ID: 08-000497--16 Jan 09--rewrite

ID: 1762y

Mr. Robert H. Munson
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff
Ford Motor Company
The American Road
Dearborn, MI 48121

Dear Mr. Munson:

This responds to your letter in which you suggested that there are some apparently inconsistent provisions in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). With respect to manual belt systems installed at front outboard seating positions in a vehicle which is certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208, you asked whether those belt systems may be equipped with load limiters, such that the belt assembly does not comply with the elongation requirements in Standard No. 209. For the reasons explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter suggested that Standard No. 209 contains two different provisions that yield inconsistent answers to this question. On the one hand, section S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 reads as follows: "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system." Section S3 of Standard No. 209 defines a "load limiter" as "a seat belt assembly component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt to modulate the forces that are imparted to occupants restrained by the belt assembly during a crash." These provisions of Standard No. 209 seemingly preclude the use of a load limiter on manual belts, if the load limiter results in the belt assembly not complying with those elongation requirements, unless the seating position in which such manual belts is also equipped with an automatic restraint system. Accordingly, dynamically tested manual belts installed at seating positions that do not include any automatic restraint system could not be equipped with a load limiter, if the load limiter resulted in the belt no longer complying with the elongation requirements.

On the other hand, section S4.6 of Standard No. 209 exempts dynamically tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of the standard, as well as the webbing width and strength requirements. This exemption applies without respect to whether the dynamically tested manual belt is equipped with a load limiter. Ford suggests that this provision means that a manual belt installed at a front outboard seating position could be equipped with a load limiter, even if the load limiter resulted in the belt assembly not complying with the elongation requirements, provided that the vehicle in which the belt was installed was certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you said that it was Ford's interpretation that the requirements of S4.6 of Standard No. 209 were meant to limit the prohibition in S4.5 of Standard No. 209, by permitting the use of load limiters that result in the belt assembly no longer complying with the elongation limits on either automatic belts or dynamically-tested manual belts. You suggested that the reasoning that caused the agency to limit the use of load limiters that result in the belt not complying with the elongation requirements to automatic belts only, in section S4.5, does not apply to dynamically tested manual belts. You quoted the following language from the notice that established S4.5:

[T]here are currently no dynamic performance requirements or injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. There are no requirements to ensure that a load-limiting belt system would protect vehicle occupants from impacting the steering wheel, instrument panel, and windshield, which would be very likely if the belts elongated beyond the limits specified in Standard No. 209. Therefore, the elongation requirements are necessary to ensure that manual belts used as the sole restraint system will adequately restrain vehicle occupants. 46 FR 2618, at 2619; January 12, 1981.

You noted that this reasoning is now outmoded for some manual belts, because dynamic testing requirements have been established for certain manual belts. In fact, you asserted that the agency has expressly recognized this by exempting dynamically-tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209. Accordingly, you believe that S4.5 of Standard No. 209 should be interpreted to permit the use of load limiters that cause the belt to no longer comply with the elongation requirements on either automatic belts or dynamically tested manual belts.

As further support for this position, your letter suggested that the agency's notices establishing dynamic testing requirements for manual belt systems show an intent to treat dynamically-tested manual belts in the same way as automatic belts for the purposes of Standard No. 209. You referred to our rule adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual safety belts in front outboard seating positions of passenger cars (51 FR 9800; March 21, 1986), the rule extending dynamic testing requirements to manual belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (52 FR 44898; November 23, 1987), and the denial of petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to rescind the exemption of automatic belts and dynamically tested manual belts from the webbing width, strength, and elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 (53 FR 5579; February 25, 1988). Because of the agency's consistent expression in these three notices of its intent to treat dynamically tested manual belts in the same way automatic belts are treated under Standard No. 209, you believe that the reference in S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 permitting load limiters on belts used "in conjunction with an automatic restraint system" should be interpreted to mean load limiters may be installed on belts used in conjunction with an automatic or dynamically tested manual restraint system.

I do not concur with your suggested interpretation. I believe that sections S4.5 and S4.6 yield inconsistent answers to your question. Section S4.6(a) exempts manual belts from elongation requirements. However, it does not speak to the consequence of installing a load limiter on a belt that does not comply with those requirements. Section S4.5(b) does speak to this issue. It says that such a belt may be used only in conjunction with an automatic restraint. To be more specific, section S4.5 expressly provides that a belt assembly that "includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in a motor vehicle only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system."

I appreciate that the discussion you quoted from the 1981 notice is consistent with your argument that load limiters should be permitted on any dynamically-tested manual belt. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make or should have made such a change when in adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual belts, it is not possible to interpret the term "automatic restraint system," as used in S4.5, to mean "automatic restraint system or dynamically tested manual restraint system." An interpretation cannot add or delete requirements that are not contained in the language of the standard itself. When the agency promulgates a safety standard specifying performance requirements for vehicles or items of equipment to accomplish a particular safety purpose, that safety standard sets forth all the requirements with which the vehicles or equipment must comply. If the requirements in the safety standard do not fully address or ensure the implementation of some aspect of the underlying safety purpose, that aspect is not part of the standard. Since an interpretation cannot amend the language of a safety standard, the agency's only recourse in these situations is to undertake rulemaking to amend the language of the standard.

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:208#209 d:3/28/89

ID: 1982-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Research and Certification Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 2, 1982

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy President, Automotive Research and Certification Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. McEnvoy:

This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1981, appealing our denial of your request to import five different German specification 1982 BMW passenger cars under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). This provision allows vehicles not meeting the Federal safety and bumper standards to be imported for test purposes for a limited time without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You have asked us to reconsider our original decision or alternatively to allow the importation of two of the five vehicles. You have also agreed to perform all safety compliance work within 30 days of receipt of the five test vehicles, allowing you to carry out your test programs for developing complying emissions and bumper systems.

Upon review of your petition, the agency is agreeable to allowing you to import a total of five vehicles under the provision of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), without insisting upon immediate compliance with the bumper requirements, provided that you will agree in writing that the vehicles will be brought into compliance with then existing bumper requirements if they are sold to third parties. This will allow you a maximum of 120 days to bring the vehicles into compliance with safety requirements.

The bumper standard is primarily a property damage standard, rather than a safety standard, and the Administrator has the authority to waive it completely for vehicles imported into the United States. Although this authority has not been exercised or implemented in regulations, the temporary waiver which may be provided you is consistent with the intent of Congress, and allows both you and the agency to accomplish their goals. As a practical matter, the bumper standard may be amended in the near future to prescribe a more cost-effective level of performance and in that event your task of conforming the vehicles might be less difficult; we would not insist on conformance with the bumper standard in effect when the BMW's were manufactured.

I hope that this proposed solution is satisfactory to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 18, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1981, denying our request for permission to import five different German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

Your conclusion that "the purpose of your testing is to encourage the eventual importation of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to meet Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements" is in error. The purpose of our research, development, and testing is to insure that the motor vehicles which are imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x) are brought into full compliance with Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements and will remain in compliance with these requirements. It is felt that this purpose is indeed consistent with the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as well as that of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It is unlikely that our research, development and testing program will have any effect on the number of motor vehicles imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x). Since our proposed emission control system will be somewhat more expensive than those systems currently being used to enable non-certified imported automobiles to pass Federal emissions tests, will not become any easier or less expensive to import a non-certified motor vehicle. Similarly, if It was deemed feasible to modify the European bumper systems to comply with Federal bumper requirements (49 CFR Part 581), these modifications would most likely be more expensive than simply exchanging the European bumpers for U.S. style bumpers.

Your suggestion that we complete the necessary safety modifications before conducting our test program would, in effect, prevent us from carrying out that part of the program having to do with the bumper modifications. This is due to the fact that we must test different types of bumper support structures and shock absorbing units with the European bumpers in place. With the U.S. style bumpers installed, this would be impossible. We would, however, be agreeable to performing all of the safety related modifications, except for the addition of the U.S. style safety bumpers, upon receipt of the test vehicles. We expect that this work could be completed within 30 days of receipt of the test vehicles. This would allow us to carry out our test program while at the same time complying with all Federal safety requirements except the bumper standard.

We would also be agreeable to importing only two of the German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii), at this time. This would allow us to get our testing program underway and to demonstrate to the NHTSA that we truly are engaged in a research, development, and testing program. Once this had been done, we would then apply for permission to import the three remaining test vehicles.

Although our testing program will require some operation of the test vehicles on public highways, this operation will be minimal. We anticipate that each test vehicle will be driven not more than 3,000 miles for the duration of the test. These vehicles will be operated for testing purposes only, and will not be used for general transportation. Such limited operation certainly will not represent a safety or health hazard.

As you can see, we are agreeable to almost any conditions which will allow us to get this testing program underway. We therefore request that you reconsider our original request of October 19, 1981, for permission to import five motor vehicles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). As an alternative, we request that permission be granted for the importation of at least two of the five test vehicles listed in our letter of October 19, 1981, under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). The test vehicles which we would want to import first are the BMW 323i and the BMW 635i.

Attached is a copy of the testing exemption granted by the EPA. Your prompt attention to our request would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Robert P. McEvoy President

RPM:smm

cc: Mr. Taylor Vinson

Enclosures

November 25, 1981

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy, President Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, Massachusetts 01923

Dear Mr. McEvoy:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1981, in which you requested a testing exemption to cover five (5) light-duty vehicles. The purpose of the test program is to develop a closed-loop emission system for use on BMW vehicles.

A testing exemption is hereby granted, subject to the terms and conditions of the enclosed Memorandum of Exemption. If Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. elects to accept the exemption, please notify this office by returning a signed copy of the Memorandum to this office within thirty days.

Very truly yours,

Timothy Fields, Jr., Chief Manufacturers Programs Branch Manufacturers Operations Division (EN-340)

Enclosure

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: nht89-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROBERT H. MUNSON -- DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY OFFICE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ENGINEERING STAFF FORD MOTOR COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/30/88 FROM R. H. MUNSON TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2860

TEXT: Dear Mr. Munson:

This responds to your letter in which you suggested that there are some apparently inconsistent provisions in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209). With respect to manual belt sy stems installed at front outboard seating positions in a vehicle which is certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208, you asked whether those belt systems may be equipped with load limiters, such that the belt assemb ly does not comply with the elongation requirements in Standard No. 209. For the reasons explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter suggested that Standard No. 209 contains two different provisions that yield inconsistent answers to this question. On the one hand, section S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 reads as follows: "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system." Section S3 of Standard No. 2 09 defines a "load limiter" as "a seat belt assembly component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt to modulate the forces that are imparted to occupants restrained by the belt assembly during a crash." These provisions of Standard No. 209 s eemingly preclude the use of a load limiter on manual belts, if the load limiter results in the belt assembly not complying with those elongation requirements, unless the seating position in which such manual belts is also equipped with an automatic rest raint system. Accordingly, dynamically tested manual belts installed at seating positions that do not include any automatic restraint system could not be equipped with a load limiter, if the load limiter resulted in the belt no longer complying with the elongation requirements.

On the other hand, section S4.6 of Standard No. 209 exempts dynamically tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of the standard, as well as the webbing width and strength requirements. This exemption applies without respect to whether the d ynamically tested manual belt is equipped with a load limiter. Ford suggests that this provision means that a manual belt installed at a front outboard seating position could be equipped with a load limiter, even if the load limiter resulted in the belt assembly not complying with the elongation requirements, provided that the vehicle in which the belt was installed was certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you said that it was Ford's interpretation that the requirements of S4.6 of Standard No. 209 were meant to limit the prohibition in S4.5 of Standard No. 209, by permitting the use of load limiters that result in the belt assembly no longe r complying with the elongation limits on either automatic belts or dynamically-tested manual belts. You suggested that the reasoning that caused the agency to limit the use of load limiters that result in the belt not complying with the elongation requ irements to automatic belts only, in section S4.5, does not apply to dynamically tested manual belts. You quoted the following language from the notice that established S4.5:

[There] are currently no dynamic performance requirements or injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. There are no requirements to ensure that a load-limiting belt system would protect vehicle occupants from impacting the steering wheel, i nstrument panel, and windshield, which would be very likely if the belts elongated beyond the limits specified in Standard No. 209. Therefore, the elongation requirements are necessary to ensure that manual belts used as the sole restraint system will a dequately restrain vehicle occupants. 46 FR 2618, at 2619; January 12, 1981.

You noted that this reasoning is now outmoded for some manual belts, because dynamic testing requirements have been established for certain manual belts. In fact, you asserted that the agency has expressly recognized this by exempting dynamically-tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209. Accordingly, you believe that S4.5 of Standard No. 209 should be interpreted to permit the use of load limiters that cause the belt to no longer comply with the elongation requirements on either automatic belts or dynamically tested manual belts.

As further support for this position, your letter suggested that the agency's notices establishing dynamic testing requirements for manual belt systems show an intent to treat dynamically-tested manual belts in the same way as automatic belts for the pur poses of Standard No. 209. You referred to our rule adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual safety belts in front outboard seating positions of passenger cars (51 FR 9800; March 21, 1986), the rule extending dynamic testing requirements to manu al belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (52 FR 44889; November 23, 1987), and the denial of petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to rescind the exemption of automatic belts and dynamically tested manual

belts from the webbing width, strength, and elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 (53 FR 5579; February 25, 1988). Because of the agency's consistent expression in these three notices of its intent to treat dynamically tested manual belts in the s ame way automatic belts are treated under Standard No. 209, you believe that the reference in S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 permitting load limiters on belts used "in conjunction with an automatic restraint system" should be interpreted to mean load limite rs may be installed on belts used in conjunction with an automatic or dynamically tested manual restraint system.

I do not concur with your suggested interpretation. I believe that sections S4.5 and S4.6 yield inconsistent answers to your question. Section S4.6(a) exempts manual belts from elongation requirements. However, it does not speak to the consequence of installing a load limiter on a belt that does not comply with those requirements. Section S4.5(b) does speak to this issue. It says that such a belt may be used only in conjunction with an automatic restraint. To be more specific, section S4.5 expressl y provides that a belt assembly that "includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in a motor vehicle only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupan t restraint system."

I appreciate that the discussion you quoted from the 1981 notice is consistent with your argument that load limiters should be permitted on any dynamically-tested manual belt. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make o r should have made such a change when in adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual belts, it is not possible to interpret the term "automatic restraint system," as used in S4.5, to mean "automatic restraint system or dynamically tested manual rest raint system." An interpretation cannot add or delete requirements that are not contained in the language of the standard itself. When the agency promulgates a safety standard specifying performance requirements for vehicles or items of equipment to acc omplish a particular safety purpose, that safety standard sets forth all the requirements with which the vehicles or equipment must comply. If the requirements in the safety standard do not fully address or ensure the implementation of some aspect of th e underlying safety purpose, that aspect is not part of the standard. Since an interpretation cannot amend the language of a safety standard, the agency's only recourse in these situations is to undertake rulemaking to amend the language of the standard .

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our re view of it.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.100

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1989

FROM: Aggie Szilagyi -- Senior Counsel, New Jersey State Legislature, Office of Legislative Services

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-14-91 from Paul J. Rice to Aggie Szilagyi (A37; Part 541; CSA S 611)

TEXT:

On behalf of Senator Ronald L. Rice, sponsor of the enclosed legislation now pending in the New Jersey Legislature, I am writing to request an opinion on the issue of federal preemption specifically as it concerns the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-547, 15 U.S.C.A. S2021 et seq. and Senate Bill 3434 which would require certain new automobiles to be equipped with anti-theft devices beginning in 1992.

At the time the Senate Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee was considering Senate Bill 3434 back in March of this year, I spoke with Mr. Stanley Feldman of your offices concerning preemption under the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act. Mr. Fe ldman, after briefly reviewing the act, its legislative history, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to it, indicated that the extent of the federal preemption and its affect on S3434 was not immediately clear and he was unable to find any NHTSA letter opinion rendering an interpretation on the matter. He went on to indicate that an opinion from NHTSA may be obtained by writing to you.

Thank you very much for your prompt consideration of this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (609) 984-0231.

Attachment

SENATE LAW, PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEFENSE COMMITTEE STATEMENT TO SENATE, No. 3434 with Senate committee amendments STATE OF NEW JERSEY DATED: MAY 22, 1989 The Senate Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee favorably reports Senate Bill No. 3434 with amendments.

As amended, this bill requires that beginning with the 1992 model year, a newly manufactured passenger automobile sold or leased in this State is to be equipped with a passive anti-theft device if the automobile is priced at or over the estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by the Division of Consumer Affairs. Newly manufactured passenger automobiles that are not equipped with such a device may not be registered

in this State.

A passive anti-theft device is defined as any device or system, approved by the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, which automatically causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage when the motor of a vehicle is turned off. The purpose of these devices is to reduce or deter vehicle thefts.

Any person who violates the prohibition against selling, offering to sell, or leasing a passenger automobile which is not equipped with an anti-theft device to an individual who is required to register that vehicle in this State is subject to a fine of n ot less than $200 or more than $500 per offense.

The committee amended the bill to limit the requirement in the bill to passenger automobiles priced at or over the estimated manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by the Division of Consumer Affairs for all passenger automobiles sold in this State .

The committee amended the bill at the sponsor's request to provide a maximum income tax credit of $100 for a passive anti-theft device installed in a motor vehicle made before model year 1992 and a maximum income tax credit of $500 for a signal-activated vehicle recovery system.

According to the most recent New Jersey Uniform Crime Report compiled by the Attorney General, 59,376 automobiles were stolen in 1987. Based on those statistics, there were more than 162 cars stolen every day (one automobile theft every 8.9 minutes). M otor vehicle theft is a serious problem in this State and the purpose of this bill is to address that problem.

(FIRST REPRINT) SENATE, No. 3434 STATE OF NEW JERSEY INTRODUCED APRIL 17 1989 By Senator RICE AN ACT requiring passive anti-theft devices on certain motor vehicles and Supplementing Title 39 of the Revised Statutes (l) and chapter 4 of Title 54A of the New Jersey Statutes (l).

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. a. No person shall sell, offer to sell or lease a passenger automobile manufactured for the 1992 model year or any model year thereafter (l) which is at or over the estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by the Division of Consu mer Affairs pursuant to section 2 of this act (1) to a purchaser or lessee who is required to register that passenger automobile in this State, unless it is equipped with a passive anti-theft device. A person violating the provisions of this section sha ll be liable to a fine of not less than $200 or more than

$500 per offense.

b. No Passenger automobile manufactured for the 1992 model year or for any model year thereafter (1) which is at or over the estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by Division of Consumer Affairs pursuant to section 2 of this act ( 1) shall be registered, as required under the provisions of R.S.39:3-4, unless it is equipped with a passive anti-theft device. For the purpose of this section, a passive anti-theft device means any device or system incorporated in the manufacture of a passenger automobile, or installed in a passenger automobile after original manufacture, which automatically activates upon turning off the motor of a vehicle and causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage. The device or system required shall be of a type approved by the Director of The Division of Motor Vehicles. (1) 2. A taxpayer who installs a passive anti-theft device as defined in section 1 of P.L.... c.... (C.............)(now pending before the Legislation as this bill) on a passenger automo bile manufactured prior to the 1992 model year which is not equipped

----------

(EXPLANATION--Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets (thus) in the above bill is not enacted and is intended to be omitted in the law. Matter underlined thus is new matter. Matter enclosed in superscript numerals has been adopted as follows: (1) Senate SLP committee amendments adopted May 22, 1989.)

before the Legislature as this bill) on a passenger automobile manufactured prior to the 1992 model year which is not equipped with such a device shall be entitled to a credit equal to the cost of the device or $100, whichever is less, against the tax ot herwise due on his New Jersey gross income for that tax year. The Director of the Division of Taxation shall promulgate rules and regulations, pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L. 1968, c. 410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), to effectuate this ta x credit.

A taxpayer who installs a signal-activated vehicle recovery system on a passenger automobile which is not equipped with such a device shall be entitled to a credit equal to the cost of the device or $500, whichever is less, against the tax otherwise due on his New Jersey gross income for that tax year. As used in this section, a signal-activated vehicle recovery system means a small electronic unit installed in a vehicle that may be activated when the vehicle is reported stolen. When activated, the sy stem emits a signal which may be monitored by law enforcement officials to locate the vehicle. The Director of the Division of Taxation shall promulgate rules and regulations, pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L. 1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), to effectuate this tax credit. (1)

(1) (2.) 3. (1) The Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles shall promulgate, pursuant to the provisions of the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L. 1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.) rules and regulations to establish the estimated median manufacturer' s suggested retail price

for all passenger automobiles with standard equipment sold in this State. The director shall promulgate regulations for the median manufacturer's suggested retail price for passenger automobiles for model year 1992 within six months after the effective date of this act. Adjustments to this median price shall be made as necessary and shall be made at least 18 months before the manufacture of passenger automobiles for any model year. (1)

(1) (3.) 4. (1) This act shall take effect immediately.

ID: 1985-03.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Moravec -- President, Tow-All, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas J. Moravec President Tow-All, Inc. 10501 E. Bloomington Freeway Bloomington, MN 55420

This responds to your letter of May 20, 1985, concerning Federal requirements applicable to the motorized hitch or "Supplemental Power Unit" (SPU) being developed by your company.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq. (the Act). Under the Act, a motor vehicle is defined as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways." Your letter states that the SPU is a motorized single axle unit with an automatic transmission. In addition, your letter, the accompanying photographs, and descriptive material indicate that the SPU could be attached between a small car and a large trailer to permit the small car to safely pull the trailer long distances at highway speeds.

Based on this information, the agency concludes that the SPU is a motor vehicle and falls within the trailer classification. Under 49 CFR Part 571.3, a trailer is defined as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle." An information sheet for manufacturers is enclosed.

The following regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to trailers:

49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Content Requirements 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (see S567.4 for trailers) Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number Basic Requirements Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Tires Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Tires Standard No. 121, Air Brake System

Copies of these regulations and standards can be obtained by writing to: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. An information sheet for ordering copies is also enclosed.

State regulations applying to trailers and their use on the roads should be checked for any State in which your company's trailers are to be sold.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

May 20,1985

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

This letter is a formal request for the evaluation as to which federal statutes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are applicable to a new motorized road vehicle product that we are developing at TOW-ALL, Inc. As I discussed recently over the phone with Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, we are developing a revolutionary new product: the Supplemental Power Unit (SPU) or "Motorized Hitch". Inclosed are brochures which describe this concept, our first working prototype, and pictures of this prototype. Also inclosed are copies of two patents we own on this concept which may be helpful in understanding the operation of the SPU.

Basically, the SPU is a motorized single axle unit that attaches between a small car (e.g. a Chevette) and a large trailer (e.g. a 24 foot camper trailer) that allows the small car to safely pull the trailer for long distances at freeway speeds. This is explained in detail in the attached documents. I realize that this is a new idea and thus may not fall directly under specific legislation. The purpose of this letter is to determine which federal laws will be interpreted as being applicable.

We intend to manufacture the SPU out of new parts manufactured in the United States and market the unit worldwide. If you have further questions, please contact me at (612)-8818996 or write me at the above address.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Moravec President TOW-ALL, Inc.

THE SUPPLEMENTAL POWER UNIT "MOTORIZED HITCH"

A vehicle of any size, particularly small, could be enabled to tow a large trailer if this trailer could become self propelled. This note describes a novel method for providing this ability for towing the desired trailer. There are at least two primary requirements for pulling all trailers. First, the towing vehicle must have sufficient power to propel both vehicles, and second, the towing vehicle must be able to carry the tongue weight of the trailer. Few automobiles manufactured today and almost no small cars can meet these requirements.

The novel method that this paper is suggesting for solving this problem is what is called the supplemental power unit (SPU). It is also referred to as a "motorized hitch". This SPU is a small motorized trailer which is attached between the towing vehicle and the trailer that is desired to be moved. The motorized SPU has an automatic transmission and a gas or diesel engine. The synchronization of movements of the vehicle combination is provided by the hitching and towing system for the SPU.

The SPU is rigidly attached to the trailer that is to be pulled and pivoted or articulated vertically about the hitch between these two trailers. The SPU now carries all of the pulled trailer's tongue weight and provides the power to pull this trailer combination. The SPU can be manufactured in a number of sizes to meet the range of towing and tongue weight requirements of the consumer, commercial, and agricultural markets.

The rigid connection between the two trailers permits the tongue of the SPU to be hinged about a horizontal axis so no tongue weight or braking or acceleration moments are applied to the lead vehicle. A portion of the physical weight of the tongue (25-40 lbs.) is all the weight the tongue applies. The operation of the control mechanism of the SPU can also easily be reversed to give power and braking in the reverse direction. When towing a trailer, the tongue weight is generally added to the rear of the towing vehicle. This loading can be distributed over the whole vehicle by "load leveling hitches". These are complicated to couple and disconnect. If no "load leveling" is used and tongue weight is high, the traction of the front wheels and steering can become effected particularly in rough terrain. The SPU applies a very small load (25-40 lbs.) to the rear of the towing vehicle and is very easy to couple and uncouple. In general the towing vehicle does not sense the load being pulled with the SPU attached.

Attachment of the SPU to the load trailer is relatively simple. The patented control arm is hooked to the trailer ball of the front vehicle. No other connections are required. Once attached, the load trailer can be moved using the SPU to another location if desired using just its own power if the terrain is not too irregular. The power disc brakes on the SPU greatly aid in stopping the load trailer due to the method of attachment between the trailers and because of the load transfer which is automatically produced by the braking process.

The tongue of the SPU is hinged about a horizontal axis. This feature prevents the transfer of any of the tongue weight during transit and greatly facilitates coupling. Also, when this tongue is detached from the towing vehicle and allowed to hang down, it applies the brakes of the SPU. This feature is particularly useful if using the SPU to move the load trailer by hand.

ID: 24115.rbm

Mr. William Gest
Vice President of Engineering and Quality
Vantage Mobility International
5202 South 28th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85040

Dear Mr. Gest:

This responds to your request for clarification of the responsibilities set forth in 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5) regarding certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in this section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds). You are specifically interested in determining whether the disclosure requirement applies to vehicle alterers, i.e., persons or companies that modify a vehicle prior to its first retail sale.

The short answer to your question is that alterers do not have to specifically disclose a reduction in load carrying capacity that is the result of their alterations. They do, however, have to take adequate load carrying capacity into account when they determine whether the alterations have changed a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the GVWR.

NHTSA's regulations impose certain requirements on those who alter a vehicle that has been previously certified by a manufacturer but not yet sold in good faith for purposes other than resale. Alterers are considered to be manufacturers and are responsible for ensuring that the vehicle continues to meet all applicable federal safety standards when delivered to the first retail customer. Alterers must determine whether their modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must apply a label adjacent to the original manufacturer's certification label stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable standards.

Alterers must also determine whether their modifications affect the manufacturer's stated GVWR, gross axle weight rating (GAWR), and vehicle type. If such a change has been made, the alterer must specify the new GVWR, GAWR, or vehicle type in a manner consistent with the capability of the vehicle to comply with applicable standards and operate at higher weight rating and/or as a different type of vehicle. NHTSA expects both manufacturers and alterers to assign GVWR and GAWRs that reflect the manufacturer's or alterer's good-faith evaluation of how the vehicle's braking, load bearing items (including tires), suspension, steering, and drive train components will react to the vehicle's weight, size, cargo-carrying capacity and intended use.

The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may be safely loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards.

The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." "Unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use." Although the term "rated cargo load" is not defined by regulation, generally it is the GVWR of the vehicle minus the combined weight of the occupied designated seating positions (150 pounds times the total number of designated seating positions) and the unloaded vehicle weight.

Those who modify a completed vehicle after the first retail sale are considered to be repair businesses by NHTSA and are typically called "modifiers" by the industry. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA may assess a civil penalty to enforce this provision. NHTSA may also, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption.

An underlying premise of Part 595 is that the individual for whom the modifications were made is unlikely to realize that the vehicle, as modified, may no longer meet all applicable FMVSS and may have a different load carrying capacity than listed in the owner's manual or on a tire placard. These vehicle changes could have an effect on the overall performance of the vehicle. Accordingly, we determined that vehicle modifiers who decide to take advantage of the exemption set forth in 49 CFR Part 595 should be required to provide the customer with certain safety information and place a permanent label on the vehicle. The language for the label is set out in 49 CFR 595.7(d), and a detailed breakdown of the required information is contained in 49 CFR 595.7(e). One of the required pieces of information is the vehicle's load carrying capacity when it has been reduced by 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or more.

This requirement was intended to address circumstances in which the load carrying capacity has been reduced as a result of the modification. Although the term "load carrying capacity" was not specifically defined in the February 2001 final rule, the term was intended to convey the same meaning as vehicle capacity weight, as defined in FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims. "Vehicle capacity weight" is defined in that standard as the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle's designated seating capacity, i.e, the number of designated seating positions.

The vehicle capacity weight for passenger cars is stated on a placard located on the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location. For other vehicles, such as vans, vehicle capacity weight and/or rated cargo load and luggage values may be stated on a label voluntarily affixed by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer or in the owner's manual. If no information is provided, a vehicle's load carrying capacity prior to modification is its GVWR minus its unloaded weight. Likewise, the term "available load capacity" means that load carrying capacity that remains after the modifications are completed. For a comprehensive discussion regarding the determination of "reduction in load carrying capacity," see the enclosed letters to Mark S. Lore and Kenneth Conaway, dated April 25, 2002.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.7/15/02

ID: 86-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas T. Griffing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas T. Griffing Manager, Technical Services Yokohama Tire Corporation 1530 Church Road Montebello, CA 90640

Dear Mr. Griffing:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Glen Ludwig, of our Enforcement division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that your company would like to label the following information on medium truck tires, in addition to the information specifically required to appear on the tires by Standard No. 119:

1. the load index specified by the International Standards Organization (ISO): and

2. the speed rating specified by the European Tire and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO).

You asked two questions concerning these markings. First, you asked whether Standard No. 119 allows tire manufacturers to place two different load plates on tires, one for Standard No. 119 and one with the ISO load index, even if the maximum load given in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value for the maximum load of the listed ISO load index. The answer to this question depends on whether the ISO load index information is presented in a manner that would obscure or confuse the meaning of the information required to appear on the sidewall of the tire by Standard No. 119, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information.

Paragraph S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to this standard. The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. See, for example, the enclosed April 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Standard No. 119 permits tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

It is not clear from your letter whether you are proposing to add just the ISO load index to the required information on the sidewall of the tires, or that load index and a separate maximum load rating expressed in kilograms. If you are proposing the former course of action, Standard No. 119 does not prohibit tire manufacturers from adding the ISO load index to the information required by Standard No. 119 to appear on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the load index is shown in such a was that it is not confusing to consumers. This agency sent two letters to Michelin Tire Corporation on this subject, dated July 14, 1980 and August 28, 1980. I have enclosed copies of these letters for your information.

If, on the other hand, you are proposing the latter course of action, NHTSA has said that the load and inflation pressure information can be expressed in both English units and metric units, provided that the metric units are equivalent to the English units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. However, Standard No. 119 does not permit a tire manufacturer to list two different maximum load values on its tires. See the enclosed August 18, 1983 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Accordingly, if your company's tires were to List one value as the maximum load rating in pounds and a different value as the maximum load rating in kilograms, NHTSA would consider such labeling to be a violation of the requirement in S6.5(d) that tires be labeled with "the maximum load rating". Two different maximum load ratings on the same tire could confuse consumers, and give rise to questions about which of the two loads is really "the maximum load" the tire can carry. Such confusion would frustrate the purpose of the labeling requirement in Standard No. 119. Accordingly, such labeling would violate the requirement of S6.5(d) of the Standard.

Your second question was whether this Department put out any special instructions for tire manufacturers regarding the placement on the tire of the ETRTO and ISO information. As explained above, Standard No. 119 prohibits the addition of information to tire sidewalls only if such information confuses or obscures the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeats the purpose of the required information. There are no further "special instructions" concerning this requirement. In past agency interpretations, the agency has made clear that the ETRTO speed ratings and the ISO load indices may be included in a tire's size designation without violating this prohibition. See the enclosed June 25, 1981 letter to Mr. Keigo Ohgiya for the ETRTO speed ratings and the August 28, 1980 letter to Mr. John B. White for the ISO load indices.

This agency position leaves wide latitude for the tire manufacturers to incorporate such additional information onto the tire sidewalls. One of the reasons for allowing this wide latitude is this agency's hope that the tire manufacturers can collectively agree, through the standardization organizations, to a resolution of the potential problems associated with providing additional information. If the tire companies jointly agree on a method of presenting this information that is not confusing to consumers, no "special instructions" or other actions by this agency would be needed.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 5, 1986

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington D.C. 20590 ATTENTION: Mr. Glen Ludwig

Dear Mr. Ludwig:

Yokohama has been requested by our European Subsidiary Company to install the required load index and speed symbols specified by ETRTO and ISO standards on our medium truck all steel tires for shipment and distribution there. Considering this request, Yokohama recognizes that in addition to the load and inflation markings mandated by FMVSS 119 regulation, a separate plate 'ill have to be installed for the aforementioned ETRTO/ISO markings since carrying capacities and some other information are dissimilar based upon two separate standards. This situation has prompted us to contact you in attempt to clarify the situation and insure we are in compliance with the U.S. Federal regulations.

Accordingly, would you please respond to our questions below concerning these markings:

1. If Yokohama places 2 different load plates on the tire, one for DOT 119 and a separate load index for ETRTO/ISO, is this compatible with the FMVSS 119 regulations even though the load in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value of the load index?

2. Is there any specific instructions put forth by the Department of Transportation to the placement on the tire of the additional ETRTO/ISO information?

In addition to your specific answers to these questions would you please comment upon any other information which you feel pertinent to these tire markings as it applies to Federal FMVSS 119 compliance.

Thank you for you assistance and cooperation.

Thomas T. Griffing Manager Technical Services

TTG:lea

ID: 24394_Gen_TestingLabs

Mr. Alan Aylor
President
General Testing Laboratories, Inc.
1623 Leedstown Rd.
Colonial Beach, VA 22443

Dear Mr. Aylor:

This responds to your letter dated May 1, 2002, which you e-mailed to our office on May 7, asking six questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). This letter also follows up on a May 22, 2002 telephone conversation between you and Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff. Each of your questions is restated below, followed by our response.

BACKGROUND

On March 5, 1999, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule establishing Standard No. 225. The rule required vehicle manufacturers to equip vehicles with new child restraint anchorage systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle seat belts. Each new system has two lower anchorages and one tether anchorage.

A number of manufacturers submitted petitions for reconsideration of various aspects of the new standard, including the strength requirements for the anchorage system. In response to concerns of several of the petitioners about leadtime for and the stringency of the anchorage strength and other requirements in the March 1999 final rule, NHTSA permitted vehicle manufacturers to meet alternative requirements during an interim period (64 FR 47566). Manufacturers were permitted to meet either: (a) the requirements in the March 1999 final rule; or (b) alternative Canadian requirements for tether anchorages and, for lower anchorages, requirements in a draft standard developed by a working group of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). NHTSA later extended that period until September 1, 2004 (65 FR 46628).[1]

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Question 1.  S4.1 states: "Each tether anchorage and each child restraint anchorage system installed, either voluntarily or pursuant to this standard, in any new vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, shall comply with the configuration, location and strength requirements of this standard. " Does the phrase "any new vehicle" refer to all vehicles regardless of type and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)?

Answer:  The answer is Standard No. 225 does not apply to tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems installed in vehicles not listed in the Application section of the standard (S2). (This issue was discussed in the agencys August 31, 1999 response to petitions for reconsideration. 64 FR at 47578.) Anchorage systems voluntarily installed in vehicles not listed in S2 are not subject to the standard=s requirements. They will, of course, be subject to our defect authority.

Question 2.  If tether anchorages and/or child restraint anchorage systems are voluntarily installed in side facing or rear facing designated seating positions, do the requirements in S4.1 apply? If so, in what directions should the test loads be applied?

Answer:  Our answer is the requirements of Standard No. 225 would apply to anchorages installed in side- or rear-facing seating positions in vehicles subject to the standard. The standard requires only forward-facing rear designated seating positions to have the anchorage systems (S4). Side- or rear-facing seating positions are not factored into the determination of how many anchorage systems a vehicle must have. However, if a manufacturer voluntarily installs a tether anchorage or a child restraint anchorage system in a side- or rear-facing designated seating position in a vehicle subject to the standard, the configuration, location, marking, and strength requirements apply (S4.1). The loads for the strength test would be applied (1) along a longitudinal axis toward the front of the vehicle for LATCH anchorages installed in side-facing seating positions, and (2) along a longitudinal axis toward the rear of the vehicle for LATCH anchorages installed in rear-facing seating positions. The loads would be applied in this manner to side-facing seats to replicate loads likely to be imposed on the anchorages in a frontal crash. For rear-facing seats, testing in this manner ensures that the anchorages will be able to sustain loads from rear impacts.

The installation of LATCH in side- and rear-facing seats should be carefully considered, however. As far as we know, all child restraint manufacturers recommend against use of child restraints in side- or rear-facing seating positions.

Question 3.  Which certification options are available for voluntarily installed tether and/or child restraint anchorage systems for vehicles built before September 1, 2004?

Answer:  There are several options available to manufacturers of vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2004. These are outlined below. Manufacturers must select the option prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle. (See answer to question 6 for further discussion.)

--As noted above, manufacturers are permitted to meet (a) either the tether anchorage strength requirements in the March 1999 final rule or alternative strength requirements that are based on Canadian requirements (S6.3); and (b) for lower anchorages, either the strength requirements in the March 1999 final rule or the strength requirements developed by the ISO working group (see introductory paragraph of S9).

--There is also an option available to manufacturers of passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2004 relating to the strength of tether anchorages and how they are tested (a load of 5,300 N may be applied by way of a belt strap)(S6.3.2).

--Until September 1, 2004, manufacturers may meet alternative requirements as to the number of tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems they have to install in a vehicle, and where those systems must be located within a vehicle (S4.5).

There are some options concerning the location of the tether anchorage relative to the seating reference point of a designated seating position (S6.2).

Question 4.  Paragraph S6.3.3(b) states: A tether anchorage of a particular child restraint anchorage system will not be tested with the lower anchorages of that anchorage system if one or both of those lower anchorages have been previously tested under this standard. Paragraph S9.4.2(b) states: The lower anchorages of a particular child restraint anchorage system will not be tested if one or both of the anchorages have been previously tested under this standard. [Emphases added.]

Do these paragraphs mean that for a given designated seating position, a manufacturer certifies compliance with the tether anchorage requirements of FMVSS 225 in accordance with paragraph S6.3.4(a)(2), which specifies testing with SFAD-2 to apply the test loads to both the tether and lower anchorages, that he has satisfied all of the strength requirements for the child restraint anchorage systems at that designated seating position?

Answer:  No. The child restraint anchorage system must be capable of meeting both the requirements of S6.3.4 (strength of tether anchorage) and those of S9.4 (strength of lower anchorages alone). NHTSA has the option of choosing which test to conduct. Any tether anchorage could be tested, and must meet the requirements of S6.3.4 if and when the anchorage is tested. Any pair of lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system could be tested to the requirements of S9.4. Manufacturers must ensure that their anchorages comply with both requirements of the standard.

Question 5.  Does "this standard" as used in paragraph S6.3.3(b) and S9.4.2(b) refer to the entire standard or to the individual paragraphs S6 and S9 respectively?

Answer:  I believe our answer to question 4 responds to this question.

Question 6.  What interactions with NHTSA, if any, are required by a manufacturer to irrevocably select the various compliance options in FMVSS 225?

Answer:  Manufacturers must select an option prior to, or at the time of certification of the vehicle. Manufacturers are required to identify the option to which a particular vehicle has been certified. In practice, prior to conducting a compliance test on a vehicle, NHTSA will ask the manufacturer which option was selected for that vehicle and will test the vehicle in accordance with the manufacturers response.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.12/9/02





---

[1] NHTSA was petitioned to reconsider other aspects of the rule as well. We will be responding to those petitions in the near future.