ID: 77-4.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 19, 1977, letter asking whether Standard 217, Bus Window Retention Release, allows the identification of the rear emergency door located anywhere on the top half of the door.

The standard in S5.5.3 requires the emergency door identification to be located "at the top of or directly above the emergency exit. . . ." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this requirement to mean that the emergency door label must be located on the top half of the door or directly above the door. The label location as depicted in the picture you enclosed with your letter appears to comply with the requirements S5.5.3.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 19, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton, F.M.V.S.S. - 217

Enclosed is a photo showing the location of the wording "Emergency Door" on the rear of a school bus.

This is in reference to our phone conversations regarding Section S5.5.3. School Buses of 17 August, 1977. (F.M.V.S.S. - 217)

The glass area at the top will have an illuminated sign with the words "School Bus". When not used as a school bus by State Law it must be covered.

The result is that the cover does not permit the word "Emergency Door" to be on top of the door and, also, the size required by S5.5.3. Pennsylvania requires a three (3) (Illegible Word) letter which is impossible.

Actually, we feel that the location on a school bus as pictured is safer particularly in a vertical position since it is closer to a person eye level.

We trust you will look with favor upon this request, and wish to thank you for your courtesies to us during our phone conversations.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: nht70-1.4

DATE: 08/03/70

FROM: JOSEPH R. O'GORMAN FOR FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA

TO: Evans, Gentither and Meermans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 USC 1381 et. seq., the National Highway Safety Bureau issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 (FMVSS-109). This standard set forth strength, bead unseating, endurance, high speed and labeling requirements for passenger car tires manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, for use on cars manufactured after 1948. This standard does not apply to other types of tires. A copy of FMVSS-109 is enclosed. A manufacturer self-certifies that the tire meets the minimum requirements of the standard by molding the symbol "DOT" into the tire. Subsequent identification of the tire as a "second" would not negate the certification.

The National Highway Safety Bureau is currently testing many brand/size tires to verify their conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The tests are conducted at independent laboratories under contract to the Government. Results of these tests are released to the public in a monthly summary.

The test results do not reflect the Bureau's position on the matter. Favorable test results should not be interpreted as necessarily establishing that a specific tire is in conformity with the standard; similarly, unfavorable test results should not be interpreted as establishing nonconformance.

Copies of individual test reports can be obtained, for a fee of $ 3.00 per publication, from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Should sufficient data be left remaining on the tire in question for proper identification, you may wish to avail yourself of this service.

There is an organization which could possibly furnish you with the name of an individual capable of analyzing the causes of tire failures. Their name and address is; American Council of Independent Laboratories, Incorporated, 1714 West Capitol Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007.

I trust this information will be useful to you, and I appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance.

ID: nht88-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/13/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Busch Transportation Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dan Moore Engineer - Car Design Busch Transportation Services 5901 State Route 15 Belleville, IL. 62223

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning a step-van design. You indicated that you propose to attach a step-van to a truck chassis with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds, and sought information about applicable Federal requirements. Specifically, you asked which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to the finished step-van, what other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations would apply, and which of the safety standards require a ctual testing of a prototype. While I apologize for the delay in responding to your requests, I hope that the following information is useful to you.

First, by way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Th e Safety Act specifies that it is the manufacturer itself that must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacturer. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not "approv e" any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.

In certifying compliance with the safety standards, the manufacturer must do so consistent with the agency's definitions of motor vehicle types, found in S571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. From the information in your letter, it appea rs that your vehicle would be classified as a truck. (Our regulations define "truck" as a "motor vehicle, with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.") I am enclosing with this letter a table which lists each standard that applies to each basic vehicle type. From this list you should be able to determine which safety standards apply to your vehicle. In addition, I am enclosing a fact sheet for new manufacturers, which describes all pertinent areas of regulation of motor vehicles, as well as a booklet for complying with regulations on importing motor vehicles. While you are not importing vehicles, the booklet does contain summary statements for each of the standards, which may be helpful to you.

You indicate that you will be attaching a step-van to a truck chassis, and thus request information concerning your responsibilities as a final stage manufacturer. The agency's requirements for final stage manufacturers are set forth in Parts 567 and 568 of the agency's regulations. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations. Briefly, these requirements can be explained as follows.

Under S568.6, a final stage manufacturer must complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for the applicable vehicle type (in this case we presume a truck) in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of t he incomplete vehicle (in this case, the chassis), and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture (in this case, the attachment of the body to the chassis). In addition, you must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordan ce with the certification requirements set forth in S567.5. Requirements For Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

To reduce the certification burdens on final stage manufacturers, NHTSA has imposed some regulatory requirements on incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Under S568.4, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer must list by number each standard that applies to its v ehicle at the time of manufacture, and make one of the following three statements for each standard:

1. That the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components:

2. That if the vehicle is completed under specific conditions of final manufacture set out in the compliance document, it will conform to the standard: or

3. That conformity with the standards is not substantially affected by the incomplete vehicle design, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. (49 CFR 568.4(a)(7))

I would like to point out one circumstance that may affect your certification as final stage manufacturer and reliance on representations made by the incomplete manufacturer. It is possible that, in the course of your attaching the step-van to the truck chassis, you will change the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. If this occurs, you much certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at this new GVWR. Some of the standards which are likely to be affected by an increase in the GVWR are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

With regard to your question about actual field testing, the agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests, or any tests at all. Instead, we only require that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care, as specified in the Safety Act. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the saf ety standards.

I hope the information in this letter is useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 18, 1987

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

PETITION: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Gentleman:

We here at Busch Transportation Services (BTS) are considering entering our design for a step-van into the market. Although we are a part of the Transportation Group of Anheuser-Busch, we are very new to the industry of new trailer/truck body design and manufacture.

In accordance with CFR 49, Part 552, we respectfully request your interpretation regarding the applicability of CFR 49, Part 571, "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" to our proposed design. The step-van we propose would be for attachment (by BTS) to truck chassis of 10,000 pound GVWR. Specifically, we would like to know which of the FMVSS's would apply to us as the final stage manufacturer, as well as any other CFR 49 requirements we would have to meet.

Additionally, we would like to know which of the applicable FMVSS's would require actual field testing to be performed on a prototype of our proposed design. We would appreciate guidelines as to whom would be able to perform such tests for us.

We want to work with your Administration so that we will have a fully NHTSA-certified vehicle and will look forward to finding out exactly how to do so. Please call if we can provide any other information.

Sincerely,

Dan Moore Engineer-Car Design

ID: nht90-4.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jonathan P. Reynolds -- Esq., Cosco Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-28-89 from J.P. Reynolds to S. Kratzke (OCC 4213); Also attached to Cosco child restraint labels and instruction sheets (graphics and text omitted)

TEXT:

You sent us a letter describing various aspects of the Cosco "Dream Ride" convertible infant restraint/car bed, including the labeling and printed instructions for the bed. You said in your letter that Cosco previously sent the labels and instructions t o NHTSA's enforcement office. I regret we have been unable to find them.

Your description of the instructions indicates that Cosco informs the user that the bed should be installed in the right-rear or the right-front seating position only. You state that Cosco believes the bed should not be installed in the center rear seat ing position, because a child lying in the bed in that seating position might strike the left-rear door or body panel in a side impact on the driver's side. Standard 213 requires the bed to meet the requirements of the standard when installed at the cen ter seating position of the seat assembly used for child seat testing (S6.1.2.1.1). If a manufacturer can meet the requirements with the seat in that position, the manufacturer may specify the types of seating positions in which the child restraint syst em can or cannot be used (S5.6.1.2) for adequate protection to the child. Thus, Cosco's limiting instruction is permitted.

Please note that Standard 213's requirements for installation instructions (S5.6.1) require the instructions to state also that, according to accident statistics, children are safer when restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions. (S5.6.1.1) The installation instructions you provide must include the statement required by S5.6.1.1.

You request our comments on your product's "compliance with FMVSS 213." NHTSA does not certify or approve in advance motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and does not comment on a product's compliance with the FMVSS's outside the context of the age ncy's compliance testing. We therefore are unable to confirm whether your product complies with Standard 213.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht78-3.14

DATE: 04/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: P. Arquin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking what loading conditions are applicable for purposes of measuring the wheelbase of passenger cars, under the new phased-in passive requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Apparently, the wheelbase of one of Peugeot's vehicles having an independent rear suspension varies as a function of the vehicle loading.

The phased-in passive requirements of Standard No. 208 were based on a determination of the lead time necessary to engineer passive restraints into each size class of automobile. Wheelbase was chosen as a measure to delineate the phasing requirements because it is directly related to vehicle size and because it is a well-defined quantity that does not vary significantly within a given car line.

For purposes of measuring wheelbase, the vehicle is loaded according to the general test conditions of Standard No. 208. These test specifications, including loading, are meant to approximate the likely condition of the vehicle under normal driving circumstances. Since a vehicle having a variable wheelbase will generally carry the same weight as the average automobile of its size, it is appropriate that the wheelbase on such a vehicle be determined under the loading conditions specified under Standard No. 208. Therefore, Peugeot should measure the wheelbase of its vehicle under the loading conditions specified in paragraph S8.1.1(a) of the standard.

SINCERELY,

U.S. TECHNICAL RESEARCH COMPANY

February 8th, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re.: Wheelbase Cutoff Points for FMVSS-208 Application

Dear Mr. Levin:

Certain automobiles with independent rear suspensions have a wheelbase which varies as a function of the vehicle loading. In order to determine the effective date of FMVSS-208 for one of our vehicles, it is necessary for us to know under which loading conditions the wheelbase should be measured. "Curb Weight" as defined in CFR 49, Chapter V, Subchapter A, Part 571, Subpart A, R 571-2 and "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" as defined in 36 F.R. 2511 (Feb. 5, 1971) have been suggested by your staff as the most probable possibilities

We would appreciate receiving a prompt official clarification on this matter.

P. Arquin Government and Engineering Liaison

ID: 06-007052rls

ID: nht78-1.20

DATE: 04/24/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 16, 1978, letter asking about the responsibility for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards when previously certified tires are modified by the addition of white sidewalls.

In your first question, you ask whether the person who modifies the tire must recertify it for compliance with safety requirements. The answer to your question is no. A modifier of a tire is not considered a manufacturer as that term is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). A modifier's status is analagous to that of an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. However, unlike an alterer of a motor vehicle, there are no labeling or certification requirements for alterers of motor vehicle equipment. Persons who modify previously certified motor vehicle equipment are required to ensure that their modification does not render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a safety standard.

Since the modifier of previously certified motor vehicle tires has no labeling or certification requirements, the answer to your second question whether it would be required to obtain a manufacturer's identification code mark is no. Only a manufacturer or retreader of motor vehicle tires need obtain such identification marks.

In your final question, you ask who would be responsible for the registration of these modified tires. The original tire manufacturer would be required to conduct the tire

registration program. You assert that this might cause confusion in tire recalls since manufacturers might indicate that blackwall tires are being recalled when, in fact, some whitewalls would be included. Our regulation requires that tires be identified in a recall by their serial number. We are not aware of any instance where recalled tires have been additionally identified as "blackwall" by the manufacturers. Thus, although the problem you describe could conceivably occur, we at this time have no basis for viewing it as a real threat to effective recall campaigns.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

March 16, 1978

Joseph Levin, Esq -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration

Subject: Converting Blackwall Tires to Whitewall TIRE COSMOTOLOGY, INC 10920 Indian Trail - Suite 201 Dallas, Texas 75229

Dear Mr Levin:

The conversion of a new blackwall tire to whitewall prior to sale to the end consumer would appear to me to constitute a violation of the Safety Act of 1966 as amended, and non-compliance with FMVSS109 or 119 as the case may be, if the tire was not recertified after completing the whitewalling process. In addition it would appear to me that this procedure could and probably would result in frustration of the tire registration requirements in that, in the event of a recall, the tire in question would be identified by the manufacturer as a blackwall, whereas the consumer would have in his possession a whitewall. This problem becomes acute when the process is performed by an independent tire dealer or other organization not affiliated with or under the control of the tire manufacturer.

Attached is a copy of a Training Manual and other literature published by Tire Cosmotology, Inc explaining various of its procedures relating to several different conversion processes.

Aside from the legal and safety implications of these tire conversion processes, Goodyear has instructed its field organization that any Goodyear-brand tires altered or converted without our authorization and approval will not be eligible for adjustment consideration under our tire warranties.

The purpose of this letter is to ask for the NHTSA's official position on this subject. Specifically, we would like to know:

(1) If an independent tire dealer or other organization not affiliated with the tire manufacturer converts a new blackwall tire to a whitewall prior to sale to the end consumer, must that dealer or organization recertify such tire as meeting the applicable FMVSS?

(2) Must such dealer or organization acquire a manufacturer's identification code mark and apply it to the reprocessed tire? Would tire manufacturer's tire identification number have to be removed and a new number, including a new date code have to be applied?

(3) Whose responsibility is it after such reprocessing to comply with the NHTSA's tire registration requirements?

Please advise.

Sincerely, TOM CAINE -- Attorney, LAW DEPT.

Attachments

cc: Francis Armstrong -- Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration COSMO G-300

BASIC UNIT

TRAINING MANUAL

TIRE COSMOTOLOGY INC

ID: 002523Lear_marking_flaps

Mr. Scott Willard
Seating Systems Division
Lear Corporation
21557 Telegraph Road
Southfield, MI 48034

Dear Mr. Willard:

This responds to your letter concerning the lower anchorage marking requirements in S9.5(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225).

FMVSS No. 225 requires vehicle manufacturers to install child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles, consisting of two lower bars and a tether anchorage. The standard contains "marking and conspicuity" requirements for the lower bars to increase the likelihood that consumers will know that a child restraint anchorage system is present in their vehicle and that they will use it. The standard requires manufacturers to mark the vehicle seat back with a small circle where the bars are located (S9.5(a)), or to install a child restraint anchorage system such that the bars are visible (S9.5(b)). S9.5(b) includes a provision that: "The bars may be covered by a removable cap or cover, provided that the cap or cover is permanently marked with words, symbols or pictograms whose meaning is explained [in] the owners manual."

You ask whether S9.5(b) permits the bars to be covered by "a small fabric flap"; that is, whether such a flap could constitute a permissible "removable cover" over the lower anchorage bar. You state that, to use the lower anchorages, "the flap(s) would need to be folded out of the way, thus exposing the lower anchorages (otherwise visible per section 9.5(b))." You also state that the flaps would be permanently attached to the vehicle seat. They would be marked with words, symbols or pictograms, as required by S9.5(b), the meaning of which would be explained in writing in the vehicle owners manual.

Our answer is the marked fabric flaps you describe would be permitted by S9.5(b) of FMVSS No. 225. We also note that the standard does not require the marked covers for otherwise visible lower anchorages to be permanently attached to the vehicle.

In an April 19, 2004, telephone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you asked whether a strap or other means must be provided with the flaps to hold them out of the way of the anchorage bars when a consumer wants to use the bars to attach a child restraint. The answer is there is no requirement in the standard that a means must be provided to hold the covers out of the way of the bars.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.5/4/04

ID: 06-003753as

ID: 1982-2.15

DATE: 06/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carrier Transicold Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1982, "regarding the legality of placing a red alternator warning light on the side of a truck refrigeration unit."

Because the warning light is not required as original motor vehicle lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, it is subject only to the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3 that it not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment which the standard requires. The required lighting equipment on the sides of trucks are side marker lamps and reflectors, amber to the front as far as practicable and red to the rear as far as practicable. If the truck's overall length is 30 feet or greater, intermediate lamps and reflectors, amber in color, must be added at or near the mid-point between the front and rear markers.

You have not stated where the warning light will be located, nor the length of the truck on which it would be mounted. To avoid any suggestions of conflict we recommend, if the lamp is to be mounted on a truck carrying intermediate side markers, that it be as close to the rear as practicable. On a short truck equipped with only front and rear side marking devices any location from the mid-point rearward would be acceptable. These locations should also satisfy any questions State authorities may have.

SINCERELY,

May 18, 1982

United States Department of Transportation

Attention: Legal Counsel FMVSS108

Gentlemen:

I am writing you regarding the legality of placing a red alternator warning light on the side of a truck refrigeration unit. The proposed warning light would be a continuous (non-blinking) incandescent lamp, 0.64 inch in diameter. This light would function similar to alternator warning lights found on automobile dashboards, illuminating only when the alternator is failing to charge the battery.

My questions then are:

1. Is red a legally acceptable color for such a light?

2. If red is an unacceptable color, what other colors might also be restricted.

If you require any additional information in answering these questions, please contact me on (315) 432-6168 or leave a message with my secretary on (315) 432-6094.

Thank you for your cooperation.

David R. Siegenthaler Truck/Trailer Engineering