ID: nht95-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1995

FROM: Edward J. Googins -- Chief of Police, City of South Portland (Maine)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Edward J. Googins (A43; Std. 222)

TEXT: The question has been raised as to whether our DARE bus needs to have seat belts installed. This bus was given to us by the school department for use by the DARE officer to transport DARE students to activities. These activities occur for the most part outside of the regular school day.

The bus is a 1982, International - Model #S1700 with a GVWR of 20,200. It has stated seated capacity of 35 but due to the size of the students involved, it is difficult to get that many seated. The bus, in accordance to state law, had the flashing r ed and yellow lights removed.

I would appreciate a response from you as to whether this bus in its present use requires the installation of seat belts.

Thank you for your time.

Abuse Resistance Education Drug = DARE

5th & 6th grades

Bus was manufactured as a school bus.

ID: nht95-7.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1995

FROM: Edward J. Googins -- Chief of Police, City of South Portland (Maine)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Edward J. Googins (A43; Std. 222)

TEXT: The question has been raised as to whether our DARE bus needs to have seat belts installed. This bus was given to us by the school department for use by the DARE officer to transport DARE students to activities. These activities occur for the most part outside of the regular school day.

The bus is a 1982, International - Model #S1700 with a GVWR of 20,200. It has stated seated capacity of 35 but due to the size of the students involved, it is difficult to get that many seated. The bus, in accordance to state law, had the flashing red and yellow lights removed.

I would appreciate a response from you as to whether this bus in its present use requires the installation of seat belts.

Thank you for your time.

Abuse Resistance Education Drug = DARE

5th & 6th grades

Bus was manufactured as a school bus.

ID: nht92-3.17

DATE: 10/15/92

FROM: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER, INC.

TO: MR. PAUL JACKSON RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO KENNETH W. WEBSTER, II (A40; STD. 110)

TEXT: This correspondence is a request for clarification of CFR Title 49, Part 571.110, Paragraph 4.4.1(b) (FMVSS 110, "Tire Selection and Rims"). The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) has performed FMVSS certification tests on a passenger car that is to be sold in the U.S. with more than one tire and rim configuration available. Tire retention tests were performed in accordance to NHTSA Test Procedure TP-110-02 at the left front and right rear wheel positions. Since more than one tire and rim configuration is available for the vehicle tested, each configuration was tested at the left front and right rear wheel positions. To save costs, it was desirable to switch only the tire and rim configurations at the test wheel positions while in some cases a different manufactured tire was left on the vehicle at the other wheel positions. In all tire and rim configurations tested, the tires and rims were alike in size, material, traction and type at each wheel position with the exception of a few cases which the tire manufacturer differed.

I cannot locate any information in the CFR 49, Part 571.110 or the NHTSA Laboratory Test Procedure TP-110-02 that indicates all tire and rim configurations are to be exactly alike during the tire retention tests. I have discussed the issue with Zack Fraser who is responsible for FMVSS 110.

Is this a test condition within the requirements of the standard?

Please provide TRC in writing, regarding the Chief Council's position. If you have any questions or require further information before you can determine a position, please contact the undersigned at (513) 666-2011. We thank you in advance for your expeditious reply.

ID: SILVERMA.GM

Howard A. Silverman, Esq.
General Motors Corporation
Mail Code 480-106-304
30500 Mound Rd.
Warren, Michigan 48090-9055

Dear Mr. Silverman:

This responds to your June 24, 1996, fax asking about a requirement in Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for labeling "built-in" child seats, i.e., a seat designed to be "an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle" (S4, Standard 213).

Paragraph S5.5.4(b) and S5.5.5(f) of Standard 213 require built-in seats to be labeled with a statement about the manufacturer's recommendations for the mass, weight and height of children who can safely occupy the system. There are several statements set forth in S5.5.5(f), each with blanks for the manufacturer to insert the recommended values. To illustrate, the statement of S5.5.5(f)(2) is as follows:

This child restraint is designed for use only by children who weigh between ____ and ____ pounds (insert appropriate metric values; use of word "mass" is optional) and whose height is (insert appropriate values in English and metric units) or less and who are capable of sitting upright alone.

(Italics in text.)

In the statements of S5.5.5(f), the English unit (weight) unit is specified first, and the metric unit (mass), second. You ask whether this order may be reversed. You explain that Canada requires the metric measurements to be stated first. You indicate that if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) were to permit the metric unit to be first, GM could use "a common label on built-in child restraints installed on vehicles destined for the United States and Canada."

Our answer is that you may specify the metric unit first. Standard 213 does not specify the sequence of the required information. Further, prior to the requirement that metric values be included on the label, a manufacturer asked NHTSA whether it could voluntarily provide metric units on the label in addition to the English units. NHTSA stated that the metric units may be provided, "[a]s long as the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to cause confusion . . . ." (April 17, 1989 letter to Robert Craig, copy enclosed.) The agency did not indicate that providing the metric unit before the English unit would cause confusion, nor do we believe it likely that such labeling would.

We emphasize, however, that regardless of which unit is provided first, the agency will refer only to the metric value to determine which dummy will be used to test a child restraint. This decision was thoroughly discussed in the final rule adopting the requirement that child seat labels provide both metric and English units. 60 FR 35126, 35131; July 6, 1995.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d:7/24/96

ID: aiam5023

"Dear Mr. Friedkin: This responds to your follow-up letter to th agency requesting that the agency provide 'the applicable 1986 standard for convertible passenger cars.' In an earlier letter, you had asked about our regulations with respect to converting a vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. To begin, there is no single standard applicable to convertible passenger cars, or any other motor vehicles. Instead, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish many standards that apply to passenger cars, including convertible passenger cars. These standards, which are collectively called the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. They cover many different vehicle systems, including controls and displays, vehicle lighting, braking, occupant crash protection, and fuel system integrity. As you review the safety standards in Part 571 to see which aspects of performance are of particular interest to you, you will see that the standards are generally identical for passenger cars and convertible passenger cars. There are some differences, however, including the permissible location for the center high mounted stop lamp (S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) and the inapplicability of the roof crush standard to convertibles (S3 of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance). Additionally, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required the front outboard seating positions of 1986 passenger cars that were not equipped with automatic crash protection (either air bags or automatic belts) to be equipped with a lap/shoulder belt and all other seating positions to be equipped with either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt (S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208). However, convertible passenger cars were permitted to offer either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every designated seating position, including the front outboard positions (S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 1984-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. C.O. Marti -- General Manager, Compenhia Pnmeus Tropical (Brazil)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking how to proceed to have your products certified to conform to the standards issued by this agency, so that you can sell your tires in the United States.

All tires for use on passenger cars imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109), and all tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). I have enclosed copies of both of these standards for your information. You will see that the standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger cars only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements which must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States.

With respect to the performance requirements, you asked how you should proceed to have your products certified to conform to the appropriate standard. The European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires for testing by a governmental entity. However, the United States follows a different procedure. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that its tires comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. 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 tires comply with the applicable standards. Certainly, we recommend that a manufacturer selling tires in the United States test those tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts spot checks of tires after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken.

If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires which fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:

(1) repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or

(2) replace the tire with an identical or reasonably equivalent tire which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy.

It is a simple matter to check the tires to see that the marking requirements in the respective standards have been satisfied. I should point out that the U.S. Customs Service will not allow tires without the DOT marking to enter the United States.

With respect to the tire and rim matching, this information, as well as the loading schedules for the tire size (showing the maximum load the tire can carry at designated inflation pressures) must eitner be set forth in a current standardization organization publication or be furnished by the manufacturers to each of their dealers and in duplicate to this agency. You may wish to obtain a copy of the most current publication by the American standardization organization to see if your company can use the loading schedules and tire and rim matching information published therein for the particular tire sizes you wish to sell in the United States. That publication may be ordered by sending $ 8.50 plus postage costs to: The Tire and Rim Association, 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. If the tire sizes and corresponding rims listed in that publication for those sizes are satisfactory, you will have complied with this requirement. However, if the sizes are not listed or you believe different values should be assigned, you may consult the publications of other standardization organizations or you may elect to furnish the appropriate information to this agency and to each of your dealers. I should note that the Brazilian standardization organization to which you refer in your letter is not recognized by this agency for the purposes of either of the tire standards, so you can not rely on its publications.

I am also enclosing a copy of another regulation that applies to your tires, 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. This requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see @ 574.5), including the manufacturer's identification mark. To obtain an identification mark, you should follow the steps set forth in @ 574.6 of this regulation.

Further, this regulation requires each manufacturer to furnish forms to its tire dealers to record the names and addresses of the first purchasers of these tires. The completed forms will then be returned to the tire manufacturer, or some party designated by the manufacturer to receive those forms. This is necessary in case the manufacturer must recall the tires to remedy a noncompliance with an applicable standard or a safety-related defect. It may be necessary for you to make arrangements with some party in this country to store the completed forms for your.

Finally, I am enclosing a procedural rule which applies to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency (49 CFR Part 551). This regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. The manufacturer identification mark which Part 574 requires you to mold on one sidewall of each of your tires will not be assigned until we have received a valid designation of agent from your company. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the six following items of information:

1. A certification that the (Illegible Word) is valid in form and binding on your company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of your company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of your tires which do not bear the name of your company;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by your company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by your company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

If you need any further information or a clarification of some of the information set forth in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ENCLS.

April 10, 1984 GG-042/84

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Office of Chief Council

Gentlemen,

CIA PNEUS TROPICAL is a Brazilian private manufacturer of tires, tubes and related items, with sales in the domestic and Latin American markets. Our plant, located at Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil, has a daily nominal production capacity of over fifty two metric tons, and its buildings occupy an area of nearly fifty thousands square meters; started production on the last quarter of 1976 and produces bias ply tires for passenger cars, commercial vehicles, trucks, buses and motors graders, of which we are enclosing one set of descriptive leaflets.

Our Quality Control, designed and operated according to the model of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio, USA, through its Brazilian branch, besides the high level of automation of our production equipment, assures the high uniformity of our products and its compliance with the standards of the Associacao Brasileira de Pneus e Aros, an organism with scopes similar to those of the American Tire and Rim Association, as well as with the Brazilian Standards on Traffic Safety.

We are sure that our tires and tubes will have a good acceptance at the American market, moreover if we make some small adjustments of load range in our truck and buses tires, aiming the preferences of the American users, what can be done most easily.

We will very much appreciate your kind notices on how to proceed to have our products certified to conform to the standards of NHTSA, in order they can be placed into the United States of American market.

Looking forward to hear from you, we remain,

C.O. Marti General Manager

ID: nht72-2.37

DATE: 07/21/72

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

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1972, in which you requested our interpretation of several sections of Standard 121. I apologize for our delay in replying.

Your first question concerns the air reservoirs which are considered to be included in the service reservoir system. As shown in your diagram, three tanks are capable of providing air to the service brake chambers: the wet air tank, the dry air tank, and the accessory tank. The first two tanks are clearly part of the service reservoir system. The accessory tank, however, has not been generally considered as part of the service brake system, and it is our opinion that it should not be included in computing the reservoir system capacity.

Although the exclusion of the accessory tank from the service reservoir system would seem to weigh against the present location of your pressure gauge in the accessory system circuit, there is another feature of its operation in its present location which leads us to conclude that it would not be acceptable under the present wording of S5.1.4. In the event of a pressure loss in the accessory system (your Condition #1), the gauge would accurately indicate the pressure in the dry tank until the pressure falls to 65 p.s.i., at which point the gauge would cease to indicate the dry tank pressure and would be only an accessory tank gauge. Thus, if the check valve functions properly, the dry tank would be at 65 p.s.i. even though the gauge may read O p.s.i. Because the pressure deliverable to the brake from the service reservoir system would be the 65 p.s.i. of the dry tank, the gauge would not be indicating the service reservoir system air pressure as required by S5.1.4.

Your third question is whether the vehicle must be stationary throughout the static retardation force test of S5.6.1. Our reply is that the vehicle need not remain stationary. Its friction may be overcome by the test pull, although it must exert a force of the magnitude specified in the section.

Your last question relates to the treatment of trailing axles under the requirements of S5.7.1. You indicate that you presently offer an automatic emergency system as an option and that it appears inconsistent to require park brakes on each axle under the automatic application option when they are not required on each axle the other option. We are continuing our evaluation of the parking brake requirements, including the axle-by-axle braking required by S5.7.1. At this time it has not been decided whether to formally institute rulemaking to adjust the requirements. We will advise you if such rulemaking will be forthcoming.

ID: nht73-1.14

DATE: 08/17/73

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

TO: Semperit - Aktiengelellschaft

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 11, 1973, inquiring whether it is permissible under paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109, "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 facilitate 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 tubless air-retention capability, but which perform satisfactorily when tubes are installed.

Paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 specifically requires the word "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 these 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 tubless. 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,

ATTACH.

SEMPERIT

AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

The Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S.-Department of Transportation July 11,1973

Re: Labelling tubeless, tube type

Dear Sir,

Concerning the labelling of tyres we want to ask if it is allowed to use the word-groups

TUBE-LESS TYPE instead of tubeless

and TUBE- TYPE for tube type.

The distance between TUBE- and TYPE is about of 0,8 inches.

Sincerely,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U.S. COAST GUARD TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER

07/04/73

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN US DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON DC ATTENTION LAWRENCE R SCHNEIDER CHIEF CONSUL WE REFER TO OUR LETTER DATED MA 9 1973 AND ASK YOU PLEASE TO GIVE US AN ANSWER THANKS IN ADVANCE STOP

ERIK SUNDELIN TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIK TRELLEBORG

COASTGUARD WSH

ID: aiam2696

Dear Mr. Loper: This responds to your October 7, 1977, letter to and conversation wit Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus standards to college buses.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined tha colleges do not fall within the ambit of the school bus regulations. I am enclosing a copy of a previous letter on this issue. Accordingly, seat spacing in buses used to transport college students can be determined by the particular state in which the bus will be operated.; Your problem appears to be somewhat more complex than the abov description, however, since you require the college bus to be painted yellow, have flashing lights, and be labeled 'school bus.' It is unlikely that any manufacturers will sell you a bus marked and painted as a school bus that does not comply with the Federal school bus requirements. Were they to do this, it would subject them to liability if the bus were misused to transport school children, which from all outward appearances it would be designed to do. We suggest that you label the bus with the name of the college or other institution and drop the 'school bus' designation. This would permit manufacturers to supply the bus without fear of violating Federal requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-9.12

DATE: February 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Magnan -- Sergeant, Traffic Safety Division, Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis, Mo.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/7/92 from Thomas J. Magnan to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6885)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 7, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to the Hella Position Indicator Lamp. You have asked whether this item may be used on vehicles in the United States.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to grant formal approval of any lighting device. The agency does, however, advise whether use of a device is legal under applicable Federal laws. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides the agency with authority to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised this authority to establish Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Under Standard No. 108, trucks, buses,and multipurpose passenger vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more are required to be equipped with clearance lamps to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. The Hella Position Indicator Lamp could be intended for use as an original equipment clearance lamp or as a supplemental lamp on new vehicles. Although the Hella lamp is mounted on the side of the vehicle and thus indicates more than the overall width of the vehicle,it would nevertheless be acceptable as a clearance lamp if it complied with the other requirements of Standard No. 108 for clearance lamps. As a supplemental lamp, it is subject only to the restriction that it not impair the effectiveness of the original lighting equipment required by the standard. As it appears intended as a supplement to the clearance lamp, we do not judge it likely that the lamp would impair the effectiveness of the clearance lamp, or of any other rear lighting device.

It would appear, however, that the primary application of this device will be in the aftermarket. In this circumstance, Standard No. 108 would not directly apply to the Hella lamp. However, there is a provision of the Safety Act that applies to the installation of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment, including lamps. The Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The effect of this provision is to make it unlawful for any of the named commercial establishments to add or replace any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment on a motor vehicle if the commercial establishment knows or should know that the addition of the aftermarket lighting equipment results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108. The installation of the Hella lamp by the named commercial establishments would not appear to be a "render inoperative" violation, since, as explained above, the Hlla lamp would not appear to impair the effectiveness of any required rear fighting device.

Therefore, the manufacture and sale of this lamp would not appear to violate any of the Federal states and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. However, this does not preclude regulation of the installation and use of aftermarket devices by the individual States. For example, whether this particular lamp design could be used in Missouri would be a question to be answered under the laws of your State. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States. If the Hella distributor is interested in pursuing the question of acceptability under the laws of the individual states, we suggest that he write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.