ID: nht70-1.35

DATE: 01/26/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: Request for Interpretations By Suzuki

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1969, requesting confirmation of your interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations, and further asking whether or not certain other areas of vehicle performance are presently regulated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.).

In your letter you state that your request results from the fact that Suzuki is considering the production of a multipurpose passenger vehicle for expert into the United States sometimes in 1970, and attach a sketch of this vehicle. The vehicle represented by the sketch, however, appears to be a truck, and not a multipurpose passenger vehicle. "Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in the regulations (49 CFR 371.3(b)) as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry(Illegible Word) persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." "Truck" is defined to mean (49 CFR 371.3(b)) "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or(Illegible Word) equipment." The distinction between a truck and multipurpose passenger vehicle, therefore, is whether the vehicle is designed primarily to carry persons or property. The sketch you enclose is of a vehicle designed to carry property, and for this reason I have answered your questions with reference only to trucks. Your questions are repeated below, with our replies following them:

Subject No. 1 - Glazing Requirements - Rear Windows

1. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top with no rear window if an outside mirror was installed on the right side of the vehicle."

You are correct in saying you may use a fabric soft top with no rear window. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 specific glazing materials for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, motorcycles, trucks and buses. It does not require a rear window or the use of glazing material therein. If a rear window is installed, however, the referenced United States of America Standards Institute "American Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," AGA Standard 325.1-1966, July 15, 1955, specifies the types of material which must be used.

There are no National Highway Safety Bureau requirements for mirrors on trucks.

2. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, with an open section in the back, utilizing no installation of glazing material, but just an open area which would permit viewing to the rear using the inside rear view mirror."

Your understanding is correct. As stated before, Standard No. 205 does not require the use of glazing material.

3. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, using a rear window such as found in the tops of convertible automobiles, in which the rear window's composition has utilized a ASA plastic material conforming to 325.1-1966 regulations.

"If this is correct we would appreciate being informed which plastic materials can be utilized."

That is incorrect. The criterion for "a rear window such as found in convertible automobiles" is inappropriate for trucks. The only plastics which may be used in trucks are S4 and S5, rigid plastics, and then only "where other means to afford visibility of the highway" are provided.

4. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, using a rear window such as found in the tops of convertible automobiles, in which the rear window's composition has utilized a ASA safety glass material conforming to 325.1-1966 regulations.

"If this is correct we would appreciate being informed which safety glass materials can be utilized."

As indicated in our comment to number 3 above, the criterion for rear window glazing used in convertible automobiles is inappropriate for trucks. ASA Standard 325.1-1966 allows the use of Items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11 glass in the rear window of trucks. Item 3 or 9 glass may only be used, however, "where other means to afford visibility of the highway" are provided.

Subject No. 2 - Gross Vehicle Weight

"It is our understanding that, at present, there is no requirement that a manufacturer attach a label to the vehicle stating the gross vehicle weight of . . . [trucks] in the weight category of 2,000 lbs. or less."

Your understanding is correct. The National Highway Safety Bureau does not presently have a requirement for gross vehicle weight labeling.

Subject No. 3 - Fuel Tank Requirements

"It is our understanding again that there is no present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard retaining to gas tanks on . . . [trucks]. I understand that there may be future standards implemented in the near future regarding this subject."

Your understanding is correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, "Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler(Illegible Word) and Fuel Tank Connection-Passenger Cars", applies to only passenger cars at this time. Docket No. 3-2 (F.R. 14232), currently under consideration, contemplates extending the requirements of Standard No. 301 to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and motorcycles.

Subject No. 4 - Vehicle Noise Level "It is our understanding that, at the present time, there is no special noise level requirements pertaining to . . . [trucks]. We would appreciate your comments as to any future standard presently under discussion regarding this subject."

Your understanding is correct. There are no Federal requirements or proposals at present concerning vehicle noise level, There are states and municipalities, however, that have requirements concerning this subject.

Subject No. 5 - Speedometer Error

"There are several questions we have regarding this subject.

1. Is there a stipulation regarding allowance of percentage of speedometer error.

2. Would it be considered the manufacturer's responsibility for speedometer error in case the user or person was to change the tire size."

There are presently no Federal requirements concerning speedometers. A substantial speedometer error resulting from a reasonable tire size change might be considered a safety related defect for which the manufacturer would be responsible.

Subject No. 6 - Special Label for Non-Conforming Vehicle Entry Into The United States

"I would like to confirm the following information regarding the placement of a special label to be placed on the inside of the vehicle's windshield so that it is readable from the outside of a vehicle being imported into the United States. This would be placed on a vehicle that does not have the This would be placed on a vehicle that does not have the required Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard items readily attached in their respective place on the vehicle.

"It is my understanding, for instance, that if the outside rear view mirror was not attached to the vehicle, but packaged in a box to prevent damage or pulferage while in transit to the United States, that in such a case a label would be required to be attached to the vehicle stating essentially the following message.

THIS VEHICLES DOES NOT CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD # 111 BECAUSE THE OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR HAS NOT BEEN ATTACHED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF SHIPMENT. THIS VEHICLE WILL BE BROUGHT INTO CONFORMITY BY ATTACHMENT OF THE OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR BEFORE IT IS OFFERED FOR SALE TO THE FIRST PURCHASER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESALE.

"If we have interpreted this requirement correctly would you please advise us of the full requirements for this label. It is also our understanding that at the time of importation of these vehicles the importer would be required to submit in duplicate the Federal Highway Administration Form Number HS-7."

Your interpretation of the above is correct. A label such as you have described, used in conjunction with the certification label required in 49 CFR 367, would meet the requirements. Your understanding regarding the HS-7 form is also correct.

We trust this will clarify the situation for you.

ID: 7331

Christian Hammarskjold
Vice President
USSC Group, Inc.
20 Union Hill Road
West Conshohocken, PA 19428

Dear Mr. Hammarskjold:

This responds to your letters of May 28, 1992 concerning suspension seats. Your first letter states that you have been asked by SCRTD in Los Angeles to develop a system that will allow your suspension seats for the driver's seating position in transit buses to tilt from side-to-side. Your letter states:

In addition, USSC is concerned that there are not applicable FMVSS requirements that address a side-to- side strength requirements. 207/210 requires a pull from the front of the seat. What happens if there is a side impact on a suspension seat that has a ball and socket joint. Are there any applicable performance requirements that may apply to such a system.

With respect to seats which tilt side-to-side, you are correct that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, does not include a performance requirement addressing side-to-side strength. Standard No. 207 requires certain specified forces to be applied only in a forward direction and in a rearward direction. All seats, in all vehicles, except for side-facing seats or passenger seats in buses, must be capable of withstanding these forces when tested in accordance with the S5 of Standard No. 207.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. The defect responsibility is a broad one and would include the side-to-side performance of your seat. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a vehicle containing your seat has a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. You may be interested in a current proposal to amend Standard No. 207 to establish revised test procedures for pedestal seats. I have enclosed a copy of the notice for your information.

Your second letter asks when shoulder belts will be required on suspension seats. The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle, not based on seat design. I have limited the following discussion of safety belt requirements to trucks and buses, as I am unaware of any passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles which contain suspension seats. As explained below, shoulder belts are required at every forward-facing outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; at the driver's seating position and at every forward-facing outboard seating position in buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; and at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions in school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Shoulder belts are not required at any other seating positions in these vehicles or in trucks or buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds.

The requirements for trucks are contained in sections S4.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Sections S4.2.2 and S4.2.3 of Standard No. 208 give vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 and before September 1, 1997. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or a lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3 requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. In addition, each Type 2 seat belt assembly (i.e., lap/shoulder safety belts) installed at a front outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less must satisfy the dynamic testing requirements in S4.6.

S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies that a Type 2 seat belt assembly must be installed at each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991.

Section S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208 specifies a phase-in of trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less that must satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 (Option 1 above). Twenty percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1995 must meet this requirement; 50 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 and before September 1, 1996; 90 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997. All trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 must comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1.

Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. In addition, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for buses are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. In addition, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Section S4.4.3 requires buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position and at every front and rear forward-facing seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, are required to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions, and either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. As mentioned previously, buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 are subject to the phase-in requirement for automatic occupant protection.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Attachment

ref:207#208 d:8/10/92

ID: nht92-4.42

DATE: August 10, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Christian Hammarskjold -- Vice President, USSC Group, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letters dated 5/28/92 from Christian Hammarskjold to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of May 28, 1992 concerning suspension seats. Your first letter states that you have been asked by SCRTD in Los Angeles to develop a system that will allow your suspension seats for the driver's seating position in transit buses to tilt from side-to-side. Your letter states:

In addition, USSC is concerned that there are not applicable FMVSS requirements that address a side-to-side strength requirements. 207/210 requires a pull from the front of the seat. What happens if there is a side impact on a suspension seat that has a ball and socket joint. Are there any applicable performance requirements that may apply to such a system.

With respect to seats which tilt side-to-side, you are correct that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, does not include a performance requirement addressing side-to-side strength. Standard No. 207 requires certain specified forces to be applied only in a forward direction and in a rearward direction. All seats, in all vehicles, except for side-facing seats or passenger seats in buses, must be capable of withstanding these forces when tested in accordance with the S5 of Standard No. 207.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers are subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. The defect responsibility is a broad one and would include the side-to-side performance of your seat. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a vehicle containing your seat has a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You may be interested in a current proposal to amend Standard No. 207 to establish revised test procedures for pedestal seats. I have enclosed a copy of the notice for your information.

Your second letter asks when shoulder belts will be required on suspension seats. The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle, not based on seat design. I have limited the following discussion of safety belt requirements to trucks and buses, as I am unaware of any passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles which contain suspension seats. As explained below, shoulder belts are required at every forward-facing outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; at the driver's seating position and at every forward-facing outboard seating position in buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; and at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions in school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or

less. Shoulder belts are not required at any other seating positions in these vehicles or in trucks or buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds.

The requirements for trucks are contained in sections S4.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Sections S4.2.2 and S4.2.3 of Standard No. 208 give vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 and before September 1, 1997. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions, and EITHER meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or a lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3 requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. In addition, each Type 2 seat belt assembly (i.e., lap/shoulder safety belts) installed at a front outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less must satisfy the dynamic testing requirements in S4.6.

S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies that a Type 2 seat belt assembly must be installed at each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991.

Section S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208 specifies a phase-in of trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less that must satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 (Option 1 above). Twenty percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1995 must meet this requirement; 50 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 and before September 1, 1996; 90 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997. All trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 must comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1.

Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. In addition, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for buses are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990.

Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. In addition, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Section S4.4.3 requires buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position and at every front and rear forward-facing seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, are required to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions, and either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. As mentioned previously, buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 are subject to the phase-in requirement for automatic occupant protection.

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

ID: 1983-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: China United Trading Corp. Ltd. -- Yang Ru-Tang, General Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements for importing tires into this country from China. I have enclosed a copy of a 1981 letter I sent to Mr. Deng Shin-Wen, the chief engineer of the Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant. That letter generally explains the requirements which must be met in order to import tires into this country. While that letter answers many of your questions, I will repeat the requirements to ensure that you understand them, and respond to those questions not covered in the previous letter.

To receive a DOT code mark, a tire manufacturer must complete the enclosed application form and return it to the address shown on the form. A separate application must be filed for each manufacturing plant, and a separate code mark will be assigned to each plant.

Before a code mark is assigned, the tire manufacturer must designate an agent for the service of process, according to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 551.45 (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the designation of agent must meet the following six criteria:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer 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 the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

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

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

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

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. When this agency has received a completed application for a code mark and a valid designation of an agent, a code mark will be assigned to the manufacturer promptly, usually within two weeks. You should note that the code mark is sent to the manufacturer at the mailing or main office address shown on the application, and not to the designated agent. The DOT code mark assigned to the manufacturer remains valid until such time as the manufacturer notifies this agency that it is no longer using that code mark.

No testing of the tires is done by this agency before assigning the DOT code mark. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which the manufacturer is required to deliver tires to be certified to the governmental entity for approval. Instead, in the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) if they are passenger car tires or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119) if the tires are for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. 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 determines that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standards, 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 of 1966, as amended (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 tires 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.

With respect to the markings required on the sidewall of the tires, those markings and their required size and location are set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and S6.5 of Standard No. 119 for tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part Part 574 (copy enclosed) also sets forth marking requirements for all types of tires.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need further information, please feel free to contact me.

ENCLS.

Jan. 19, 1983

OCC

Raymond Peck, Administrator, Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration,

Gentleman,

We are China United Trading Corp. Ltd., Shanghai Division, newly established and located at One Penn Plaza Suite 1915, 250 W 34th St., New York, N.Y. 10119, and are agent of some import & export corporations in Shanghai, China. Now China National Chemicals Import & Export Corp., Shanghai Branch, located at 27 Zhongshan Road (E.1), Shanghai, China, who are the exporter of tires manufactured in Shanghai, intends to export and sell their truck and car tires in the United States.

We understand that an application must be made and approved with a Code Number before any foreign tires can be imported and sold in the U.S. market. In this connection, we need to get the following information with your assistance.

1. Is your office the right organization for the application to be submitted?

2. Should the application be made by the manufacturers or by their agent as mentioned above? What is the procedure in detail?

3. What is the procedure for quality examination of tires before you issue the Code No. and allow importation? Do you have your own laboratories for test or appoint any ones for test? Where shall the exporters or their local agents submit samples of tires for such a test?

4. Should each size, specification of the tires be tested in this way? How many tires are necessary as samples to complete such a test?

5. Is it necessary for the tires to be tested before they are allowed to be sold or to be tested by random selection at anytime from the market after selling?

6. If the tire does not pass the sellective examination, can re-examination be made or not? Is there any restriction for the re-examination?

7. What kind of responsibility would be borne by the manufacturer if the product does not pass the quality examination requirements? Is there any penalty in this respect?

8. Would the quality records by selective examination or test report be informed to the manufacturer?

9. What kind of reponsibility should be borne by the application agent and/or the manufacturer if any quality problems arise when a vehicle is in performance?

10. After DOT approval, where and what size should the DOT Code Number be put on the tires? Besides the DOT Code Number, what else are also necessary to be shown on the tires?

11. Once the DOT approval has been obtained, how long will it remain valid?

Please send us some papers concerning the above questions, if you have any.

Your early reply and assistance will be highly appreciated.

general manager yang Ru-tang

China United Trading Corp. Ltd., Shanghai Division

ID: 1984-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Janet E. Odom -- Deputy City Attorney, Lakewood, Colorado

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter concerning legislation that went into effect on January 1, 1984, in Colorado governing the use of certain materials on vehicle windows. You asked us to review the legislation and to inform you as to the effect of Federal statutes or regulations on the Colorado statute.

Section 42-4-224(1)(a) of the Colorado statute enclosed in your letter prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle in which "the windshield or front side windows and side wings immediately forward of or to the left and right of the driver are composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component which presents an opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored appearance in such a way that the operator of the vehicle cannot be easily identified or recognized through such window from outside the vehicle." In addition, Section 42-4-224(d) provide that "No material shall be used on any window in the motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance."

Section 42-4-224(c) of the Colorado statute provides that the prohibition against the use of opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored windows shall not be construed "to prevent the use of any window which is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component in a manner approved by federal statute or regulation if such window was included as a component part of a vehicle at the time of the vehicle manufacture, or the replacement of any such window by such covering which meets such guidelines."

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) sets forth the agency's preemption authority. Section 103(d) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Pursuant to section 103(a) of the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles as well as replacement glazing to be installed in used vehicles. One aspect of performance covered by the standard is the light transmittance of windows which are requisite for driving visibility. Those windows must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. The agency considers all windows in passenger vehicles requisite for driving visibility. In most other motor vehicles, only the windshield and front side windows are usually considered requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, for instance, under Standard No. 205 the rear windows of a van could be opaque, since the transmittance requirements would not apply to those windows.

Because section 42-4-224(c) of the Colorado statute specifically provides that materials installed on a new vehicle or as replacement equipment in compliance with a Federal regulation are not prohibited, the statute is not in conflict with Standard No. 205 and thus is not preempted. In addition, since the reflectivity of a window is not an aspect of performance governed by Standard No. 205, Colorado's requirements concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted. Once a vehicle is sold, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, those persons may not install materials on a vehicle's window if the installation would mean that the vehicle no longer complies with Standard No. 205. The agency's authority does not extend to the activities of individual vehicle owners. Therefore, the Colorado statute's prohibition against an owner installing opaque and other films is a matter within the State's authority and is not affected by Federal law.

If you need any further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 23, 1983

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Effective January 1, 1984, legislation will go into effect in Colorado that will prohibit the use of any material on any window in a motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance. The windshield or front side windows and side wings to the immediate left and right of the driver cannot also be covered by or composed of any nontransparent or opaque material. To be unlawful, said material must serve to make the driver of the vehicle not easily identifiable or recognizable through such window from outside the vehicle.

Could you please review this legislation, which I have enclosed, and inform me of your opinion concerning whether metallic or mirrored windows are permitted by federal statute or regulation to be used anywhere in the motor vehicle? Since federal regulations, as stated in ANS Z26, mandate that windows that are needed for the driver's visability allow light transmittance of not less than 70 percent of the available light, would metallic or mirrored windows conform to these regulations?

I would appreciate any assistance you could provide in interpreting the federal requirements.

Sincerely, Janet E. Odom -- Deputy City Attorney, City of Lakewood

Encls.

SECTION 2. 42-4-224, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended, is REPEALED AND REENACTED, WITH AMENDMENTS, to read:

42-4-224. Windows unobstructed - certain materials prohibited - windshield wiper requirements. (1) (a) No person shall operate any motor vehicle on which the windshield or front side windows and side wings immediately forward of or to the left and right of the driver are composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component which presents an opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored appearance in such a way that the operator of the vehicle cannot be easily identified or recognized through such window from outside the vehicle.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), nontransparent material may be applied, installed, or affixed to the topmost portion of the windshield subject to the following:

(I) The bottom edge of the material extends no more than four inches measured from the top of the windshield down:

(II) The material is not red or amber in color, nor does it affect perception of primary colors or otherwise distort vision or contain lettering that distorts or obstructs vision;

(III) The material does not reflect sunlight or headlight glare into the eyes of occupants of oncoming or preceding vehicles to any greater extent than the windshield without the material.

(c) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to prevent the use of any window which is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component in a manner approved by federal statute or regulation if such window was included as a component part of a vehicle at the time of the vehicle manufacture, or the replacement of any such window by such covering which meets such guidelines.

(d) No material shall be used on any window in the motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance.

(e) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to deny or prevent the use of certificates or other papers which do not obstruct the view of the driver and which may be required by law to be displayed.

(2) The windshield on every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow, or other moisture from the windshield, which device shall be so constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.

(3) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class B traffic infraction.

(4) This section shall apply to all motor vehicles.

SECTION 3. Effective date. This act shall take effect January 1, 1984.

SECTION 4. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

Ted L. Strickland PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

Carl B. Bledsoe SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Marjorie L. Nielson SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

Lorraine F. Lombardi CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APPROVED June 1, 1983 8:13 pm

Richard D. Lamm GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

ID: 1985-01.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Verne L. Freeland

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Verne L. Freeland P.O. Box 693652 Miami, FL 33269

This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of the Rulemaking division of this agency, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that you had developed a child restraint system which was built into the vehicle seat, and asked how to proceed to have this child restraint certified as complying with Standard No. 213. As currently written, Standard No. 213 does not accommodate your type of restraint.

A manufacturer of a child restraint system is required to certify that each child restraint system manufactured by it complies with all of the requirements of Standard No. 213, and adding a statement to that effect to the label required by section S5.5 of the Standard. This certification need not be based on actual test results; NHTSA only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what test results, engineering analysis, or other data would be sufficient to enable it to meet the due care requirement in certifying that its child restraints comply with the standard. Certainly, we would recommend that a manufacturer marketing a new child restraint design test that restraint in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard.

As you will see from the enclosed copy of Standard No. 213, Section S5.3.1 of the standard requires each child restraint system to be capable of being restrained by a type 1 seat belt system. In addition, the test procedures in section S6 specify that the child restraint is to be tested by attaching it to a standard vehicle seat solely by the vehicle seat's lap belts. Your design, which incorporates the restraint into a vehicle seat, could not be attached to a standard vehicle seat by means of lap belts.

Standard No. 213 would have to be amended in order for you to be able to certify that your child restraint satisfies all the requirements of that standard. 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) gives interested persons the right to petition this agency for amendments a safety standard, and sets forth the required contents of the petition, the address to which it should be sent, and the procedures which will be followed by the agency in evaluating the petition. If you wish, you may file such a petition. Should such a petition be granted, this agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard No. 213.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Verna L. Freeland PO Box 693652 Miami, Florida 33269 Tel(305)653-1882

July 4, 1984

Val Radovich, Safety Standards Engineer, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 5316 NRM 12, Washington, D.C., 20590

Re: Obtaining certification of "Built-In Childs Safety Seat" to U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213-80 - Child Seating Systems

Dear Mr. Radovich,

I am the inventor of a built-in childs safety seat as described and depicted in the attached copy of my pending application for U.S. Letters Patent as/also the attached illustrative pictures of miniature model of same.

In April, 1984, I submitted a copy of the patent application and pictures, together with a sales pitch, entitled 'comment' (copy attached) to each of the 19 directors of Chrysler corporation in hopes of having Chrysler manufacture and incorporate the depicted child's safety seat in their vehicles.

On May 8th 1984, as a result of the submission of such material to Chrysler, I received, signed and delivered to Chrysler a 'Suggestion Agreement' as a prerequisite which, I believed, would expedite the consideration and implementation of the invention by Chrysler. (copy attached).

On May 29, 1984, I was advised by Chrysler that the built-in childs safety seat must be certified by NHTSA to meet the requirements of U.S. Motor Vehicle Standard No. 213-80 - Child Seating Systems, before the seat could be evaluated by Chrysler. This May 29th letter from Chrysler further advised me to obtain information as to such certification by contacting NHTSA at 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., attention: Secretary Dole. (a copy of such letter is attached).

On June 4, 1984, I sent a letter to NHTSA at the address and to the attention of Secretary Dole, as advised by the letter from Chrysler. (copy of June 4th letter attached).

On July 3, 1984, having received no response to my letter of June 4th, I began telephoning to seek the requested information, commencing with first telephone call to Secretary Dole's offices, which referred me to another telephone number, which referred me to another telephone number, etc., etc., etc., which finally resulted in my being advised that you (or a member of your staff) would ultimately respond to my June 4th letter when the same had finally filtered down through the chain of command from Secretary Dole's office. (a procedure which was estimated as a 'month or two').

In view of the foregoing information, and seeking to expedite the matter, I telephoned your office and was advised to send a new letter directly to you. During such telephone conversation I attempted to describe my invention in order to secure some telephonic information as to the procedure, criteria, and time element involved in obtaining the desired certification and was advised that since my proposed seat is bolted to the regular auto seat (as a built-in integral part thereof) it did not have the required 'tether belting' necessary to meet the specifications of Standard 213-80 and hence, would probably require petition for variance or for an exemption from such requirement of the act.

Now then, Mr. Radovich, having given you all of the background information, with supporting documents, I ask for your assistance in obtaining the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible including but not limited to:

(a) Advising me as to the procedure or procedures necessary to effect certification of the depicted built-in childs safety seat.

(b) Advising me as to the necessity and, if so, the procedure for obtaining variance and/or exemption from the 'tether belt' requirement of 213-80.

(c) Advising me as to whether or not I must construct and furnish you with a full scale working model of the depicted built-in childs safety seat and, if so, where and when?

(e) Advising me as to the anticipated costs and expenses involved in obtaining certification, and

(f) Such other and further advice as you may be so kind as to suggest in order to obtain the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible.

In regard to the ultimate certification, I understand that the present certification requires that child seat safety equipment meet safety standards of a thirty (30) mile per hour impact test. It is my belief that the depicted built-in childs safety seat will meet much higher safety standards of 55 miles per hour impact, and higher. This, coupled with the elimination of injuries caused by improperly attached equipment, etc., (as suggested in the patent application and comments) may well give rise to further decreasing injuries to children in vehicles and, consequently, I am anxious to have the built-in childs safety seat tested to its maximum safety certification instead of the normal and minimal 30 miles per hour standards.

I apologize for the length of this letter but I sincerely believe that the depicted seat constitutes such a substantial improvement of the existing childs safety seats now on the market as to warrant consideration of getting it certified and on the market as soon as humanly possible.

Yours very truly,

Verne L. Freeland

xerox copy *to: R.E. Springer, Outside Suggestion Dept., Chrysler Corporation, CIMS 418-05-30, P. O. Box 1118 Detroit, Michigan, 48288

* without attachments

&: WIGMAN & COHEN, P.C., Suite 200, Crystal Square 3, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202 Serial No. 584, 402 Ref: 1589-A

ID: 1985-01.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Philip Yale Simons, Esq. -- Freeman, Wasserman and Schneider

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Philip Yale Simons, Esq. Freeman, Wasserman & Schneider 90 John Street New York, New York 10038

I am responding to your January 24, 1985, request for confirmation that the Hagglunds Bv 206 is not subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. As you describe the Bv 206, it is an all-terrain vehicle consisting of front and rear cabs, which travels on rubber tracks. You further state that the vehicle is neither designed nor intended for use on public streets, roads, and highways.

The safety standards and regulations that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues are applicable only to "motor vehicles." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Based on your description and the specification sheets you enclosed, the Bv 206 does not appear to be suitable for use on public roads. It therefore is not considered a "motor vehicle" and is not subject to our safety regulations.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

January 24, 1985

Attention: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Subject: Ruling Request: All-Terrain Vehicle

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, ASEA Hagglunds Inc., The Woodlands, Texas ("Hagglunds"), and constitutes a request for a ruling to exclude Hagglunds Bv 206 all-terrain vehicles from the requirements of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S1381 et. seq., hereinafter the "Act"). Hagglunds purchases the all-terrain vehicles from its Swedish manufacturer and imports them into the United States.

For the reasons stated below, we respectfully submit that the vehicles in question are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of Section 102(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. S1391(3)), and are, therefore, exempt from the requirements of the Act.

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLE

The Hagglunds all-terrain vehicle is designed specifically for off the street and off the highway use. The Bv 206 vehicle is designed to traverse rocky surfaces, snow-covered surfaces, forests, mountains and similar harsh or "adverse" terrain over which "ordinary" vehicles cannot travel. The vehicle is comprised of front and rear cabs which are joined by an articulated steering unit. The front cab is powered by a 125 horsepower diesel engine. The back cab does not contain a motor and is mechanically linked to the front cab.

The all-terrain carrier travels on tracks of molded rubber which enhance the mobility and load bearing ability of the Bv 206 in two significant ways. First, the broad (620 millimeters) rubber tracks provide a low ground contact pressure (1.7 pounds/square inch) which allows the Bv 206 to maneuver over snow-covered surfaces, marshlands and other soft terrain, without sinking. Secondly, the molded rubber tracks are designed to grip the surface to enhance the carrier's hill climbing ability. (The attached brochure provides a description of the vehicles and technical data pertaining to them.)

The Hagglunds Bv 206 all-terrain vehicle is utilized for a variety of applications, all of which involve off-road uses: forestry, transmission line installation, construction work at remote sites, forest firefighting, rescue and relief work, and crew transport to remote sites. In fact, Hagglunds has, in the past, sold all-terrain vehicles to United States purchasers for use in geophysical exploration, in national parks, for the construction of the Alaskan pipeline, and ski operations. The United States government has also purchased Hagglunds vehicles for military use.

No ordinary motor vehicle can operate over the terrains that the Hagglunds Bv 206 is designed to traverse. It is clear that the Bv 206 is not designed, nor is it suitable for operation on public streets, roads, and highways.

II. APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS

Section 12.80 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. S12.80) provides that motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 which are offered for entry into the United States Customs territory shall be denied entry under the importer or consignee files documents which indicate that the vehicles conform to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. SS1392, 1407), and set forth in Part 571 of the Department of Transportation ("DOT") Regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 571).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation January 24, 1985 Page 6

vehicle has a maximum speed of 60 kilometers/hour and the Bv 206 has a maximum speed oF 50 kilometers/hour; (ii) the CROCO vehicle and the Bv 206 are used for the same civil uses (e.g. construction, forestry, ambulance duty, etc.); (iii) both vehicles have been purchased for military use; and (iv) both vehicles are amphibious.

In addition, the Bv 206 has several unique features which render its use on streets or highways more "impractical" or "unlikely" than the CROCO vehicles. The Bv 206 travels on tracks whereas the CROCO vehicle is equipped with tires. Also, the CROCO vehicle is comprised of a single unit whereas the Bv 206 consists of two sections. If the NHTSA considers a vehicle with tires and a single cab not to be a "motor vehicle", then it is obvious that a substantially similar vehicle which has tracked road contact means and is comprised of two sections is also not a "motor vehicle."

Another NHTSA ruling also indicates that the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Act. In a ruling dated March 25, 1982, the NHTSA held that a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is (i) readily usable on public roads and (ii) is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of the vehicle owners. The Bv 206 is not designed for use on public

5 Letter to Leonard A. Fink dated March 25, 1982.

roads nor is it is fact used for such purposes. The Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" as set forth in the March 25, 1982 ruling because: (i) it does not have the power (its maximum speed is approximately 50 kilometers/hour) and maneuverability (it consists of two cars) to make it effective under virtually any highway condition, (ii) it is advertised specifically for offroad use, (iii) the vehicle's manufacturer does not assist and will not assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents, and (iv) it is not marketed by dealers also selling vehicles which are indisputably classified as motor vehicles.

Accordingly, the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" because the manufacturer did not intend the vehicle to be used on the public highway part of the time and the manufacturer has no reason to expect the vehicle will be used in that way.

C. Legislative History

The legislative history of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 clearly indicates that a vehicle such as the Hagglunds Bv 206 was not the type of vehicle targeted by the legislation. In Senate Report No. 1301 the Commerce Committee stated that the subject legislation is an attempt to stem the soaring rate of death in our country's

6 Pub. L. No. 89-563, 80 Stat. 71. (1966).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation January 24, 1985 Page 8

highways.7 The legislation is not intended for off-road vehicles, especially those which are intended for use in the backwoods. Accordingly, the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Act.

IV. CONCLUSION

We respectfully request that the NHTSA issue a ruling which excludes the all-terrain vehicles imported by Hagglunds from the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Should you contemplate issuing a ruling which is adverse to our position, we request the opportunity to discuss the matter with you prior to any final action.

We appreciate your cooperation in expediting this matter.

Very truly yours,

Philip Yale Simons

PYS/JJR/hcu Enclosure

[Brochure Omitted]

ID: 1985-03.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bernard Cantleberry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bernard Cantleberry 5958 Maplewood Road Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124

Dear Mr. Cantleberry:

This responds to your letter to this office, in which you sought approval from the Department of Transportation and this agency for your hydraulic brake lock. Neither the Department nor this agency have the authority to approve any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the manufacturer of the vehicles or equipment is required to certify that it complies with all applicable standards.

The requirement for manufacturer certification is contained in section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (hereinafter "the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1403) which reads as follows:

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

Under Section 114, motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers must them- selves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. The safety certification procedure thus differs from the government type approval procedure used in Europe. Under the European procedure, a manufacturer delivers its product to a governmental entity which tests the product and then determines whether it should be approved. If the product is approved, it may then be sold.

In the case of your hydraulic brake lock, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if you want to have the hydraulic brake lock installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire brake system with the hydraulic brake lock installed satisfied the requirements of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.105; copy enclosed).

Generally speaking, the requirements of Standard No. 105 apply to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith, and not to aftermarket accessories for use with or in the vehicle. The general rule is that your hydraulic brake lock may be added to the vehicle after its first purchase, even if the addition of your brake lock causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105, without violating any legal requirements.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies : "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...". The performance capabilities of the hydraulic brake system on the vehicle are considered an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 105. Thus, if any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business adds your hydraulic brake lock to a vehicle and knowingly causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 105, that person or entity has violated the section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibition. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108, and each installation which rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 105 would be considered a separate violation.

You should note that the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design on his or her vehicle, and therefore hydraulic brake locks which are sold to and installed by vehicle owners need not be checked to see if they cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105. Of course, state product liability law would also affect the installation of your device. I suggest that you discuss this matter with a local attorney.

I would also recommend that you per form some testing or analysis to learn what effect the addition of your hydraulic brake lock has on the braking performance of vehicles on which it is installed. If its addition does not affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, the brake lock could be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses without violating any legal requirements. If the addition of the hydraulic brake lock causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 105, it may be sold as an aftermarket accessory, but may not legally be installed on a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

May 6, 1985.

Office of the Chief Counsel: To Whom It May Concern;

Dr. Carl Clark of your dept. recommended that I write to you and put forth what I have and what I want in relation to an innovative Anti Theft device.

I realize that what I have designed is not completely new to the field , but the inner workings, construction , design of operation, safety factors and Anti Theft capabilities are phenomenal, along with other uses.

I am describing a dual hydraulic brake lock that is operated by dual vacuum actuators that work in direct opposite of the way that vacuum actuators operate.

The system is designed in such a way that even while driving down the road and you lose engine power the system does not shut down causing brake failure. The system is also designed that in case of an electrical failure in the vehicle while the brakes are locked you always have full control to open the system to allow towing which is controlled by the only nonpickable lock on the market, and I am not referring to the key system that is designed for the Mercedes with the dimples. The system is designed in such a way that prevents anyone from overcoming it to allow removal of the vehicle, short of cutting the brake lines and driving the vehicle away with the use of the emergency brake, but that all takes time and that generally is what the thieves don't have.

When the hydraulic lock is set it is the absence of vacuum that operates the device, overcoming the device due to my design is impossible.

I keep referring to design , in actuality the partially finished product has been installed on in automobile and has been in test for about two months. By partially finished , I mean that only a single system has been prototyped and was installed on a front wheel drive vehicle. The dual system has been designed and is entering its completed stages. The system works exactly the way it was designed and is operating with no problems.

The device is installed downstream of the differential valve on some models and installed in the brake lines of others that have no differential valve, such as on the one that I am testing it on. The device does not upset the original brake system in any way or does it cause a difference in brake pressure or operation of the original system.

The reason that I am writing to you dept. is that I am looking for sanction from the dept. is that I am Dept. Of Natural Highway Traffic Safety, unless they are one in the same, for my device.

The beauty part of my device is that In testing on and off the vehicle the device held the brakes in a locked up position for a period of approximately two weeks with no pressure loss, unlike two of the other devices that have been produced and that I hive tested and that bears D. O. I. approval.

I am that Service Manager of the largest selling Ford agency in the country and the level of integrity that flows from xxxxxx Mr. Sam Marshall down thru all of his personal is something that would institute a desire for safety in something as in this hydraulic brake lock,I would greatly appreciate your response and requirements pertaining to this device, and what steps I have to take to obtain your approval and sanction.

Thank you for your time and hopefully your assistance;

Bernard Cantleberry 5958 Maplewood Rd. Mayfield Hgts, Ohio 44124

ID: nht87-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Butler Derrick -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/22/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Sterling Troxel; 12/29/77 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Kentucy Dept. of Education; 10/5/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Charles B. Honeycutt

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. George Seaborn of the South Carolina Association of School Superintendents, concerning Federal regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In his letter to you, Mr. Seaborn expresses his concern about a Federal regulation that "excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than 10 persons from use by schools." Mr. Seaborn explains that it would be difficult for school districts to c omply with a restriction on van use since large vans are extensively used for pupil transportation. He believes that schools should be permitted to use vans since those vehicles are safe for transporting passengers other than school children.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our school bus regulations. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition directed against schools or school districts which prevents them from using vans carrying 11 or more persons. Federal law does, howev er, affect the sale of buses to schools. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendm ents to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all "school buses." The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufac tured on or after that date.

The parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are the manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federa l law, a van designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) is a "bus," and is a "school bus" if intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. A person way sell a new bus (including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons ) to a school or school district provided that the vehicle meets our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit school districts from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. Mat ters relating to motor vehicle use are determined by state law. However, in the event a South Carolina school district decides to buy a new school bus, we would like the district to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under the Vehicle Safety Act to sell complying school buses. The seller should ' know that he or she risks substantial penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold as a school bus.

Since Mr. Seaborn is interested in transporting students in vans, I would like to clarify a few additional matters concerning our school bus regulations. In his letter to you, your constituent expresses a belief that large vans (i.e ., buses) should be s afe for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that special measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportati on. Fifteen-passenger vans (i. e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent performance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency e xits, windows and windshields and seating systems.

New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may be sold to school districts to transport their pupils to school related events. School districts nay also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, because such vans are consid ered "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's) and not "buses" or "school buses" under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require them to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Instead, they mus t meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's, which also provide high levels of passenger safety.

I hope this information is helpful. We have provided a similar letter to Congressman Robin Tallon who contacted us on behalf of Mr. Seaborn. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance to you and your constituents.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The Honorable Elizabeth H.Dole Secretary of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Secretary Dole:

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter I received from Mr. George W. Seaborn, President, South Carolina Association of School Superintendents. It concerns the Department of National Highway Safety Administration's standards which exclude the use of vans capable of transporting more than ten persons from use by schools.

I would sincerely appreciate the appropriate member of your staff reviewing this matter. Please provide me a response that I may share with Mr. Seaborn.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, I am

Respectfully

BUTLER DERRICK MEMBER of Congress

D/cm

Congressman Butler C. Derrick, Jr. P. O. Box 4126 Anderson, SC 29622

Dear Congressman Derrick:

You will see from the enclosed material that in 1977, the Department of National Highway Safety adopted a standard which excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than ten persons from use by schools. None of the administrators in South Carol ina were aware of this legislation until recently. I am sure that you know that there are hundreds of these vans being operated by South Carolina school districts and many thousands more by school districts across our land. We have three in our school di strict which belong to the state and are furnished to us for the purpose of transporting children to our child development program. We also have our own vans which are used to transport small groups such as golf team, cheerleaders, etc.

All of these vans were legally purchased on the open market in South Carolina. It seems to me that if these vehicles are unsafe to transport youngsters then they are unsafe to transport any citizens in our nation. On the other hand, if they are considere d safe to transport citizens in this country who are not school students, they should be safe to transport school students. This regulation implies that certain classes of our citizens are entitled to higher safety standards than other classes.

I have been asked by my colleagues throughout the state to urge your immediate attention to this matter as all it is doing at the present time is creating additional liability for our schools systems. There is no way I can tell the parents for instance i n our child development program that we can no longer transport their children to their child development classes. I respectfully await your prompt action concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

George W. Seaborn, President South Carolina Association of School Superintendents

November 17, 1986

MEMORANDUM TO: AREA, COUNTY AND DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OF EDUCATION

FROM: H. G. HOLLINGSWORTH, JR., DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT DIVISION OF FINANCE AND OPERATIONS

SUBJECT: SPECIFICATIONS FOR SCHOOL VANS

The Department of Education has been asked to clarify the use of vans owned by school districts as it relates to transporting school children to various school activities.

The. U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, adopted safety standards effective April 1, 1977, which applies to vans transporting school children. The standard requires any vehicle manufactured on or after Apri l 1, 1977, designed to carry more than 10 persons and which is sold to transport school children to or from school or related events must comply with all of the school bus safety standards. It should be noted that vehicles must comply with the standards regardless of the number of students being transported in the vehicle.

For a school district to modify a van purchased after 1977 to meet the standards, would, in our opinion, be cost prohibitive, inasmuch as the standards would require so many changes in the body construction such as tank protection, overhead strength, sea ts, etc.

Attached for your information are copies of letters addressed to individuals in other states from the U. S. Department of Transportation in regard to the above referred to subject.

HGH,Jr :gb Enclosures

See letters from NHTSA to Sterling Troxel, Charles B. Honeycutt and Kentucky Dept. of Education

ID: nht87-1.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Mike L. Yonker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mike L. Yonker Administrative Assistant State of New Mexico Department of Education -- Education Building Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786

Dear Mr. Yonker:

This responds to your letter asking about the regulations we administer for school buses. Your inquiry relates to three areas of school bus safety: (1) NHTSA's certification requirements for manufacturers of new school buses; (2) Federal requirements app licable to commercial business repairing school buses; and Federal requirements for vehicle alterers of both new and used school buses. I regret the delay in this response.

Before I begin to answer your specific questions, it might be helpful to provide some background information on our school bus regulations. Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses which are issued under separate acts of Congress. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (copy enclosed), applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes our motor b=vehicle safety standards for new school buses. These standards apply to various aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, fuel sy stems and school bus body strength. They became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. The second set of "regulations" for school buses was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. Those regulations, or "highway safety program standards," are recommendations from this agency to the states for developing their highway safety programs and includes guidelines on school bus inspection and maintenance.

The Vehicle Safety Act requires each manufacturer of a new school bus to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal Motor vehicle safety standards, including our school bus safety standards. The Act also requires each person selling ne w buses for pupil transportation purposes to ensure that only complying school buses are sold. Under Federal law, a "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more students to and from school or related events. Any person violating the V ehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying school buses may be liable for potential penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.

Your first question asks for information on "the formal DOT certification process for new school buses, and the periodic NHTSA testing progress." NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we certify compliance of new school buses with our school bus safety standards. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each school bus manufacturer is responsible for certifying th at its vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its school buses meet all applicable requirements. Our regulation for the certification of m otor vehicles is set forth in Title 49 of the Federal Regulations Part 567 (copy enclose).

We understand your reference to "the periodic NHTSA testing process" to mean our enforcement of our school bus safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the safety standards and also investigates other all eged safety-related defects associated with motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, the manufacturer is obligated to notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free or charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Your second question asks for information on "the requirements of the anti-tampering provision as applicable to dealers or any motor vehicle repair business which may repair buses". The "anti-tampering" provision you refer to is S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehi cle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) affects dealers and motor vehicle repair businessmen modifying or repairing new or used motor vehicles by setting limits on the operation performed on those vehicles. It states, in part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an app licable Federal motor vehicle standard . . . . Section 108(a)(1)(A) prohibits the aforementioned parties from either removing, disconnecting or degrading the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with applicable Federal safet y standards. Thus, school bus dealers or repair businesses modifying or repairing school buses must not render inoperative the compliance of safety equipment installed on the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety standards, including school bus sa fety standards. However, there is no prohibition against an individual owner, such as a school or school district, modifying or repairing its own vehicles.

Your third question asks for information on "the provisions in law or requirements as applicable to a vehicle alterer for both new and used buses." The Vehicle Safety Act applies to persons who perform manufacturing operations on previously certified ne w vehicles prior to the vehicles' first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. Such persons are considered "alterers" under our regulations (49 CFR Part 567.7) and are subject to requirements that they certify compliance with Federal moto r vehicle safety standards. Alterers who significantly affect the configuration of a new new motor vehicle previously certified to applicable safety standards must certify that the new vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards affe cted by the alteration in effect on the date of manufacture of the original vehicle or on the date the alterations were completed. A copy of 49 CFR Part 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles, is enclosed for your information.

In addition, commercial parties involved with modifying new or used vehicles are subject also to the "render inoperative" prohibitions of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,0 00 per violation.

As discussed above, we issued a second set of "regulations" for school buses under the Highway Safety Act. These regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, comprise Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy e nclosed), one of a series of highway safety program standards relating to Federal funding of state highway safety programs. Program Standard No. 17 contains recommendations from NHTSA for the pupil transportation aspect of state highway safety programs a nd addresses school bus maintenance and inspection programs. For more information about New Mexico's implementation of these highway safety program standards, you should contact:

Mr. Bill G. Loshbough Director of School Transportation 209 State Education Building Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786 (505) 827-6640

I hope this information is helpful. For your future reference, I have also enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of your safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. Please contact my office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Ms. Jones:

Following a phone conversation with Steve Ash of your office on February 19, I am formally requesting copies of pertinent provisions in law or information relative to the following areas:

1, The formal DOT certification process for new school buses, and the periodic NHTSA testing process.

2. The requirements of the anti-tampering provision as applicable to dealers or any other motor vehicle repair business which may repair buses.

3. The provisions in law or requirements as applicable to a vehicle alterer for both new and used buses.

The areas in which we are seeking information is specifically targeted at public school buses which are used to transport pupils to and from school or school sponsored activities.

Our interest is to provide the correct information to school districts and school bus contractors in New Mexico to ensure that both state and federal regulations are being complied with. We are also working closely with the newly formed New Mexico Public School Insurance Authority under whose jurisdiction school buses involved in accidents are being repaired.

We are also attempting to strengthen our bi-annual spot inspection to insure that no safety equipment or features on school buses are being rendered inoperative or inadequately being repaired, which could subsequently cause injury.

Any information relative to the above items would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions relative to this request, you can contact me in Santa Fe, New Mexico, area code (505) 827-6640.

Sincerely,

MIKE L. YONKER Administrative Assistant