ID: aiam1655

Dear Mr. Thomas: This is in reply to your letter of September 27, 1974, requesting ou position regarding the micro-siping of tires. You also request copies of the government brief in *United States* v. *General Tire*.; The NHTSA does not consider the micro-siping process to be prohibite *per se* when applied to new motor vehicle tires subject to either Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR S571.109 (applicable to passenger car tires), or Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, 49 CFR S571.119 (applicable to tires for vehicles other than passenger cars). In the *General Tire* case, the particular tires involved havebeen(sic) micro-siped and were found to have failed certain laboratory wheel tests specified in Standard No. 109. The only issue in the case was General's responsibility for the failure and not whether the tires met the standard. General chose to stipulate that they did not.; The agency has no data on whether micro-siping adversely affects tire's ability to conform to the standards. It is possible that the quality of micro-siping may cause compliance problems. In any event, the agency does not consider micro-siped tires to fail to conform to either standard, unless there is an actual failure to meet the performance tests of the standards.; I have enclosed a copy of the government's brief in the Court o Appeals in the *General Tire* matter. There are other briefs in this litigation, but the agency's position is set forth in this brief and it should be satisfactory for your purposes.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-3.21

DATE: 07/26/78

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

TO: T. Iinuma - Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 25, 1978, question concerning the strength requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, as they would be applicable to the anchorage on a single diagonal passive belt system. You ask how many pounds of force should be applied to such a belt system for the anchorage strength test.

The anchorage for a single diagonal passive seat belt should be tested with a 3,000 pound force for purposes of the Standard 210 requirements, the same force required for the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt. Most vehicles with single diagonal passive belt will have knee bolters or some other method to restrain the legs in a crash, so the anchorage will not experience as much stress as would be placed on a lap belt without knee bolsters. Therefore, 3,000 pound test should ensure that the anchorage for a diagonal passive belt can withstand typical crash forces.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

May 25, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel NHTSA Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Levin:

This letter is to request your interpretation regarding the test method of FMVSS 210 "Seat belt assembly anchorages". The force applied to the anchorage of Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly is expressed clearly in that standard. (Type 1:5000 lbs., Type 2:lap portion 3000 lbs. and shoulder portion 3000 lbs. simultaneously).

It seems, however, there is no specific description of the force for the anchorage of the single diagonal passive seat belt (so called VW Rabbit type passive seat belt).

I would like to know how many pounds we should apply to the above mentioned passive seat belt for the anchorage strength test.

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible

Tokio Iinuma Staff, Safety

cc: WILLIAM E. SMITH -- CRASHWORTHINESS DIV., NHTSA

ID: nht78-1.23

DATE: 03/22/78

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

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 22, 1977, letter asking whether the tire information label required by Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, must contain the rim size of the rim that is mounted on the vehicle.

Paragraph S5.3.2. of the standard states that the label must contain "the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for those tires." This paragraph specifically permits a manufacturer to equip a vehicle with rim sizes that differ from those listed on its tire information label.

SINCERELY,

December 22, 1977

Frank A. Brendt U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Dear Mr. Brendt:

On the behalf of the members of the Trailer Manufacturers Association, we request an interpretation in the matter following relative to FMVSS No. 120.

S5.1.2 permits the tire size mounted on the vehicle not to be disclosed on the certification label providing the tire mounted falls within GAWR requirements.

Boat trailer manufacturers commonly provide a number of tire options and often these tires have different rims. It is not clear if FMVSS No. 120 requires the rim which is mounted on the trailer to be disclosed on the certification plate. For example, at the customer's wish, a given trailer might be equipped with 12, 13 or 14 inch wheels.

We have sought clarification of this subject from Department of Transportation compliance personnel, but were told that this specific point had not been raised previously, and therefore we would have to seek a formal interpretation which we now do.

Executive Secretary

Donald I. Reed

ID: aiam1208

Dear Mr. Gorter: This is in reply to your letter of July 11, 1973, inquiring whether i is permissible under paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109, 'New Pneumatic Tires') to label tires as follows:; >>>1) TUBE-LESS TYPE instead of tubeless. 2) TUBE- TYPE for tube type.<<< While not stated in your letter it appears that you wish to facilitat the relabeling of the word 'tube type' on tires originally manufactured as tubeless. We understand many tire manufacturers redesignate tubeless tires as tube type when they contain some imperfection that may affect their tubeless air-retention capability, but which perform satisfactorily when tubes are installed.; Paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 specifically requires the wor 'tubeless' or 'tube type' as appropriate. Neither the phrase 'TUBE-LESS TYPE' nor the phrase 'TUBE- TYPE' conform to this requirement. the labeling you suggest would therefore not conform to Standard No. 109. We would expect that any redesignation of tubeless tires as tube type would be accomplished by obliterating the tubeless label and labeling the tire 'tube type', in the form required by the standard.; I would like to point out that our decision to interpret thes requirements strictly results in part from our efforts to stop a practice, which is occurring in the United States, in which some tire dealers sell tires that have been relabeled as tube type while representing to customers that tubes are not needed because the tires were originally tubeless. We believe labeling tires as you suggest will have the unfortunate consequence of promoting this activity, as it will make it more obvious that the tires were originally manufactured as tubeless.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht68-3.40

DATE: 07/12/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph R. O'Gorman; NHTSA

TO: Western Body and Hoist Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 9, 1968, to the Federal Highway Administration, in which you requested clarification of the requirements for amber side marker lamps and amber side reflectors.

A copy of presently applicable standards, and some proposed standards are enclosed. Note that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, requires amber front side marker lamps, and amber front side reflectors for vehicles of less than 30 feet overall length, and 80 or more inches in overall width. When the overall vehicle length is less than 30 feet and the front side marker lamps and front side reflectors have been mounted on the cab by the chassis-cab manufacturer, an additional set of the foregoing lamps and reflectors is not required on the body when it is installed.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

I trust this answers your questions.

ID: aiam5121

"Dear Mr. McCray: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1992 t former Secretary Card. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for motor vehicle safety. Your letter expresses concern about the buses that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (DCJ) uses to transport inmates. You believe the buses are unsafe and operated in violation of Federal law. As explained below, it appears the DCJ did not violate any NHTSA regulation. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, each person selling a new bus must ensure that the bus complies with the FMVSS's for buses. NHTSA's requirements for vehicle seats are set forth in FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems. However, that standard does not require seat covers or pads for any bus seat. Also, there is no FMVSS that requires buses to be heated. NHTSA does not regulate the use of motor vehicles, such as the speed at which the DCJ must operate the bus. Individual states, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. Texas state officials would be best able to answer your concerns about the manner in which you were transported. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht76-1.24

DATE: 01/20/76

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

TO: Walt Robbins, Inc.

COPYEE: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 7, 1975, request for an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, as applied to the tire that you have described as a "Radial, Bias Ply Tire".

On that date, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Al Duduk, and the following NHTSA personnel in attendance: Dr. E. H. Wallace, A. Y. Casanova, and Mark Schwimmer. At the meeting, our letter to you, dated November 3, 1975, was discussed and alternative forms of labeling for this tire were explored. You presented, in substance, the following four examples of sidewall labeling and inquired about their compliance with Standard No. 109:

1. "POLYANGLE" accompanied by "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER 1 ARAMID"

2. "POLYANGLE" accompanied by "NOT A CONVENTIONAL RADIAL PLY TIRE" and "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY"

3. "RADIAL/BIAS" accompanied by "NOT A CONVENTIONAL RADIAL PLY TIRE" and "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY"

4. "RADIAL/BIAS" accompanied by "NOT TO BE USED WITH CONVENTIONAL RADIAL BELTED TIRES" and "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY"

Tires labeled according to your first example would be in compliance with the requirements of S4.3(g) of Standard No. 109. A strict interpretation of S4.3(g) would rule out the remaining examples because the word "radial" appears in all of them. However, the NHTSA recognizes that, with the development of new tire construction types, this section of the standard may not be adequate to serve its original purpose, to reduce the hazards associated with the mismatching of tires on a single vehicle. Accordingly, we are preparing to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard. For this reason and because the second, third, and fourth examples are in conformity with the spirit of S4.3(g), the NHTSA will, on an interim basis, consider tires so labeled to be in compliance. You may wish to consult with the Federal Trade Commission concerning the advertising of these tires.

I would like to point out that S4.3(d) requires Kevlar, if used as a cord material in a tire, to be identified by its generic name on the tire's sidewall. The generic name of Kevlar, as established by the FTC pursuant to the Textile Fiber Product Identification Act (15 USC 70), is Aramid.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

ID: nht70-2.49

DATE: 01/02/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Alba Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 24, 1969 to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning our proposed retreated tire standard.

I appreciate your sending your thoughts on tire safety to our attention since we make a point of being as familiar as possible with the present state-of-the-art of all aspects to tire safety.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard do not apply to tires manufactured exclusively for off-road competitive use or to tires retreaded exclusively for off-road competitive use. You are cautioned, however, that if the tires are sold for "street use", then these racing tires wil be covered by the proposed standards and would be subject to the requirements.

ID: nht91-5.41

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: Gary Starr -- Solar Electric Engineering

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re Petition for exemption on the basis for the facilitation of low-emission engine features

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gary Starr (A38; Part 567; Part 555)

TEXT:

Applicant: Solar Electric Engineering, Inc.(a California Corporation) 116 Fourth Street Contact: Gary Starr Santa Rosa, CA 94010

Basis for petition:

1) The motor vehicle is a low-emission vehicle as defined by section 123(g) of the Act as the vehicle is an electric vehicle.

2) Since our vehicle is a standard vehicle manufactured under NHTSA standards and originally certified by the O.E.M., the vehicle should still meet most of the original standards.

i) The motor vehicle equipped with the low emission engine (an electric motor) would if exempt perhaps differ with standard 103 (Windshield Defrosting), standard 208, specifically part 572 (Anthropomorphic Test Dummy), standard 105 (Hydraulic brake systems, and perhaps other standards which are unknown at this time or would not apply to an electric vehicle.

ii, iii, iv) The vehicles are "converted" or "altered" conventional vehicles; according to one NHTSA safety engineer, the NHTSA may not require the exemption application; however, "to be safe", we are submitting one, while we are undergoing in-house and third party testing of the vehicle. 3) A temporary exemption would greatly facilitate both the development and field evaluation of the vehicle since some of our pending financing and actual purchase orders have insisted that we apply for the exemption.

4) At the end of the exemption period, we intend to conform with all standards.

5) Not more than 2500 exempted vehicles will be sold in the United States in any 12 month period for which an exemption may be granted.

6) No data need be withheld at this time.

7) It is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Safety Act to grant the exemption because clean air vehicles are of vital interest to the public and no known safety acts would be exempted to the point to put the public at any unacceptable safety risk.

ID: 3272yy

Mr. Tadoru Yamamoto
Technical Administration Div.
Hino Motors, Ltd.
1-1, Hino-dai 3-chome
Hino-shi, Tokyo 191, Japan

Dear Mr. Yamamoto:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 113, Hood Latch System. You ask two questions about the applicability of the standard's requirements to your vehicle. As explained below, the vehicle must have a hood latch system, but need not have a second latch position on the system or a second hood latch system.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of any vehicle or equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Standard 113 requires that a vehicle's hood must have a hood latch system (S4.1). The standard also requires a front opening hood to have a second latch position on the latch system or a second hood latch system, if the hood has any open position that partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield (S4.2). The standard defines "hood" as "any exterior movable body panel forward of the windshield that is used to cover an engine, luggage, storage, or battery compartment" (S3).

Your first question asks about the general applicability of Standard 113's requirements to your vehicle. You believe your vehicle is not subject to any of the standard's requirements because the front panel of the vehicle is not forward of the windshield, and is therefore not a "hood" as defined by Standard 113.

We disagree. According to the drawing you provided with your letter, the body panel appears to be forward of the windshield. We would consider the panel to be a hood, and subject to S4.1's requirement for a hood latch system.

Whether the hood must have a secondary latch for the hood (either a second latch position on the hood latch system or a second latch system) is the subject of your second question. The answer is that the hood need not have the secondary latch. The secondary latch is required by S4.2 only for a front opening hood. According to the drawing you provided, your hood is essentially vertical, with the opening on the bottom of the hood. We consider a hood such as yours that is essentially vertical not to be a front opening hood.

We note that a secondary latch for front opening hoods is required because such a hood is particularly hazardous if it were to unlatch during vehicle operation. The front opening design of the hood lends itself to flying open while the vehicle is moving, obstructing the driver's view through the windshield. However, an essentially vertical hood such as yours does not lend itself to such openings if it were to become unlatched. The secondary latch is therefore not required by the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:113 d:1/13/92