. (SEE ENCL OSED DOCUMENTS).

THE CAR WAS DELIVERED ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 14th. TO MR. CARLIN'S RESIDENCE. IT WAS TO REMAIN THERE UNTIL NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS COULD BE MADE FOR SHIPMENT TO ME IN ROCHESTER MICHIGAN. ALL PAPERWORK WAS FORWARDED TO ME AT THAT TIME. I HAVE IT IN MY POS SESSION NOW.

ON NOVEMBER 6th, MR. DE ANGELO CAME OVER TO MR. CARLINS HOME, ASKED TO SEE THE CAR, AND WHEN MR. CARLINI WALKED INTO HIS HOME, MR. DE ANGELO DROVE THE CAR AWAY, RIGHT OUT OF MR CARLIN'S GARAGE.

IN CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. DE ANGELO SINCE THAT DATE, HE HAS ADMITTED TO HAVING THE CAR IN HIS POSSESSION, BUT REFUSED TO RETURN IT TO MR. CARLINI OR TO MYSELF. HE ALSO HAS NOT RETURNED THE MONEY FOR AUTOMOBILE. HIS EXPLINATION FOR HIM TAKING THE CAR IS THAT HE HAD NOT SOLD IT FOR ENOUGH. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THE VALUE OF THE FERRARI HAS GONE UP SUBSTANTIALLY AND MR. DE ANGELO IS VERY AWARE OF THAT FACT. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HIS RELUCTANCE TO ALLEVIATE CRIMINAL ALTERCATIONS, AND ONLY WISH TO HAVE THE CAR RETURNED TO ME. I SINCERELY HOPED THAT WE COULD STRAIGHTEN THIS MATTER OUT BETWEEN OURSELVES, BUT TO THIS DATE, HE WILL NOT RETURN ANY CALLS AND I CANNOT BE OUT THE AUTOMOBILE OR THE MONEY ANY LONGER.

THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THIS MATTER, I REMAIN

ENCLOSURES

ID: joseph

Mrs. Margaret Joseph
297 Klinger Rd.
Canonsburg, PA 15317

Dear Mrs. Joseph:

This responds to your inquiry concerning the condition of the van that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania uses to transport your 11-year old daughter, who is blind and uses a wheelchair, to and from school. I regret the delay in responding. You explain that the van is operated by a taxi service, presumably under contract with the State.

Our agency is authorized to improve traffic safety by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including new school buses. A "school bus" is a vehicle designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons, which is likely to be used significantly to transport school students to or from school or related events. We believe that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. We therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting our school bus safety standards.

Because our standards apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not have the authority to require Pennsylvania to provide school bus transportation for your daughter. Moreover, it is the States, and not our agency, that apply and enforce regulations concerning vehicles in use. Thus, we suggest that you contact your local school district or the Pennsylvania Director of Pupil Transportation about your concerns. The Director is:

Mr. Stephen Madrak
Manager, Special Driver Programs
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 68684
Harrisburg, PA 17104
Telephone: (717) 783-4755.

I hope this information is helpful. Regrettably, we have been unable to reach you by telephone to discuss your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.11/23/99

ID: nht78-2.5

DATE: 11/28/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 28 1978

NOA-30

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

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your August 3, 1978, letter asking how to compute the area of a sample of a body panel when testing for compliance with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

In your letter, you suggest that the net cross-sectional area of the sample is determined by multiplying the width of the sample by its thickness and then subtracting the area of each discreet fastener hole. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees that this procedure yields the correct area of the sample, and is the method used by the agency in its compliance testing.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 3, 1978

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

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation of our interpretation regarding FMVSS 221, School Bus Joint Strength.

It is our understanding that in meeting the requirements of S5, that the area to be used for calculating purposes, when discreet fasteners are used, is the net area of the weakest joined body panel. We define the net area as the width of the sample multiplied by its thickness, less the projected area of each discreet fastener hole.

We look forward to receiving an early written confirmation of this interpretation.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

sw

ID: nht94-9.5

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Ken Weinstein

TO: Kathryn A. Roach -- Cooper Perskie April Niedelman Wagenheim & Levenson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/11/93 from Kathryn A. Roach to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9344), letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208) and letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1993, requesting confirmation of a statement made by a NHTSA engineer that there is no federal regulation that requires replacement of a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

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

ID: nht91-6.43

DATE: October 30, 1991

FROM: Edward M. Klisz -- Chief, Light Tactical Vehicle Branch, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/17/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Edward M. Klisz (A39; Std. 119; Part 574)

TEXT:

Reference is made to a telephone conversation between Mr. Marvin Shaw of your office and Mr. Edward Klisz of the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) on 25 Oct 91, regarding foreign made tires procured in Southwest Asia (SWA) during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield.

As indicated during the telephone conversation TACOM (as the Department of Defense's (DOD) designated tire manager) is trying to ascertain the suitability for Army use of foreign made tires procured while units were in SWA. Some of these tires had DOT markings on them and some did not. Enclosed is a listing of tires currently stored at Fort Stewart, GA. Request your office review this list and determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to your records.

We are also interested in understanding the process better. It is our understanding that foreign manufacturer's must register with your office to obtain a certification number which would signify that the tire will meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). When the tires enter the U.S., the importer, in-essence, becomes the manufacturer and is responsible for the certification of the tires. Further, we understand that the process is a self-certification process and there may be some random testing done. Request you correct any misunderstanding we may have or enlighten us further on how the process works and any pitfalls we should be aware of.

We would appreciate a reply by 15 Nov 91 so that we can act as expeditiously as possible to dispose of any unsafe tires.

ID: nht75-5.25

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kenneth J. Mason

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of August 7, 1975, concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards established by this agency. Although the formal comment period for the proposals on which this regulation is based ended April 23, 1975, we appreciate your support for the regulation as issued. A copy of your letter has been placed in our public files.

Thank you for expressing your interest.

SINCERELY,

August 7, 1975

James Gregory National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

I have recently read in the "Modern Tire Dealer" June 1975 issue, that seven major tire manufacturer have filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati to (Illegible word) the new tire grading regulation issued by the Department of Transportation.

I want to go on record, and this letter can be used as evidence, definitely recommending that the Department of Transportation be allowed to continue with its regulation establishing a new grading system. This system will benefit the consumer, save lives in the long run, bring some order to an industry that has been confusing the driving public too long.

I have been in the tire business for 26 years since graduating from the University of Wisconsin in 1949. I have been a partner in a tire business in Nausau, Wisconsin, for the past 20 years. I am confused about the quality of tires sold to the motoring public. Some of the seven manufacturers sell tires to buying groups and these buying groups put a designation of premium on those tires. They look like premium tires and give long mileage. However, I have had numerous people tell me that these tires do not have good stopping ability. The rubber must be so hard that they sacrifice stopping and cornering traction to give the customer longer mileage. Now I ask the question - Is this truly a premium tire - should it carry "premium" as part of its name?

The tire I have described here is sold by Fleet Farm and is called Premium Duralon. It has in the past been manufactured by Davton Tire, a subsidiary of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. I believe this tire should be checked out and used as evidence in the government case for grading.

I believe the public is being duped by these manufacturers. They have too long continued the general public and the tire dealers of this country. Now we have a chance to clear up this situation.

Kenneth J. Mason

ID: 003090Evenflo_SpanII_labels

Mr. Randy Kiser
Director of Product Safety, Research & Development
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your letter concerning questions you had about the possibility of Evenflo voluntarily providing child restraint labels in Spanish. You explain that Evenflo currently provides printed instructions in Spanish free of charge upon request, but has not provided bi-lingual labels for the child restraint itself. You are considering changing the latter situation by placing a label in Spanish on your child restraints informing consumers that, upon request, Evenflo will send them Spanish labels for them to adhere to their restraints. The "duplicate set of labels" would fully and accurately translate the information required of the English labels.

You ask whether three "options" related to this initiative comport with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. The first option involves telling consumers to affix the labels next to the English labels. The second option involves instructing consumers to affix the Spanish labels in places where they might not be visible when the child restraint is installed. The third option involves instructing consumers to adhere the Spanish language labels over the English labels.

The requirement under Federal law to manufacture and sell products that meet all applicable FMVSSs does not apply to the sale of a vehicle or item of equipment after the first purchase of the item in good faith other than for resale ("first retail sale"). Your options relate to the modification of child restraints by owners after the first retail sale. Because used child restraints are involved, FMVSS No. 213 generally does not limit where aftermarket labels are affixed.

However, manufacturers are limited in the statements they may make on the labeling of a new child restraint or in the child restraint owners manual. S5.5 of the standard states: "Any labels or written instructions provided in addition to those required by [FMVSS No. 213] shall not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required

information or be otherwise misleading to the consumer. "Affixing Spanish labels over the required English labels obscures the English labeling. We interpret the term "shall not obscure or confuse" in S5.5 as including labels or instructions that result in the obscuring of the required information by the consumer. Accordingly, Evenflo cannot include an instruction in the labeling or instructions to paste the Spanish labels over the English labeling. Obscuring the information could pose problems for second-hand owners who do not understand Spanish.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.8/20/04