ID: 9063

Mr. John M. Tolliday
President
Dayman USA Inc.
P.O. Box 824
Bedford, VA 24523

Dear Mr. Tolliday:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars". The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine.

For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Given the configuration and original military character of the Ferret, we believe that its manufacturer intended that its use of the public roads would be incidental and not primary. Therefore, we have concluded that the Ferret was not a "motor vehicle" at the time of its manufacture.

The question arises whether removal of the Ferret's armament and its importation for civilian use cause it to become a "motor vehicle" for purposes of our regulations. At first blush, it would appear that the status of a vehicle is permanently determined at the time of its manufacture. This is true with respect to vehicles manufactured and operated exclusively in the United States no matter what modifications are subsequently made. The general provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act do not apply once a domestic vehicle has been sold. As a hypothetical example, the agency does not consider an all-terrain vehicle to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, hence it is not a "motor vehicle". Were an owner to modify it so that it could be licensed for use, the original intent of the manufacturer would have been superseded by that of the modifier, but the Act does not impose any obligation upon the modifier to conform the all-terrain vehicle to any Federal safety standards that might apply to its type.

The situation differs with respect to imported vehicles. The status of a vehicle is judged as of the time of entry. Returning to our all-terrain vehicle hypothetical, if the vehicle has been modified before it enters the United States so that its primary use will be on the public roads, we would regard it as a "motor vehicle" subject to compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to the Ferret, we believe that more than removal of its armament is required to cause it to become a "motor vehicle". The issue of armament is essentially irrelevant to its character as an off-road or on-road vehicle. The Ferret remains an armored vehicle of limited visibility and of no apparent greater utility for on-road civilian purposes such as transportation of passengers and cargo than it possessed before removal of the armament. It retains the same high ground clearance as it has always possessed, supporting your statement that it will be sold for use on the public roads. We therefore conclude that, as modified, the Ferret will not be a "motor vehicle" subject to our regulations, and that they may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal standards.

Those military vehicles that are manufactured primarily for on-road use are "motor vehicles". However, in recognition of the fact that conformance with the Federal safety standards might compromise their ability to fulfill their military mission, the agency has exempted from compliance those motor vehicles that have been manufactured for the armed forces of the United States in accordance with contractual specifications. This exclusion does not apply to foreign military vehicles. Thus, for example, were you seeking to import for resale in the United States trucks of the British Army, they would have to be brought into conformance with applicable truck standards.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591#VSA d:3/16/94

ID: Morgenstern.1

Mr. Howard Morgenstern
144-32 72nd Road
Flushing, NY 11367

Dear Mr. Morgenstern:

This responds to your June 14, 2004, letter in which you request interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked about the light transmissibility requirements for windows on minivans and what vehicle classification a minivan would have under the standard. Your letter explained that you received a ticket in New York City because the rear window on the drivers side of your Ford Windstar had "excessive tint," which the ticket characterized as less than 70% light transmissibility. Based upon the facts presented, we believe that the rear windows on your minivan are not subject to any light transmissibility requirement under FMVSS No. 205, although they may be subject to requirements under State law.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS

No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways Standard ANSI Z26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a-1980 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "ANSI Z26.1").

One requirement of FMVSS No. 205 involves the light transmissibility of glazing. The items of glazing to which these light transmissibility requirements apply depend upon the type of vehicle and the location of the glazing. For example, in passenger cars, all glazing required for driver visibility must meet a light transmissibility requirement of 70% (excluding any shade band), which essentially includes the windshield, all driver and passenger side windows, and the rear window (see ANSI Z26.1 Table 1).

However, for buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), only windshields, driver and passenger front side windows, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility need to meet the 70% light transmissibility requirement (see ANSI Z26.1 Table 1). The standard does not specify a light transmissibility requirement for any other windows on these types of vehicles.

Under NHTSAs statutory authority (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) and regulations, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance, and such classification is required to be included on the vehicle certification label (see 49 CFR 567.4(g)(7)). (Definitions for the terms "passenger car," "multipurpose passenger vehicle," and "truck" are provided under our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions.)NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle, although the agency may reexamine the manufacturers classification in the course of any enforcement actions.

Although we have not examined your vehicle or its certification label, we recognize that most minivans are properly classified as MPVs or trucks. We would expect that the Ford Windstar is similarly classified. Consequently, if our assumption is correct, only the windshield, driver and passenger front side windows, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility would be subject to the 70% light transmissibility requirement under FMVSS No. 205.

However, as discussed in our November 9, 2001, letter of interpretation to Terry W. Wagar (copy enclosed), NHTSA decided in a 1998 rulemaking not to regulate light transmittance levels of light truck and MPV rear and rear side glazing under FMVSS No. 205. In that rulemaking, the agency also stated that States are free to set light transmittance levels for those windows on those vehicles (see 63 FR 37820, 37827 (July 14, 1998)). Thus, Federal law would not preempt State laws that specify light transmissibility requirements for such windows. However, we cannot advise you as to the requirements of New York law.

If you have any 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

Enclosure
Ref:205
d.8/20/04

ID: nht69-2.41

DATE: 04/23/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: IFFISA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We regret the delay in replying to your letter of January 15, 1969, to Dr. William Haddon, Jr., concerning regulations applicable to replicas of antique automobiles which you manufacture.

As a general rule, motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in order to be imported into the United States. Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) requires that manufacturers permanently affix a tag or label to the motor vehicle certifying that the motor vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) established under authority of Section 103 of the Act. Your vehicles would properly be classified as passenger cars. Thus the FMVSS applicable to this classification would apply. The above standards are currently applicable only to motor vehicles over 1,000 pounds curb weight. Curb weight includes a full bad of engine fuel, oil, and coolant as defined in 49 CFR 371.3. In accordance with a proposed rule making published in 32 FR, page 14282, October 14, 1967, the Administrator is considering adding new standards applicable to motor vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight, and revising certain of the initial standards to extend their applicability to these motor vehicles. Comments have been received from industry and a discussion paper on the subject prepared. This discussion paper will be mailed to industry in the near furture, together with a notice of a meeting to be held on the subject. Your name is being added to the mailing list for this information.

19 CFR 12.80, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment, was jointly issued and published by the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Treasury in implementation of Section 108(b)(3) of the Act. This regulation makes provision for importation of certain motor vehicles not conforming to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, subject to specific conditions.

An amendment to the Act has granted authority to the Secretary of Transportation, based upon certain specified findings, to exempt temporarily, a limited production motor vehicle from any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. A limited production motor vehicle is defined as a motor vehicle produced by a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production, as determined by the Secretary, does not exceed 500 annually. It is to be noted, however, that exemptions are granted to the person actually producing the motor vehicle, not to the importer or distributor of such motor vehicle. Regulations for petitioning for an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 355.5.

In the United States, motor vehicles are licensed for operation by each of the states and the District of Columbia. A letter addressed to the State Department of Motor Vehicles in the capitol city of the states in which you intend marketing your product, should reach an individual who can provide you with information regarding state licensing requirements.

While you did not inquire about Federal regulations concerning control of anti-pollution emission devices, this is another area of possible effect in your situation. These regulations are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation but of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. By copy of this letter, Mr. William H. Megonnell, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Compliance, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, BCT, 801 North Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22203, is being requested to forward such information as he deems appropriate.

Publications of the Socity of Automotive Engineers (SAE), including copies of SAE Standards, may be obtained by writing to: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 2 Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York, 1001.

For your information and guidance, enclosed are copies of the Act, as amended; the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, (49 CFR 351, 353, 355 and 371); 19 CFR 12.80, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment; Declaration Form HS-7, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the proposed rule making, Docket 5-1.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht72-2.35

DATE: 02/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: D. M. Schwentker, Esq. -- Busby, Rivkin, Sherman and Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of November 30, 1971, you ask if you may assume certain statements to be true. My reply lists your statements and discusses each separately.

"1. 571.5(a) applies to SAE Standards and Recommended Practices subreferenced by the SAE Standards and Recommended Practices referenced in the Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standards contained in Part 571 as well as to the primary references.

The Initial Standards incorporate many SAE materials, probably due in large part to the statutory mandate that they be based upon existing standards. The intent of 571.5(a) appears to be to insure that those materials are legitimately incorporated into the Federal requirements, and that materials subject to change are in fact "frozen" as of a day certain, so that the Federal Standards are not subject to attack on grounds of vagueness. J575 is not directly "referred to" in Standard No. 106, but since its inclusion in Standard No. 108 is required to complete the structure of the Standard, I do not regard a direct reference as necessary to bring it within the ambit of 571.5(a). The SAE Standards that are part of Standard No. 108 "refer" to J575 and this is sufficient.

"2. [Materials] . . . 'in effect on the date of adoption of this Part . . . means [materials] . . . in effect on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard or regulation in which they are referenced . . .'

The answer is obviously "yes" with reference to the Initial Standards; February 3, 1967, was both the "date of adoption of this Part" as well as "the date of publication in the Federal Register of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard or regulation in which they are referenced."

The answer is "no" with respect to Standards published after February 3, 1967. Section 571.5(a) says that materials subject to change incorporated in any Standard published subsequent to February 3, 1967, are those in effect on February 3, 1967, unless the reference to them provides otherwise.

"3. '. . . in effect . . .' with respect to SAE Standards and Recommended Practices means formally adopted by SAE although not necessarily printed in the SAE Handbook.

In the strict legal sense, an SAE Standard is never "in effect" since adherence to it is voluntary. One revision supersedes another but cannot be said legally to "revoke" it, ending its "effectivity."

SAE Standards do not have effective dates. They bear an identifying month and year indicating when the latest revision was approved by the appropriate SAE approval body. Thus, J575d, November 1966, means that the (Illegible Word) was approved by the SAE lighting committee in November 1966. J575d was then printed and circulated to SAE members in January 1967, subsequently appearing in the 1968 Handbook.

J575d then was "in effect" on February 3, 1967 end before appearing in the 1968 Handbook, whether considered as becoming effective upon approval by the SAE lighting committee or upon publication and distribution to SAE members.

"4. SAE J575d is the revision subreferenced in Table III of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (32 F.R. 18033) under passenger cars, tail lamps (effective January 1, 1969).

Yes. Standard No. 108 was amended to adopt Table III in December 1967, based upon a proposal published on February 3, 1967. The agency did not manifest its intent, in the SPRM or any correspondence that I have been able to discover, that the referenced and subreferenced SAE Standards in the proposed standard were those appearing in the 1967 Handbook (e.g. J575c). It is a general SAE policy, however, as expressed in its Handbooks, that where revision letters are not used, the assumption is that references to Standards will designate the latest revision. Since J575d had been published and circulated in January 1967, it may be reviewed as incorporated by reference into those SAE materials referencing J575 that were part of the NPRM of February 3, 1967.

I hope this answers your questions.

ID: nht91-1.42

DATE: February 15, 1991

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- NHTSA

TO: John D. Dingell -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-10-90 from John D. Dingell to Jerry R. Curry; Also attached to letter dated 1-9-90 from Mehdi Rowghani to Taylor Vinson; Also attached to letter dated 4-9-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Mehdi Rowghani

TEXT:

Your letter of July 10, 1990 about the applicability of NHTSA's safety standards to replacement parts was misplaced. This is indeed unfortunate, embarrassing, and I can assure you extraordinary. You asked me to review an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter from our Office of Chief Counsel to Mr. Rowghani, which indicated that Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, applies only to new vehicles, and not to doors sold as replacement parts.

In view of your concern about replacement parts, we have reviewed that interpretation, and our authority regarding replacement parts. Many of our safety standards apply only to complete vehicles, while others apply only to the individual components (whether original or replacement equipment). Some apply both to vehicles and to the components involved. Each of our standards includes an "Application" section, which clearly defines the scope of coverage, based on the nature of the safety issue and the vehicle/equipment items involved.

NHTSA's standards which apply to equipment (both original and replacement equipment) generally cover those types of items which can be used in many different vehicle lines, which are frequently replaced or sold separately, and which can be independently tested. These include such items as brake hoses (Standard 106), lamps and reflectors (Standard 108), tires (Standards 109, 117 and 119), windows and windshields (Standard 205), safety belt assemblies (Standard 209), child safety seats (Standard 213), and motorcycle safety helmets (Standard 218). Other safety systems require testing in a full-vehicle context, and our safety standards are applied to the vehicle rather than the component. Examples include brake performance (Standards 105 and 121), occupant crash protection (Standard 208), head restraints (Standard 202) and roof-crush resistance (Standard 216), as well as side-door strength.

As noted in the April 9 letter, Standard 214 applies only to whole cars, not to replacement parts, as stated in the application section (see S2 of Standard 214, copy enclosed). While most manufacturers have chosen to meet the Standard by adding reinforcement beams, we are aware of at least one vehicle (a gray-market imported Mercedes-Benz) which passed the standard's compliance test without such a beam. Further, while intuitively it seems that doors without a reinforcement beam are not as safe as ones with a beam, efforts to document a safety problem have been unsuccessful.

The current compliance procedures specify testing a door as part of a new vehicle (see S4 of Standard 214), since it does not appear feasible to specify an appropriate procedure for testing an individual new door (whether original or replacement) by itself. The reason for this is that a door's performance in resisting intrusion is dependent not only on the structure of the door itself, but also other factors such as the vehicle frame into which the door fits, and the hinges and latches which hold the door in place within the frame. In addition, vehicle seats may help resist intrusion and protect occupants. The current standard reflects these factors.

While the current standard does not apply to replacement doors, NHTSA has full authority to pursue any alleged safety problems with doors or any other vehicle components under the "defects" provision of the Safety Act. If evidence demonstrated that certain replacement doors presented an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, the agency could order the manufacturer of such doors to repair or replace such doors. At the present time, however, we are not aware of a safety problem with replacement doors that would warrant the commencement of a defects investigation.

I appreciate your interest in the safety of vehicle parts and hope this information is helpful. For further discussion of the legal issues regarding the applicability of standards, your staff should feel free to contact our Chief Counsel, Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, at 366-9511.

ID: nht92-7.42

DATE: April 13, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Neil Friedkin -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/24/92 from Neil Friedkin to Erica Z. Jones (OCC 7027)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the certification of a converted vehicle. You explained that your client leased a 1986 Mercedes and that as part of the lease agreement, Coachbuilders Ltd converted the vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. In a pending lawsuit, your client is alleging that Coachbuilders did not recertify the vehicle after conversion and that the conversion did not conform with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381). You asked the agency to explain our regulations about conversion and recertification. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The agency's certification regulation requires the manufacturer of a new vehicle to certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture (S567.4 and S567.5). Persons that alter certified vehicles before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale are required to allow the original certification label to remain in place and to add an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered continues to conform to all applicable standards (S567.7).

Once a vehicle is purchased for purposes other than resale, there is no requirement for an alterer to certify the vehicle's compliance with the standards. The Safety Act, in S114, requires manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles to certify the vehicles' compliance, but does not extend this requirement to other persons. The Safety Act further provides, in S108 (b)(1), that the requirement for a vehicle to comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

In this case, we would consider the purchase by the leasing company to be the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. If the modifications were made before that purchase, the modifier would have been required by S567.7 to certify that the altered vehicle continued to conform with the applicable safety standards. If, however, the modifications were made after the leasing company had purchased the vehicle, the modifier would not have been required to make any certification that the modified vehicle continued to conform to all applicable safety standards.

If modifications were made after the leasing company purchased the vehicle, the only provision of Federal law that would apply would be section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides in relevant part 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 or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from a hard-top to a convertible) do not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition, as long as the converted vehicle complies with those safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type.

In the case of your client's 1986 Mercedes, there would be no violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition if the car, as modified, complied with those standards that were applicable to 1986 convertible passenger cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: positioningSID_VenieroPizzagalli

Mr. Veniero Pizzagalli
Ferrari S.p.a.
Abetone Inferiore 4
Maranello MO Italy 41053 P




Dear Mr. Pizzagalli:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, Side Impact Protection, concerning the positioning of the Side Impact Dummy (SID) for purposes of conducting the FMVSS No. 214 moving deformable barrier (MDB) test. You are having difficulty in placing the SID in a new sport seat that will be mounted in some of your future cars.

S7 of FMVSS No. 214 specifies positioning procedures for the SID. S7.1.1 and S7.1.2 specify that a SID placed in a bucket seat at the drivers seating position and at the right front passenger seating position, respectively, is to be positioned such that "[t]he upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back. " The standard also specifies, at S7.2.1, that the H-point of the dummy is to coincide within inch in the vertical dimension and inch in the horizontal dimension of a point inch below the position of the H-point determined by using the equipment for the 50^th percentile and procedures specified in SAE J826 (with certain exceptions). In addition, the standard specifies, at S6.4, that adjustable seat backs are placed in the manufacturers nominal design riding position in the manner specified by the manufacturer. S6.4 states that, if the position is not specified, the seat back will be set at the first detent rearward of 25 from the vertical.

You state in your letter that, when the SID is placed in the sport seat, there is a space of 78 mm from the back of the dummy to the seat back. The middle of the dummys back cannot rest against the seat because the torso makes contact with the "wings" of the seatback. You suggest five different ways that the dummy could be positioned in the seat and ask if any of these are acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

NHTSA would not use the first four options you suggest. The first approach you suggest involves resting the dummys torso against the wings of the seat but not having the H-point of the dummy in the zone described by S7.2.1. NHTSA would need to

position the H-point as specified in S7.2.1. Your second option calls for forcing the dummy into the seat and against the seat back, possibly using tape or a harness to hold the dummy against the seat back. We would prefer not using artificial means to restrain the dummy in the test. The third option you suggest is to cut a portion of the dummys partial arms or remove them, thereby avoiding contact of the arms with the seat wings. We cannot modify the SID as you suggest other than through a rulemaking proceeding. Your fourth option involves reclining the seat back such that the dummys back is reclined at a 25 tilt angle. We would not use this fourth approach because the seat back angle will be greater than 25 degrees and the dummys back does not make contact with the seat back.

Your fifth approach appears usable. This approach involves tilting the seat back such that the dummys back contacts the seat back at the wings. We would consider the wings of the seat to be part of the seat back, so contact with the wings satisfies the provision that the dummy contact the seat back. The H-point of the dummy would be maintained in the permitted tolerance zone of S7.2.1. The seat back would be positioned as specified in S6.4. The dummys back angle will be less than 25 degrees, but the test procedures do not specify that the angle of the back must be 25 degrees.

I hope this answers your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:214
d.11/3/05

ID: speedrestrictedtires

Stephen M. Padula
Michelin North America
One Parkway South
P.O. Box 19001
Greenville, SC 29602

Dear Mr. Padula:

This responds to your letter asking whether a manufacturer may make certain statements about using 315/80R22.5 LR L truck tires marked with a 55 miles per hour (mph ) speed restriction on the sidewall ("speed-restricted tires") at speeds above 55 mph. You note that a competitor has made these or similar statements in technical information about the tires, and you want to know whether the statements are permitted. Our answer is the statements are not permitted for speed-restricted tires.

You ask about two statements in the manufacturers technical information about the tire. The first concerns information stating that the tire bearing a maximum speed marking of 55 mph, rated at 10,000 pounds/tire at a cold pressure of 130 psi "may not be operated at a sustained speed in excess of 55 mph. Sustained speed is defined as continuous operation at that speed for over one hour. The absolute maximum speed for tires with 55 mph speed restrictions is 65 mph." The second relates to statements that the "tires are speed restricted as listed below [55 mph]. This is due to very high loads associated with these Load Range L tires. When these tires are operated at or below the Load Range "J" (18 PR) loads, they can be operated at 65 mph and the listed speed restriction does not apply."

Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicle Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119), permits speed-restricted tires, but only under certain conditions. Under S6.5(e) of the standard, the speed restriction must be marked on the tire sidewall. In describing the information that must be marked, S6.5(e) states: "The speed restriction of the tire, if 55 mi/h or less, shown as follows: Max speed ____ mph."^[1] In other words, the speed restriction must not exceed 55 mph. Speed-restricted tires are generally excluded from the high speed performance requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 119. In addition, they are subject to a less stringent endurance test schedule (a lower test speed and fewer total revolutions of the test wheel), as shown in Table III of the standard. Since the requirements for speed-restricted tires reflect their anticipated speed-restricted use, it is important that there is an appropriate safeguard ensuring that the tires will not be used at higher speeds. Labeling the tires with a maximum 55 mph speed restriction helps to ensure that the tires will not be used under conditions exceeding the speed restriction marked on the tires.

The first group of statements you describe instruct that the tire may be operated at speeds up to 65 mph for periods not to exceed one hour. We believe that the statements about using the tires at speeds up to 65 mph conflicts with the 55 mph speed restriction labeled on the tire. If the statements are provided, we will not consider the tire to be speed-restricted since it is recommended for use above 55 mph. Thus, the tire would have to meet the requirements that apply to a non-speed-restricted tire.

The second group of statements includes an instruction that, "When these tires are operated at or below the Load Range J (18 PR) loads, they can be operated at 65 mph and the listed speed restriction does not apply." We would not consider the tire to be speed-restricted when the manufacturer has provided that statement. The tire would be tested to the requirements for non-speed-restricted tires under the appropriate load.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ref:119

d.8/6/02

^[1] Effective May 27, 2003, this section will read: "The speed restriction of the tire, if 88 km/h (55 mph) or less, shown as follows: Max speed __ km/h (___mph)."

ID: ToyotaLSA_cmcv2

Chris Tinto, Director, Technical & Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the proper positioning of a leg support system during a crash test specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. As explained below, Toyota is correct in its understanding that the leg support system described in your letter is to be adjusted as an "other seat adjustment" under FMVSS No. 208.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less (65 FR 30680; Advanced air bag rule). That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance the protection of small and mid-size adults. The advanced air bag rule established a rigid barrier dynamic crash test using a 5^th percentile adult female test dummy. Since the advanced air bag rule was established, the agency has amended FMVSS No. 208 on several occasions, in part to provide clearer and more objective test procedures for use of the 5^th percentile adult female in testing.

In your letter, you explained that the Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) has developed a "leg support adjustment system (LSA)," which extends the forward edge of a seat cushion to provide additional support to the thighs of taller occupants. As further described in a conversation between Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff and Ms. Christina Mullen of Toyota, the system extends the front trim of the seat by mechanical means. As additionally explained in your letter, the LSA is engaged by an occupant through an adjustment switch on the side of a seat. Your letter then asked if the LSA would be adjusted according to S16.2.10.2, Other seat adjustments, under the FMVSS No. 208 test procedure for the rigid barrier 5^th percentile female crash test.

S16.2.10 of FMVSS No. 208 provides the specifications for the driver and passenger seat set-up conditions for the rigid barrier 5^th percentile female crash test. S16.2.10.1, Lumbar support adjustment, specifies the proper position for lumbar support adjustments. S16.2.10.2 specifies the proper positioning of seat adjustments that provide additional support, other than a lumbar support adjustment. As originally adopted in the advanced air bag rule, this provision specifically referred to seat cushion and seat back side bolster adjustments.

In response to the advanced air bag rule, a manufacturer asked what would be required for vehicles with seat cushions that could be lengthened or shortened. In response, the agency amended the seat positioning procedure to specify the position for adjustable seat parts that provide the occupant additional support (66 FR 65376; December 18, 2001). The December 2001 final rule amended S16.2.10.2 to read:

Other seat adjustments. Position any adjustable parts of the seat that provide additional support so that they are in the lowest or most open adjustment position.

The LSA, as described in your letter, performs the same type of function as the seat cushion which gave rise to the amended S16.2.10.2. Therefore, that section specifies the position of the LSA.

Based on the diagrams you provided, it appears that the forwardmost edge of the seat cushion is higher in relation to the floor pan when the LSA is extended as opposed to when the LSA is fully retracted. S16.2.10.2 specifies that a vehicle equipped with an LSA would be tested with the LSA in the lowest position. Therefore, if we were to test a vehicle equipped with a LSA, we would place the LSA in its shortest and lowest position.

I hope you find this helpful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/27/04

ID: Copy of 05-009466drn