ID: nht93-6.20

DATE: August 18, 1993

FROM: Jack McIntyre -- V.Pres., Tie Tech Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to Jack McIntyre (A41; Std. 209; Std. 222) and letter dated 9/15/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack (OCC-9123)

TEXT:

In January 1993, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued requirements for wheelchair securement systems that are used on school buses. These requirements are included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222. As stated in the comments that were provided to the Proposed Rule, these standards are needed.

In reviewing the final requirements, however, it appears that a particular requirement for the wheelchair securement system was adopted that is inconsistent with the securement systems being manufactured by most wheelchair securement manufacturers. Also, this requirement does not appear to be directly relevant to the crash performance of a wheelchair securement belt. The specific requirement I am referring to appears in S5.4.2, which references the requirements of Type 1 safety belts of FMVSS 209, and requires that the belt webbing be not less than 1.8 inches wide.

There is no apparent need to specify a minimum belt width for wheelchair securement belts as there is for occupant restraint belts. I understand that the belt width requirements for occupant restraint systems is to spread the crash forces over a larger area of the body. There is no such need for securement belts. Currently the industry standard for securement belts is a 1 inch wide belt made from polyester that easily meets the 6,000 pound force requirements of FMVSS 209 and 222. Additionally, the 1 inch wide belts made from polyester have less stretch than the 1.8 inch nylon belts.

Finally, it is noted that 1 inch wide securement belts and related hardware are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair, particularly in the tight circumstances that exist on school buses in many instances, than are the 1.8 inch wide belts and their larger pieces of hardware.

Based on the above, I petition to change the requirement that the wheelchair securement belt must be at least 1.8 inches wide. The cost to the wheelchair securement industry to retool for the wider belts would be significant, without any added benefits in terms of safety to occupants of wheelchairs in school buses.

Thank you for your consideration.

ID: nht73-5.14

DATE: 09/17/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1973, concerning Toyota's use of a clip to prevent the shoulder belt from rubbing the occupant's neck. Your questions are (1) whether a clip of this type is permitted by Standard No. 208 and (2) whether the clip would be considered a part of the anchorage under Standard No. 210.

Your description of the clip indicates that it does not restrict the free travel of the webbing. The clip would therefore not inhibit the ability of the belt to adjust automatically to fit the occupant, as required by S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. It is our opinion that such a clip is permitted by Standard No. 208.

We have also concluded that a plastic guide clip designed so as not to affect the basic geometry of the belt during a crash is not a seat belt anchorage for purposes of Standard No. 210. The clip you describe would therefore not be required to meet the strength of location requirements of that Standard.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

August 24, 1973

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

For the purpose of encouraging our customers to use the seatbelt system, Toyota has been striving to minimize the possible discomfort or irritation which they may experience when wearing the upper torso belts, and we have developed a clip which is attached to the upper portion of the seat back as shown in the enclosed photo.

This clip is used to prevent the shoulder harness from contacting the occupant's neck and does not affect the retractive movement of the seatbelt shoulder harness. This clip, which is made of plastic, is designed so as not to hinder the performance of the seatbelt system during an accident.

Toyota believes the above-mentioned clip meets the intent of FMVSS No. 208 and the requirements of paragraph @ 7.1.1 of that standard. Toyota does not consider a clip of this nature to be an anchorage to which the requirements of FMVSS No. 210 apply.

As soon as we receive your favorable reply regarding this interpretation, we would like to install the clip on some of our models to improve the comfort of the seatbelt system.

Your prompt response to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-4.16

DATE: 11/10/75

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

TO: Mountain States Tires Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 1, 1975, which included a list of information items you believe are required to appear on retreaded tires pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires.

With the following qualifications, your list is correct:

1. The tire must be labeled with the symbol "DOT" followed by the letter "R", and other information required by 49 CFR Part 574.5, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, as a certification that the tire complies with Standard No. 117. This requirement is distinct from and in addition to the requirement that the casing retain the "DOT" symbol from its original manufacture.

2. The words "bias/belted" are not required, because the actual number of plies in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area, are now required to appear.

3. Tube-type and tubeless tires must be labeled with the specific words "tube-type" and "tubeless", respectively.

4. The items listed in your third group may appear on a paper label only if that label is not easily removable.

For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 117.

YOURS TRULY,

MOUNTAIN STATES TIRE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

May 1, 1975

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

From various sources, it is our understanding that after May 12, 1975, the following requirements must be met in retreading passenger car tires:

To be processed the casing must have on it from the original manufacturer

The symbol "DOT"

The tire size

Number of plies or ply rating

The completed retread must be permanently marked in at least one location with letters of a minimum of .078 inches high with the following:

Maximum Load

Actual number of plies in sidewall and tread, if different

Name of cord in sidewall and in tread area if different

The completed retread must also have this information on it, either with a permanent label, paper label or retained on the casing:

Size

Tube or Tubeless

Mamimum Inflation

Bias belted or Radial

Please advise us as soon as possible if the above information is correct so that we may have current, proper and accurate information for our members.

Claud Riggs, Exec. Secy.

ID: nht67-1.24

DATE: 08/18/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lowell K. Bridwell; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request to Dr. Haddon for an interpretation of the term "rigid material" as it appears in paragraph S3.4.1(b) in the National Highway Safety Bureau's "talking paper" of July 6, 1967. This term is identical to that used in paragraph S.3.4.1(b) of Standard 201, issued August 11, 1967. Therefore, the following interpretation applies to Standard 201 as issued August 11, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed.

"Rigid material" does not include a supporting structure of an armrest that is made of flexible spring steel if the supporting structure is designed to flex in the direction of transverse impact upon the pelvic impact area.

MERCEDES-BENZ OR NORTH AMERICA INC.

July 11, 1967

Dr. William Haddon, Jr. Director National Highway Safety Bureau

Re.: Application for Binding Ruling Standard 201, provisional July 6, 1967, Armrests S 3.4.1 (b).

As indicated in the discussion of the proposed language on July 9, 1967, we are applying for a ruling that the definition of "rigid material" in line 4 shall be understood not to include such supporting structures of armrests which are made of flexible spring steel when such supporting structure designed to flex in the direction of transverse impact upon the pelvic impact area, and shall therefore not be subject to the requirement of "minimum vertical height of not less than 1"."

Argument: There are numerous armrest designs which may not qualify under the requirements of S 3.4.1(a) since they are at some part less than 2" wide laterally, and therefore must qualify under Para. (b). If such armrests are designed to combine the function of a door opener, i.e. with a fingerhole, a flexible spring core is ideally suited and has many times been used as a demonstrably safe design in the past. The spring material, which need not necessarily be steel but may also take the form of various plastics, provides the necessary strength for vertical support required for an armrest but gives upon transverse impact to avoid injury.

We should be grateful to receive your ruling at the earliest possible date in view of current production schedules for the 1968 models, and in view of the fact that with this indication we agreed to wave further amending language of the standard Para. S 3.4.1 (b), so as to provide for the possibility of clear definitions in some future revisions.

Respectfully,

H. C. Hoppe

ID: nht81-2.38

DATE: 06/23/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Midwest Polychem, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have examined the proposed label for "GRC" brake fluid you have submitted to us for comment.

Generally, the label appears to meet the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 (36 F.R. 11937, June 24, 1971, as amended, 36 F.R. 21594, November 11, 1971). The words "or(Illegible Word)" in your conformity statement are redundant; since the standard is a minimum requirement, "conforming to" and "exceeding" it mean exactly the same thing. If the fluid packager is an entity other than Curley, the packager's name or code identification must appear either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can. We assume that the required serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging will be stamped either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can.

GRC

SUPER HEAVY DUTY

BRAKE FLUID DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID 284 degrees F Min. Wet Boiling Point

GRC

HYDRAULIC BRAKE FLUID

DIRECTIONS

FILLING: Check fluid each month or every 2000 miles. Fill Mailer cylinder to within one-half inch of top.

BLEEDING: Remove plug from bleeder screw and insert bleeder hose. Place other and of bleeder in clean container partially filled with G.R.C. Brake Fluid. Lossen bleeder screw and pump brake pedal slowly until air bubbles stop and fluid is clear. Tighten blender screw and follow same instructions on all four wheels, Moster cylinder fluid level must be checked after bleeding each wheel and keep fluid level to within 1/2 inch of top.

CAUTION: FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. Contamination with dirt, water petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

(Illegible Lines) GURLEY REFINING DESIGN GCR SUPER HEAVY DUTY BRAKE FLUID (Illegible Word) 2700-1 S.O. 244-3191 SIZE 211 X 407.5 C.E. 4.595 X 8.364 B.P. DATE 10-19-71

(Illegible Lines) (Illegible Word) AS DETAINED APPROVED AS SUBMITTED CUSTOMER SIGNATURE: DATE NO. PROOFS 20 PROOF DATE 11-3-71 CHANGE A CHANGE B CHANGE C ARTIST D/TCA

ID: 8877

Ken Simons, Esq.
P.O. Box 883
Fairmont, WV 26555

Dear Mr. Simons:

This responds to your letter asking about brake requirements for trailers used in tractor trailer combinations. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether all such trailers are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles. You state that a "maxi" brake is found on all road tractors and "sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level." Please note that the term "maxi" brakes ordinarily refers to spring brakes used in parking and emergency brake applications. I further note that most, but not all, trailers are equipped with spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards.

Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121, copy enclosed), specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicles under normal and emergency conditions.

While Standard No. 121 does not require manufacturers to use spring brakes or any other particular type of brake system, many manufacturers use spring brakes to comply with the standard's requirements concerning parking brake performance (trucks, buses and trailers; see S5.6), emergency brake performance (trucks and buses only; see S5.7), and trailer pneumatic system failure performance (see S5.8). I note that while the requirements of S5.6 and S5.8 apply to most air- braked trailers, S3 of Standard No. 121 excludes some trailers from all of the standard's requirements. In addition, S5.6 and S5.8 specify alternative requirements for some trailers.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:121 d:4/25/94

ID: nht72-1.32

DATE: 02/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Garden Spot Oil Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your inquiry of December 21, 1971, to the Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation in Dallas, Texas, and undated letter to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety concerning the sale of tires branded "Unsafe for Highway Use."

By Notice No. 2, to Docket 70-2 (copy enclosed) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109 specifying the conditions under which tires that failed to pass the minimum performance requirements of FMVSS No. 109 could be sold. This amendment presently permits such tires to be reclassified as "Unsafe for Highway Use," and if properly labeled to be sold for farm wagons or other off-highway uses only. A dealer who sells such tires for passenger car use, or who removes or alters the legend "Unsafe for Highway Use" imprinted on the tire sidewall, in subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

It is proposed that on or after March 1, 1972, no tire of a type and size designation specified in FMVSS No. 109, Table 1 of Appendix A, shall be sold, offered for sale, imported, or introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce for any purpose unless it conforms to all the requirements of this standard. If implemented, this proposal will void the authority granted by Notice No. 2 to Docket 70-2 mentioned above.

If the Javelin Tire Company of Dallas, Texas, is representing the tires you have on hand as safe for highway use, we would appreciate any evidence to this effect which you can provide. An invoice or a statement from Javelin claiming these tires as suitable for highway use or an affidavit from you attesting to such claims by the Javelin Tire Company would be useful.

A copy of the proposed rule, published in Notice 3, Docket 70-2, is enclosed for your information. One of the matters being covered in the rulemaking is whether tires reclassified prior to the effective date of the proposed rule may be sold. Copies of your letters have been entered in the official Docket. When the final rule is issued, it will be published in the Federal Register with a definite effective date. Because of your interest in this matter, we will send you a copy of the amendment when finally issued.

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

ID: 86-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1986, asking for our advice on a decorative lighting device for motorcycles.

The general principle remains the same as when I last explained it to you. Please refer to my letter to you dated March 24, 1986 (copy enclosed) on the relationship of paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to auxiliary lighting devices for motorcycles. If you conclude that the device would not impair the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 then paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.

You may follow this guideline with reference to any future questions you may have about the permissibility of auxiliary motor vehicle lighting devices. The agency does not approve or disapprove of specific items of lighting equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 7, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re.: Instlallation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No.108

Dear Ms. Jones,

We would like to ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.

This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose an illustration and a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp. Lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Enc. Drawing 1 : The outlines of the device Drawing 2 : The details of the device (Graphics here)

ID: nht95-5.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/07/95 LETTER FROM HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification.

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

ID: Triplex

Mr. Paul Katz
President
Triplex Manufacturing Company
2700 West 50th Street
Chicago, IL 60632

Dear Mr. Katz:

This responds to your letter seeking our opinion whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, would preempt State laws seeking to establish requirements for insurers or repair businesses to install only vehicle lamps and lighting parts that are made by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).

Your letter was prompted by the case of Avery v. State Farm, which we understand is now on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court, and various proposed state laws that would make distinctions between OEM and non-OEM parts. You asked two questions.

First, you asked whether OEM and non-OEM lamps and lighting parts are of "like kind and quality" under FMVSS No. 108. In your letter, you state that the term "like kind and quality" is a term that was used by the court in Avery v. State Farm. The term does not appear in the statutes we administer or in our regulations. We note that the requirements under FMVSS No. 108 for original equipment and non-original equipment are the same, and further that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards establish minimum performance requirements. Because FMVSS No. 108 allows a wide range of performance, and does not include specifications that apply to non-safety characteristics such as fit and finish, different lamps may not be of "like kind and quality" yet still comply with Federal requirements.

Second, you asked whether Federal law preempts states from establishing standards for vehicle lamps and lighting parts that are different than those of FMVSS No. 108 based solely on whether the manufacturer is an OEM or non-OEM. Federal law preempts states from enacting laws that impose different requirements from those mandated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. States may, however, regulate in various areas including enacting operational, inspection and insurance requirements. In this way, states may be able to establish rules with respect to the repair of crashed vehicles without acting in a manner that is inconsistent with Federal law.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Mr. Edward Glancy of this office (202-366-2992).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
cc: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.

ref:108
d.1/21/04