ID: 1983-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John R. Hughes -- Vice President, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Hughes:

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1983, furnishing the information I suggested in my letter of August 15 to Mr. Snyder.

As you know, I wrote Mr. Stalder of Carland on February 8, that the rail inspection vehicle you wish to purchase, is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, because it was not manufactured exclusively for use on rails, and, in our experience, would spend some portion of its life on the public roads. In reply, Mr. Snyder raised the possibility that any off-track utilization by Kansas City Southern would be on its private roads, and I asked for clarification of that point. You have now indicated that this Mercedes but with railroad track conversion will indeed spend 30% of its time on the public roads.

We therefore affirm our interpretation of February 8, that this vehicle is a "motor vehicle" which must meet applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, even if Kansas City Southern purchases only one of them, and intends to scrap it at the end of its operating life.

Sincerely,

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

October 13, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20024

In re: Swil Weg Vehicle Utilization and Disposition

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to clarify the use of the Zwel Weg/Mercedes vans being considered for purchase by Carland, Inc. for lease to The Kansas City Southern Railway Company. The vans will primarily be used in track inspection and transportation of maintenance of any personnel. The value of these vehicles is that they can be easily and economically utilized on the existing rail facilities. The vehicles would be used on public roads to transport personnel to and from public facilities (motels, restaurants, etc.) within their area of operations. It is estimated that the off track on (public) road utilization will be approximately 30%.

At present, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company is not utilizing any of these vehicles and there are no definite commitments for purchase by Carland, with the exception of the vehicle presently in the country--provided that this vehicle can be brought into conformity. When this is achieved, it is currently anticipated that an additional unit will be purchased for use by The Kansas City Southern Railway Company at its Shreveport, Louisiana facility. Future purchases will be contingent upon the success of these vehicles, subsequent prices and the needs of the railroad.

The vehicles will be used as long as is possible. When they are no longer economically operable (whether due to damage, or due to the vehicles becoming uneconomical to repair or maintain), they will be scrapped. The modifications which have been added to these vehicles to which the rail system is attached are permanently affixed by welding and are not transferable to another vehicle.

The conversion unit can, in any event, only be properly fitted by the Zwel Meg Company machinists. The Conversion unit, although accessible for servicing and maintenance, is not readily removable. The unit cannot be fitted to another vehicle without factory personnel and, in any event, the warranties would then become null and void.

The purchase price for the vehicle, as equipped, is approximately $40,000, which makes removal of the conversion unit and operating the vehicle as a road vehicle not only impractical, but also excessively expensive.

The Kansas City Southern Railway Company is particularly interested in this vehicle because there is no comparable machine made in the United States. The presently available vehicles all have what Kansas City Southern considers to be serious limitations and problems which have rendered them less than satisfactory in their use experience.

We appreciate your reconsideration of this matter.

Sincerely yours, Original signed by John H. Hughes

ID: aiam3882

Dear Mr. Merten: This responds to your letter to Mr. Oesch of my staff and to Mr Radovich of our Rulemaking division, seeking interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 213, *Child restraint systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that your company plans to produce a new design of child restraint, which incorporates automatic belt retractors for the shoulder belts. These belts are permanently attached to a semi- rigid front restraining shield, which has a buckle built onto the bottom that attaches onto a tongue rigidly fixed within the seating surface. After connecting the buckle on the shield to the tongue, the parent must then push the shield toward the child so that it fits snugly. This automatically takes in the slack in the belts.; You asked two questions about the application of Standard No. 213 t this design of child restraint. The first concerned section S6.1.2.4, which specifies that, prior to testing, the belts on a child restraint shall be adjusted so that there is 1/4 inch of slack. The automatic belt retractors in your design may leave up to 3/4 inch of slack in the belts. You asked if the 1/4 inch slack requirement effectively prohibits the use of belts with an automatic retractor. It does not.; At the time Standard No. 213 took effect, all belts on child restrain systems then on the market were manually adjustable. Hence, they could be adjusted to introduce any amount of slack desired. To ensure that all child restraints would be tested under identical conditions, a provision was added to Standard No. 213 specifying the precise amount of slack which should be present. This specification of test conditions was not intended to establish a requirement that all belt systems on child restraints be manually adjustable, so that the specified amount of slack could be introduced. Instead, it was intended to function as an impartial specification for all belt systems, whether or not they were manually adjustable.; Section S6.1.2.4 sets forth the amount of slack to which all bel systems on child restraints should be adjusted before running the sled test. However, systems which are not manually adjustable may be tested with more slack present, since the greater slack would make the test more severe. No belt system, whether or not manually adjustable, can be tested with less than the specified 1/4 inch of slack, since that would make the test less severe for child restraints equipped with such a belt system. Section S6.1.2.4 is not intended to favor any particular type of belt system. Accordingly, you may test your child restraint with more than 1/4 inch of slack present in the belts.; The second question you asked was whether the language specified i section S5.5.2.(h) could be slightly modified for use on the labels to be affixed to your child restraints. That section requires that the following language appear on the label: 'Snugly adjust the belts provided with this child restraint against your child.' Since the belts on your child restraint will not be manually adjustable, you would like to modify the language to read: 'Snugly adjust the shield provided with this restraint against your child and test that the belts are locked.'; Your proposed modification would ensure that the directions, whic again were written with manually adjustable belts in mind, contained the appropriate modifications for belts with automatic retractors. Your proposed modification does not make any substantive change in the meaning of the directions specified for the label. Since the proposed change is a minor variation intended to clarify the language of the instructions for child restraints where the belts themselves are not manually adjustable, it is permitted.; Should you have any further questions or need further information o 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

ID: aiam5354

"Dear Mr. Carricaburu: This responds to your letter asking whether i is legal to buy or sell a salvaged air bag which would be used to repair an automobile with a deployed air bag. Your letter explained that the salvaged air bag would be taken from an automobile sent to a recycling yard with its air bag intact. I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so. Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a salvaged air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letters, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been 'rendered inoperative' by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the crash sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system. While great care must be taken in any air bag replacement, the use of a salvaged air bag raises additional safety issues. An air bag may have been rendered inoperable, for example, by damage in a low-speed crash, even if it has not been deployed. We would urge you to contact the vehicle or air bag manufacturer to determine whether and how a salvaged air bag could be inspected and/or tested to ensure that it is fully operable. Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using salvaged air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: nht70-1.29

DATE: 02/04/70

FROM: D.W. TOMS -- DIR., NHTSA

TO: Motorcycle Scooter & Allied Trades Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: MARKETING OF COMPETITION MOTORCYCLES

This is in response to your letter of November 19, 1969, in which you ask for an advisory opinion "as to the measures which an importer or distributor should take in order to assure compliance with regulations of the Federal Highway Administration in the marketing of motorcycles for competition use".

Specifically, you note:

"[The importation regulations appear] to require that the importer shall declare that motor vehicles imported for competition purposes will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads. Hence there is some uncertainty whether this declaration connotes an implicit responsibility which survives sale to a purchaser not for resale".

The declaration to which you refer, 19 CFR @ 12.80(b)(2)(vii), is the declaration that the vehicle is being imported for purposes of competition and that it will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads. If we discover that a vehicle covered by such a declaration has been sold or licensed for use on public roads, we would then have to determine whether the declaration was a false one. In making this determination we would look to those factors which show that, at the time he made the declaration, the importer knew or had reason to know that the vehicle would be put to on-road use. If, for example, prior dealings with the vehicle's purchaser had made the importer aware of the purchaser's intent to divert vehicles to markets for so-called "street legal" motorcycles, it is very likely that we would conclude that a declaration that the vehicle will not be sold or licensed for use on public roads was false at the time it was made. In these circumstances, our conclusion would not be altered by the fact that, at the time he sold the vehicle, the importer supplied the buyer with a document specifying that the vehicle was intended only for purposes of competition. In short, we would look behind the sales agreement to the realities of the transaction as the parties knew them.

Similarly, if relevant facts disclose that the importer seeks to evade his responsibilities by active promotion and sale to competition cycle purchasers of motor vehicle equipment which will make the competition machine "street local", and purchasers of competition machines are in fact buying such equipment for immediate conversion purposes, then a reasonable conclusion could be reached that a non-complying motor vehicle was being imported and offered for sale by the importer regardless of the declaration made at time of entry. In this sense there is "an implicit responsibility which survives sale to a purchaser not for resale".

You also raise the following point: "It is understood that motorcycle manufacturers and importers should not equip competition motorcycles with devices and accessories that would render them lawful for use and registration for use on public highways. It would be normal industry practice, however, to catalog accessory items and parts which could be applied to competition machines by the ultimate purchaser. Since many competition motorcycles have a 'sister' model manufactured for highway use, the sale of such items is necessary. Thus a question of the propriety of this practice is raised."

The mere cataloguing of parts equally applicable to both a competition motorcycle and a similar "sister" non-competition model does not appear to raise a question of propriety so long as other facts do not indicate that a significant number of purchases of these parts are made with the intention of conversion of competition motorcycles to street use.

Finally you note:

"Competition motorcycles are generally marketed through retail dealers in motor vehicles. Hence, the question arises as to whether this practice might continue without opposition by the Federal Highway Administrator."

You have also requested a ruling "that sale of competition motorcycles be permitted through franchised dealerships". You should clearly understand that the National Highway Safety Bureau his no desire to alter existing methods of motor vehicle marketing; it does not intend to "oppose" and it has no power to "permit" the sale of motor vehicles.

It does, however, have the power to classify a competition motorcycle as a "motor vehicle" if these vehicles are, in fact, being operated on the public roads to a significant extent, and if it believes that such a classification would reduce the toll of traffic injuries and deaths. But the mini-bike interpretation (34 F.R. 15416), referenced by you, states that marketing through retail dealers in motor vehicles is only one criterion which will be considered in any question of classification. Therefore importers and distributors of competition motorcycles which are sold through franchised dealerships are best advised in marketing these vehicles to follow the other criteria which the mini-bike interpretation sets forth.

ID: aiam5322

"Dear Mr. Archer: This responds to your letter in which you asked i the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations affecting a vehicle that has an automatic engine shut-off device that operates when the vehicle remains idle for extended periods. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background information, NHTSA administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' copy enclosed) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights these responsibilities. We cannot tell from your letter whether you seek to produce a vehicle that has a shut-off device installed as original equipment ('O.E.'), i.e., prior to a first sale to a consumer, or produce the device as an 'aftermarket' item of equipment, sold for installation in used vehicles. We will discuss both situations in this letter. A shut-off device may not be installed on a new vehicle if the device causes the vehicle not to comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 102, 'Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect,' states that 'the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.' (S3.1.3). NHTSA does not know of any shut-off device that would enable a vehicle to meet S3.1.3 of Standard 102. In 1984, NHTSA terminated rulemaking on an action that would have amended S3.1.3 to permit a shut-off device that restarted the vehicle's engine when the accelerator is depressed. A copy of the termination notice is enclosed. The agency terminated rulemaking citing a number of safety concerns with the particular features of the shut-off device that was the subject of the rulemaking. NHTSA stated in the notice that, if in the future a more effective and safe fuel saving device is developed, NHTSA would again consider amending Standard 102. However, given that S3.1.3 of Standard 102 was not amended, that section precludes the O.E. installation on a shut-off device such as the one described in the termination notice. With respect to the aftermarket installation of a shut-off device, there is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product. Standard 102 applies only to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket components of a vehicle's transmission, such as a shut-off device. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of a shut-off device. Under the Safety Act, the product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As explained above, each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: '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 ....' This means that if a shut-off device were sold in the 'aftermarket,' no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business could install it if doing so would render inoperative any previously certified item of equipment in the vehicle. As explained above, each motor vehicle is certified as meeting Standard 102. A shut-off device that causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard 102 could not be installed by any person listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) without subjecting that person to civil penalties (section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108). The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. However, NHTSA urges all owners not to perform modifications that would degrade the safety of their vehicles, such as installing a fuel shut-off device that raises significant safety concerns. I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: nht88-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/88

FROM: GLENN L. DUNCAN -- THORNE GRODNIK AND RANSEL

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: OUR CLIENT: UNITED TOOL & STAMPING, INC. MATTER: FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/16/88, TO GLENN L. DUNCAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 207; LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBERT J. WAHLS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 04/28/77 TO GORDON P. CRESS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT, STANDARD 210; LE TTER DATED 11/16/87 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNN RE FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM OCC - 1278

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Enclosed is a copy of the letter we sent to you on November 16, 1987. As of yet, we have received no response. I would appreciate at least an indication that you have received our letter and are working on developing a response, if you are not prepared to actually provide me with a response at this time.

Respectfully,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 77-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meyer Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 18 1977 N40-30

Mr. D. J. Henry Executive Vice President Meyer Products, Inc. 18513 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44112

Dear Mr. Henry:

This is in response to your November 16, 1976, letter concerning the removal of snow below assemblies prior to testing motor vehicles for conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity.

You have pointed out that a snow plow assembly includes components other than the part that actually contacts and moves the snow. You have requested confirmation of your interpretation that "no part of the snow plow assembly, including mounting components, was to be attached to a vehicle for purposes of (compliance testing ..."

That interpretation is incorrect. The presence or absence of snow plow components on a vehicle during compliance testing depends on whether the components are included in the vehicle's "unloaded vehicle weight". As the July 16, 1976, letter from Mr. Robert Carter of this agency to the jeep Corporation indicates, unloaded vehicle weight includes the weight of accessories that are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. The statement in that letter that "snow plows" would be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing can be amplified as follows: 1) A snow plow, i.e., the component of a snow plow assembly that actually contacts and moves the snow, will be removed. 2) Those other components of a snow plow assembly that, like the snow plow itself, are ordinarily removed when not in use will also be removed. 3) Those components which are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when not in use will not be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing. The agency will abide by a manufacturer's good faith categorization of accessories and components of accessories.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt

Acting Chief Counsel

November 16, 1976

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Recently, our Sales Manager, Mr. Michael Groff, had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Robrt N. Williams of your organization in regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301-75, and Mr. Williams suggested that we address this letter to you.

Meyer Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of snow plows and salt spreaders for installation on or use in conjunction with motor vehicles, and we have been concerned about the effect of FMVSS 301-75 upon our business and that of our distributors.

In attempting to determine what, if any, action we should be taking with respect to FMVSS 301-75, we have examined a letter dated July 16, 1976, from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to Jeep Corporation, which states that snow plows "would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75." As you will appreciate, a snow plow assembly consists of many components other than the moldboard that actually contacts and moves the snow. It has been our interpretation that no part of the snow plow assembly, including mounting components, was to be attached to a vehicle for purposes of teting the vehicle for compliance with FMVSS 301-75, and Mr. Groff has reported to us that our interpretation was orally confirmed by Mr. Williams.

In order to better asdsure our distributors that the installation of Meyer Products snow plows by them will not require them to retest the vehicles and will not result in their violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, or the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, we would appreciate your sending us a leter confirming our understanding as recited above.

Since winter and the snow season have already arrived, it is imperative that we advise our distributors with respect to FMVSS 301-75 immediately, and we, therefore, request and thank you for your prompt response to this letter.

Sincerely yours,

MEYER PRODUCTS, INC.

D. J. Henry Executive Vice President

DJH/lt

cc: Marc W. Freimuth, Esq. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey

cc: Mark Schwimmer, Esq. National Highway Traffice Safety Administration

cc: Robin N. Williams National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ID: 002396.drn

Robert Douglas, Chair
School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
IC Corporation
751 South Harkrider
Conway, AR 72034

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. You supplemented your letter with information provided in a December 12, 2002, meeting with agency staff and in telephone conversations with Dorothy Nakama of my staff. You asked four questions about a December 13, 2001, final rule ^[1] responding to petitions for reconsideration of a November 5, 1998, final rule. The effective date of the 2001 final rule is January 1, 2003.




Question One Is the Cover to the "Fuel Sending Unit" a "Maintenance Access Panel?"

Your first question is about Standard No. 221s exclusion of "maintenance access panels" (MAPs) from the performance requirements set out in S5.1 of the standard. Interior MAPs are excluded from the requirements of the standard if they lie forward of the passenger compartment or are within the passenger compartment but are limited in size (not exceeding 305 mm when measured across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening)(See S5.2.1(b)). "Maintenance access panel" is defined as: "a body panel which must be moved or removed to provide access to one or more serviceable components." A "serviceable component" is defined in part as "any part of the bus, of either a mechanical or electrical nature, which is explicitly identified by the bus chassis and/or body manufacturer in the owners manual or factory service manual as requiring routine maintenance actions at intervals of one year or less ." (Emphasis added.)

You ask whether an access panel (the cover to the "fuel sending unit") would be excluded if it were within the 305 mm size limit of S5.2.1(b) but covered a component that does not need routine maintenance at intervals of one year or less. The answer is no. The panel would not be considered a MAP because it does not provide access to a "serviceable component," i.e., a component that the owners manual or service manual identifies as one needing routine maintenance actions at intervals of one year or less.




Question Two Provisions Applying to Exterior MAPs

Your second question asks for confirmation that all exterior MAPs are exempt from S5, including S5.1 and S5.1.1. The answer is no. The December 13, 2001, final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration did not change the definition of "maintenance access panel" (provided in our response to the first question) that was specified in the final rule of November 5, 1998, (63 FR 59732). The definition of "MAP" does not exclude exterior MAPs from S5. However, some exterior MAPs may be excluded from S5.1 if they meet the exclusions specified in S5.2.1(c) for "trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the joint, support members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, doors and windows, ventilation panels, and engine access covers."




Question Three Relationship Between S5.1 and S5.1.1

Your third question was whether joints excluded under S5.2 from the requirements of S5.1 are also excluded from the requirements of S5.1.1. The answer is yes.

Question Four Test Specimens for Body Panel Joints Less than 203 MM and Joints Less Than 305 MM

Your fourth question asks whether there is an error in S6.1.2 because it is inconsistent with S6.1.1. Both sections describe how test specimens are prepared for the tensile test. S6.1.1 describes preparation of a specimen from "a body panel joint [that] is 203 mm [8 inches] or longer." S6.1.2 describes preparation of a specimen from a joint "less than 305 mm [12 inches] long." You are correct that the reference to 305 mm in S6.1.2 is an error, and should instead be 203 mm. The agency did not intend to change the substantive meaning of S6.1.2, as that section existed prior to the November 1998 final rule. Prior to the rule, S6.1.2 had referred to joints "less than 8 inches long." The reference to 305 mm (12 inches) in S6.1.2 is therefore incorrect.

Thank you for bringing the error to our attention. We plan to correct it in a technical amendment to the standard.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:221
12/23/02





---




^[1] 66 FR 64358.

ID: nht80-4.18

DATE: 11/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Uniroyal Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 10, 1990, requesting clarification of the explanation of Treadwear grading in Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR @ 575.104). You ask whether the explanation can be interpreted to mean that the relative treadwear performance of different tires on the UTQG test course in San Angelo, Texas will be consistent with the relative performance of the tires when driven under comparable conditions on other roads.

In experimental testing leading to promulgation of the UTQG regulation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tested the treadwear of various tire lines not only on the San Angelo course but on roads in other parts of the country. The agency concluded that the UTQG grades established for different tires in testing on the San Angelo course accurately represent the relative performance of the tires obtainable on roads elsewhere in the United States, assuming that the tires to be compared are run under identical conditions.

The statement in Figure 2 of the UTQG regulation that a tire graded 150 would wear one and one-half times as well on the government course as a tire graded 100 was not intended to suggest that the tire would not wear one and one-half times as well on another course, if conditions of use were controlled. The term "relative performance" in Figure 2 refers to the performance of tires in comparison to other tires, and the term "norm" refers to the consistently obtainable relative performance of tires when tested under controlled conditions. Thus, the explanation indicates that, although the relative performance of different tires will be consistent when the tires are tested under controlled conditions, this relative performance may not be obtainable in actual use, if one tire is subjected to more severe road or weather conditions, abusive driving or improper maintenance.

(Illegible Word) will-provide-confidential treatment for your October 19, (Illegible Word), letter.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

UNIROYAL, Inc.

October 10, 1980

Joan Claybrook, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook: We should appreciate NHTSA confirming as promptly as possible our understanding of the following points relating to the official explanation of the treadwear portion of tire quality grading that appears in Figure 2 of the regulation:

1. Please confirm our understanding that it is NHTSA's meaning that the treadwear relationship or ratio between tires that is established on the government test course will continue to exist elsewhere (assuming comparable usage) although the particular mileage obtained elsewhere will be different for the reasons stated in the explanation.

2. Therefore, please also confirm that

(a) the second sentence of the explanation is not to be construed as exclusive in its meaning;

(b) the words "relative performance" in the third sentence are to be construed as referring to the performance of a tire or tires on the test course and elsewhere when compared to themselves and not to other tires; and

(c) the word "norm" in the third sentence is to be construed as referring to the individual performance(s) of a tire or tires on the test course.

We request confidentiality for this letter and your reply because the disclosure of this letter could lead to premature discovery of the commercial plans referred to in our letter of August 14 which NHTSA agreed should be held confidential.

Thank you in anticipation of your attention to our request.

Very truly yours,

G. Montgomery Spindler

ID: nht76-4.32

DATE: 12/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Police - Detroit

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 9, 1976, asking whether Federal regulations permit manufacturers to equip police vehicles with "push bumpers" and with bullet-proof shields located between the front and rear seating compartments.

Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, establishes requirements for the impact resistance and the configuration of front and rear vehicle surfaces of passenger cars. This standard does not prohibit "push bumpers" and manufacturers are free to equip passenger cars with any bumper design they choose as long as the requirements of Standard No. 215 are met.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles, including the permissible locations for the various types of glazing. The standard permits bullet-resistant glazing to be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, provided such glazing meets specified performance requirements. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are permitted to equip vehicles with the bullet-proof shields mentioned in your letter if such shields are constructed with glazing that conforms to the requirements in Standard No. 205.

You also asked whether the police department or a business could install the equipment in question. If the equipment is installed after the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the Federal safety standards would no longer be applicable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1). However, @ 108 (a)(2)(A) prohibits, with one exception, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or element of design that has been installed in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard.

Therefore, whether or not a business could install the equipment depends on the nature of the business. If the business is a "motor vehicle repair business", it can only install the "push bumpers" and shields if such installation does not knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) defines "motor vehicle repair business" as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.

I have enclosed copies of Standard No. 205 and Standard No. 215. I have underscored the pertinent sections of Standard No. 205 (and the ANS 226 standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) for your information.

SINCERELY, Department of Police Detroit, Michigan

Hugh Oates National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to our phone conversation on November 1, 1976, the Equipment Control Section of Detroit's Police Department has experienced a degree of reluctance by the auto manufacturers in providing police vehicles with specialized equipment. The purpose of this communique is to resolve the following two questions:

(1) The auto manufacturers state that per regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, they are unable to equip police vehicles with a special "push bumper". To more clearly delinate this concern, enclosed please find several photographs of the "push bumpers" and how they are attached to the car's bumper system. The Detroit Police Department prefers to order vehicles from the manufacturers with the "push bumper" attached. In furtherance of this desire, a ruling by your administration allowing the manufacturers to construct police vehicles with "push bumpers" and sell same to our department, would clearly alleviate this dilemma.

(2) The auto manufacturers also state that they cannot sell vehicles equipped with a bullet proof shield located between the front and rear seating compartments. My research uncovered no federal statute or regulation prohibiting this. Your advise on this matter would clear any ambiguity.

In responding to the above requests, assuming the auto companies could not lawfully sell us police vehicles with any of the above special equipment, I would appreciate you probing the possibility of the City installing such equipment subsequent to our purchasing the vehicles, or having a private business perform these tasks. Please note that both the "push bumper" and bullet proof shield are removed from the vehicle when same is later sold at public auction.

If further information is needed, please feel at liberty to call me (313-224-4426).

JOSEPH E. PAPELIAN Legal Advisor Section

cc: INSPECTOR JOHN DOMM