ID: 3238o

Mr. Garry Gallagher
Vice President
Metzeler Motorcycle Tire
4520 107th SW
Everett, WA 98204

Dear Mr. Gallagher:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.119). More specifically, you asked whether the letter "B" must appear as part of the size designation of a motorcycle tire if that tire is of bias belted construction. The answer to your question is no.

As you noted in your letter, section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 sets forth the marking requirements for tires used on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, including tires for use on motorcycles. Subsection S6.5(c) states that each such tire shall be marked with "The tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Section S5.1, in turn, specifies tire and rim matching information that must be provided to the public. Generally speaking, the size designation of a tire shows only the physical dimensions of that tire, not necessarily its construction. Thus, the common meaning of the term "size designation" does not necessarily include an indication of the tire's construction type. Further, no provision of Standard No. 119 requires a tire's size designation to indicate the tire's construction type. The only reference in section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 to a tire's construction type is in subsection S6.5(i), which requires the word "radial" to appear on the tire's sidewall if the tire is of radial construction. Therefore, in response to your question, Standard No. 119 does not require the letter "B" to be included in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

You noted that your company sometimes adds the letter "B" to the size designation of these tires as an internal code. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to include additional information on the sidewall of their tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information. In this case, the addition of the letter "B" to the size designation would not appear to confuse or obscure the meaning of the size designation. Hence, there would be no apparent violation of Standard No. 119 by including the letter "B" in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:119 d:l2/l/88

ID: nht88-3.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/88

FROM: LANCE E. TUNICK -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL MASERATI AUTOMOBILES INC

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

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Maserati Automobiles Incorporated (MAI) requests an interpretation of the requirements in S.4.1.3. of FMVSS 208 concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with passive restraints. More specifically, because the s tandard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. and because, under Section 108 (b) (5) of the Safety Act, the standard does not apply to vehicles intended solely for export, MAI assumes that if, during a "phase-in" period, vehicles that we re previously imported into the U.S. by MAI are exported to Canada (where we have one dealer) would be deducted from the U.S. production total to arrive at the base figure to which the phase-in percentage would apply.

We would greatly appreciate your confirming this interpretation as soon as possible, so that we can report under 49 CFR Part 585.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht94-2.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol (Olympia, WA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from Roger W. Bruett (signed by Carol I. Morton) to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9822)

TEXT:

We have received your letter asking whether the Hella Xenon headlamps being installed on BMW 750 passenger cars "are legal for use on motor vehicles."

The Hella Xenon units on the BMW 750 series cars represent the first application of high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps on motor vehicles. This new technology is permitted by Standard No. 108, as indicated by the test report from ETL Testing Laborat ories that you reference in your letter.

We have no information as to whether the specific BMW headlamp system actually complies with Standard No. 108 because we have not tested it. BMW's certification of compliance that is affixed to all 750s raises the presumption that the BMW HID system mee ts Federal requirements.

A HID system may emit light that is perceived to be somewhat whiter than emitted by conventional headlamps. It may also be perceived as "stronger", to use your word, but a properly aimed HID system should create no more discomfort glare in the eyes of a n oncoming driver than a conventional one.

ID: nht94-4.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 15, 1994

FROM: Steve Anthony -- Product Manager, NgvFuel Tanks, Structural Composites Industries

TO: Marvin Shaw -- U.S. Dept. Of Transportation

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO STEVE ANTHONY (REDBOOK (2)); PART 303)

TEXT: I have been referred to you by Mr. Gary Woodford of NHTSA. Structural Composites Industries, (SCI) is a manufacturer of compressed natural gas fuel tanks for Detroit OEM's and other OEM transit bus manufacturers. We are also the oldest and largest comm ercial composite tank manufacturer in the world. Some of our customers have requested new tank models to be introduced on vehicles in January and February 1995, which is one to two months before the March 27, 1995 effective date of FMVSS 304. These cust omers wish to reference a qualification standard on the label. Our problem is that footnote 8 on the bottom of page 49020 of the 9/26/94 Federal Register clearly states that until March 27, 1995, the effective date of FMVSS 304, "cylinder manufacturers may not certify compliance with it". Yet on the same Federal Register page, the manufacturers are "free to advertise containers as meeting the CNG equipment standard." What language can we use?

Possible examples:

1. "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS 304 effective March 27, 1995."

2. "DOT effective March 27, 1995."

We would very much appreciate your counsel.

ID: 11618.MLV

Philip E. Brown, General Manager Europe
First Technology Safety Systems
European Office
2, Columbus Drive
Summit Ave., Southwood
Farnborough, Hants GU14 ONZ
England

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter of February 23, 1996, concerning the pants for the Hybrid III dummy. You asked whether the pants should be below- or above-the- knee.

Section S8.1.9.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, states that the Hybrid III dummy shall be Aclothed in formfitting cotton stretch garments with . . . midcalf length pants.@ However, it has come to our attention that it is common practice for manufacturers and for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) contractors performing compliance tests to either cut off the pants above the dummy knees or to roll the pants up above the knees. Therefore, to update Standard No. 208 to reflect current practices, NHTSA will be publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 208 to specify that the pants on the test dummies are to be above the knee. NHTSA will continue using above-the-knee pants in the interim, and we assume manufacturers will do so also.

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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:6/14/96

ID: RECARO_e-registration7970

Mr. Dan Mullins
RECARO North America, Inc.
3275 Lapeer Road West
Auburn Hills, MI 48326




Dear Mr. Mullins:

This replies to your inquiry as to whether the recent amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 require your company to revise its on-line registration form. As explained below, so long as online registration information is not provided on the paper registration form, your electronic registration form is not subject to the format requirements of the standard.

To improve the effectiveness of manufacturer campaigns recalling child restraint systems (CRSs) that contain a safety defect or fail to conform to FMVSS No. 213, manufacturers are required to provide a registration form (hereafter referred to as a "paper form") with each restraint (S5.8). The paper form must conform in size, content and format to the form depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). To minimize the potential for confusion, no other information is permitted to appear on the paper form except for information that distinguishes a particular restraint from other systems.

In your e-mail you indicate that RECARO provides an electronic registration form on its website and that the internet address for the electronic form is provided in the CRS instruction manuals. You further state that the internet address is not provided on the paper form. You then ask if recent amendments to FMVSS No. 213 would subject RECAROs electronic registration form to the standards format requirements under this scenario.

On September 9, 2005, we amended FMVSS No. 213, in part, to permit the inclusion of an internet address for electronic registration of a CRS on the paper form (70 FR 53569). If a manufacturer chooses to provide such information, the website address must also be provided in the instruction manual (S5.6.1.7 and S5.6.2.2) and the format of the electronic registration form must conform to S5.8.2 (S5.8.1(d)).

However, S5.8.2 is only applicable if a manufacturer voluntarily provides an internet address for electronic registration on the paper form. We noted in the final rule that the amendments did not establish any new requirements for CRS manufacturers. If a manufacturer does not include an internet address on the paper form, then the electronic registration requirements do not apply even if the manufacturer elsewhere provides information on electronic registration.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/24/06

ID: boucher.ztv

Ms. Kimberly Boucher
Compliance Administrator
Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.
1165 Reynolds Road
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Ms. Boucher:

This is in reply to your e-mail of October 10, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You related that Spartan Motors is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, whose annual production of incomplete vehicles (fire truck cab/chassis and RV chassis) exceeds 500 annually. You are unclear as to whether Spartan has "full reporting responsibilities or just injuries/deaths due to the fact that we are not the final manufacturer."

The reporting responsibilities of incomplete vehicle manufacturers were not specifically addressed in the preamble or regulatory text of the final rule. However, we do not view incomplete vehicle manufacturers as manufacturers of "motor vehicles" for purposes of the early warning reporting final rule. To be sure, our regulations provide that when a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, a defect or noncompliance report (and quarterly reports) may be filed by either the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle or any subsequent manufacturer of the vehicle (49 CFR 573.3(c)). However, pre-decisional information that may lead to defect or noncompliance determinations, as contemplated by the TREAD Act, is much more likely to be received by the manufacturer who completes the vehicle (and certifies its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards) than by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. It is our opinion that most relevant claims, notices, and reports regarding completed vehicles would go in the first instance to the manufacturer completing the vehicle, and not to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Therefore, incomplete vehicle manufacturers such as Spartan do not have "full reporting responsibilities" under the early warning reporting rule.

Spartan does have limited reporting responsibilities under 49 CFR 579.27. Our regulation covering vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) defines "incomplete motor vehicle" (49 CFR 568.3) as an "assemblage" of various vehicle components that require further manufacturing operations to become a completed vehicle. This assemblage comprises "original equipment," and if Spartan receives a claim against it regarding an incident involving death, or receives a notice alleging or proving that a death was caused by a possible defect in an incomplete vehicle of its manufacture, it must report according to the requirements of 49 CFR 579.27.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/11/03

ID: nht74-2.47

DATE: 08/27/74

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm that the suggested defect notification letter, enclosed in your letter of August 14, 1974, meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577.

We appreciate your taking this action with respect to the Steel Belted Surveyor 78 tire.

ID: 19123.ztv

Mr. John Carlson
Legislative Liaison
Motor Vehicle Division
Arizona Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85001-2100

Dear Mr. Carlson:

We are replying to your letter of December 2, 1998, to Stephen R. Kratzke, Office of Crash Avoidance, NHTSA.

You write in reference to Arizona Revised Statute 28-5805, Motor vehicles powered by alternative fuels. For purposes of that section "'Motor vehicle' means a vehicle that meets the safety standards of the national highway traffic safety administration" (Sec. F.2, 28-5805). You ask "whether the new federal safety standards for golf carts and NEVs is sufficient to qualify these slower moving vehicles as a 'motor vehicle' under state law."

The definition of "motor vehicle" in ARS 28-5805 is broad enough to include any motor vehicle that is certified by its manufacturer as meeting NHTSA's Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This would include any 4-wheeled passenger carrying vehicle manufactured as a "low-speed vehicle" on or after June 17, 1998, equipped with a label certifying that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., Standard No. 500), whether that vehicle is a neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) or golf cart, if the vehicle's maximum speed, either originally or as modified, is more than 20 miles per hour but not more than 25 miles per hour.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:500
d.12/22/98

ID: nht95-6.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles de Saint Martin -- Project Manager, The Fairchild Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/10/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES DE SAINT MARTIN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. de Saint Martin:

This replies to your letter of August 10, 1995, with reference to "Securiflash". Taylor Vinson of this Office phoned you on August 21 for a clarification.

We understand that, in the event of a deceleration of 0.8 g, such as caused by emergency braking, "Securiflash" automatically activates a vehicle's hazard warning system lamps; after 5 seconds, the lamps go off.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter that we sent Saline Electronics on April 24, 1995, which provides our views that a decleration system that operates through the hazard warning system is impermissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

However, we are interested in your remark that the product "was developed after different European studies showed that 60 percent of rear end collisions would be avoided if the brakes had been applied one second earlier." We are unaware of such studies, and would like to receive copies of them so that the agency may enhance its knowledge of the conditions under which rear end collisions occur.

If you have any further questions, please call Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-5263.