ID: aiam2135

On December 1, 1975, I received a telephone call from Mr. Nakajima o Bridgestone Tire Co. (213-320-6030) concerning the meaning of the March 1, 1975, effective date of Standard No. 119. He wanted confirmation that tires, for vehicles other than passenger cars, that were manufactured before that date are not subject to the standard's labeling requirements. I explained that his understanding was correct, citing 49 CFR S571.7.; Mark Schwimmer

ID: aiam2246

Dear Mr. Kirwan: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1976, requestin information concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applicable to transit vehicles, specifically, Dodge vans that will be used in a rural transportation system.; The answers to your questions are as follows: >>>(1) 'Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?'<<< If your Dodge vans are designed to carry 10 persons or less they woul qualify as 'multipurpose passenger vehicles', as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3. As multipurpose passenger vehicles, the Dodge vans would be subject to the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards listed below. The standards marked with an asterisk (*) are equipment standards and do not apply to the vehicles themselves. Rather, these standards set forth requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment for use in multipurpose passenger vehicles.; >>>No. 101 - *Control Location, Identification, and Illumination.* No. 102 - *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, an Transmission Braking Effect*.; No. 103 - *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems*. No. 104 - *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*. *No. 106-74 - *Brake Hoses*. No. 107 - *Reflecting Surfaces*. No. 108 - *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.* No. 111 - *Rearview Mirrors.* No. 112 - *Headlamp Concealment Devices*. No. 113 - *Hood Latch System.* *No. 116 - *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.* No. 118 - *Power Operated Window Systems*. *No. 119 - *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenge Cars.*; No. 120 - *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than(sic Passenger Cars*.; No. 124 - *Accelerator Control Systems*. *No. 125 - *Warning Devices*. *No. 205 - *Glazing Materials*. No. 206 - *Door Locks and Door Retention Components.* No. 207 - *Seating Systems*. No. 208 - *Occupant Crash Protection.* *No. 209 - *Seat Belt Assemblies*. No. 210 - *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. No. 211 - *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub Caps*. No. 213 - *Child Seating Systems*. No. 219 - *Windshield Zone Intrusion*. No. 301-75 - *Fuel System Integrity*. No. 302 - *Flammability of Interior Materials*.<<< The manufacturer of the Dodge vans must affix a label to each vehicl certifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, as required by 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification.* This certification label should be affixed to the door or door post of each vehicle, and you should check to make certain that it is present.; Please note that if the Dodge vans are designed to carry more than 1 persons, they would be classified as 'buses' under 49 CFR Part 567.3, and the list of applicable safety standards would differ.; >>>(2) 'Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for van used in transit?'<<<; No. The NHTSA has issued only the requirements found in the moto vehicle safety standards and regulations.; >>>(3) 'Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. thos filled with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)?'<<<; No. Such vehicles must meet the same standards as other MPV's. >>>(4) 'Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletop on vans in transit service?'<<<; Yes. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials,* 49 CF 571.205, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Rigid plastic materials that are to be used as covers for openings in the roof of a vehicle must conform to the requirements specified in paragraph S5.1.2.1 of Standard No. 205.; >>>(5) 'Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highwa Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?'<<<; Yes. Driver qualifications for transit vehicles are governed by Federa Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR Part 391, *Qualifications of Drivers*.; >>>(6) 'Could you provide any further information which you feel woul contribute to the safe operation of our transit system?'<<<; At the present time the NHTSA has not issued any general guideline concerning the organization or operation of transit systems. You may, however, wish to contact the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of this Department for information on this subject.; I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. Pleas contact us if we can (sic) of any further assistance.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3347

Dear Mr. Rosenfeld: This responds to your August 15, 1980 letter to this office requestin an interpretation of the requirements of Standard 120 (49 CFR S571.120). Specifically, you were concerned about paragraph S5.1.3, which permits the use of used tires on new vehicles other than passenger cars. The interpretations set forth below follow the same order used in your letter.; (1) New motor vehicles subject to Standard 120, which includes al motor vehicles other than passenger cars, may be equipped with used tires, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard, *provided*, that the used tires are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser and that they are installed on the vehicle at the request of the purchaser. This means that a vehicle manufacturer may not itself purchase used tires to install on new vehicles, nor may a vehicle purchaser authorize the manufacturer to install used tires not owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle.; (2) There is no limitation as to the axles on which used tires may b used. It would be permissible for a vehicle purchaser to ask a vehicle manufacturer to install the purchaser's used tires on each axle of the vehicle. The only requirement for axles in section S5.1.3 is that each axle must be equipped with tires, new or used, the sum of whose load ratings is at least equal to the gross axle weight rating for that axle.; (3) The used tires installed pursuant to paragraph S5.1.3 must b marked with the DOT number to indicate that the tires were originally manufactured in compliance with Standard 119. The January 1, 1978 date to which you referred means that all vehicles manufactured after that date and equipped with used tires under S5.1.3, must be equipped with used tires that originally complied with Standard 119 and have the DOT marking. The requirement does not mean that the used tires must have been originally manufactured on or after January 1, 1978, as you stated in your letter.; (4) for purposes of this section of Standard 120, used tires have bee interpreted to include retreaded tires. To repeat what I stated under answer number '1' above, your statement that the vehicle purchaser may use retreaded tires on his vehicle if he requests the manufacturer to install retreaded tires is not entirely accurate. The retreaded tires may only be used if they are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser.; The penalties for failure to comply with Standard 120 could be up t $1,000 for each violation, pursuant to the authority of sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1398). Since Standard 120 applies to vehicles, the vehicles manufacturer would be responsible for any violation. This agency considers each separate use of an unauthorized tire on a vehicle to be a separate violation. For example, if a vehicle had six tires and each failed to comply with the requirements of Standard 120, the vehicle would have six violations, and civil penalties of up to $6,000 could be assessed against the vehicle manufacturer.; Enforcement of Standard No. 120 is under the general provisions of th Vehicle Safety Act. There are no special enforcement procedures. The agency has investigators who check vehicles to ensure that they comply with the applicable standards. If there is a noncompliance, the agency has the authority to sue the violator in a Federal court to collect the civil penalties, pursuant to section 105 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394).; If the new vehicles were shipped without tires, as you suggested in th last question in your letter, Standard 120 would not apply to the vehicles. Section S5.1.1 specifies that the requirements of this standard apply to 'each vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service.' Only vehicles so equipped are subject to Standard 120.; You should be aware of the fact that this agency will soon publish notice proposing changes in the requirements of section S5.1.3 of Standard 120. If your would like a copy of that proposal after it is published, or have any further questions on this matter, please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3775

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding th classification of certain hypothetical mini- van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pa geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.; Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume tha passenger carrying volume (see, e.g., 49 CFR Part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (In the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meets the agency's 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MPV is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a 'truck chassis.' The 'chassis' of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.; The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, on member of which is classified as a 'truck,' is evidence that the common chassis is a 'truck chassis.' However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into an MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.; The floor pan differences mentioned in your first question do no appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same 'chassis,' since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.; Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs o whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.); Your third question involves the significance of the relative sale levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a 'truck chassis,' with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.; If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5438

"Dear Mr. Frink: This responds to your letter and telephone call askin several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206). Your letter stated that your company manufactures a door and frame system designed for installation on a 'recreational motor home,' which you described as a self-propelled, self-contained recreational vehicle seating six and with a gross vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds. The door system is installed on the right front side of the vehicle and is the primary means of ingress/egress. You stated that the door's latch/striker assembly is purchased from Tri-Mark Corporation, and that Tri-Mark assures you that the latch/striker assembly conforms to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. You ask what the classification of the vehicle would be and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply to the door in question. By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The statute establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency ensures compliance by purchasing vehicles and/or equipment in the retail market and testing them as set forth in the applicable standards. If the vehicle or equipment is found to meet the requirements of the standards, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or equipment fails to meet the standards, the manufacturer is responsible for correcting the noncompliance(s) at no cost to the purchaser. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the defect free of charge. For the purposes of the FMVSSs, NHTSA classifies motor vehicles as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers. From your description, the vehicle concerned would be classified as an MPV, which is defined in the definitions section of our FMVSSs (49 CFR 571.3, see enclosed) as a motor vehicle 'designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' You first ask about the classification of the vehicle and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply. FMVSS No. 206 (copy enclosed) applies to passenger cars, MPVs and trucks. Since the vehicle on which your door and frame system will be installed is an MPV, the standard would apply to the vehicle. The standard requires that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, components on any side door leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating accommodations must comply with the requirements of the standard (see S4 of FMVSS No. 206). The door in question meets this description of S4. According to your letter, there is a step area extending from the door opening into the coach and the passenger seat closest to the door is behind this step area. The presence of the step area does not negate the fact that the door in question leads directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Thus, the components of the door must comply with the requirements of FMVSS 206. To clarify your understanding of the applicability of FMVSS No. 206, the standard applies to new completed vehicles. Therefore, it would be the vehicle manufacturer who would 'certify' compliance with the standard, not the various manufacturers of the components of the door lock system. Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer will rely on the assurances of the suppliers, such as Avionic and Tri-Mark, that the components conform to the requirements of the applicable standards, in making the certification to FMVSS No. 206. However, the vehicle manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 206, and therefore must determine whether those assurances are bona fide. Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets issued by this agency entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment' and 'Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations,' respectively. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need any additional information or have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 002293cmc

Mr. Pierre Villeneuve
Girardin Minibus
Route Transcanadienne
Drummondville, Quebec J2B 6V4

Dear Mr. Villeneuve,

This is in response to your fax of November 4, 2002, requesting information on the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 207, Seating systems, and 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, to commercial buses. In your letter you ask if both FMVSS Nos. 207 and 210 apply to passenger seats on commercial buses. The answer to your question is that FMVSS No. 210 is applicable to passenger seats of all buses regardless of whether they are used for commercial purposes, as long as the vehicles gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is 10,000 pounds or less. FMVSS No. 207 does not apply to passenger seats on buses that are designed for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion regardless of weight.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards and is certified as being in compliance.

FMVSS No. 207 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. (See S2.) However, S4.2 of FMVSS No. 207 establishes general performance requirements, stating that:

When tested in accordance with S5, each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces, in newtons ... (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, passenger seats on buses are excluded from the general performance requirements for seats under FMVSS No. 207, and only the drivers seat of a bus must meet the general performance seat requirements under this regulation. FMVSS No. 207 also sets out requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats or seat backs. (See S4.3.) But again, passenger seats in buses are excluded from this requirement.

FMVSS No. 210 also applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. (See S2.) FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, establishes which designated seating positions on buses require seat belt assemblies and FMVSS No. 210 establishes the standards for the belt anchorages those assemblies are required to meet. In determining whether seat belt anchorages need to be installed, S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 210 references FMVSS No. 208 and states:

Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position for which a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208[.] Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position for which a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208[.]

S4.4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 208, states in pertinent part that:

[E]ach bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except a school bus, shall be equipped with an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's designated seating position and at the front and every rear forward-facing outboard designated seating position, and with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other designated seating positions.

For buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, seat belt assembly requirements only apply to the drivers designated seating position. (See FMVSS No. 208 S4.4.3.1.) Accordingly, for these vehicles the passenger seats need not meet the requirements of either FMVSS No. 207 or FMVSS No. 210.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.1/16/03

ID: 15302.jeg

William A. Leasure, Jr.
Executive Director
Truck Manufacturers Association
1225 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Leasure:

This responds to your letter regarding Standard No. 208's labeling and owner's manual requirements for air bag-equipped vehicles. You ask whether the requirements apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags, and suggest that we adopt an interpretation that the requirements do not apply to these vehicles. We do not interpret the standard as you suggest.

Standard No. 208's air bag labeling and owner's manual requirements are set forth in S4.5.1. While many of the standard's requirements, including those mandating air bags, are expressly limited to vehicles with specified gross vehicle weight ratings, S4.5.1 does not contain any such limitation.

You suggest that the air bag labeling and owner's manual requirements should, nonetheless, be interpreted as not applying to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags, because these vehicles are not required to have air bags. You note several facts in support of this argument:

The focus of NHTSA with regard to passive occupant protection has been, and continues to be, light passenger vehicles and not medium and heavy-duty trucks.

While Standard No. 208 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses, the standard permits trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds the option of only having a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system. (Your letter indicates that all medium and heavy-duty truck manufacturers install Type 2 seat belts as standard equipment.)

In NHTSA's November 1996 final rule specifying installation of new, attention getting labels, it cited compliance dates only for passenger cars, light trucks and vans. Moreover, the focus of the agency in this rulemaking was the protection of children. Medium and heavy-duty trucks are utilized for commercial purposes and therefore often only have provisions for a driver's seat. In cases where there is a passenger seat, it is rarely occupied and even more rarely occupied by children. Currently, no medium or heavy-duty truck manufacturer offers a passenger-side air bag.

You also stated that TMA believes it would be more appropriate for the agency to allow the original warning label specified by Standard No. 208, rather than the new ones, to be used voluntarily in medium and heavy-duty trucks

While we do not disagree that our rulemakings regarding labeling and owner's manual requirements for vehicles equipped with air bags have focused on light vehicles, we nonetheless conclude that the requirements also apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags. There are several reasons for this conclusion.

First, the standard does not limit the applicability of these requirements to light vehicles or to vehicles required to have air bags. Second, the safety concerns addressed by these requirements apply to all vehicles equipped with air bags and not merely light vehicles. For example, the warning to sit as far back as possible from the air bag and to always use seat belts is relevant to heavy vehicles as well as light vehicles equipped with air bags. I note that manufacturers of vehicles without passenger-side air bags are permitted to omit language concerning the hazards to children from air bags. See Final rule, correcting amendment published in the Federal Register (61 FR 64297) on December 4, 1996. Finally, we believe that, to the extent it might be appropriate to specify different labeling or owner's manual requirements for medium or heavy vehicles than for light vehicles, the issues would most appropriately be addressed in rulemaking.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d.9/22/97

ID: nht90-4.68

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 30, 1990

FROM: Kotaro Yakushiji -- Vice President, Emissions & Safety Technology, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: FMVSS No.216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars"; Request for Interpretation.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 to Kotaro Yakushiji from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 216)

TEXT:

Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc., on behalf of Mazda Motor Corporation of Hiroshima, Japan requests that the Agency render an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance -Passenger Cars"; considering the conditions herein described.

Specifically, Mazda requests an interpretation of the proper application and orientation of the test block and forces required by paragraphs S6.2 and S6.3 of this standard when testing vehicles equipped, for example, with roof mounted accessories such as luggage racks, sunroof wind deflectors, navigational antennas, etc. Such accessories would neither contribute to or detract from roof strength and would collapse easily and rapidly upon application of the forces required to be sustained. These accesso ries would be easily removed or at least removable for compliance testing purposes. Because these accessories are mounted on the vehicle's roof, each could influence the positioning of the test block as well as distort or render impossible compliance wi th the 5 inch maximum deflection requirement of paragraph S4. Also at issue is how NHTSA would treat such accessories during its compliance testing activities.

Please consider, for instance, the example of the sunroof wind deflector as depicted in Figure 01 of the enclosed attachment. This deflector is constructed of plastic material and is mounted at the wind screen header. For practical purposes this wind de flector is not removable during use but can be removed for testing. Mazda believes that there are three different test conditions which must be considered. These are illustrated in Figure 02 of this same attachment. The specifics of each of these test conditions are as follows.

Condition 1: Test conducted with wind deflector in place. Initial contact point A is at the uppermost point of the deflector. From a practical standpoint, however, contact point B at the vehicle's body is the true contact point.

Condition 2: Test conducted with wind deflector removed. Contact point B established in Condition 1 above is maintained. However, in this instance position B is located at a distance which is greater than (a) 10 inches from the forwardmost point of the longitudinal centerline and, therefore, possibly not in compliance with the positioning requirements of section S6.2(d).

Condition 3: Test conducted with wind deflector removed. Contact point B is identical to conditions 1 and 2. However, the test block is positioned in compliance with section S6.2(d).

Mazda requests the Agency's interpretation of which test condition above, number 1, 2, or 3, is correct and, thus, satisfies the intent of FMVSS No. 216. In the instance that test condition 1 is correct, can the movement of the test block resulting from crushing the wind deflector be deducted from the total test block movement when determining compliance with section S4? Moreover, can the Agency broaden its interpretation in this matter to include other instances involving roof mounted accessories suc h as those listed above?

Mazda thanks the Agency in advance for its kind and prompt consideration of this matter.

Attachment

Figure 1 Sunroof Wind Deflector Figure 2 Possible Test Conditions (Graphics Omitted).

ID: 21387.ztv

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in reply to your letter of March 2, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

As you are aware, Mark Rodgers of American Products Company (APC) was informed in a telephone conversation with an engineer from the Office of Safety Performance Standards that it appeared that the company's All Clear replacement rear vehicle lighting assemblies (which they import from China) are illegal did not comply with our safety standard and therefore could not legally be sold as replacement equipment, even though they were being advertised "For Off Road Use Only." You approve of this but have asked three questions:

"1. As I understand the 1966 Vehicle Safety Act . . . Rulemaking Standards have a right and a legal obligation to the American Public to decree these kind of lights as "Illegal" . . . True?"

Pursuant to its authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has promulgated a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires replacement lighting equipment to comply with the same requirements as are applicable to the original equipment that it replaces (see S5.8.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). If the replacement lighting equipment fails to comply, it may not be sold and the manufacturer (defined to include the importer) of the equipment must make a determination of noncompliance and inform us of that fact, and then notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliance. If the manufacturer fails to make such a determination, NHTSA may make the determination instead and order the manufacturer to notify and remedy.

"2. Without a printed Legal interpretation on this matter somewhere in Accessible Public Files . . . who is going to know of this decision. Therefore, why hasn't this action been publicly printed for all concerned to read?"

As required by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 and by 49 CFR Part 573, APC filed a Noncompliance Information Report with us on November 12, 1999 covering clear taillamp lenses that it had imported. The Recall Campaign Number is 99E-039. All Part 573 Reports are available to the public in NHTSA's Technical Reference section, and all recalls are tracked on the agency's internet Website, at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls.

In addition, we have responded to a request from a law enforcement officer in Arizona for an interpretation on the law on replacement taillamp lenses that are marked as intended for -off road. I enclose a copy for your information.

"3. Under what circumstances will NHTSA continue to decree Obviously "Non-Compliant", or "Confusing," or "Distracting" Lighting products as "illegal" for O.E.M. use by U.S. Vehicle Manufacturers, or for U.S. Aftermarket Sales . . . for the Replacement of Originally Mandated Lights?"

Standard No. 108 will continue to require replacement taillamp lenses and side and rear reflex reflectors to be red, and we foresee no circumstances under which we will change that requirement.

You have asked that we post your letter and our reply on NHTSA's website "so readers can compare my questions with your answers." As I indicated in response to your second question, it is our practice to post copies of our interpretations on our website. This letter repeats the questions you have asked, and it will be posted shortly after I have signed it.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.4/21/2000

ID: nht93-7.47

DATE: November 3, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Phil Gramm -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to Privacy Form dated 9/19/93 from Thomas J. Devon to Senator Phil Gram (OCC number illegible)

TEXT:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Devon of Longview, Texas. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) referred your inquiry to this office, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal safety standards for tires.

In his communication with you, Mr. Devon expressed concern about separated treads from retreaded large truck tires. He "referred to the deaths of two young women reportedly caused when they lost control of their vehicle after striking a separated tread in the road. Mr. Devon is concerned that retreaded tires do not meet the same standards as new tires and requested data on accidents caused by separated tire tread sections on the roadway.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA has issued various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to tires: FMVSS Nos. 109 and 110 for new pneumatic passenger car tires; FMVSS Nos. 119 and 120 for new pneumatic tires for other than passenger cars; and FMVSS No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires. There is currently no standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. This is because the agency is not aware of any data suggesting a safety need for such a standard.

With respect to tire tread separation, examination of actual tire scraps from the nation's highways have indicated that about 60 percent came from retreaded tires and 40 percent from original tires. Because of the many complaints about heavy truck tire tread scraps on and around the highways, the University of Michigan conducted a study in the mid-1980s' entitled "Large Truck Accidents Involving Tire Failure." That study concluded that most large truck tire failures are caused by vehicle overload and/or tire underinflation. Underinflation causes excessive flexing of the tire. The friction resulting from that flexing causes excessive heat buildup which can, in turn, result in tread separation or other tire failure. Indeed, the heat buildup has been known to be so extreme as to cause the tire to burst into flame.

The findings from the Michigan study led the FHWA to prohibit the operation of commercial motor vehicles with overloaded and underinflated tires, unless the vehicle is operated pursuant to a special permit issued by a state. That permit, however, requires a reduced speed to compensate for the increased tire loading. In addition, the vehicle and the tires must be maintained in a safe operating condition at all times. FHWA conducts

roadside inspection programs to ensure that such requirements are being met.

While scraps of tires on the roadway could pose a safety hazard to motorists, this agency has no real world crash data to indicate what percentage of motor vehicle crashes could be attributed to separated tire treads. Our crash data are limited to the general category of tire failure.

Please be assured that NHTSA and FHWA, as well as the tire industry itself, are engaged in ongoing efforts to alleviate this problem by appropriate publicity to large truck owners and operators regarding proper tire care and maintenance and by vigorous vehicle inspection programs.

I hope this information is helpful. If your constituent has any further questions, he may contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.