ID: nht93-5.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education, Office of Commissioner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from Ernest Farmer to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8815)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of June 25, 1993, with respect to your plan to retrofit three school buses with strobe lights for "the traditional incandescent lights currently used in the eight light overhead warning system on school buses." You ask whether this equipment would "conflict with the provisions of FMVSS 108."

Yes, the substitute system would not conform to S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 because it is not a school bus signal lamp system meeting the requirements of SAE J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964. Moreover, section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392 (a)(2)(A) ) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. We assume for purposes of this interpretation that the State is the owner of the school buses, and owns the repair facilities where the conversion will occur. Under these circumstances, there is no Federal legal prohibition against the State's conversion to the strobe light system if the work is performed in its own repair shops.

ID: nht93-8.27

DATE: November 22, 1993

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Build Buses, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Jane L. Dawson (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Last week I requested some clarification from you concerning the final rule to FMVSS 217, and you suggested that I fax you my questions. Please address the following:

1. The definition of "daylight opening" refers to the maximum unobstructed opening. What constitutes an obstruction and how close to the door does an object have to be in order to be considered an obstruction?

2. In the current rule, each school bus must be equipped with either a rear emergency door OR a LS emergency door in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment and a pushout rear window. Has the location of the INITIAL LS emergency door been changed so that it is now required to be as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment or is the INITIAL LS emergency door still required to be in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment, and only a LS door that is used as an additional emergency exit required to be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment?

Walter, I know that this will require a WRITTEN response from you, but I'd appreciate it if you would call me at (910) 841-5798 and go over it verbally before you write a response to save some time.

ID: nht78-1.24

DATE: 03/22/78

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

TO: Dorsey Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone request of February 9, 1978, to Roger Tilton of my staff asking whether Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, requires that you mount on your vehicles (Illegible Word) retreaded tires containing the DOT symbol.

The standard in paragraph S5.1.3 requires that after January 1, 1978, all used tires mounted on vehicles covered by the standard be manufactured in accordance with Standard No. 119 as evidenced by the symbol DOT on the sidewall. Therefore, you would not be permitted to mount used tires on your vehicles that do not contain the DOT symbol.

Retreaded tires are not used tires. Retreaded tires must comply with all applicable Federal requirements pertaining to them. In the case of retreaded nonpassenger car tires, there are no applicable Federal standards. The DOT symbol is only marked on these tires to which a Federal standard applies. Therefore, retreaded nonpassenger car tires do not need to be marked with the DOT symbol and, in fact, should not be marked with that symbol. Retreaded nonpassenger car tires without DOT symbols can be mounted on your vehicles in full compliance with Standard No. 120. If the tires in your possession have the DOT symbol on them, they can still be mounted on your vehicles. The tire retreader would be responsible for the misapplication of the DOT symbol to these tires.

ID: nht76-3.48

DATE: 03/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Trailmobile's March 4, 1976, letter asking if a trailer equipped with one or more axles that have a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Section S3. of Standard No. 121 provides in part that any vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1977, that has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the standard. The determination of GAWR is made by the vehicle manufacturer (49 CFR 571.3) and must be based on the capabilities of the axle system at 60 mph. Because the determination is made by the vehicle manufacturer, the NHTSA is unable to say that the components you mention in your letter would necessarily constitute an axle system with a GAWR of 24,000 pounds.

YOURS TRULY,

Pullman Trailmobile

March 4, 1976

Mr. Sidney F. Williams, Jr. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Regarding our telephone conversation of March 3rd, would you confirm our discussion that a van trailer, having an axle rated at 24,000 pounds GAWR, based on adequate springs, axle beam, bearings, etc. and tires per Tire and Rim Association 60 MPH Rating would indeed be exempt from the Standard No. 121 "Air Brake Systems".

John R. Pratte Manager Materials Engineering

ID: nht74-3.38

DATE: 05/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 5, 1974 to Mr. Schneider. You state that you are unable to obtain the ASTM E-249 test tire (4 ply rayon) referenced in the ASTM Method used to determine skid numbers, and you ask whether you may use the ASTM E-501 test tire (belted bias).

Your obligation as a manufacturer is to insure that your certification of compliance is not false and misleading in a material respect, and that you exercise due care in manufacturing to conform to the federal motor vehicle safety standards. A manufacturer is not required to follow specifically the test procedures of the standards, but to ascertain that his product will conform to the standard's requirements when it is tested by these procedures. In determining (Illegible Word) number, therefore, you are not required as a matter of (Illegible Word) to use the ASTM E-249 tire if you can reach the required result with equivalent procedures.

We understand that the original E-501 tire provided a slightly higher reading on dry pavement than the E-249 tire and that it is being redesigned so that the two tires give equivalent readings. We anticipate that, when the tire has been approved by ASTM for use in determining and number pursuant to ASTM Method E-274, we will propose a corresponding amendment to our definition of skid number, presently used in 49 CFR @@ 571.105-75, 571.121, 571.122, and 575.2.

ID: nht73-1.48

DATE: 11/08/73

FROM: JOHN G. WOMACK FOR RICHARD B. DYSON

TO: American Safety Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 5, 1973, concerning your proposed use of a tension reliever device in a seat belt retractor. As we understand the concept of the tension reliever, it allows a small amount of slack to be introduced into the webbing by a mechanism roughly similar to that of a window shade. If the webbing is pulled smoothly back and forth, the retractor exerts a normal retractive force. If, however, the retraction is halted at a certain point, as when the belt comes to rest against an occupant's shoulder, the reliever engages and the occupant is relieved of the active pull of the retractor until he moves forward by an inch or two and disengages the reliever.

Your initial question is whether a reliever-equipped retractor will be considered to meet the retraction force requirements of S4.3(j) (6) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. You state that it will meet the test so long as the procedures of S5.2(j) are strictly observed and no oscillations are introduced by the test apparatus. If the facts are as you state, it is our opinion that the retractor would meet. S4.3(j) (6).

Your other question, as clarified by telephone on November 1, 1973, is whether we have reservations about the concept of a tension reliever that would lead us to bar its use through amendment of Standard No. 209. Based on the information presently available, we have no such reservations.

ID: 77-5.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/77

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

TO: Britax (Wingard) Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 24, 1977, asking whether Federal safety standards permit passive safety belts to be equipped with conventional buckles for emergency release.

In answer to your question, Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, not only permits buckles on passive belt systems, it requires them. Under paragraphs S4.5.3.3 and S7.2 of the standard, passive seat belt assemblies are required to have a latch mechanism that releases the restraints. The release is required to be at a single point by pushbutton action.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Britax (Wingard) Limited

OCTOBER 24, 1977

T. Herlihy, Office of Chief Counsel, N H T S A,

Docket 75/14 - Notice 10 - Occupant Restraint Systems

We are designing passive restraint systems with webbing restraint which incorporate in their construction a conventional buckle and tongue intended to be used under conditions requiring emergency release. The buckle assembly would be mounted adjacent to the door when used with a restraint for outboard front seat occupants.

Would you please confirm or otherwise whether the incorporation of such a device for the emergency release of a belt assembly to be applied without action by the occupant is acceptable within the terms of the safety standard, as this is at present interpreted.

T. V. BARLOW Senior Technical Officer

ID: nht75-1.28

DATE: 09/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 28, 1975, concerning the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

Notice 18 (40 FR 38159, August 27, 1975) amended the standard to facilitate the depletion of inventories of brake hose, end fittings, and assemblies which do not meet certain labeling requirements. With regard to the assembly banding requirement, the amendment merely extends the period during which vehicle manufacturers may use unbanded assemblies which were manufactured before March 1, 1975. There is no change in the requirement that assemblies manufactured on and after that date (other than those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him) be labeled with a band as specified in S5.2.4 of the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

August 28, 1975

Office of the Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Would you please render a legal interpretation on Notice 18 of MVSS 106. The specific question is if assembliers of hydraulic brake hose assemblies are still required to "label by means of a band around (hydraulic) brake hose assembly" as orginally required in S 5.2.4 of MVSS 106. We are currently labeling by such a band.

Thank you,

CONTINENTAL HYDRAULIC HOSE CORP. -- John H. Elgin, Vice President

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht75-2.22

DATE: 09/18/75

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

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 9, 1975, inquiring as to the proper designation of plies on a truck tire constructed with two polyamide plies in the casing and two steel plies in the belt.

The designation that you suggested ("Tread: 2 Steel Plies; Sidewall: 2 Polyamide Plies") is incorrect. The designation on such a tire should indicate the presence of four plies in the tread area and two in the sidewall area (with compositions in each case).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

JULY 9, 1975

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

The Michelin Tire Corporation will be offering for sale in the U.S.A. truck tires which contain casing plies made of polyamide and belts made of steel.

A typical tire would be constructed with two polyamide plies in the casing and two steel plies in the belt.

Pursuant to paragraph S6.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119, we will mark such a tire as follows: Tread: 2 Steel Plies Sidewall: 2 Polyamide Plies

Please advise us if this does not comply with the requirements of the regulation.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group;

John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht75-2.30

DATE: 11/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dayton Wheel Prod., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 27, 1975 (117-1), requesting an interpretation of paragraph S3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Discs, Wheel Nuts, and Hub Caps.

Our interpretation of Standard No. 211 is that S3 prohibits winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the tire or rim, as well as those that do.

We hope that this information will be of assistance. If you have any further questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

DAYTON WHEEL PRODUCTS, INC.

August 27, 1975

U.S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

This letter is to request an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 211, section S3. We need to know what determines a "projection".

We maintain that a "projection" must extend outside the plane drawn through the outermost side of the tire or rim. Any portion of the wheel that does not project beyond that plane would not constitute a hazard to pedestrians.

Please send your comments on the above and a clarification on how the projection should be determined. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, James J. Schardt -- President

c.c. Robt. E. Weltzer -- Highway Safety Management Specialist, DOT-NHTSA; Reference 117-1