ID: nht95-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 28, 1995

FROM: R F Tolley -- Senior Development Engineer, New Products Office, Magneti Marelli UK Ltd. Lighting Division

TO: Chief Council -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/8/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO R. F. TOLLEY (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Chief Council

Question concerning FMVSS108

External Aiming - Torque/Deflection Test

I would like to raise a question with you concerning the interpretation of the torque/deflection test contained in FMVSS108 section S7.8.5.1.(a).

I understand that this test is to take into account the weight of beam aiming equipment when aiming lamps. However I believe the instructions for performing the test are not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in different ways.

Please see attached sketch which I have used to explain my query. In order to determine the downward force which is applied to the lamp, so as to cause the lamp aim to rotate downward, it is necessary to define the centre of rotation of the force. Sinc e torque = downward force multiplied by the distance to the centre of rotation of the force, then

downward force = Torque (20lbf.in) / distance to the centre of rotation of the force

My question is, where is the centre of rotation of the force taken to be? Is it?

a) the centre of the aiming pad pattern,

b) the point at which the axis (which passes through the centre of the aiming pad pattern and is perpendicular to the aiming reference plane), passes through the aiming reference plane,

c) the centroid of the reflector,

d) the centre of rotation of the headlamp assumed to be the centre of the pattern formed by the headlamp adjusters,

e) some other point.

With large, angled modern lamps the difference between the above points can be great, therefore it is important to select the correct point.

In summary my question is- When applying a downward force to create a downward torque (with respect to lamp aim), where is the centre of rotation of the force taken to be?

Attachment: FMVSS 108 EXTERNAL AIMING TORQUE DEFLECTION TEST

(Graphics omitted.)

ID: ES16-001603 Listou Trailer Response

ID: nht94-7.4

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark Archer -- Orbital Engine Company Pty. Ltd. (Australia)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 10/5/93 from Mark Archer to NHTSA (OCC 9183)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you asked if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations affecting a vehicle that has an automatic engine shut-off device that operates when the vehicle remains idle for extended periods. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background information, NHTSA administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," copy enclosed) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights these responsibilities.

We cannot tell from your letter whether you seek to produce a vehicle that has a shut-off device installed as original equipment ("O.E."), i.e., prior to a first sale to a consumer, or produce the device as an "aftermarket" item of equipment, sold for installation in used vehicles. We will discuss both situations in this letter.

A shut-off device may not be installed on a new vehicle if the device causes the vehicle not to comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 102, "Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect," states that "the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." (S3.1.3). NHTSA does not know of any shut-off device that would enable a vehicle to meet S3.1.3 of Standard 102. In 1984, NHTSA terminated rulemaking on an action that would have amended S3.1.3 to permit a shut-off device that restarted the vehicle's engine when the accelerator is depressed. A copy of the termination notice is enclosed. The agency terminated rulemaking citing a number of safety concerns with the particular features of the shut-off device that was the subject of the rulemaking. NHTSA stated in the notice that, if in the future a more effective and safe fuel saving device is developed, NHTSA would again consider amending Standard 102. However, given that S3.1.3 of Standard 102 was not amended, that section precludes the O.E. installation on a shut-off device such as the one described in the termination notice.

With respect to the aftermarket installation of a shut-off device, there is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product. Standard 102 applies only to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket components of a vehicle's transmission, such as a shut-off device.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of a shut-off device. Under the Safety Act, the product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As explained above, each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ...." This means that if a shut-off device were sold in the "aftermarket," no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business could install it if doing so would render inoperative any previously certified item of equipment in the vehicle. As explained above, each motor vehicle is certified as meeting Standard 102. A shut-off device that causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard 102 could not be installed by any person listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) without subjecting that person to civil penalties (section l09 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of S108).

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. However, NHTSA urges all owners not to perform modifications that would degrade the safety of their vehicles, such as installing a fuel shut-off device that raises significant safety concerns.

I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark Archer -- Orbital Engine Company Pty. Ltd. (Australia)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 10/5/93 from Mark Archer to NHTSA (OCC 9183)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you asked if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations affecting a vehicle that has an automatic engine shut-off device that operates when the vehicle remains idle for extended pe riods. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background information, NHTSA administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," copy enclosed) est ablishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exerc ise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines th at a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncom plying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights these responsibilities.

We cannot tell from your letter whether you seek to produce a vehicle that has a shut-off device installed as original equipment ("O.E."), i.e., prior to a first sale to a consumer, or produce the device as an "aftermarket" item of equipment, sold for in stallation in used vehicles. We will discuss both situations in this letter.

A shut-off device may not be installed on a new vehicle if the device causes the vehicle not to comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 102, "Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect," states that "t he engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." (S3.1.3). NHTSA does not know of any shut-off device that would enable a vehicle to meet S3.1.3 of Standard 102. In 1984, NHTSA termina ted rulemaking on an action that would have amended S3.1.3 to permit a shut-off device that restarted the vehicle's engine when the accelerator is depressed. A copy of the termination notice is enclosed. The agency terminated rulemaking citing a number of safety concerns with the particular features of the shut-off device that was the subject of the rulemaking. NHTSA stated in the notice that, if in the future a more effective and safe fuel saving device is developed, NHTSA would again consider amend ing Standard 102. However, given that S3.1.3 of Standard 102 was not amended, that section precludes the O.E. installation on a shut-off device such as the one described in the termination notice.

With respect to the aftermarket installation of a shut-off device, there is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product. Standard 102 applies only to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket components of a vehicle's transmission, such as a shut-off device.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of a shut-off device. Under the Safety Act, the product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As explained above, each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any de vice 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 ...." This means that if a shut-off device were sold in the "aftermarket," no manufact urer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business could install it if doing so would render inoperative any previously certified item of equipment in the vehicle. As explained above, each motor vehicle is certified as meeting Standard 102. A shut-off device that causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard 102 could not be installed by any person listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) without subjecting that person to civil penalties (section l09 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty o f up to $1,000 for each violation of S108).

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. However, NHTSA urges all owners not to perform modifications that would degrade the safety of their vehicles, such as installing a fuel shut-off device that raises significant safety concerns.

I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1982-2.5

DATE: 04/15/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Riken America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter inquiring whether it would be permissible for your company to label your tires in both the European metric size and the domestic P-metric size. Dual markings of sizes in the manner you have described are specifically prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109).

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." A European metric size and its comparable domestic P-metric size are assigned different maximum load carrying capacities and different recommended maximum inflation pressures, because different formulae are used to calculate the load carrying capacities of the tires at the different inflation pressures. Because of the different load carrying capacities and recommended inflation pressures, substituting a European metric tire for a P-metric tire might cause the European metric tire to be unsafely overloaded. Dual markings could lead to such substitutions.

The dual-size markings you have requested were explicitly prohibited when this agency amended the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been expressly repeated in subsequent amendments addressing the question of tire labeling under the standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974, and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. The agency's reasoning is that these dual size markings are a representation by the manufacturer that a particular tire meets all requirements of Standard No. 109 for both listed sizes, which is not true. In fact, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars, i.e., by representing that the manufacturer's tire is an appropriate replacement for either European metric or P-metric tires. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The only purpose of that label is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the consumer's automobile.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 16, 1982

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109

Dear Sir:

Riken America, Inc. is the importer of Riken Brand Automobile Tires into the United States. We, and the manufacturer, Okamoto Riken Gomu Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, are considering marking our "82 Series" of steel-belted radial tires with both the European (ETRTO) metric size and the new P-metric size. The line is currently using the European (ETRTO) metric sizes only.

The engineering department at Okamoto Riken Gomu Co., Ltd. has investigated the possibility of dual-marking our line and has determined that the tire specifications for the European (ETRTO) metric sizes are within the standard specifications established for the P-metric sizes as follows: Proposed P-Metric Riken ETRTO Size "Dual-Marked" Size Equivalent 155SR12 P155/80R12 155SR13 P155/80R13 165SR13 P165/80R13 165SR14 P165/80R14 165SR15 P165/80R15

Additionally, we would like to add the following sizes to our line: Proposed P-Metric Riken ETRTO Size "Dual-Marked" Size Equivalent 175SR13 P175/80R13 185SR13 P185/80R13 175SR14 P175/80R14

Please advise us if the dual markings upon the tires, assuming the specifications are proper for the P-metric sizes, would be acceptable under FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. applicable regulations. Your immediate reply would be greatly appreciated as we would like to start this program very soon.

Very truly yours,

RIKEN AMERICA, INC.;

Gary M. Ceazan -- Vice President

cc: B. Ceazan; M. Levitt; Y. Okamoto

ID: nht87-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas D. Turner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937

Dear Mr. Turner:

Thank you for your letter concerning Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You stated that there is a conflict in the standard about the correct ground clearance of the contoured impact surface used in the school bus impact test of the standard. You s tated further that S7.5.1 of the standard refers to the dimension between the ground to the lower edge of the impact surface as 5.25 + 0.5 inches, while Figure 2 of the standard shows the ground clearance to be 12.25. As discussed below, and as Mr. Oesch of my staff discussed with you in a phone call earlier this year, the correct dimension is 5.25 + 0.5 inches.

As you noted in your letter, the agency adopted the use of the contoured barrier in a final rule issued on April 16, 1975. The preamble to that final rule stated that "The contoured barrier would incorporate the moving barrier specifications of SAE Recom mended Practice J972a (March 1973). However, the impact surface of the barrier would be at a height 30 inches above the ground level, rather than 37 inches as specified in the SAE provision. Studies have shown that a 30-inch test height is more represent ative of actual collisions. This would be a typical engine height of vehicles that might impact a schoolbus." Thus, in S7.5.1 of the standard, the agency adopted the ground clearance as 5.25 inches + 0.5 inches to ensure that the top of the barrier would be 30 inches from the ground. In Figure 2, the agency apparently incorporated the barrier dimensions directly from the SAE Recommended Practice J972a, without changing the ground clearance dimension.

We will publish an amendment to the standard that will correct the ground clearance dimension set out in Figure 2 of Standard No. 301. Thank you for bring this matter to the agency's attention.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 20, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CFR Part 571; 3O1-75 Fuel System Integrity

Section S7.5.1 of the standard specifies . . ." The contoured impact surface which is 24.75 inches high and 78 inches wide, conforms to the dimensions shown in Figure 2, and is attached to the carriage as shown in that figure. The ground clearance to the lower edge of the impact surface is 5.25 + 0.5 inches"...

Figure 2 shows dimension D, ground clearance to the lower edge of the impact surface, is 12.25 inches while the text says it is 5.25 + 0.5 inches.

In reviewing the history of Standard 301-75, I found the height of the impact surface was specifically discussed in Federal Register Volume 40, Number 74, Wednesday, April 16, 1975, with regard to school buses. The highlighted areas on the attached copy of this discussion indict the intention was to use the 5.25 inch dimension, making the overall height of the impact surface 30 inches, for school bus moving contoured barrier crash tests.

Based on this history and recent discussions with NHTSA personnel, it is our understanding that the 5.25 + 0.5 inches is the correct dimension and dimension D in Figure 2 should be corrected to show this value. Please confirm that our understanding is co rrect. We are currently obtaining quotations from test laboratories for FMVSS 301 Certification testing and must have this issue resolved before finalizing testing plans. If written confirmation can be provided by December 11, 1986, it would be appreciat ed. If not, please have one of your staff verbally advise us by December 11, 1986, and then follow-up with a letter of confirmation. Thank you for a timely response to this request.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

fvc/1839

c: FHVSS 301-75

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: nht87-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Y. Osaki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Y. Osaki Manager, Truck Engineering MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 501 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Osaki:

This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between the maximum load ratings for the tires on a medium duty truck and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) specified for that truck pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked if the GVWR specified for a truck could slightly exceed the sum of the gross axle weight ratings specified for the truck. While none of our regulations prohibit your company from assigning a GVWR that exceeds the sum of the gross axle weight r atings for this medium duty truck, we recommend that you not do so, for the reasons explained below.

Your letter correctly notes that paragraph @5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @571.120) requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to each truck axle shall b e not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for the axle system, as specified on the vehicle certification label required by Part 567. However, Part 567 does not limit the GVWR that can be assigned to the sum of the GAWR's specified for a vehicle . Instead, 5567.4(g)(3) requires that the vehicle certification label specify the GVWR of the truck and requires only that the specified GVWR shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicl e's designated seating capacity.

Although, Part 567 does not prohibit such a practice, we note that assigning a GVWR to a vehicle that exceeds the sum of the GAWR's assigned to the vehicle (other than a semitrailer) would be encouraging the user of that vehicle to overload it. If the ax les of a medium duty truck cannot safely bear the load specified in the GVWR, the vehicle will be overloaded whenever it is loaded to the specified GVWR. Such overloading poses a serious safety hazard for the affected vehicle in particular and for the mo toring public in general. Several past interpretations on this subject have stated if a vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction while in use that can be traced to the overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect p rovisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and under common law product liability doctrines. To avoid giving rise to a potential safety hazard and the accompanying liability, we recommend that you specify a GVWR not greater than 17,19 6 pounds for the medium duty truck in question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subject: SPECIFICATION OF GVWR AND MAXIMUM LOAD RATING OF THE TIRES

This is to inquire about the relationship between maximum load rating of the tires and GVW.

We are planning to develop the medium duty truck installing LT235/85R16 tires. According to FMVSS 120.5.1.2, the sum of the maximum load rating of tires fitted to an axle shall not be less than the GAWR of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's ce rtification label.

In our case, the sum of the maximum load rating of LT235/85R16(E) tires are 6,084 lbs. (front) and 11,112 lbs. (rear). TRA So, we can specify at most these values for each GAWR on the certification label as follows:

GAWR: Front - 6,084 with 235/85R16(E) tires 6K rims, at 80 psi cold single GAWR: Rear - 11,112 with 235/85R16(E) tires 6K rims, at 30 psi cold dual

Question: In this case, is it possible for us to specify 17,200 lbs. as GVW on the certification label raising up the fraction, or should we specify 17,196 lbs. strictly?

Your kind advice will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

ID: 86-5.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rohit Vaidya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 30, 1986 letter concerning Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, and your planned built-in child seat. You asked for information concerning all safety standards that would be applicable to the seat and concerning a pending petition for amending Standard No. 213 to permit the installation of built-in child seats in new motor vehicles. I regret the delay in our response.

Standard No. 213 is the only standard which this agency has issued concerning child restraint systems. It was drafted at a time when add-on or portable systems were the only type of child restraint systems. Accordingly, the requirements of the standard are oriented toward that type of system. However, the agency has granted a petition to broaden the standard to permit the installation of built-in child restraint systems. We expect to issue a proposal regarding this matter later this year. Copies of the standard and the petition are enclosed.

As a new manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you should know that a manufacturer has a variety of responsibilities in addition to certifying compliance with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects or noncompliances with standards in their products. If a child restraint system fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either (1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or (2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense for the remedy.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle would also be affected by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Such a rendering inoperative could occur, for example, if the installer of a built-in child safety seat removed the original vehicle seat, installed a replacement vehicle seat containing the built-in child safety seat, but did not ensure that the seat belt anchorages for adult seating positions in the replacement rear seat continued to meet the location and strength requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A rendering inoperative could also occur if the installer did not ensure that a replacement vehicle seat continued to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on that seat as a result of vehicle impact.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any product they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's seats or seat belt assembly anchorages with the requirements of Standards Nos. 207 or 210. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install products which could lessen the occupant protection afforded by the original seats or safety belt assembly anchorages and thus adversely affect safety.

For further information concerning these responsibilities, please consult the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers.

ENCLS(3)

OCC 0617

Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

April 30, 1986

Dear Madam,

This letter is in reference to the Federal Regulations regarding automobile child safety-seats - the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard # 213.

I am an inventor and I expect to be receiving a Letters Patent from the US Patent & Trademark Office for a child safety seat that is designed to be an integral part of a vehicle. I would be very grateful if you could send me a list of all current applicable test standards for automobile child safety-seats (including FMVSS #213, above).

Furthermore, I understand the above referenced standard #213 is under review because of a petition that has been submitted to your office to broaden the scope of the regulation. I also would like to request: (1) information on the status of this review; and (2) a copy of the petition.

Thank you very much.

Rohit Vaidya

cc: DR. C. CLARK, NHTSA MR. W. FONTAINE

ID: 86-5.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Heinz Huentemann

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Heinz Huentemann Vice-President Spartan Transit Supply Corp. 325 Fairlane Drive Spartanburg, SC 29302

Dear Mr. Huentemann:

This responds to your letter dated June 17, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a convex outside mirror manufactured by your company. In your letter, you state that this convex mirror has a reflective surface of 92.5 square inches, and would be used on the curb side of a transit bus. You also state that this convex mirror has a radius of curvature of 94.5 inches. You specifically asked whether this mirror could be used on the curb side of a transit bus.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, a copy of which is enclosed, sets different requirements for buses depending on whether the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is above 10,000 pounds. I believe that the GVWR of a transit bus would exceed 10,000 pounds.

Buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must meet S7.1, which requires buses, other than school buses, to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 square inches of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle. These mirrors must also be located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and must be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene. Although the surface, due to the 94.5-inch radius of curvature, it is not a unit magnification or plane mirror. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements for rearview mirrors on new buses.

A manufacturer of new transit buses could use your convex mirror on the curb side of the bus in addition to a unit magnification mirror which ? all applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. However, a commercial business could not substitute your mirror for a complying mirror. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety ? prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business could not remove a unit magnification rearview mirror, installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard, and replace that mirror with a convex mirror.

The sample of your rearview mirror, #STS-0-253, is being returned to you under separate cover.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Legal Council - NHPSA - NHTSA Room 5219 US-Department of Transportation 407th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Re: Authorization for use of convex outside mirrors with convexity of approximately 94.5" radius for installation on curb side of 130 Transit Buses for SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA

We are supplying the inside- and outside mirrors for a number of 130 AD8? Transit Buses to be built by Neoplan USA Corporation, Lamar, CO for Southeastern Pennsylvania Transport Authority, Philadelphia, PA.

On the curb side, these buses will be equipped with a mirror 14 x 6.6" having a mirror surface of 92.5 sq. inch. The convexity is abt.94.5" in mirror radius.

With this petition we enclose a sample of this mirror, #STS-0.253, and which we please may ask you to return to us after inspection.

Having contacted by phone the National Highway Safety Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations, Harrisburg, PA, we have been advised, that in accordance with FMVSS 1011 and 49 CFR Standard 111 a convex mirror on the curb side can have a convexity between 35" minimum to 65" maximum. Since our mirror has convexity of 94.5" radius it is meeting the required standard.

As this matter is of urgency, may we please, ask to have your written authorization at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, Spartan Transit Supply Corp.

Heinz Huentemann Vice-President

Encl. - 1 Sample mirror - # STS - 0.253

ID: nht76-1.42

DATE: 12/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's November 8, 1976, question whether any provision of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the certification of a vehicle following the addition of an axle system (typically known as a "tag" or "pusher" axle) that is not equipped with tires or rims at the time of sale and delivery to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

The answer to your question is no. The requirement of S5.1.1 that ". . . each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements] . . . . " prohibits the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but it is not a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale.

I would like to point out that @ 567.4 (g) (4) of Part 567, Certification, requires that a gross axle weight rating be assigned to each axle system. Section S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 specifies that the GAWR be not more than the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to the axle in question. While the agency interprets Standard No. 120 to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate for that GAWR, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems), would constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(1)(D) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act:

@ 108(a)(1) No person shall

(A)

(c) Fail to issue a certificate required by section 114 of this title, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect;

SINCERELY

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC

November 8, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars states in S 5.1.1 that:

"Except as specified in S 5.1.3 each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Standards 109 or 119."

It is possible to read this statement to require that all axles must be equipped with tires and rims prior to certification. By prohibiting the shipping of bare axles, this interpretation would cause the many intermediate and final stage manufacturers represented by the TBEA a great hardship.

The installation of auxiliary axles on incomplete vehicles comprises a large portion of the work performed by our industry. The twenty-five to thirty thousand tags (added axle behind the OEM rear axle) and pushers (added axle-ahead of the OEM rear axle) are installed on a truck chassis to provide increased carrying capacity or to more evenly distribute the payload's weight onto the road surface. The installers of these tags and pushers are generally small business men engaged in the adaption of standard commercial truck chassis to vocational vehicles ie fire apparatus, dump trucks, refuse trucks . . . . .These small companies are not in business to sell truck tires and rims. An inventory of every common truck tire size times every truck tire manufacturer would utilize more floor space than many of our companies have to begin with.

In the past, it has been common practice to install an additional axle on truck chassis and to ship the completed vehicle less the new tires. Upon delivery, the end user would contract a tire dealer to install the required tire and rim combination to provide the rated GAWR. Tire sizing is not new to the tire dealer, because he is also the same individual responsible for supplying the replacement tires needed to comply with the GVWR.

Present certification requirements allow for the posting of multiple GAWRs and GVWRs when the appropriate tire sizes are also listed.

Are we correct in assuming that additional axles can still be installed and delivered to the end user less tires, provided that the new GAWR listed for the new axle reflects the tire and rim size(s) needed for the specific rating(s)?

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services