ID: nht92-1.27

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DAVID KENNEDY -- W. Y. MOBERLY, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-11-92 FROM DAVID KENNEDY TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 8035); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-30-82 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO KENNETH M. BUSH

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 11, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal regulations pertaining to the importation of automotive rims for motorcycle use.

Your Canadian client ships to the United States a motorcycle conversion kit consisting of a prefabricated rear end assembly complete with brakes, drums, brake lines, and passenger car tires mounted on passenger car rims. While the tires bear a DOT certification symbol, the rims do not. You understand that motorcycle rims must bear a DOT certification symbol, and that passenger car rims are not required to be certified. You have asked whether, under these circumstances, the passenger car rims in the kit must bear a DOT certification.

Some years ago, Suzuki Motor Co. asked the agency whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, allow a manufacturer to equip a motorcycle with passenger car tires and rims. On December 30, 1982, we replied that paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 did permit a motorcycle to be equipped with tires meeting the requirements of Standard No. 109, the passenger car tire standard. Although passenger car tires must be fitted to rims suitable for their use, which will ordinarily be passenger car rims, Standard No. 120 nonetheless requires that rims intended for use on motorcycles be marked in accordance with paragraph S5.2. These markings include the DOT certification symbol. As you have surmised, the standard that covers passenger car tire rims, Standard No. 110, contains no marking requirements. Therefore, since your client wishes to export new tire/rim combinations for use on motorcycle conversions, the tires must be certified as conforming to Standard No. 109, and the rims certified as conforming to Standard No. 120. I enclose a copy of our letter to Suzuki.

ID: nht92-1.46

DATE: 12/01/92 EST

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KIM WELSH -- EMMETT KOELSCH COACHES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-5-92 FROM KIM WELSH TO PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT, DOT (OCC 7981)

TEXT: Your letter of November 5, 1992 addressed to the Department of Transportation Publications Department was forwarded to this office for response. In your letter you requested a copy of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards pertaining to school buses "and other Transit type vehicles."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), apply to all classes and categories of motor vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, buses of all types including school buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and the like. Excluded from the definition of motor vehicles are such vehicles as farm tractors, earth-moving equipment, and other off-road vehicles. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Also enclosed are copies of two fact sheets issued by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

You did not elaborate on what was meant by "Transit type vehicles." If you were referring to intercity buses, you should contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Room 3404, this address for information on their pertinent standards and regulations. For information on intracity buses, you should contact the Federal Transit Administration, Room 9328, this address. Finally, for information regarding implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you should contact the Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

I hope this information is helpful. If after examining this material you have more specific questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.30

DATE: February 3, 1992

FROM: Kenneth R. Brownstein -- Senior Counsel, PACCAR Inc., Law Department

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Clarification of 571.120 - Standard 120

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Kenneth R. Brownstein (A39; Std. 120)

TEXT:

PACCAR Inc, a manufacturer of Kenworth and Peterbilt vehicles, hereby submits a request for clarification of S571.120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

S5.1.3 of 571.120 states:

"In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol."

The standard clearly allows purchasers of vehicles to supply the vehicle manufacturer with retread tires for installation on the new vehicle. The intent of the standard appears to be to allow the purchaser to choose whether or not the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure they have knowledge of this fact. PACCAR manufactures a customized vehicle, allowing retail customers to specify particular components including tires for the vehicle. PACCAR believes that the intent of the standard would be met if a customer specifically orders retreads for his vehicle and the vehicle manufacturer supplied them rather than the purchaser.

It is requested that PACCAR be permitted to install, at the specific request of the buyer, retread tires. The tires installed would comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol. By allowing PACCAR to buy the tires, the process would be more efficient and provide the truck owner an advantage in not having to make a separate purchase, eliminating duplicate paperwork. It would also eliminate extra shipping and handling of the tires.

Your response to this request is respectfully requested.

ID: nht93-6.19

DATE: August 18, 1993

FROM: Tom DeLapp -- Executive Coach Builders, Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: F.M.V.S.S. #207

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/1/93 Est. from John Womack to Tom DeLapp (A41; Std. 207)

TEXT:

As a manufacturer of quality limousines we expect to meet or exceed any safety regulation which would affect our vehicles. To this end, we request an interpretation to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (F.M.V.S.S.) = 207, specifically the section addressing folding or hinged seats.

During and after production of 1993 Ford/Lincoln Town Cars, access to the area rearward of the front seat is limited due to the inclusion of a privacy panel installed to separate the passenger compartment from the drivers compartment. To allow ourselves and our customers access to the area between the front of the panel and the back of the front seat (containing auxiliary fuse panels and relays), we wish to modify the hinge assembly controlling forward and reclining movement of the seat. As constructed by Ford/Lincoln, the seat hinge is limited in it's forward movement by a metal pin in the hinge assembly. By removal of the pin, the seat would articulate forward to a greater degree, thereby providing access to the area in question. This modification is as provided on two door vehicles to allow passengers access to the rear seating.

No change or modification of the O.E.M. recliner latch is performed by our company. The recliner latch provides for a self locking mechanism (and release) for the articulation of the seat back.

Research by myself of the F.M.V.S.S. standards does not reveal a prohibition to removal of the limiting pin or a forward travel limit to the seat back. Additionally, a phone conversation with Clark Harper of the F.M.V.S.S. staff on 8-17-93 failed to locate a prohibition to this modification.

Please address this matter at your earliest convenience. Should you require further information or engineer drawings, please contact me by phone or FAX.

Phone (417) 831 3535 FAX (417) 831 0834

ID: nht93-7.5

DATE: October 1, 1993 Est.

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom DeLapp -- Executive Coach Builders, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/93 from Tom DeLapp to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-9085)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 18, 1993, concerning a modification you wish to make on limousines manufactured by your company. You wish to modify the hinge assembly controlling forward and reclining movement of the front seat to provide access to the area between the front of the privacy panel and the back of the front seat. (The area contains auxiliary fuse panels and relays.) The modification would involve removal of a metal pin in the hinge assembly, allowing the seat to articulate forward to a greater degree. You asked whether Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, prohibits the removal of a limiting pin or limits forward movement of a seat back.

Standard No. 207 specifies strength and other performance requirements for seats in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Section S4.3 of Standard No. 207 contains requirements for hinged or folding seat backs, except for passenger seats in buses or a seat adjustable only for its occupants. Section S4.3(a) requires a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat back. Section S4.3.2 contains performance requirements for this restraining device.

Section S4.3 does not limit the degree of movement of a hinged or folding seat back. Thus, you may remove the limiting pin if removing it only increases the degree of movement of the seat. However, the seat must still meet the requirements of S4.3 with the pin removed. Accordingly, the seat must have a self-locking device that can withstand the force applications specified in S4.3.2.1 and acceleration specified in S4.3.2.2.

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

ID: nht74-3.4

DATE: 08/05/74

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JACK R. GILSTRAP -- GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

TITLE: N40-30 [ZTV]

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/17/74 FROM JACK R. GILSTRAP TO RICHARD B. DYSON-NHTSA, RE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 12/26/73 FROM WARREN M. HEATH TO JACK R. GILSTRAP

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gilstrap:

This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1974, asking whether S4.6 of Standard No. 108 prohibits a bus manufacturer from installing wining that could later be connected by the purchaser to normally steady-burning clearance lamps, enabling them to be flashed to signal a crime in progress. The vehicle modifications here concerned are the installation both of certain wiring by General Motors and dual filament bulbs in each clearance lamp by the Southern California Rapid Transit District.

Paragraph S4.6 requires that signalling lamps specified in Standard No. 108 shall flash when activated, and that "all other lamps" shall be steady-burning. Paragraph S4.1.3 in part prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

We construe the phrase" all other lamps" in S4.6(b) to mean lamps that are required by Standard No. 108. Supplemental lamps on ambulances and police cars, for example, that flash in normal use are not included in the standard. Similarly , it would appear that when the clearance lamp you discuss is operated as a warning lamp it becomes an item of lighting equipment outside the coverage of Standard No. 108. Therefore the fact that it flashes when activated would not violate the intent

2 of S4.6(b). Similarly, the wiring that is installed by GM is not considered additional equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment.

The modifications you described, therefore, are not prohibited by Standard 108.

Yours truly,

ID: nht74-3.45

DATE: 05/21/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Peter Dakin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 4, 1974, requesting information concerning Federal safety standards applicable to the assembly of kit cars.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits the manufacture for sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, if the vehicle you are building is going to be used as a means of transportation on the road, it must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. The mere use of a vehicle on public highways constitutes an introduction into interstate commerce and is prohibited unless compliance with the safety standards has been achieved.

Part 56/.4(g) (1)(ii) of the certification regulations provides the producer of the kit with an option as to whether or not he certifies that the vehicle will comply with all applicable safety standards if completed according to his instructions. We would urge you to avoid undertaking the assembly of a kit that does not give assurance as to its ultimate ability to comply. If the producer of the kit takes the responsibility of certifying the completed vehicle, you as the assembler of the vehicle must exercise reasonable care in following the instructions he provides.

For your information I have enclosed a sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" which will direct you to the proper source for obtaining a copy of the safety standards and regulations.

ENC.

May 4, 1977

Peter Dakin

733 Spartan Drive

Rochester

Michigan 48063

Department of Transportation Washington DC

Dear Sir or Madam

please advise me what regulations I must obey in building a kit car for legal street use and registration?

Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Peter Dakin

ID: nht75-6.14

DATE: 08/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: South Texas Tire Test Fleet

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to confirm your telephone conversation of July 31, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer concerning the treadwear test procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

You had previously pointed out that the A78-13 and other tires are available neither as original equipment nor as recommended replacement options on any 1975 model passenger cars, although they are available as replacement options for the 1974 Ford Pinto. You had asked whether it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to conduct treadwear testing for such tires on a 1975 Pinto, in light of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) statement that

tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which they are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. (40 FR 23076, May 28, 1975)

As Mr. Schwimmer explained to you, the UTQGS rules does not dictate the method by which a tire manufacturer must conduct his testing to assign grades. It merely specifies the procedures which the NHTSA will follow when testing tires for compliance with the rule. While the surest way for the tire manufacturer to be confident of compliance would be to follow these procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. His obligation is simply to ensure that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the specified procedures, his tires are capable of achieving the grades which he has assigned to them. He may fulfill this obligation by whatever means he believes reliable and necessary. Thus, for example, he might choose a 1975 Pinto to test an A78-13 tire, if he is confident that the model year change in the Pinto will have no effect on the tire's treadwear performance. This decision is his, however. The NHTSA, in its compliance testing, would test such a tire on a 1974 Pinto or on some other passenger car for which it is original equipment or a recommended replacement option.

ID: nht75-2.25

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Holiday Rambler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of June 23, 1975, which inquired about the status of proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

The NHTSA expects to issue Standard No. 120 in the near future. It will not become effective September 1, 1975. An effective date which allows adequate lead time for manufacturers to prepare for compliance will be specified in a Federal Register notice when the rule is issued. Your second question, concerning the responsibility for providing GAWR and GVWR information for motor homes manufactured by you with chassis supplied by other manufacturers, will also be answered in that notice.

SINCERELY,

June 23, 1975

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This letter is in reference to proposed F.M.V.S.S. 120. Holiday Rambler Corporation is a large manufacturer of recreational vehicles and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles. As regards to the proposed Standard 120, we request your answer to the following questions.

1. What is the present status of this proposed standard; Does the effective date remain September 1, 1975?

2. HRC purchases from various manufacturers large numbers of chassis-cab type truck chassis for use in class "C" motor homes and commercial vehicles and will purchase a number of regular truck chassis for use in Class "A" Motor Homes. These manufacturers certify these "incomplete vehicles" at a specified G.V.W.R. and G.A.W.R. which our completed vehicle may not exceed. As regards proposed Standard 120 then, would the incomplete vehicle manufacturer be responsible for furnishing the required information label, or would HRC be responsible using such information as supplied by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer?

Thank you for your time and consideration. If this letter requires further explanation, please feel free to call me at 219 862-4551. Otherwise you may address your reply to the address below. Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Terrell T. Coleman Codes and Standards Co-Ordinator

CC: S. MOSS; T. COLEMAN

ID: nht95-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1995

FROM: Mark Warlick

TO: Ed Glancy -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MARK WARLICK (A4; PART 571)

TEXT: Re: FMVSS 208

The attached document is taken from the R.V.I.A. handbook A Guide to FMVSS, April 23, 1991. My questions pertain to item number 3. Is the statement about the minimum number of designated seating positions required as there are sleeping accommodations s till in effect? If so, where can I find it in the October 1, 1993, CFR 49 manual? And, what is the "definition" or "defined area" that makes up one sleeping position?

Attachment

FMVSS 208: Occupant Crash Protection

This standard specifies requirements for both active and passive occupant crash protection systems.

Applicability: Passenger cars, MPVs, trucks, and buses

Requirements: All designated seating positions (DSP) must be belted

1. MPVs with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less

a. Other than motorhomes: Type 2 at each front outboard DSP; Type 1 elsewhere; warning system for front (See Figure 208-1 for description of Type 1 and 2 seat belts)

b. Motorhomes: Type 1 may be used for front outside DSP, unless windshield header is within head impact area (Type 2 must be used); Type 1 elsewhere; warning system for front

2. MPVs with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds

Either a Type 1 or Type 2 at each designated seating position

3. There must be a belt at each DSP; it is the NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many DSPs as there are sleeping accommodations (if the vehicle actually has that many "seats")

4. "Designated Seating Position": Any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion

5. Belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS 209