ID: nht78-1.16

DATE: 02/14/78

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

TO: M. H. Hollaway

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 16, 1977, letter asking whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled "Farm Tire" on a passenger car.

Tires manufactured for use on passenger cars or other motor vehicles designed principally for highway use must comply with all Federal regulations applicable to those tires. Tires designed for use on farm vehicles, on the other hand, are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) a dealer may not "knowingly render inoperative" a device installed on a motor vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. A dealer who removes properly certified passenger car tires from an automobile and replaces them with tires that are specified for farm use would be in violation of section 108 in that the complying tires would have essentially been rendered inoperative by his actions. Section 108 does not apply to private individuals. Thus, a car owner would not be in violation of the law if he accomplished the tire replacement himself. Such action would be highly inadvisable, however, since these restricted use tires are not constructed in compliance with standards that ensure a minimum safe level of performance for highway operation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 16, 1977

Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20013

Gentlemen;

Will you please answer the following question?

Is it unlawful to use tires on a passenger car that are marked "Farm tires"?

These tires are passenger car type tires with white sidewalls. However, a local tire store refused to install them because of the markings.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours Truly,

M. H. Hollaway

MARCH 7, 1978

M. H. Holloway

Dear Mr. Holloway:

This is in further reply to your September 16, 1977, letter asking whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled "Farm Tire" on a passenger car.

We inadvertently neglected to point out in our February 14, 1978, response to your letter that any tire which is marked with a Department of Transportation (DOT) symbol is presumed to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to it. Any tire with such a symbol may therefore be mounted on a motor vehicle without violation of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the former tires are removed, regardless of the appearance of words associating the tire with farm use.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: nht78-1.31

DATE: 10/19/78

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

TO: Colorado Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 22, 1978, letter asking whether the Federal government has any school bus safety standards that would prevent the State of Colorado from regulating in two areas.

A State is not permitted to have any regulation concerning an area of safety regulated by the Federal government unless the State regulation is identical to the Federal standard or imposes a higher standard of care than the Federal regulation and applies only to vehicles purchased for use by the State. With respect to the body diagonal strength test proposed in your letter, the agency does not regulate that aspect of performance. Therefore, the State of Colorado is permitted to regulate this aspect as long as its regulation does not conflict with any Federal standard.

Your second proposal would define "activity bus" in a manner that would except it from State requirements for lighting and color but would continue to require it to be constructed in accordance with the Federal school bus safety standards. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly granted activity buses the option of meeting all of the color and marking requirements for school buses or none of those requirements. That standard has been changed with respect to this option. All activity buses manufactured after April 1, 1978, must comply with all of the requirements applicable to school buses including the color and lighting requirements. Therefore, it is the opinion of the agency that your proposed definition of activity bus would conflict with Standard No. 17.

SINCERELY,

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

September 22, 1978

Roger Tilton National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The State Board of Education in Colorado is considering revision of current standards governing school bus construction.

Two matters have been raised which are connected with current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. They are:

1. Colorado prescribes a diagonal strength test for school bus bodies (sometimes referred to as a "racking load test"). Are there any federal standards which would preclude such a test being required in Colorado?

2. Current Colorado standards define an "Activity Bus" as a vehicle meeting Type II construction standards except for color, alternating flashing signals and stop-arm. Is such a definition acceptable under current federal standards?

The Board will begin reconsideration of these matters at the November 9 meeting. The information needs to be distributed to them as of October 20. I realize that this time frame is constricted; if you could forward some preliminary information by the October 20 date, it would be most helpful.

Thank you for your consideration.

Neal McCormick Consultant School Transportation

ID: nht76-4.3

DATE: 01/15/76

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

TO: Burlington Management Service Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Burlington Fleet Service's December 9, 1975, question whether the combination of usable parts from several existing vehicles into one functioning vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The answer to your question is no. For an assembly operation to constitute manufacture, there must be a substantial proportion of new or fundamentally rebuilt parts. In this case, no new parts, other than minor materials such as hoses and gaskets, are involved in the assembly. The NHTSA therefore, does not consider the operation to constitute manufacturing subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.)

YOURS TRULY,

Burlington Fleet Services

December 9, 1975

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

Our organization is dedicated to keeping maintenance records for many fleets throughout the nation and as part of our service, we attempt to keep our customers advised of new government regulations and how these affect their maintenance practices. At this time, we require clarification of one of your new rulings -- namely, that pertaining to rebuilding trucks using new cabs (glider kits).

It is our understanding that when using glider kits, that two of the three power-line components must be from the same vehicle; otherwise the vehicle will be classified as new and require certification under such standards as 121.

My specific question is, what happens in the case of canabalization, that is, where two or more units are disassembled and reassembled as one, or remanufactured to make a 'new' vehicle?

In summary, when a cab, frame rail, and/or front suspension from one unit is used in conjunction with an engine, transmission and drive axle from one or more other units, does this comprise remanufacturing and will the vehicle be required to meet the same specifications as if a glider kit was used?

Today, with many fleets postponing the purchase of new equipment, extending the life of older units through such practices raises many questions, some of which are economical and, in your case, one which is specifically legal. This question is perplexing both for us and many of our fleets, and requires further clarification. Would you please advise this writer as to your ruling?

We would appreciate being on your mailing list for new or proposed rulings in these areas, for we believe that we have much to offer, especially with the large data base we maintain in this area.

J. E. Paquette Director

ID: nht76-4.8

DATE: 09/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Imperial Chemical Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 2, 1976, question whether evaluation of the lubricity of DOT 4 brake fluid by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) modified stroking test (SAE J1703f) is consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 116, Brake Fluids.

Standard No. 116 specifies that the stroking properties of DOT 4 brake fluids be tested by use of the apparatus described in SAE Standard J1703b. This is the procedure that would be used in a determination of whether a certain brake fluid conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 116. Section 571.5 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 571) provides that materials subject to change are incorporated into a standard as provided in the standard or, if no indication is made, as of the date of adoption of Part 571. In this case, the standard indicates that J1303b is the version of the SAE practice that has been incorporated.

This does not mean that you cannot use the modified SAE procedure for purposes of your certification testing. Your obligation as a manufacturer is to ensure that your certification of compliance is not false or misleading in a material respect, and that you have exercised due care in manufacturing to conform to Standard No. 116 (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b) (2)). A manufacturer is not required to follow specifically the test procedures of the standards. Rather, he must ascertain, in the exercise of due care, that his product will conform to the requirements of the standard when it is tested by the stated methods. The NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturer's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Imperial Chemical Industries Limited

Petrochemicals Division Headquarters

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- Department of Transportation

JULY 2, 1976

Dear Sirs

DOT 4 BRAKE FLUID

We refer to your specification for DOT 4 grade brake fluid as given in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 116, published in the Federal Register, Vol 36, No 122, June 24 1971.

We note that in section S6.13 the evaluation of stroking properties follows the procedure given in SAE J 1703b section 4.12 "Simulated Service Performance".

However our latest SAE Standard for brake fluid (SAE J1703f) contains details of a modified stroking test.

We are considering changing our stroking test apparatus to comply with SAEJ1703f and would be grateful if you could confirm that evaluation of brake fluid lubricity by this method is acceptable for DOT 4 grade fluid.

Yours faithfully

J J Cowley

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: nht73-1.21

DATE: 04/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Lewis Polin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to our Region III office in which you requested information on infant car seats and regulations affecting the manufacture of such seats.

Enclosure 1 is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, along with a recent amendment to the standard. The effective date of this standard was April 1, 1971. All child car seats which both seat and restrain a child in a motor vehicle are now required by law to comply with the requirements of this standard. This regulation requires the date of manufacture to be placed on each seat along with recommendations for its use. Child seating systems are recommended for use by children from approximately eight to nine months to three to four years of age.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is presently developing a proposed amendment to the existing standard which will require dynamic tests of all child restraints and will regulate infant restraints which are not presently covered by Standard No. 213. However, it is not anticipated that this amendment will become effective in the near future.

Enclosures 2 and 3 are copies of press releases notifying consumers of devices which have failed to pass Standard No. 213, and of the action the manufacturers are taking to correct the situation. Additionally, we are enclosing a copy of a consumer information booklet entitled, "What To Buy In Child Restraint Systems." We hope this information will assist you.

We do not endorse or advocate any specific product, but rather develop, issue, and enforce minimum safety standards for consumer protection. In the final analysis, the consumer should select a restraint which best fits his particular needs. Many practical considerations may affect the usage of a device, for example, the activity level of the child, portability of the device, and ease of attachment. These are all factors which the buyer of a child restraint system should consider in making his selection.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

4 Enclosures

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

REGION III March 22, 1973

Mrs. Lewis Polin

1912 Nester Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19115

Dear Mrs. Polin:

We would like to thank you for your interest in highway safety. Your request for information concerning regulations enacted in regard to infant car seats, along with brand names of those manufacturers who have produced such products in conformance with these standards, has been forwarded to our Washington office, and they in turn will help you with obtaining the information you need.

Sincerely,

Vincent D. Walsh, Sr. -- Regional Administrator

ID: nht73-1.29

DATE: 08/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1973, asking whether a rear "light signalling" switch may be installed on your vehicles.

As I understand your letter, the switch and circuitry in question provide automatic flashing of side markers, clearance, tail, and identification lamps. Wiring of this nature, whether installed by the incomplete, intermediate, or final stage manufacturer would violate S4.6(b) of Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.5.8(b)). You are correct in saying that a switch and circuit may be furnished by manufacturers of truck-tractors, and incomplete vehicles for flashing only the side markers, and "that trailer manufacturers and subsequent vehicle manufacturers shall be responsible for the electrical circuitry to insure that marker lamps are independent from clearance, tail, and identification lamps." Of course, wiring these lamps to the same on-off switch would not violate the standard provided there is no flasher in the circuit.

You also ask "who assumes the responsibility for older trailers which will not have marker lamps on an independent circuit." The person completing the circuitry on a trailer is responsible for compliance to standards in effect when the trailer is completed.

Yours truly,

July 19, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

ATTENTION: Office of the Administrator

SUBJECT: Request for interpretation of use of interrupting switch for flashing vehicle lighting for signalling purposes.

REF: Part 571.108, Standard 108, Paragraphs 54.5.3 & 54.5.8 (b)

Dear Sir:

As a manufacturer of heavy duty motor trucks, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc. receives many customer requests for a "light signalling" switch, which we have refused to furnish.

Paragraph 54.5.8 (b) permits flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps. Is it the intent that a manufacturer of truck-tractors (complete vehicle when 5th wheel is installed) and original manufacturer of "Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages" may furnish a switch and circuit for flashing markers only, and that trailer manufacturers and subsequent vehicle manufacturers shall be responsible for the electrical circuitry to insure that marker lamps are independent from clearance, tail, and identification lamps? If so, who assumes the responsibility for older trailers which will not have marker lamps on an independent circuit?

Customers report that other truck manufacturers do furnish a rear lighting signalling switch and, due to our refusal (based on our interpretation) to offer this type of switch, Diamond Reo is being placed at a disadvantage when bidding on vehicle build contracts.

Your immediate interpretation will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

DIAMOND REO TRUCKS, INC. -- R. D. Shepard, Staff Engineer - Electrical & Safety

cc: G. Sztykiel

ID: 77-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rototron Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1977, with respect to moped tires. You have informed us that you wish to manufacture mopeds that would be equipped with an unspecified quantity of tires that are "not marked with the letters DOT and [do not] have the letters UY which is the code assigned by the DOT to this company. . ." You have asked "to have an interim approval from your office for use of this tire until we can arrange for this manufacturer to engrave the necessary letters in their mold".

The symbol "DOT" is the tire manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Without that certification a moped manufacturer would appear to have no reasonable basis for certifying that vehicles of his manufacture equipped with these tires comply with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your use of these tires might therefore be an apparent violation of the certification requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act subjecting you to civil penalties. If the tires in fact failed to comply, additional penalties could be imposed, and you would be required to notify and remedy the noncompliance.

The fact that part of a foreign manufacturer's production may be certified as meeting DOT standards cannot be relied upon as an assurance that a tire that is not marked with the DOT symbol or manufacturer code letters will also comply. Indeed, it is a prima facie indication that the tire was not manufactured for the American market and does not meet Federal safety standards.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

September 1, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are about to enter the manufacture of a moped and we wish to make use of a tire which is manufactured by the CHENG-SHIN CO. of Taiwan. This tire is imported for the Worksman Trading Co. in Brooklyn, New York, and bears the name WTC and is marked "Made in Taiwan", but is not marked with the letters DOT and it doesn't bear the letters UY which is the code assigned by the DOT to this company whose product line generally speaking is DOT approved and marked accordingly.

We wish to have an interim approval from your office for use of this tire until we can arrange for the manufacturer to engrave the necessary letters in their mold.

Very truly yours, ROTOTRON CORPORATION; Stuart Pivar President

ID: nht75-2.12

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 30, 1975, concerning the standards applicable to a tire which you manufacture and sell with the designation L78-15LT, Load Range C.

You are mistaken in your assumption that a station wagon is classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. Because it is constructed neither on a truck chassis nor with special features for occasional off-road operation, a station wagon is a passenger car rather than a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.

If, despite this misunderstanding, the L78-15LT tire in question is designated by you as primarily intended for use on lightweight trucks or multi-purpose passenger vehicles, then it is a light truck tire subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

Because a station wagon is a passenger car, Standard No. 110 requires that its original equipment tires comply with Standard No. 109. Standard No. 110 is not applicable to used cars, so there is no prohibition on the use of the L78-15LT tire as replacement equipment on a station wagon. However, because the informational placard on a station wagon would suggest to its owner the use of inflation pressures which are dangerously inadequate for light truck tires, we do not wish to encourage the sale of such tires as replacement equipment for use on station wagons.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY

May 30, 1975

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

Attention: Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

We are manufacturing and selling in the replacement market only a truck tire described as a

L78-15 Light Truck 6-ply rated tire. This will be designated as a L78-15LT, C load range.

We have been informed by one of our large distributors that they intend to sell this tire as a replacement tire for use on station wagons. The rims used on station wagons are listed by The Tire and Rim Association as a rim size for this tire.

As we interpret the definition of a "Light Truck Tire" under Standard 119, this tire may be used on station wagons if qualified and labeled under MVSS 119 and need not be qualified or carry the labeling required under MVSS 109. We assume a station wagon to be a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.

We understand that our interpretation would not apply if the tire were supplied as original equipment.

We would appreciate your opinion in this matter.

Sincerely,

R. L. Donnelly -- SECRETARY

ID: nht75-2.19

DATE: 09/19/75

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

TO: Champ Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your July 14, 1975, letter concerning the classification of your rough terrain fork lift trucks for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A copy of our September 5, 1975, letter on this subject to Congressman Danielson is enclosed. We hope it clarifies the status of your products.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

July 14, 1975

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

Atten: Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel

Re: D.O.T. 119 and 120

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Thank you for your answer to our letter of April 10. I was also pleased to be able to talk to Mr. Ted Herlhy in your absence last week.

We sincerely believe that the Champ lift truck should not be classified as a motor vehicle for purposes of these rulings because of the distinctive configuration and the intended use. Since it is necessary to incorporate automotive type transmissions into the Champ product to make it function as a tractor in rough terrain, these same components do permit the Champ to operate at speeds in excess of 20 MPH. These speeds would be reached if the Champ were driven down the highway in fourth gear. However, this is both impractical and possibly dangerous. The Champ is not intended to be driven on the public streets or highways. It is, however, intended to be towed occasionally from work site to work site. In these cases, the Champ is equipped with towing brakes; stop, tail and turn lights; and mud flaps.

The Champ models which would use off the road tires are designed for either construction work or agriculture. As such, their performance is limited to off the road functions. Such periods of operation may vary from weeks to months to permanent assignments.

In 28 years of manufacturing and selling Champs, we find no records of an upset caused by a blown off the road drive tire. While being towed empty it carries approximately 1/3 of its rated tire loading. Twelve and fourteen-ply tires are used for added safety.

To rule out the use of off the road tires in our construction models would eliminate the production of the major portion of our business. Such a blow would be disastrous.

Should you feel we could better present our case if we were to visit your office, we would be most happy to do so.

Please contact us if you would like additional information.

Sincerely, CHAMP CORPORATION; Mike M. Simovich -- President

(Brochure Omitted)