ID: nht92-1.13

DATE: 12/23/92

FROM: JAMES E. SHLESINGER -- SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY

TO: WALTER MYERS -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-23-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JAMES E. SCHLESINGER (A40; PART 575)

TEXT: Thank you for sending me the information with respect to safety standards for tires in accord with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Further to our discussions, we request that your office be kind enough to provide us with an opinion as to certain manufacturer and/or tire brand name owner requirements in the areas of treadwear, traction and temperature resistance (UTQG information) as set forth below.

Briefly, by way of background information, Companies A & B manufacture tires for Company C for sale and distribution in Canada. A & B have manufacturing facilities both in Canada and the U.S. It is believed that the tires manufactured for Company C are manufactured in Canada, however there is a possibility that some tires are manufactured in the U.S.

The tires manufactured for C carry C's brand name on them. These tires carry the "DOT" number and the Canadian National Tire Safety Mark which is evidenced by a maple leaf. Canada does not require that UTQG information be molded into the sidewall of the tire or be placed on the paper tread label for the tire. The tires manufactured by A & B for C do not contain UTQG information on the sidewall or paper tread label of the tire.

Pursuant to an oral understanding between manufacturers (A & B) and brand name owner (C), if there is an overrun of tires to the extent that C is unable to absorb the volume, then A & B may market and sell the tires in the United States or any other country except Canada. Also, C will not accept blem tires for sale through its stores in Canada. Blem tires would initially be offered for sale to an Associate in Canada, but if the Associate rejected the offer, A & B are free to dispose of these tires as they see fit, which would include sales to the United States.

Over a period of approximately 1 1/2 years, A moved 10,622 tires into the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 290,171.00. During the same period, B moved approximately 12,856 tires in the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 301,280.00. A's tires were all considered an overrun of tires to the extent that C was unable to absorb the volume. As for B, approximately 4,644 tires shipped into the United States were classified as blem tires.

All of the tires refer to passenger tires and we only request an opinion or information as to the requirements pertaining to passenger tires.

Based on the above facts, our questions are the following:

1. Is it unlawful to import, sell or distribute in the United States tires which do not have the UTQG information on the sidewall of the tire and/or on the paper tread label for the tire?

2. If it is unlawful to import, distribute or sell tires in the United States without said UTQG information, what penalties are imposed on the manufacturer and/or brand name owner?

3. Would any of the exceptions of 49 CFR Section 575.104 (c), apply in this case, and, if so, in what way? Is there any legislative history or interpretation of the meaning of "limited production tires" as noted in this section, and what effects, if any, this limitation might have on the above fact situation?

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

ID: nht92-1.14

DATE: December 23, 1992

FROM: James E. Shlesinger -- Shlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of the General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/21/94 from John Womack to James E. Schlesinger (A42; Redbook; Part 575.104), letter dated 12/2/93 from James E. Shlesinger to Walter K. Myers (OCC-9388) and letter dated 2/23/93 from John Womack to James E. Schlesinger

TEXT:

Thank you for sending me the information with respect to safety standards for tires in accord with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Further to our discussions, we request that your office be kind enough to provide us with an opinion as to certain manufacturer and/or tire brand name owner requirements in the areas of treadwear, traction and temperature resistance (UTQG information) as set forth below.

Briefly, by way of background information, Companies A & B manufacture tires for Company C for sale and distribution in Canada. A & B have manufacturing facilities both in Canada and the U.S. It is believed that the tires manufactured for Company C are manufactured in Canada, however there is a possibility that some tires are manufactured in the U.S.

The tires manufactured for C carry C's brand name on them. These tires carry the "DOT" number and the Canadian National Tire Safety Mark which is evidenced by a maple leaf. Canada does not require that UTQG information be molded into the sidewall of the tire or be placed on the paper tread n oral understanding between manufacturers (A & B) and brand name owner (C), if there is an overrun of tires to the extent that C is unable to absorb the volume, then A & B may market and sell the tires in the United States or any other country except Canada. Also, C will not accept blem tires for sale through its stores in Canada. Blem tires would initially be offered for sale to an Associate in Canada, but if the Associate rejected the offer, A & B are free to dispose of these tires as they see fit, which would include sales to the United States.

Over a period of approximately 1 1/2 years, A moved 10,622 tires into the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 290,171.00. During the same period, B moved approximately 12,856 tires in the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 301,280.00. A's tires were all considered an overrun of tires to the extent that C was unable to absorb the volume. As for B, approximately 4,644 tires shipped into the United States were classified as blem tires.

All of the tires refer to passenger tires and we only request an opinion or information as to the requirements pertaining to passenger tires.

Based on the above facts, our questions are the following:

1. Is it unlawful to import, sell or distribute in the United States tires which do not have the UTQG information on the sidewall of the tire and/or on the paper tread label for the tire?

2. If it is unlawful to import, distribute or sell tires in the United States without said UTQG information, what penalties are imposed on the manufacturer and/or brand name owner?

3. Would any of the exceptions of 49 CFR Section 575.104 (c), apply in this case, and, if so, in what way? Is there any legislative history or interpretation of the meaning of "limited production tires" as noted in this section, and what effects, if any, this limitation might have on the above fact situation?

Thank you for your assistance on this matter. other questions, please contact Mamitation might have on the above fact situation?

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

ID: nht92-1.15

DATE: December 22, 1992

FROM: Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senator, U.S. Senate

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/93 from John Womack to Paul David Wellstone (A40; VSA 103)

TEXT:

I have been contacted by several constituents of mine, Ms. Tutti Sherlock and Ms. Mary Bock, about the problem they are having with school bus regulations as applied to Head Start programs.

Both Ms. Bock and Ms. Sherlock believe that the regulations that applied to school buses should not apply to Head Start transportation. One reason they cite is the confusion that a yellow school-bus-colored Head Start van may confuse students and parents, especially those to whom English is a second language. For this reason, Head Start vans are painted a different color than normal school buses.

Ms. Bock and Ms. Sherlock also object to the requirement that Head Start vans be equipped with stop arms and special stop lights, because the vans drop children at the curb. Head Start students, therefore, do not need to cross the street in front of the van.

A letter to Mr. Charles Pekow sent in 1985 by Mr. Jeffrey Miller of your office states that Head Start standards are up to the state's discretion. I have enclosed this letter for your review.

In this light, these constituents are asking that you inform Mr. Chuck Anderson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation that federal regulations do not, at this time, require school bus manufacturers to equip Head Start buses as school buses, unless the grantee so requests.

I would appreciate it if you would review this matter and advise me of your findings. Please direct your response to Connie Lewis, a member of my staff, at the following address:

2550 University Avenue W., #10ON St. Paul, MN 55114 612/645-0323

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht92-1.16

DATE: 12/18/92

FROM: CHRISTOPHER J. DANIELS -- NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO CHRISTOPHER J. DANIELS (A40; STD. 109; STD. 119; PART 574)

TEXT: I have recently inspected a tire manufactured in Canada, on which the DOT number had been obliterated with a cutting tool to the point that the DOT number is completely gone.

It is my belief that the tire was knowingly and improperly sold with the tire's DOT number removed. On this basis, would you or someone at the Department of Transportation advise on the following:

1. If it is illegal for a tire to be exported from Canada to the United States without a DOT serial number in violation of customs, UCC, or FMVSS regulations.

2. If it is illegal to sell, or use, a tire for highway use without a DOT serial number.

After reviewing FMVSS Nos. 109 and 119 and Part 574 regarding tire identification regulations, I have not been able to find language which specifically and clearly states that it is illegal to sell or use a tire for highway use without a DOT serial number, although that is my interpretation.

I inquire as to whether or not you can provide or assist me in locating any documentation which could address the above questions.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Please call me if you would like to discuss this further.

ID: nht92-1.17

DATE: 12/18/92

FROM: KENNETH A. GALLO -- HOWREY & SIMON

TO: Marion C. Blakey -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: MICHO INDUSTRIES AND SAFETY RESEARCH MANUFACTURING, INC. PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-19-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KENNETH A. GALLO (A40; PART 5SS; VSA 108)

TEXT: Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(B) (1982), Micho Industries and Safety Research and Manufacturing, Inc. respectfully submit the enclosed Petition for Exemption.

ATTACHMENT

12-18-92 PETITION FOR EXEMPTION REGARDING MICHO INDUSTRIES AND SAFETY RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURING. (TEXT OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-1.18

DATE: 12/17/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DOUGLAS BERG -- PRESIDENT, ASCEND PRODUCTIONS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-12-92 FROM DOUGLAS BERG TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7896)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Standard No. 125, Warning Devices, applies to your product, the "Hazard Helper Safety Sign." In an earlier letter to the agency, you stated that this reversible device attaches to the driver's window and displays either a help needed symbol (a stick figure with extended arms and legs) or a hazard alert symbol (a triangle). In my July 28, 1992 response, I explained that your device was subject to the Standard and that it appeared not to comply with certain provisions in the Standard.

In a subsequent letter, you explain that you have added a cyalume light stick to your product to illuminate the warning sign. As explained below, you are correct in your belief that your warning device containing a light stick would no longer be subject to Standard No. 125.

As you correctly stated, Standard No. 125 applies to "devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (emphasis added; see section S3) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In an August 10, 1982 interpretation to Dwight Hicks, Jr., the agency determined that the phrase "self-contained energy sources" includes such things as cyalume light sticks. Accordingly, a warning device to which a cyalume light stick was added would not be subject to Standard No. 125

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-1.19

DATE: 12/16/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SHAFI J. KEISLER -- PRESIDENT, ONE MORE RUN, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-24-92 FROM SHAFI J. KEISLER TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 8069)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 24, 1992, with respect to the manufacture of a replacement taillamp lens for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger. You ask for "all safety standards information pertinent to the manufacture of this replacement lens", and inform us that you "will use only "current DOT and SAE safety approved material to build this item."

As Taylor Vinson explained to you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment was amended effective January 1, 1972, to apply to replacement lighting equipment for motor vehicles manufactured on and after that date (the standard had previously applied only to original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after January 1, 1969). This means that replacement taillamps designed specifically for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger have never been covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 does require that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, May 1970, with certain exceptions. Although this could be construed as requiring compliance of plastics used in any replacement taillamp lens, we do not interpret this as mandating compliance of plastic materials for a lens in a replacement lamp that is itself not subject to Standard No. 108. However, S5.1.2 is the Federal requirement that you would be obliged to meet were you manufacturing new or replacement taillamp lenses for contemporary motor vehicles. I enclose a copy of S5.1.2 and J576c for your information.

We appreciate your desire to meet current safety requirements.

(ATTACHMENTS OMITTED)

ID: nht92-1.2

DATE: December 30, 1992

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Rodney T. Nash -- Vice President Engineering, Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/9/92 from Rodney T. Nash to Administrator, NHTSA (OCC 7996)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), received in this office on November 18, 1992, and your telephone conversation of November 30, 1992 with Walter Myers of this office, regarding the proper classification of an ambulance.

You indicated that Wheeled Coach Industries of Orlando, Florida, a subsidiary of Collins Industries, produces ambulances that are built on truck chassis. You stated that in the past those vehicles have been classified as trucks, but that Ford Motor Company auditors told you that they should be classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV). You said that you needed to know how v m;swl4(FAA@P/O=1[[YCBX[YX\\\YHH]Y[ H\YX] [XTBBH \Y\Y[X[[\H][ \\H\[\Z X\B X\HY[Y [ HHY\[Y[] [ H MK\H[BZ XH] [ ]H\^\HZ[\\YY\H L\B\ X \XYZ] \HX\\] XX[X]\\B\[[\Y\] [ated into Standard No. 108, any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

"(2) Where the above view is acceptable, could we consider the number of lighted section (sic) as 'one' in case of a lamp which contains three LED arrays arranged as shown in the attached drawing, if the circumferenc (sic) of three projected luminous areas does not exceed 150mm both in horizontal and vertical dimension?"

The answer is no under Standard No. 108 as it presently exists. The drawing you have enclosed depicts three "lighted areas of LEDs" with two separations. Your question is based upon SAE J1889, which defines a "one compartment LED lamp" as one whose "maximum projected linear dimension" does not exceed 150mm. Thus, the linear dimension of a two-compartment LED lamp is 151-300mm, and that of a three-compartment LED lamp is 301mm and greater. These dimensional specifications prevent LED lamps from achietion of persons. Accordingly, an ambulance falls within the definition of MPV rather than truck.

I hope this will help clarify this issue for you. Should you have any further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-1.20

DATE: 12/16/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT R. MCAUSLAND, P.E.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-9-92 FROM ROBERT R. MCAUSLAND (OCC 7854)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether your design of an infant seat would comply with S5.2.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You state that your infant seat would have a frame made from 1/4 inch thick polyethylene sheet, and that all the edges of the frame are rounded to a radius of 1/8 inch. As discussed below, the design would not comply if the edges of the seat frame are contactable by the infant dummy's head or torso during the standard's dynamic test.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. S5.2.4, "Protrusion limitation," of Standard No. 213 states:

Any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to the requirements of S5.2.3 [the head impact protection requirements for infant seats], shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 3/8 inch and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. (Emphasis added.)

The term "contactable surface" is defined in S4 of the standard as "any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment hardware) that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1."

Under S5.2.4, any edges of a rigid structural component within or underlying a surface that can be contacted by the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy during Standard No. 213's dynamic test must have a radius of at least 1/4 inch. Since the frame edges of your infant seat have a radius of only 1/8 inch, the seat would not comply with S5.2.4 if the surfaces overlying those edges can be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test.

You ask whether, since side loading is not specified in Standard No. 213, can you conclude that there is no way that the child's head or torso could contact the sides of the frame, i.e., that the surfaces overlying those edges cannot be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test. We assume that you believe the infant's head and torso are unlikely to contact the frame's edges in the 213 dynamic test since, due to the forward motion of the test, the dummy's components are likely to move forward and rearward, rather than laterally.

I note that, for purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA would determine whether the surfaces are contactable surfaces for the purposes of S5.2.4 by observing a dynamic test, conducted according to the procedures in Standard No. 213. With respect to the issue of what information or analysis would be sufficient, for purposes of certification, for you to conclude that the surfaces overlying those edges cannot be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test, manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. However, this does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations.

You should be aware, however, that the direction of dummy movement during the Standard No. 213 dynamic test depends on many variables other than the direction of the test, such as the performance of the restraint's belt system. For example, in the event a child seat's upper torso restraint slipped off the dummy's shoulder in the dynamic test, the dummy could move laterally and strike the sides of the restraint system. You should consider all of the variables that could affect the dummy's performance when determining whether frame contact can occur.

I also note that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are subject to the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Infant restraints are involved in real-world crashes other than the frontal impacts simulated in Standard No. 213. If data indicated that a child seat exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as sharp edges resulting in injuries in a side crash, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall.

Enclosed is an information sheet which provides additional information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have further questions, please call Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-1.21

DATE: 12/16/92

FROM: DALE E. DAWKINS -- DIRECTOR, VEHICLE COMPLIANCE AND SAFETY AFFAIRS, CHRYSLER CORPORATION

TO: MARION C. BLAKEY -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: PETITION FOR TEMPORARY EXEMPTION: LOW EMISSION MOTOR VEHICLE - DATED DECEMBER 4, 1991; GRANT OF PETITION FOR TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM THREE FEDERAL MOTOR SAFETY STANDARDS (DOCKET NO. 91-66; NOTICE 2) - DATED JUNE 19, 1992

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-18-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DALE E. DAWKINS (A40; PART 555)

TEXT: Chrysler Corporation desires to inform the NHTSA that we will manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV's) that will fall under the temporary exemption that the agency has granted for the TEVan, an electrically powered version of the Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager multipurpose passenger vehicle. The exemptions for these CCEV's are to be coterminous with that granted the TEVan vehicle. This consortium is a joint cooperative effort by Chrysler Corporation, Westinghouse Corporation, the State of Maryland, and Baltimore Gas and Electric Power to develop electrically powered low-emission passenger vehicles under contract to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

These CCEV vehicles will be almost identical to the TEVans except for the propulsion system which will utilize an AC electrical motor, whereas the TEVans will be powered by a DC electrical motor. The CCEV with its AC motor will utilize a unique speed reduction direct drive transaxle, whereas the TEVan with its DC motor will utilize a speed reduction 2-speed transaxle. All compliance and product aspects of the vehicle program remain unchanged per our petition to the Agency on December 4, 1991 and later modified via a docket file submission on March 5, 1992. Based on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety.

We seek no broader temporary exemptions from FMVSS for the development of low emission vehicles than those already granted for the TEVan. The combined volumes of the CCEV and TEVan vehicles will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted by the NHTSA.

The above information allows the NHTSA to clearly understand the content of our electric vehicle development programs and the extent of the exemptions under which these vehicles will be manufactured.

If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact Mr. Len Blazic of my staff at (313) 956-5365.