ID: nht90-1.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1990

FROM: Donald C.J. Gray -- Commissioner, General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-90 from P.J. Rice to D.C.J. Gray (A36; Part 571.7(c))

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request a deviation from the regulatory provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as they apply to school buses procured by the General Services Administration (GSA) for use solely by the Department of the Army. An exception to the standards is provided by 49 CFR 571.7(c) for vehicles or items of equipment manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. For the reasons stated belo w, we request that this provision be extended to the GSA Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS) for scbool buses specifically acquired for the sole use of the Army, thereby granting a deviation from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards otherwis e applicable to such procurements.

In 1985, the Army began a program to consolidate approximately 45,000 nontactical vehicles into the GSA IFMS. The program is fifty percent complete, and, as a result, the IFMS is now responsible for purchasing and leasing vehicles for the sole use of th e Department of the Army.

Prior to consolidation, the above cited provision permitted the Army to acquire vehicles manufactured to satisfy multiuse requirements. The Army acquired school buses equipped with seating designed for adults, and painted in a color other than school bu s yellow. The Army buses were utilized for their primary mission of troop movement, and, as needed, for transporting military dependents to and from school. Because 49 CFR 571.7(c) makes the standards inapplicable to vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces, the Army avoided the cost of a second bus specifically designed for use by school children.

For the Government to continue to realize this cost avoidance, a deviation must be granted from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for vehicles or items procured by the GSA IFMS for use solely by the Army. This deviation would thereby extend the exception of 49 CFR 571.7(c) to permit the Department of the Army to use GSA IFMS supplied buses for both adults and school children.

If we may provide any assistance or further information concerning this request, please contact Mr. Sean Allan of the Fleet Management Division on 557-1278.

ID: nht92-9.26

DATE: February 4, 1992

FROM: Chris Kuczynski -- Fleet Services Division, City of Seattle

TO: Manager, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/14/92 (est.) from Paul J. Rice to John Faist (A39; Part 571)

TEXT:

I would appreciate any information that you are able to provide in reference to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579. In particular, I am interested in how these regulations pertain to a municipal government agency that transfers, modifies and/or fabricates custom vehicle bodies for use by its own departments. What procedures/steps is such an agency responsible for following, if any, in the customization of truck bodies.

Please send any information you may have on this subject to:

John Faist DAS Fleet Services Division 618 2nd Avenue, 12th Floor Seattle, WA 98104

Thank you.

ID: nht72-4.23

DATE: 05/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 5, 1972, in which you suggested that S4.3(d)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 is not appropriate for buckles located between the front seats.

Although you are correct in saying that the requirement was originally developed to guard against the buckle's being opened by the pressure of the steering wheel, there is a chance that compressive forces will also affect buckles located between the seats. Even though the tests may be more difficult to administer, these buckles are not exempt under the present version of the standard, and it is not correct to say that the requirement is not applicable to them.

We do not suggest by this that the requirement could not be changed in response to an adequately supported petition. However, the requirement as it now stands applies to all buckles, wherever located.

ID: nht90-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAVID R. MARTIN -- TOMOKA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: HANDWRITTEN LETTER DATED 01/01/90 (EST); FROM DAVID R. MARTIN TO NHTSA (OCC 4221)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this agency's Public Affairs Office asking about the application of Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a van used by a correctional institution to transport inmates. Your letter has been referred t o me for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issued Standard No. 301 to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage in crashes. The standard applies to new vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if the vans in your letter were manufactured on or after Se ptember 1, 1976, the van manufacturer was required to certify their compliance with Standard No. 301. However, even if the vans did not comply with that standard, the Act does not place any responsibility for that noncompliance on the first purchasers a nd subsequent owners of the vans. Since some states do require that vehicles used for certain purposes comply with our standards, you may wish to address your question to appropriate State authorities in Tallahassee.

We regret we cannot provide the testing you seek. NHTSA obtains and tests new vehicles for compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, since the standard applies only to new vehicles, NHTSA does not conduct compliance tests on vehicles that have already be en sold to a consumer. The agency also cannot test every new type or model of vehicle, since it would be impracticable to do so.

For your information, Safety Standard No. 217 specifies emergency exit requirements for vans designed to carry 11 or more persons. However, the standard excludes vans purchased for transporting prison inmates. This exclusion resulted from a determinati on that the standard's requirements were incompatible with the necessity that buses used for transporting inmates be able to confine their occupants in transit. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 217 for your information.

You also asked whether we require roll bars on vehicles used to transport 12, 13 or 14 passengers. The answer is no. However, NHTSA does have a standard for roof crush protection (Standard No. 216) which requires the roof over the front seating area of cars to meet certain strength requirements. NHTSA has proposed to extend the standard to light trucks and buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 2455y

Mr. David R. Martin
#113730 EA-118B
Tomoka Correctional Institution
3950 Tiger Bay Road
Daytona Beach, FL 32124

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your letter to this agency's Public Affairs Office asking about the application of Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a van used by a correctional institution to transport inmates. Your letter has been referred to me for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issued Standard No. 301 to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage in crashes. The standard applies to new vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if the vans in your letter were manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, the van manufacturer was required to certify their compliance with Standard No. 301. However, even if the vans did not comply with that standard, the Act does not place any responsibility for that noncompliance on the first purchasers and subsequent owners of the vans. Since some states do require that vehicles used for certain purposes comply with our standards, you may wish to address your question to appropriate State authorities in Tallahassee.

We regret we cannot provide the testing you seek. NHTSA obtains and tests new vehicles for compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, since the standard applies only to new vehicles, NHTSA does not conduct compliance tests on vehicles that have already been sold to a consumer. The agency also cannot test every new type or model of vehicle, since it would be impracticable to do so.

For your information, Safety Standard No. 217 specifies emergency exit requirements for vans designed to carry 11 or more persons. However, the standard excludes vans purchased for transporting prison inmates. This exclusion resulted from a determination that the standard's requirements were incompatible with the necessity that buses used for transporting inmates be able to confine their occupants in transit. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 217 for your information.

You also asked whether we require roll bars on vehicles used to transport 12, 13 or 14 passengers. The answer is no. However, NHTSA does have a standard for roof crush protection (Standard No. 216) which requires the roof over the front seating area of cars to meet certain strength requirements. NHTSA has proposed to extend the standard to light trucks and buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:301#217 d:5/l7/90

ID: nht75-1.47

DATE: 05/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Alan Cranston, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of April 14, 1975, in which you requested information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 (49 CFR Part 571.106-74) and its relation to the enclosed letter you had received from Mr. Thomas Z. Marshall of San Francisco.

Standard No. 106-74 specifies performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. Because labeling applied to hose and end fittings cannot satisfactorily identify the manufacturer of an assembly made up of those components, S7.2 of the standard (by incorporating S5.2.4) requires certain assemblies to be labeled by means of a band. By identifying the manufacturer and the date of production, this band permits both the enforcement of the standard's performance requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies.

Mr. Marshall appears to have misunderstood some aspects of the standard. While each manufacturer of brake hose assemblies must initially inform the NHTSA of the identifying designation he intends to use on his bands, there is no requirement that he keep records of assemblies made or send such records to this agency. In addition, the bands need not be metallic, but may be of other materials which are less expensive to produce. Mr. Marshall has correctly pointed out, however, that the standard in its present form specifies the same requirements for large manufacturers, repair shops, and individual truck owners. In recognition of the burdens thus imposed on a person who manufacturers only a small number of assemblies, the NHTSA proposed an amendment of the definition of brake hose assembly, to exclude certain assemblies from the requirements of the standard (40 FR 8962, March 4, 1975, copy enclosed). We expect to act on that proposal in the near future.

Sincerely,

2 Enclosures Constituent's letter

United States Senate WASHINGTON, D.C. 20518

April 14, 1975

To: Office of Congressional Liaison -- Department of Transportation

Enclosure from: Thomas Z. MArshall -- Waits Motor Supply Co., 234 - 7th Street, San Francisco, California 94103

Re: Please explain and give current information on the new truck regulation, 106 Air Brake Standard.

I forward the attached for your consideration.

Your report, in duplicate, along with the return of the enclosure will be appreciated.

Sincerely

Alan Cranston

Please address envelope to: Senator Alan Cranston Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Att: M. Bleeke

Feb. 18, 1975

Senator Alan Cranston Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C.

re: FMVSS(DOT) 106 Air Brake Standard

Dear Senator Cranston:

Please have some of your staff look into what the National Hwy. Traffic Safety Commission is up to.

I am enclosing a reprint of only a portion of the subject regulation.

Please understand that these people are requiring that over 400,000 truck fleets, shops, and purveyors of hose register and receive a registration number; (2) Each fabricator (except Original Equipment Manufacturer) will have to fabricate a metal tag and affix same to assembly (3) he will also have to keep records of assemblies made and send these reports to Wash.

Can you see the number of bumbling bureaucrats the administration of this law will require. I heard today that one enterprising manufacturer is out selling a tag marking machine at $ 80 each. Multiply that out and see what a windfall profit someone is going to make; to say nothing of the profit in the repeat sale of the blank tags themselves.

Someone has sold this agency a bill of goods. They don't want to listen to reason. They are hell bent to see that their stupidity doesn't come to light.

Someone must rise up and say, "let's wait a minute."

Do you realize that the owner of one truck, if he does his own repair, will have to register if he wants to save money by making his own hose assembly? This is where this regulation is viscious and inflationary.

If you are just going to send me the usual "kiss off" letter and file this in the file 13, don't bother to reply. If you are really interested in looking into this rather than the headline grabbing CIA, FBI and Watergate matters, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Very truly yours, Thomas Z. Marshall, Pres. -- WAIT MOTOR SUPPLY CO.

Labeling

A. Hose and Tubing

1. Must have a layline consisting of the following:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the manufacturer that the hose and tubing conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. Manufacturers identification can presently be any symbol, trademark, letters, etc., which have been files by letter with NHTSA. Our (Illegible Symbol) has been registered and will be used on hose, tubing and couplings manufactured by I-E.

c. The month, day or year, or the month and year of manufacture, expressed in numerals.

d. The nominal inside diameter of the hose expressed in inches or fractions of inches, or the nominal outside diameter of the tube expressed in inches or fractions of inches followed by the letters OD.

e. The letter "A" to indicate the hose or tube is for use in "Air Brake" assemblies.

2. No additional information is allowed on the DOT layline; however, a second layline (180 degrees away) is permissible with any information desired. I-E hose and tubing will have an additional layline to identify our style, size, etc.

3. Examples of DOT hose and tube marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

B. Couplings

1. All reusable and renewable couplings must be labeled.

Permanently attached crimped or swaged couplings do not require any marking.

All fittings which are labeled need the DOT marking on only one piece of the coupling.

2. Coupling marking shall be as follows:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the fitting manufacturer that the end fitting conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. Manufacturer identification. Our (Illegible Symbol) has been registered and will be used on couplings manufactured by I-E.

c. The letter "A" to indicate the fitting is for use in "Air Brake" hose assemblies.

d. The nominal inside diameter of the hose to which the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches or fractions of inches, or the outside diameter of the tube to which the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches or fractions of inches followed by the letters OD.

3. Example of DOT coupling marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

C. Assemblies

1. As of March 1, 1975 each brake hose assembly, except those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly. The band may be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings.

2. The band shall be permanently etched, embossed, or stamped with the following:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly. Our (Illegible Symbol) with a letter indicating assembler has been registered and will be used on hose assemblies manufactured by I-E.

c. The month, day and year, or the month and year of assembly.

2. Example of DOT hose assembly band marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

Summary

1. The new regulations are law and everyone concerned with vehicle brake hoses, brake hose end fittings and brake hose assemblies used on vehicles manufactured for use on the public streets, roads and highways must comply.

2. State of Pennsylvania Approval of Air Brake Hose. Until recently it was apparent that the labeling of air brake hose would still be required. However, Pennsylvania has bowed to federal jurisdiction and will now accept FMVSS 106 as the governing authority for brake hose assemblies.

It is still necessary for hose manufacturers to obtain Pennsylvania State approval on all brake hoses. Only now the approval testing will be done to the FMVSS 106 requirements and not SAE requirements.

3. Please remember that FMVSS 106 pertains only to products intended for use in brake systems. Any I-E hose or fittings manufactured for use in auxiliary air or hydraulic applications can be used without falling under the jurisdiction of FMVSS 106.

4. Registration.

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose, hose fittings and hose assembly shall be filed in writing with:

Office of Standards Enforcement Brake Hose Identification National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: FMVSS 106

5. Questions on FMVSS 106.

Anyone may contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for interpretations of the standard. If calling, they may answer your question on the telephone, but will probably ask that you put the questions in writing and send you a letter in reply.

ID: 8026-2

Mr. Bill Dobberteen
Product Launch Engineer
Prince Corporation
35 Madison - Beechwood
Holland, MI 49423

Dear Mr. Dobberteen:

This responds to your letter that requested information about how the regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. According to your letter, your company is developing an overhead storage compartment bin to be secured to the interior roof of a utility vehicle behind its rear seat. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that you anticipate that this product will typically be installed in motor vehicles prior to their first consumer purchase. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering a rear overhead storage bin. However, it is possible that the installation of such a product could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your storage bin is installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety 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. Thus, if your storage bin is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have responsibilities under the Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151, et seq., of the Safety Act, such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge.

In order to determine how installation of your storage bin could affect the compliance of a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to Standard No. 216 which addresses roof crush resistance and Standard No. 302 which addresses the flammability of interior materials. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#567 d.2/4/93

ID: nht93-1.26

DATE: February 4, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bill Dobberteen -- Product Launch Engineer, Prince Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/92 from Bill Dobberteen to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 8026)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter that requested information about how the regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. According to your letter, your company is developing an overhead storage compartment bin to be secured to the interior roof of a utility vehicle behind its rear seat. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that you anticipate that this product will typically be installed in motor vehicles prior to their first consumer purchase. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering a rear overhead storage bin. However, it is possible that the installation of such a product could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your storage bin is installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety 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. Thus, if your storage bin is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have responsibilities under the Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151, et seq., of the Safety Act, such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge.

In order to determine how installation of your storage bin could affect the compliance of a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards, you should

carefully review each standard, including but not limited to Standard No. 216 which addresses roof crush resistance and Standard No. 302 which addresses the flammability of interior materials. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet titled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT, and a booklet entitled FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht68-1.30

DATE: 08/20/68

FROM: ROBERT BRENNER FOR WILLIAM HADDON -- NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Quarles; Herriott; Clemons; Teschner & Noelke

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 23 to the attention of the Federal Highway Administrator enclosing product literature on the "Model 16" and "Cruiser" manufactured by your client, the M-B Company. You have asked what Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to these vehicles.

Since the Model 16 line striper is "driven . . . by mechanical power" it is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. However, it does not fall into any of the vehicle types defined thus far, to which standards are applicable, and consequently there are no standards applicable to it at this time.

Section 255.3(b), quoted by you, defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The definition thus excludes all trailers, but would include the Cruiser which transports special purpose equipment necessary for street sweeping. Therefore, the Cruiser must conform to all Federal standards applicable to trucks.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely

July 23, 1968

Federal Highway Administration Director

Attention Mr. Bridwell

Gentlemen:

We request that your office issue an interpretive ruling as to what requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, if any, certain products manufactured by the M-B Company must comply with. The products in question are the "Cruiser," and the "Model 16" Brochures illustrating these products and containing information about them are enclosed herewith.

We would in particular appreciate receiving answers to several specific questions:

1. In the definition of "Truck," contained in@255.3 of the regulations, does the word "except" refer only to "a trailer" or does it also refer to "designed previously for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.

2. Do the devices contained on the "Cruiser" and "Model 16" constitute "special purpose equipment," within the meaning of this phrase as it is used in the aforesaid definition of "Truck?" 3. Does "Model 16" have "motive power" within the meaning of this phrase as it is used in the aforesaid definition of "Truck," since it does not have the normal type of a motor system found in trucks in that it does not have a battery or generator?

The primary practical problem M-B Company has is with regard to "Modes 16" which is designed to be inexpensive, light weight, and small. Therefore, it does not even have a generator or a battery, and thus necessarily, no lights. The absence of lights presented no practical problem, since it was designed solely or use in the daylight. If M-B Company must make "Model 16" comply with the lighting requirements for "Trucks," it will necessarily require "Model 16"'s design to be substantially altered.

We would appreciate receiving this interpretive ruling as soon as possible. M-B Company continues to manufacture the aforesaid products. Its uncertainty as to which of your department's standards, if any, these products must comply with, places it in a most difficult and uncomfortable position. If your department desires any additional information as to the aforesaid products, just contact us and we will supply it promptly.

Very truly yours,

QUARLES, HERRIOTT, CLEMONS, TESCHNER & NOELKE --

Charles S. Quarles

CC: L.P. Blumberg

ID: 23097.drnc

Mr. William E. Lawler
Manager, Specifications
Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc., (IMMI)
18881 U.S. 31 North
P.O. Box 408
Westfield, IN 46074-0408





Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interpret the metric conversion of one inch in Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, at S4.3(j)(1), as 25.4 millimeters (mm), not the specified 25 mm. You do not explain why you prefer 25.4 mm.

The 25 mm measurement was adopted as part of an initiative to convert English measurements in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to metric measurements. We proposed to convert one inch in S4.3(j)(1) of Standard No. 209 to 25 mm, in accordance with the principle that we generally favor equivalent, not exact conversions. We adopted the 25 mm measurement after publishing notice of the proposed conversion in the Federal Register (April 21, 1997; 62 FR 19253), and receiving comment on the proposal. The 25 mm measurement is clearly specified in Standard No. 209. We cannot interpret the provision as 25.4 mm.

We note, however, that we are considering rulemaking to amend S4.3(j)(1). We will consider including a proposal to change the 25 mm value to 25.4 mm.

Please contact us if you have further questions. For information about metric conversion principles, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. If you have questions about Standard No. 209, you may contact Mr. Otto Matheke at the same telephone number.






Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:209
d.11/16/01