ID: nht76-1.33

DATE: 04/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trans-Continental Tire Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your March 19, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

Standard No. 119 requires that the symbol "DOT" appear on the sidewall of a non-passenger car tire, as a certification that the tire meets all of the standard's performance and labeling requirements. Assuming that the tire in question does meet those requirements and is so certified, there is no prohibition in the standard against additional labeling such as "Blem" or "A.B.O." I hope this clarifies the status of your tires.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

March 9, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, N.H.T.S.A. Dept. of Transportation

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Sec. 119.

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Can you clarify that truck tires marked "A.B.O." or "Blem" are safe for highway use on the front end of commercial over the road vehicles?

The tires in question do meet D.O.T. highway specifications for manufacturers safety, in so for as they are free from defects in workmanship and materials.

Please rush clarification as soon as possible.

Thank You.

Respectfully Yours,

Raymond Oleisky, Operations Manager

ID: 2860o

Mr. Robert Cuzzi
Breda Transportation, Inc.
275 Madison Avenue, Suite 1711
New York, NY 10016

Dear Mr. Cuzzi:

This responds to your letter asking whether buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are excluded from coverage under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.301, Fuel System Integrity. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 301 applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and to all new school buses. The buses you manufacture for sale as municipal transit buses are excluded from Standard No. 301 because their GVWR is greater than the 10,000 pound limit established for the standard.

You asked also whether there are any other Federal standards that might apply to the fuel tanks on your transit buses. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) for their direct reply as to the applicability of any FHWA or UMTA regulations to your transit vehicles. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to see whether that agency has any requirements affecting the fuel tanks on your buses. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:301 d:6/17/88

ID: nht75-5.6

DATE: 12/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Conti Rubber Products

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 29, 1975, letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, to moped tires.

Mopeds are classified under 49 CFR 571.3 as "motor-driven cycles", a subcategory of "motorcycles", for the purposes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations. Therefore, tires designed for use on mopeds are tires designed for use on motorcycles and, as such, are subject to Standard No. 119. The NHTSA is considering an amendment of Standard No. 119 which would modify the requirements applicable to such tires, and expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Conti RUBBER PRODUCTS INC.

October 29, 1975

Frank Berudt -- Acting Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berudt:

We would appreciate receiving a ruling whether MOPED tires in the sizes 2-17 and 2 1/4-17 fall under MVSS119.

A MOPED is a motorized bicycle with a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour.

We would appreciate your fastest possible reply.

Very truly yours,

George H. Schildge -- Exec. Vice President

ID: nht94-4.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: Lois Castillo -- President, Travel Tray, Inc.

TO: Joan Womack -- NHTSA; John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/9/95 letter from Philip Recht to Lois Castillo (A43; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Joan Womack:

My name is Lois Castillo. I represent a new company called Travel Tray, Inc. based in Utah. Our tray fits across children's carseats and is easily attached and removed. I have enclosed one of our brochures that describes our tray.

I need your help in obtaining any information you might have regarding safety regulations pertaining to a tray such as this.

We are in preparation to start manufacturing and have been advised to seek information from your department first. I have spoken with Craig Allred, Director of the State of Utah Division of Highway Safety and showed him my tray. He felt the tray was okay, but suggested that I should apply a disclaimer clause and warning that the tray should not be used as part of the safety apparatus. That it is only to be used as a convenience item - like a toy - for the child. My patent attorney also suggested thi s.

Please let me know what you think and any information you might have regarding this.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Enclosure

(Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht88-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/88

FROM: T. BAILEY -- LEGISLATION ENGINEER, INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 104 Windshield WIPING & WASHING SYTEMS

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO T.P. BAILEY, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD. 104

TEXT: As an automotive design consultancy we need a clear understanding of this Standard, particularly the requirements of paragraph S4.1.2, Wiped Area. We have a problem with this and would appreciate some advice.

Firstly, can you confirm this paragraph is only applicable to passenger cars.

Secondly, the hypothetical results for a windscreen are shown on attachment 1. In this, Area A on one side extends to the DLO, on the other, overlaps it. (The DLO is taken to start at the inner edge of the obscuration band). As drawn, the correct perce ntage wiped area is still achieved. Should Area A be wholly:-

1. On exterior surface of glass, inside a perimeter line drawn one inch from edge of daylight opening.

2. On exterior surface of glass, inside the DLO.

3. On exterior surface of glass (ie. whole surface visible from outside vehicle including the obscuration band).

4. On total exterior surface of glass (ie. including the part normally hidden under trim and mouldings).

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to hearing from you.

See Illumtation on original

ID: bmw102-1.pja

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica
General Manger, Environmental Engineering
BMW of North America, Inc.
BMW Plaza
Montvale, NJ 07645-1866

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. Specifically, you ask whether a park control that is actuated by a separate control instead of by the movement of the transmission shift lever is part of the transmission shift lever sequence. You also ask whether such a park position must be located at the end, adjacent to reverse.

Paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No 102, Location of transmission shift lever positions on passenger cars, states, in part " . . . If the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position." [emphasis added.]

Paragraph S3.1.1 explicitly limits the requirement to those park positions included within the "shift lever sequence." It is our interpretation that if park is not selected by the movement of the shift lever, then the park control is not part of the shift lever sequence. In this case, the sentence quoted above does not apply, and the park control does not have to be located at the end, adjacent to reverse.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:102
d.9/25/98

ID: aiam3185

Dear Mr. Libman: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1979, inquiring if it i permissible for your suppliers to cut off the DOT serial numbers on used tires before selling those tires to your company. You stated in your letter that your company buys used tires from several companies. These tires generally either have cuts in the tread or sidewalls or are out of round. Your company then resells the tires to another company, which resells the tires to the public.; The answer to your question is no. The presence of the DO identification number on tires is required by several of this agency's regulation. Our tire identification and record keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) requires that each manufacturer place the DOT number on at least one sidewall of each tire that it manufactures. The number serves several purposes. It is indispensable in aiding consumers to identify tires subject to a recall campaign for safety defects and noncompliance with the safety standards. It also aids this agency in enforcing its tire safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109 (Passenger car tries, 49 CFR 571.119) and 119 (Tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.119) require that each tire manufacturer certify that its tires conform to all applicable Federal safety standards by branding or molding the DOT number on the tire.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), states that, 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on... an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' By removing the DOT identification number from a tire, the person would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tires which is included on the tire for compliance with the requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1874

Dear Mr. Rhodes: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. William R. Langer, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal Bumper Standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register Notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1970 (sic) model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency sponsored studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Langer has directed his comments to what he believes to be proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face (plastic) systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam5071

"Dear Mr. Leone: This responds to your FAX of August 6, 1992, to Taylo Vinson of this Office, asking for rules and regulations of the Department on electric vehicles. I understand that you talked with Mr. Vinson later in the day, and received an overview of the matter. I further understand that you intend only the construction of a single experimental vehicle, and have no plans for its production. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the introduction into interstate commerce, by any person, of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation, for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 may be imposed. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are set out in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. There are no standards that apply specifically to electric vehicles, and the standards that apply to your project car are those that apply to 'passenger cars' in general. However, the manufacturer of an electric vehicle may petition us for a temporary exemption (up to 2 years) from one or more of the safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle. The temporary exemption regulations are found at 49 CFR Part 555. An exemption covers up to 2,500 vehicles per year for any 12-month period that the exemption is in effect. Regulations governing the licensing of motor vehicles are the prerogative of the individual States. Thus, you should inquire as to what Rhode Island requires for your contemplated vehicle. There is a regulatory gap which your situation highlights, and that is the legal status of a person who intends to build only a single motor vehicle. Such a person is not a 'manufacturer' under the Act, since the operative portion of the definition of 'manufacturer' is one who manufactures or assembles 'motor vehicles'. The temporary exemption authority appears directed towards commercial enterprises and not single motor vehicles. Nevertheless, we believe we have the authority to exempt a single motor vehicle under these provisions. If you wish to consult us further in this matter, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to help you. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4226

Dear Ms. Kreeger: This responds to your letters of June 27, 1986, and July 11, 1986, an your subsequent phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the safety belt installation requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following information is of assistance to you.; As Mr. Oesch discussed with you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, sets forth the safety belt installation requirements for passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. The standard, a copy of which is enclosed, regulates only the installation of safety belts and does not require their use. However, the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carriers has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 392.16) that requires safety belt use by operators of trucks and buses involved in interstate commerce. Belt use is also governed by State mandatory use laws.; S4.2.2 and S4.3 of the standard set forth the safety belt installatio requirements for new multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). Our regulations (49 CFR 571.3) define an MPV as a 'motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' S4.2.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208 require the installation of a safety belt for each designated seating position in a MPV.; S4.4 of the standard sets forth the safety belt installatio requirements for buses. Our regulations define a bus as a 'motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' S4.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of a safety belt at only the driver's designated seating position in a bus. The agency has set additional safety belt requirements for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires the installation of a safety belt at the passenger seats in those small school buses. A copy of Standard No. 222 is enclosed.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel