ID: nht68-4.15

DATE: 09/11/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Ashton Martin Lagonda Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 27 and your cable of September 5.

You have written me with respect to the possibility of crash-testing an Aston Martin with weight added to the 6 cylinder engine so as to approximate the weight of a V8 engine which you may introduce in the future.

I am puzzled by your opening statement "We are arranging . . . to crash one of our DBS cars . . . on your instructions and as we previously agreed to do . . .." A review of the correspondence between the Federal Highway Administration/National Highway Safety Bureau and Aston Martin Lagonda does not disclose either our instructing you or you agreeing, to crash test any motor vehicle. Generally, this correspondence has concerned the limited production vehicle problem and Public Law 90-283.

Since the demonstration procedure set forth in certain of the standards involves a crash test, an actual crash test seems the best way for a manufacturer to verify conformance with these standards. The standards, however, do not per se require a crash test, and 23 C.F.R. @ 255.11 specifically states that "As approved equivalent may be substituted for any required destructive demonstration procedure."

With respect to your planned test for September 13, our engineers do not view the 40 pound weight differential as significant, and, assuming no further modifications to the DBS, crash testing a 6 or a V8 simulation would be sufficient to demonstrate compliance for the current 6 or projected V8 model.

I understand your concern with the "thought of having to smash cars every time there is a change in specification", but you will have to face this issue every time a new Federal standard appears with a crash demonstration procedures. You may not know of newly issued Standard No. 212 (Windshield Mounting - Passenger Cars), requiring a barrier collision test, and I enclose a copy for your information.

Robert M. O'Mahoney, Esq., Assistant Chief Counsel, US Department of Transportation,

August 27, 1968

We are arranging very shortly to crash one of our DBS cars in 6 cylinder form, on your instructions and as we previously agreed to do, and this will be done during mid September.

As if this is not worrying enough, we are wondering if we may get some concession or help on a further aspect which could cause much financial calamity later on. This is that we may, in the future at a date not yet decided, be in the position to offer an alternative engine capacity of V8 formation in the same chassis.

Basically, this engine will only weigh 40 lbs more than the existing 6 cylinder installation and all mounting points and other fittings will be, to all intents and purposes, identical.

Could you please let me know, as soon as possible, whether or not this alternative will make it necessary for us to crash yet another car; or can it be considered that the minor weight variation would not affect the aspects for which the crash has been organised, i.e. the steering wheel penetration and fuel tank installation.

As a further alternative, might it be possible for us to add this extra weight, in some form to be defined by you, to the existing 6 cylinder engine on our forthcoming crash test in September.

We would be grateful if this particular concession could be made, as quite frankly we had serious thoughts about continueing with the US market when it came to smashing one car, which represents our profit margin for a complete year. The thought of having to smash cars every time there is a change in specification is horrifying and would mean financial penalties which are too heavy for us to bear.

Could I please trouble you for a very prompt reply in view of the possibility of the extra weight 'concession' we have requested to simulate the V8 unit, and the time needed to organise this prior to the crash test of the 6 cylinder car.

D.C. Gerston. Director of Engineering ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA LTD.

ID: 20935.ztv

Scott R. Elkin, D.O.
P.O. Box 4595
Austin, TX 78765

Dear Mr. Elkin:

This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1999, informing us that there is no audible indication when the turn signal system in your 1997 Saab is operating. Further, you report that the "light signals are often obscured by the steering wheel." You have asked us for a response.

Your Saab was required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," upon its manufacture and sale to you. Standard No. 108 requires a passenger car to be equipped with a turn signal system. The turn signal system in your car is required to meet the specifications of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers," October 1965. These specifications have been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. SAE J590b requires a "visible pilot indicator" to be incorporated in the turn signal system. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, "Controls and Displays," requires the pilot indicator to be a pair of arrows that illuminate with a green color in the direction of the turn when the turn signal system is activated. Standard No. 101 requires that the indicator be visible to a vehicle operator when the driver is seated at the wheel and the driver's seat belt is fastened. We interpret this to require that the indicator be visible when the steering wheel is in the straight ahead position. There is no requirement that the indicator be visible under all operating conditions.

Standard No. 108, through SAE J590b, also permits, but does not require, an audible signal indicator when the turn signals are operating. For many vehicles, replacement turn signal flashers are available that are intended to be audible. You may wish to check your local auto parts retail stores to see if one is available for your car.

In summary, although the turn signal operating indicators in your car may not satisfy you, your vehicle appears to comply in this respect with Federal requirements.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/30/00

ID: 13441.ztv

Mr. Kevin Imagawa
Manager, Product Safety and Compliance Division
Matsushita Technology Development Center
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America
One Panasonic Way, 4B-8
Secaucus, NJ 07094

Dear Mr. Imagawa:

This letter replies to your letter of December 20, 1996, to Bob Shelton of this agency, as supplemented by your letters of January 9 and January 14, 1997, to this Office.

You describe the subject of your letters as a "battery-operated DC-motor-driven bicycle." You have told us that you plan to market this machine and asked whether "49 USC Chapter 301 (Motor Vehicle Safety) and 49 CFR Parts 390 & 571 are applicable to this kind of product or not." You tentatively concluded "that only CPSC has the mandatory safety requirements for a bicycle. . . ." If we understand your letters correctly, the battery provides the same amount of torque as the torque provided by a rider pedaling the bicycle up to a speed of 14.9 mph, at which point the motor cuts off and 100% of the torque is provided by the driver. The motor also shuts off whenever the driver stops pedaling.

First, the regulations at 49 CFR Part 390 are those of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA only regulates motor vehicles that are used for commercial purposes in interstate commerce. Your vehicle would not be operated in interstate commercial ventures and these regulations would not apply to you.

A "motor vehicle" as defined under 49 USC Chapter 301 is one that is "driven or drawn by mechanical power . . . ." With respect to your design, the vehicle would be driven primarily by muscular power, with a mechanical assist. At no point does the motor alone drive the bicycle. It assists the prime mover, muscular power, and does not drive the bicycle in the absence of muscular power. We have therefore concluded that your bicycle design with power assist is not a motor vehicle as defined by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 and is not subject to it or to 49 CFR Part 571. I enclose a letter of February 16, 1993, to Mr. J.C. Townley, which explains our views in somewhat greater detail.

You also asked whether "a driver's license is required by law when a bicycle is provided with a continuous (without pedaling) motive power exceeding a certain speed limit (Ex. 14.9 mph) or of more than 5 horse power." I am sorry that we cannot answer this question for you. Each State has its own requirements for licensing the operation of motor vehicles within its borders. We are unable to advise on the laws of the States, and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in each State where you intend to market your product.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571

d:5/2/97

ID: aiam2966

Dear Mr. Kendall: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1979, asking for clarification of S5.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122, *Motorcycle Brake System*. This section requires each three-wheeled motorcycle to be equipped with a parking brake system. You have inquired whether this means a two-wheeled motorcycle equipped with a sidecar.; A two-wheeled motorcycle initially sold with a sidecar attached, o intended to be so sold, is a three-wheeled motorcycle for purposes of compliance with S5.1.4. The fact that a sidecar may be attached to a two-wheeled motorcycle at some point in its existence does not mean that the motorcycle must have a parking brake system when the cycle manufacturer does not intend it to be sold to its first purchaser with a sidecar attached.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edmund Gabler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edmund Gabler Colonial House Apartment 507 1150 Atlantic Shores Blvd. Hallandale, Florida 33009

Thank you for your letter asking about our requirements for lap belts and expressing your views on state laws requiring the proper use of safety belts. We appreciate hearing from concerned citizens on the important subject of improved motor vehicle safety.

You asked whether safety belts on your county buses are legal if those belts are designed only as lap belts and do not restrain both the pelvic and upper torso areas of the body. The answer to your question is that those belts are permitted to be installed on buses. Some background information may be helpful. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. Our Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires installation of safety belts in new motor vehicles.

Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle. For large "buses" (i.e., those carrying 11 or more persons), the standard requires installation of a lap belt for the driver. The passenger seats on buses are not required to have belts, but lap belts may be installed if desired. For smaller van-type "buses" (i.e., those carrying 10 or fewer persons) and for passenger cars, the standard requires installation of lap-and-shoulder belts for the driver and right-front passenger positions, and lap belts for all other seating positions.

Safety belt usage requirements are established by the states, not by the Federal government. To date, 14 states have enacted safety belt use laws, and two other states have belt use laws awaiting gubernatorial approval. Those laws generally require belt usage only in passenger cars; we are not aware of any state which requires belt usage in buses. Moreover, as a practical matter, belt use requirements are limited to the equipment actually installed in the vehicle. This agency does urge all motorists to use safety belts wherever they are available, regardless of whether usage is required by state law.

In your letter, you stated your disapproval of state laws that require the use of safety belts by motorists. You expressed concerns that being restrained by a belt would be unsafe in an accident and that belt usage laws invade your privacy. We appreciate this opportunity to explain our position on those issues relating to belt usage laws, and hope that this discussion will help shed some light on this very important topic.

You seem to believe that the chances of escaping injury in a crash are greater if safety belts are not worn. Our accident data clearly show that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. Our traffic records show that venicle occupants who do not wear their safety belts are nearly twice as likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries than belted occupants. One important reason is that belt usage reduces that likelihood of being thrown outside the vehicle in a crash. We estimate that ejected occupants are 25 times more likely to be killed than those who remain inside the car. Even in the rare cases of vehicle fires or submersion under water, the use of a safety belt improves the chances for survival by keeping the occupants conscious and uninjured so that they may escape quickly.

While we believe the evidence is overwhelming as to the benefits of safety belt usage, we recognize that there are always a few exceptions to the general rule. We are aware that belt usage is not a panacea; some accidents are so severe that injuries or fatalities will result regardless of whether any occupant protection systems are used. However, we believe that the preliminary data from New York, the first state to enact a belt use law, confirms our belief in the lifesaving potential of belt usage. The New York belt usage law went into effect on January 1 of this year and belt usage climbed to roughly 60 percent, and traffic deaths during the first six months of the year declined by 18 percent compared to the same period last year.

We recognize that a safety belt use law requires an action that many people do not take voluntarily. However, all traffic laws involve some restraint on individual behavior. Most are accepted without a second thought: we drive on the right side of the road, obey speed limits and stop at red lignts. In many cases, the failure of motorists to obey these laws will have an impact on other motorists as well as themselves. The same is true for failing to wear safety belts, because automobile accidents have many "victims"--family, friends, employers and taxpayers--all of whom bear some measure of the human and economic cost. During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic injuries and deaths have resulted in an annual cost to society of $57 billion resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenues. We believe tnat the relatively small intrusion resulting from safety belt use laws is justified by the substantial societal burden of vehicle-related deaths and injury.

Thank you again for sharing your views witn us. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: Huser.1

Mr. Ken Huser
Eldorado National, Kansas
1655 Wall Street
Salina, KS 67401

Dear Mr. Huser:

This responds to your recent e-mail to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you ask whether our regulations include requirements for the activation (illumination) of clearance, identification, and side marker lamps on vehicles of 80 inches or more in overall width. Your correspondence stated that you are seeking confirmation of this point because a customer is requesting that you modify a vehicle equipped with front clearance lamps to provide a switch that would allow the operator to turn off those lamps. The answer to your questions is no, although other Federal or State laws may apply in this situation.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571). After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

The requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. As you point out in your e-mail, paragraph S5.5.7 of the standard sets forth activation (illumination) requirements for certain lamps on passenger cars, motorcycles, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses less than 80 inches in overall width (e.g., when the parking lamps are activated, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated). It is also correct that, in certain cases, the standard specifies activation requirements for certain lamps on all vehicles, such as paragraph S5.5.3, which provides that the taillamps on each vehicle shall be activated when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state. However, the standard contains no similar requirements for any electrical wiring or switching relationship between the clearance, identification, and side marker lamps on vehicles of 80 inches or more in overall width, and any other required lamps.

However, I would note that other authorities with jurisdiction over vehicles operational safety may have addressed this issue, so you may wish to make further inquiries before undertaking modifications to the vehicle in question. Specifically, the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You may wish to contact FMCSA at (202) 366-4009 to obtain further information regarding any FMCSA regulations dealing with vehicle operating requirements related to lighting.

In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State where the vehicle will be used regarding any such requirements.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.10/6/04

ID: aiam2245

Dear Mr. Chauvin: This responds to your February 20, 1976, question whether this agenc considers Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, preemptive of New York State law or regulations mandating a 28-inch-high back and armrests for school bus passenger seating. Section 103(d) provides (15 U.S.C. S1392(d)):; >>>S 103<<< >>>(d) Whenever a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Standard No. 222 specifies a formula for minimum seat back height tha necessitates a heights of at least 20 inches. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 20 inches, is preempted under S 103(d).; The second sentence of S 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on safet regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, New York State or its political subdivisions could specify a seat back height higher than 20 inches in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.; There are presently no requirements in Standard No. 222 dealing wit armrests on school bus passenger seating. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standards on school bus seating performance were intended generally to cover this aspect of performance, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in *Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger*, No. CIV 574-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul*, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is 'whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field.' Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as *Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is 'of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'; The NHTSA has determined that the requirement for armrests by New Yor State does not conflict with or otherwise impair our present regulation of school bus passenger seating, and that armrests are not within the intended scope of the present Federal safety standards. Therefore, Standard No. 222 is not preemptive of the New York State regulation of armrests.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-2.10

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dekalb County School System Service Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Harry W. Reynolds, Supervisor Fleet Maintenance Division DeKalb County School System Service Center 1780 Montreal Road Tucker, Georgia 30084

Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This responds to your July 27, 1979, letter which asked whether any Federal law or regulations would prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting the gasoline fuel systems in its school buses to propane fuel or dual propane/ gasoline fuel systems. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to school buses manufactured in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75 and with respect to school buses manufactured before that standard's effective date. You also asked which persons may perform the conversions. As explained below, the laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) neither prohibit such a conversion of a school bus, regardless of whether it was initially manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, nor specify which persons may perform such conversions.

Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, promulgated by this agency pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 ("the Act") specifies performance requirements for the fuel systems of new motor vehicles, including school buses, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (e.g., gasoline).

New vehicles, such as school buses, that have not yet been sold and delivered to a purchaser where the school district) for purposes other than resale and that have been manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 may be converted to propane and dual propane/gasoline systems. However, any person or entity, other than the purchaser, such as a manufacturer, dealer, or automobile repair business, who performs the conversion would be considered an alterer under NHTSA regulations.

An alterer is required to attach an additional label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). Upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a propane-powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would cease to apply since propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and the standard applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a higher boiling point. Therefore, the alterer would not be required to certify the school bus's continuing compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. However, upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a dual powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would remain applicable and the alterer would be required to certify the vehicle's continued compliance with that standard and all other applicable safety standards.

The installer of a propane or dual propane/gasoline system in a new vehicle would be responsible for any Safety related defects arising from the method of installation. The manufacturer of the system would be responsible for any safety related defects in the system itself. Thus, if a new school bus were found to contain a safety related defect following the addition of a new fuel system the installer or manufacturer, respectively, would be required to notify vehicle owners of any defects and to remedy these defects. (Sections 151 et seq. of the Act, see enclosure). Also, please note if a propane or a dual propane/gasoline system were installed in a used school bus and was later found to contain any safety related defects, the manufacturer of the system would be responsible for notifying vehicle owners of the defect and for remedying them.

Used vehicles manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of that standard, may also be converted. Nothing in the Act prohibits a vehicle owner from modifying his own vehicles. Moreover, no law administered by the NHTSA prohibits other persons or entities such as manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair business from modifying used vehicles.

This means that the DeKalb County School District would not be prohibited from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacture, to propane or to dual-powered buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business. none of these persons or entities would be prohibited from doing the work.

However, such persons and entities could be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, if they converted used vehicles No. 301-75. The section provides in relevant part that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device, or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with Safety Standard No. 301-75, if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modification of the safety systems in a vehicle that is being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the safety standards that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a used gasoline-powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) to a propane-powered school bus, the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to Safety Standard No. 301-75, since this standard, as noted earlier, does not apply to propane-powered school buses.

However, there could be liability under this section in connection with Safety Standard No. 301-75 if, for example, one of the listed persons or entities converted a used gasoline-powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) into a dual-powered school bus. In this situation, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would continue to apply to the school bus after the conversion. Thus, if in performing the conversion one of the listed persons or entities knowingly compromised the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75 while adding the propane system, that person or entity would have violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this response helpful.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 27, 1979

Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation National Highway Safety Traffic Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir:

The DeKalb County School System currently operates a fleet of 350 school buses which consume approximately 1,000,000 gallons of gasoline annually. We have been considering a number of proposals that would enable us to reduce our annual gasoline requirements. One concept that seems very appealing would be the conversion of gasoline school buses to liquid propane. As we consider liquid propane aa an alternate fuel source, we need the advice and counsel of your department, The following are some matters of concern, and any help you could give to us would be appreciated. 1. Are there any Federal laws or governmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting pre FMVSS-301 buses to liquid propane? 2. Are there any Federal laws or governmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting school buses equipped with FMVSS-301 fuel system? 3. Are there any Federal laws or govermmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from installing one propane tank and leaving the existing fuel system intact so the vehicle can be powered by a dual system of gasoline and liquid propane? 4. If these conversions can be performed, by whom may they be performed? (the manufacturer, a dealer, a propane supply, or the DeKalb County School System's Fleet Maintenance Division) Our concern for fuel conservation has prompted us to seek your advice and counsel. We have looked into this matter and find ourselves in an uncertain postre due to thhe regulations concernig safety systems originally certified as part of the school bus and by the Safety Standard FMVSS-301. Your counsel will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Harry Wayne Reynolds, Supervisor Fleet Maintenance Division HWR/mb

ID: aiam2758

Dear Mr. Holloway: This is in further reply to your September 16, 1977, letter askin whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled 'Farm Tire' on a passenger car.; We inadvertently neglected to point out in our February 14, 1978 response to your letter that any tire which is marked with a Department of Transportation (DOT) symbol is presumed to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to it. Any tire with such a symbol may therefore be mounted on a motor vehicle without violation of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the former tires are removed, regardless of the appearance of words associating the tire with farm use.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4561

"Dear Mr. Lender: This responds to your November 10, 1988 lette concerning the importation of windshields for vintage buses produced from 1955 through 1962. You indicated that these windshields are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), but asserted that the windshields 'do meet all other regulations.' You suggested that you ought to be permitted to import these windshields even though they are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, because the windshields will only fit buses manufactured between 1955 and 1962, whereas Standard No. 205 did not become effective until January 1, 1968. This suggestion is incorrect. Your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling windshields that are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205 if the windshields were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. I have recently discussed this topic at length in a September 12, 1988 letter to Mr. Steve Zlotkin (copy enclosed). To briefly repeat, Standard No. 205 requires all items of glazing material for use in motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of the standard) to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. It is the date of manufacture of the glazing material itself, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing material will be installed, that determines whether the glazing material must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205. Your letter indicated that your company conferred with Mr. Francis Armstrong, formerly the director of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, and that you 'were given permission' to import similar windshields in 1985. I regret any misunderstanding you may have had of the long-established agency position on this question as a result of this conference. The agency's interpretation that it is the date of manufacture of the glazing that determines whether it is subject to Standard No. 205, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing is to be installed, was first announced in a May 8, 1967 letter to Mr. Earl Kintner (copy enclosed). Every time the agency has been asked this question for the past 21 years, it has repeated the position originally taken in the letter to Mr. Kintner. If anyone in this agency has ever given you or your company a different response to this question, the response did not reflect the agency's position. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";