ID: nht75-3.30

DATE: 06/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John M. Burlake

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 8, 1975, requesting information concerning the compliance of the seat belt assembly of a 1972 BMW sedan.

Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required by section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) to affix permanently to their vehicles a certification label that confirms each vehicle's compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 detail the procedure for satisfying the certification requirement. Manufacturers are not required to furnish the Department with a certification statement.

There are three motor vehicle safety standards that relate to the seat belt assembly. Depending upon the date of manufacture of the BMW in question, it should have been certified as complying with the standards that were in effect at that time.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation maintains a log of reported defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, if you wish to ascertain whether or not there have been similar reports of seat belt assembly defects in certain 1972 BMW models, I suggest you write to that office enclosing full information on the nature of the alleged defect and the vehicle model. You may also be interested in obtaining information pursuant to the procedure described in the enclosed Federal Register notice.

ID: aiam4867

"Dear Mr. Mikesell: This responds to your letter of March 25, 199 requesting 'a copy of the federal regulations regarding school vans being used for transporting students.' Your letter notes that you 'are especially interested in the number of students which can be transported before a van is considered a school bus.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. The capacity of a van used to transport students will determine whether the van is considered a 'school bus' or a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' under Federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Given the wording of your letter, I emphasize that it is the capacity of vehicle, not the number of students actually transported, which determines whether a vehicle is a school bus. NHTSA defines 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 10 persons or less constructed on a truck chassis. NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacturer or sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238. To determine whether your school district may use a vehicle other than a school bus to transport school children, you must look to state law. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of motor vehicles. In addition, use of vehicles other than school buses could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage your school district to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht72-3.1

DATE: 01/25/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: North Carolina Tire Dealers Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for sending a copy of your December 1971 issue "Tarheel Tire Topics". In a note attached to these topics you asked Dr. E. H. Wallace to clarify whether a tubeless tire casing can be changed to a tube-type retread by identifying it as such during the process.

There is no prohibition of this practice mentioned in Standard No. 117 relating to retreaded tires. (Illegible Words) the rule is clear concerning the necessity for maintaining the highest quality in selection of materials and processings during the retreaded process. We would be interested in an explanation of the circumstances where it appears necessary to change a tubeless casing to a tubed tire. The circumstances which we visualize leading to this change seem to us to lead to rejection of the casing for any retread purposes.

We also would like to point out that, although not strictly prohibited, the manufacturer who changes a tubeless casing to a tubed tire is liable for penalties if the resulting tire will not perform on compliance tests.

ID: aiam0319

Dear Mr. Ashimori: Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1971, regarding self-fastenin seat belt systems.; Any system which requires no action by vehicle occupants can be used t meet the appropriate options of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection. 'No action,' in this case, means that no action is permitted by vehicle occupants other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.; We have received a number of petitions for reconsideration o clarification of Notice 9, particularly in reference to the role of a passive (no action) safety belt system as it relates to the requirements for Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt installations prior to August 15, 1975. We are now in the process of resolving the petitions received, and our final decisions in response to the petitions will be issued in the *Federal Register* as soon as possible.; Your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs is most appreciated. Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Crashworthiness, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam0439

Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1971, to the Acting Chie Counsel, concerning several matters involving the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). In your letter you request an interpretation of whether S 573.5(b) requires reports of quarterly production figures irrespective of whether or not the manufacturer has a safety-related defect campaign to report for that or any other quarter. The answer to this question is yes. As indicated in the denial of the petition for reconsideration (36 F.R. 14774), the requirement that production figures be reported is related to more than the particular quarter in which the information is submitted. Consequently, this information must be submitted for each quarter regardless of whether a defect notification campaign takes place during that or any quarter.; In your letter you also petition for certain modifications to th regulation. These are discussed separately below.; >>>1. You petition that, if the quarterly production figures ar required regardless of the existence of defect notification campaigns, we exempt 'recreational vehicle manufacturers' from this requirement. This request is denied. Under present standards and regulations, as you know, recreational vehicles may be classified in any one of numerous vehicle categories set forth in 49 CFR 571.3. We cannot consider your petition without your specifying the types of vehicles for which you request the exemption and a justification for each particular type of vehicle, based upon the specific characteristics of the vehicle that you believe warrant our granting an exemption. I add, however, that we find your arguments concerning the burden of reporting production figures to be insubstantial. The ability of the NHTSA to monitor notification campaigns clearly outweighs, in our view, the burden of reporting vehicle production figures. Furthermore, we do not agree with the position you take, that the proposed requirements of Docket 71-11, 'Manufacturers Identification', regarding estimated yearly production figures can in any way serve as a substitute for actual production figures in terms of providing hard data on the effectiveness of notification campaigns, on the percentage of production campaigned, or in terms of monitoring manufacturers' estimates of the number of vehicles involved.; 2. For the reasons stated in the denial of petition for reconsideratio we deem your petition for additional notice on the requirements for reporting production figures (S573.5(b))to be without merit, and it is accordingly denied.<<<; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht79-4.52

DATE: 09/13/79

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Market Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Dave Schmeltzer of this office dated August 11, 1971.

In your letter you ask to be advised if it would be permissible under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574) to use your own form, instead of the form supplied by the tire manufacturer, to report the required information to the tire manufacturer.

The regulation does not expressly provide that you must use the form supplied by the tire manufacturer to record the required information. However, from the manufacturer's point of view using a form other than the one he supplied would cause double work and extra expense. As the regulation is presently written this would be a matter between you and the manufacturer.

The problem you describe has been brought to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's attention and methods of giving dealers who handle many different tire manufacturer's lines some relief are presently being considered.

THANK YOU FOR WRITING.

ID: aiam4791

"Dear Mr. Fink: This responds to your letter of May 25, l990, to Rober F. Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, on behalf of your client, John A. Rosatti. Mr. Rosatti would like to import a nonconforming Porsche 959 into the United States as a 'demonstration' car. He intends to promote business by displaying it in his automobile dealerships and does not intend to drive it on the roads. Specifically, he would like to display it in his Acura dealership to build showroom traffic. He has offered to remove the engine, and to declare that, if the car is transferred by sale or inheritance, 'the new owner will be bound to keep the engine and body of the car separate.' In support of your request, you argue that entry into the United States is permissible pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), which implements l5 U.S.C. 1397(j). This section provides that the agency may exempt any person from the prohibitions in sections 1397(a)(1)(A) and (c)(1) 'upon such terms and conditions as NHTSA may find necessary solely for the purpose of research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training, or competitive racing events.' We are unable to agree with your interpretation and arguments. The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, which added l5 U.S.C. 1397(c) through (j), responded to a report of the General Accounting Office which indicated that a large number of nonconforming vehicles were being imported into the United States without sufficient assurances or evidence that they were being brought into compliance with all applicable Federal safety standards. The provisions that were enacted by Congress represent a significant, and, we believe, restrictive change from the regulations previously in force, and a clear directive to the agency to proceed in accordance with the new statutory language. The agency's previous position is represented by language that you cite in the preamble of the final rule (which you term Supplemental Information) adopting Part 591: 'Importation for this class of noncomplying motor vehicles i.e., demonstration vehicles has been permitted pursuant to the assumption that motor vehicle safety would not be affected by the temporary importation of noncomplying motor vehicles not generally used on the public roads, and whose appearance on them would be limited.' (54 FR 40076). Under the previous regulation, vehicles could be imported for purposes of 'show, test, experiment, competition, repair, or alterations' (19 CFR 12.80(b)(l)(vii)). You will note that, contrary to your parenthetical statement, the demonstration exception did not exist in the old regulation. The most appropriate exception in the old regulation for what your client contemplates was the one for 'show.' Under 591.5(j) of the new regulation, which follows the language of the statute, a vehicle may be imported for the purposes outlined in the second paragraph of this letter, none of which include 'show.' We interpreted 'show' to mean 'to cause to be seen,' such as in a static display. We do not interpret the word 'demonstrations' as encompassing static display, a vehicle is 'demonstrated' to a prospective purchaser, for example, by allowing him or her to drive it on the public roads. However, with respect to the new regulation, we have interpreted the word 'demonstration' only in the context of allowing importation of nonconforming vehicles by registered importers who wish to prove, or demonstrate, that the vehicle is capable of conformance modification under one of the provisions of 1397(c)(3)(A)(i). This, of course, is not the situation with your client, and we decline to provide the interpretation you suggest, as we do not believe that an importation under that circumstance accords with the intent of Congress. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht71-4.24

DATE: 10/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 15, 1971, requesting our interpretation of certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations:

1. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," as amended at 36 F.R. 4600 (March 10, 1971). If trucks over 10,000 pounds CV-R are equipped with a seat belt system as in paragraph S4.3.2, the vehicles need not meet the requirements of paragraphs S5 and S6, which apply only when the complete passive protection system option of paragraph S4.3.1 is adopted. Of course, the seat belt system must conform to the seat belt assembly requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies."

2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components." Your interpretation of the standard's coverage is correct: there are no requirements in the standard for the installation of the latches and hinges.

3. Part 573, "Defect Reports," S6 F.R. 3064 (February 17, 1971). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations do not require manufacturers to repair defective motor vehicles. Manufacturers are therefore free to make whatever arrangements for repair of defects they wish. Of course, we hope that in making such arrangements the manufacturers will assume the responsibility of assuring that the repairs are made properly.

ID: nht71-5.23

DATE: 12/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 15, 1971, requesting our interpretation of certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations:

1. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Occupant Crash Protection," as amended at 36 F.R. 4600 (March 10, 1971). If trucks over 10,000 pounds(Illegible Word) are equipped with a seat belt system(Illegible Word) in paragraph S4.3.2, the vehicles need not meet the requirements of paragraphs S5 and S6, which apply only when the complete passive protection system option of paragraph S4.3.1 is adopted. Of course, the seat belt system must conform to the seat belt assembly requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies."

2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components." Your interpretation of the standard's coverage is correct: there are no requirements in the standard for the installation of the latches and hinges.

3. Part 573, "Defect Reports," 36 F.R. 3064 (February 17, 1971). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations do not require manufacturers to repair defective motor vehicles. Manufacturers are therefore free to make whatever arrangements for repair of defects they wish. Of course, we hope that in making such arrangements the manufacturers will assume the responsibility of assuring that the repairs are made properly.

ID: WarningLabel-GF

Mr. Gerald Plante
Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America, Inc.
PO Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your e-mail of December 19, 2002, concerning certain labeling requirements found in S4.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). Specifically you ask what constitutes the "message area" in S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii) and S4.5.1(e)(2)(ii) and the corresponding Figures 8 and 9. Since your correspondence was received, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has added an additional label that is depicted in Figure 11. [1] The new figure mirrors Figure 8 in all respects except for the addition of a new information bullet, and the two labels will be considered together.

S4.5.1(b)(2), S4.5.1(c), S4.5.1(e)(2) detail the warning label requirements for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The required sun visor warning label must conform in content with the label depicted in Figure 8 or Figure 11 of the standard and must also comply with the formatting requirements specified in S4.5.1(b)(2)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(2)(iv). [2] S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii) requires that the message area within the warning label be no less than 30 cm². S4.5.1(b)(2)(iii) contains a separate requirement that the pictogram be no less than 30 mm (1.2 in) in length. For the removable dashboard label depicted in Figure 9, the message area within the warning label must be no less than 30 cm² (S4.5.1(e)(2)(ii)). Figures 8 and 11 do not have a clear demarcation between the text area and the pictogram. Further, part of the required text in Figures 8 and 11, "even with advanced air bags," is located directly above the pictogram.

In your correspondence you offer four possible interpretations of the term "message area" for Figures 8 and 11 and three possible interpretations of the term for Figure 9.

For Figures 8 and 11 the possible options are as follows:
1) the entire label is the message area;
2) all of the label other than the yellow heading area is the message area;
3) all of the label other than the yellow heading area and the pictogram is the message area; or
4) only the portion of the label with bulleted information is the message area.

For Figure 9 the possible options are as follows:
1) the entire label is the message area;
2) all of the label other than the yellow heading area is the message area; or
3) all of the label other than the yellow heading area and the phrase "even with advanced air bags" is the message area.

The message area described in S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii) refers to the text of the label and the introductory statement of "even with advanced air bags," located above the text and the pictogram, but not to the pictogram. We construe the statement "even with advanced air bags" as a part of the message area because it is not shaded yellow and thus is not part of the heading area. The message area for Figure 9 is all of the label other than the yellow header.

Figures 8, 9, and 11 are based on the sun visor air bag labels depicted in Figures 6a, 6b, and 7 of the standard, which were adopted in 1996. Figures 6a and 6b contain a vertical line separating the message area and the pictogram, although the requirement for these lines is not contained within the regulatory text. Figure 7 depicts a temporary dashboard label with no pictogram. In adopting the new label requirements, NHTSA specified separate dimensions for the message area and the pictogram area. In the preamble to the 1996 Final Rule introducing new label requirements, NHTSA stated that "[t]he agency expects that manufacturers will ensure the English text of each labels fills the 30 cm² area." See 61 Fed. Reg. 60206 at 60210, (Nov. 27, 1996). This statement demonstrates NHTSA's intent that the 30 cm² message area contain only text.

When NHTSA published the advanced air bag final rule on May 12, 2000, it adopted the new Figures 8 and 9 with the same minimum message area and pictogram dimensions as the earlier adopted figures. The agency had no intention of reducing the size of the required warning labels. If the pictogram were considered part of the message area in Figures 8 and 11, the effect would be a significant reduction in the minimum size requirements for the English text of the label. Such a reduction in size was not contemplated by NHTSA.

In order to clarify how to measure the message area, we are providing an explanation of the following parameters. The "message area" consists of the total label area minus the yellow heading area and the pictogram. The pictogram area is enclosed on the left side and bottom by the edge of the label. The right side of the pictogram is defined by a vertical line midway between the rightmost edge of the pictogram and the left most edge of the text, including any bullets. The top edge of the pictogram area is defined by a horizontal line midway between the uppermost edge of the pictogram and the lowermost edge of the text (see Figure 1).

S4.5.1(e)(2)(ii) requires that a message area within the Figure 9 warning label be no less than 30 cm². Unlike the aforementioned warning label specified in S4.5.1(b) and Figures 8 and 11, the S4.5.1(e) warning label does not have a pictogram. Rather, it contains only a yellow heading area and a message area. As with Figures 8 and 11, the statement "even with advanced air bags" is a part of the message area because it is not shaded yellow and thus is not part of the heading area. Accordingly, the message area comprises the entire lower part of label below the heading area shaded in yellow (see Figure 2).

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:208
d.5/6/03





Figure 1. "message area" is represented by broken lines



• NOTE: the above diagram is not to scale and does not include the required pictogram and shading





Figure 2. "message area" is represented by broken lines




• NOTE: the above diagram is not to scale and does not include the required shading





---

[1] See 68 FR 504, January 6, 2003, NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-02-14165.

[2] Figure 11 will become the mandatory label on all vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements on or after September 1, 2003. Prior to that date, vehicle manufacturers may use either Figure 8 or Figure 11 for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements.