ID: Maxon9759

S.Lafferty, Manager, Engineering
Maxon
16205 Distribution Way
Cerritos, CA 90703

Dear Mr.Lafferty:

This responds to your letter in which you raised several questions regarding Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No.403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles.Your letter raised issues with the control illumination, attachment hardware, and interlock requirements of the standard.I have addressed each issue below.

By way of background, the agency established FMVSS Nos.403 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle.FMVSS No.403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles.The agency also established the companion standard FMVSS No.404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, which specifies requirements for vehicles equipped with platform lifts.

Illumination of Lift Controls

S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No.403 requires that platform lift controls on a public use lift must be illuminated according S5.3 of FMVSS No.101, Controls and displays.In part FMVSS No.101 requires that the illumination of controls must be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.The low level of illumination is to minimize the impact of the illumination on a drivers night vision.

In your letter, you stated that the controls on the lifts manufactured by your company, Maxon, are not located in the driver compartment.As such, you stated that there is no need for a dual level of illumination as specified in FMVSS No.101.

The illumination requirement in FMVSS No.403 is applicable to all controls, regardless of location.An amendment to this requirement would have to be accomplished through the agencys rulemaking procedure.

Attachment Hardware

S6.3.1 of FMVSS No.403 requires that a lift manufacturer provide all of the attachment hardware necessary to install a lift on a vehicle.In your letter you stated that some installations may require longer bolts than that provided or that bolts may be lost during installation.You asked if Maxon would be permitted to specify attachment hardware by "grade, size, plating etc and allow substitute hardware" in those instances.

S6.13.1 requires a lift manufacturer to specify, either by make and model or by design elements, the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed.The attachment hardware provided must permit the installation of a lift on these vehicles.If a vehicle is listed under S6.13.1 that requires a longer bolt, then a longer bolt must be provided.

With regard to hardware lost during the installation process, we recognize that lift installers may need to obtain replacement hardware.Nothing in the standard prohibits a lift manufacturer from providing the hardware specifications in conjunction with the actual hardware.

Interlock requirements

Your letter correctly states that under S6.10.2.2 of FMVSS No.403, an interlock must prevent operation of a platform lift from a stowed position until forward and rearward motion of a vehicle is inhibited.You then asked what is required if during lift operation there is a failure of the interlock: should lift operation cease or continue in the event of such a failure?

FMVSS No.403 does not specify how a lift must operate in the event of an interlock failure.Therefore, it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine an appropriate default status.

I hope you find this helpful.If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr.Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.2/2/05

ID: nht81-1.9

DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1981

FROM: J. KAWANO -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE-TOYOTA

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BURKARD, EBNER, AND TEVES, OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, MAY 24, 1974 LETTER FROM TEVES TO GREGORY, AND MAY 27, 1988 LETTER FROM TEVES TO JONES

TEXT: Toyota is currently considering a new type of brake reservoir, as shown in Fig. 1, in accordance with your letter enclosed herewith as Attachment #1.

We request clarification of our interpretation of @5.4.2 & 5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 105-75, concerning this type of brake reservoir.

S5.4.2 reads as follows:

Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or for other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard. Reservoirs shall have completely separate compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston.

As far as our new type of brake reservoir is concerned, we recognize that if the following three conditions were satisfied, these reservoirs would conform to S5.4.2. Is this interpretation correct?

i) W + X + Y > C + D + E *

ii) X > A

iii) Y > B

* (Note: A vehicle equipped with this type of reservoir can be expressed as W+X+Y>C+D, since E is equivalent to zero.)

W; common capacity for fluid of front brake, rear brake & clutch as hatching part in Fig. 1

X; a compartment capacity for front brake fluid Y; a compartment capacity for rear brake fluid

A; volume displaced by front master cylinder during a full stroke of position

B; volume displaced by rear master cylinder during a full stroke of position

C; front capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

D; rear capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

E; clutch capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

In accordance with the aforementioned interpretation, we recognize that if the warning level is not less than the level of 1/4 (W+X+Y), S5.3.1 would be satisfied. This "W" is the same volume as the "W" in expression i) of inequality. Is this interpretation correct? The main point in question is whether the "W" in expression i) of inequality can be considered the capacity in a case where the overall compartment system -- clutch included -- has not failed. We illustrate such a case in te hatching segment of Fig. 1.

We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience. If you should have any comments or questions, please contact Mr. M. Mori, a member of my staff, who can be reached at: (201) 865-2019. Thank you.

Enclosure.

Fig. 1. Warning level.

ID: 86-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Delta Radio Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Delta Radio Co. P.O. Box 531 Spring Valley, N.Y. 10977

Gentlemen:

The enclosed publicity on the "Attention Getter" motorcycle accessory lighting device has come to our attention. It is represented as "Approved by the NHTSA". We do not know whether that is your characterization or that of the publication in which it appeared. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not "approve" or endorse products. Upon request, it will provide an interpretation of whether a lighting device is regulated, permitted, or not permitted by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. If a device is deemed permitted by the standard, in no sense should that be construed as "approved by NHTSA".

As a matter of fact, we have never been asked for an opinion of the "Attention Getter" but its installation could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Federal standard (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108), and prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard. A stop lamp is required to be steady-burning in use, and not flash as does your device, and its intensity must not exceed the maximum limits imposed by SAE Standard J586c, which is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. The fact that "Attention Getter"s intensity goes from "normal intensity to extra bright" raises the possibility that the maxima may be exceeded.

If you have any questions regarding your further responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Subject: Advertisement for "Attention Getter" Date: Mar 14 1986 Motorcycle Taillight Flasher From: George L. Reagie Associate Administrator, TSP

To: Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel, NHTSA

The attached advertisement was sent to us by Mr. Niel Tolhurst, Assistant Manager of Motorcycle Safety and Recreation for American Honda Motor Company. Mr. Tolhurst questioned the reference to "Approved by the NHTSA" in relationship to the "Attention Getter" motorcycle tail light flasher.

Since NHTSA does not approve or endorse products, I wanted to bring the advertisement to your attention so that appropriate action might be taken with the manufacturer of the product to correct the erroneous information.

Attachment

October 31, 1985

Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Enclosed is a sketch of a proposed motorcycle rear turn signal lamp positioning for some models of motorcycles. Reference is made to part 571.108, Title 49 of the CFR.

Table IV of the above cited reference specifies a minimum 9 inch horizontal separation distance. As indicated by dimension "A" this distance is 12 inches. This table also specifies that minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp is 4 inches. Dimension "B" indicated as 5.00 inches satisfies this requirement.

Your timely confirmation that our interpretation of this standard is correct will allow us to initiate tooling orders for 1987 model vehicles.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning the attached sketch and provide any additional information required. I may be reached at

Please receive this information as "Confidential business information" as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(6)(4). The release of details from the correspondence may provide vehicle styling information that could benefit our competitors.

Sincerely,

rn Enc.

ID: 86-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Moriyoshi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 27, 1876 Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48108 Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below. Your incoming letter has been granted confidential treatment i accordance with 49 CFR Part 512, so it will not be forwarded to the docket along with this response. First, you asked whether your marking system would be subject to the performance requirements for labels, set forth in 541.5(d)(1), or the performance requirements for other means of identification, set forth in 541.5(d)(2). You indicated in your letter that this marking system would affix the required marking to engines and transmissions. Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings "must be affixed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1 0 of this section or inscribed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section" (Emphasis added). this requirement means that all markings that are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, screws, rivets, or welding, must satisfy the performance requirements for labels set forth in 541.5(d)(1). Second, you asked whether your marking system would appear to satisfy the theft prevention standard's performance requirements for labels. You stated in your letter that you know it is your company's responsibility to certify compliance with the standard, but that this agency's "opinions and comments" on whether the marking system appears to comply with the theft" prevention standard would be highly appreciated. As you noted in your letter, section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c))requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this agency does not approve, endorse, or certify that any manufacturer's markings system complied with theft prevention standard. We will, however, state whether a particular marking system appears to comply if we are provided with sufficient information on which to base that opinion. In this case, your letter simply does not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion. You sought NHTSA's opinion as to whether your marking system appears to comply with the "footprint" requirement specified for labels in 541.5(d)(v)(B). that section requires that removal of the label must "discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present." For us to offer an opinion in this area, we must have some way to determine what remains on a part after the affixed label is removed. Ideally, we would have several labels affixed to a metal section by the means described in your letter. We could then remove the labels and examine the metal section for a "footprint". At a minimum, we need some means of determining what the "footprint" would be if these labels were removed, and whether such "footprint" would give investigators evidence that a label was originally present. Please feel free to contact me if you need some further explanation of our theft prevention standard or if you wish to provide additional information so that we can offer an opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements set forth in 541.5(d)(v)(B). Sincerely, Original Signed by Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 9137

Mr. Greg Biba
172820 Highway QQ #8
Waupaca, WI 54981

Dear Mr. Biba:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an "infant observation mirror" that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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 agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, 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 ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

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 or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the "rebound" phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:213 d:10/25/93

ID: 1985-04.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. -- Arent, Fox, Kintner, Platkin and Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1985, concerning the applicability of the requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for the installation of center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's) to passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. You also asked about the applicability of the CHMSL performance requirements to CHMSL's sold as aftermarket equipment for cars manufactured before that date. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You are correct in stating that there is no requirement in Standard No. 108 for installing CHMSL's on new cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. The installation requirement applies only to cars manufactured on or after that date. (48 FR 48235, October 13, 1984.) The only requirements regarding CHMSL's and pre-September 1, 1985 cars are that if a manufacturer voluntarily installs a CHMSL on a car manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and before September 1, 1985, the installation must be performed in accordance with criteria concerning the location of the CHMSL, and reflections from it. (49 FR 34488, August 31, 1984.)

As to aftermarket CHMSL's for cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, the applicability depends on whether or not the CHMSL is intended to be installed as a replacement for an original equipment CHMSL that was voluntarily installed on a car that was manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but before September 1, 1985. If the aftermarket CHMSL is intended to be installed in the interior of such a car, then the manufacturer of the CHMSL must comply with the requirement in S3.1.8.4 concerning minimization of reflections. If the CHMSL is intended to be installed on other pre-September 1, 1985 cars, its manufacturer is not subject to any Standard No. 108 requirements for CHMSL's. However, the agency encourages manufacturers of any aftermarket CHMSL to conform as closely as possible to all criteria in the standard for original equipment CHMSL's. We believe that standardization of rear signals minimizes the possibility of creating confusion to following drivers in situations where immediate action is essential to avoid a rear end collision. Further, aftermarket CHMSL's for those other pre-September 1, 1985 cars would be regulated by the applicable law of the State in which they are operated.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel (202) 857-6087

September 16, 1985 Jeffrey R. Miller, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Request for Interpretation; FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller:

As we discussed by telephone, I am requesting that you confirm that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, as it relates to the requirement for installation of a single center, high-mounted stoplamp on passenger cars, does not apply to passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985, and therefore does not apply to aftermarket center high-mounted stoplamps produced for applications on passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985.

An expedited response will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely, Lawrence F. Henneberger

ID: 20264.drn

Russell Roden, P.E.
President
Atlantic Design Inc.
3740 Federal Lane
Abingdon, MD 21009-2742

Dear Mr. Roden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your products are "motor vehicles" within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) definition. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter states that your company designs and manufactures "modular process systems" for the construction, industrial maintenance, and the quarry and mining industry. Your products include grit recycling and dust collection systems, and sand "dedusting units." In order to facilitate movement, your company's equipment is permanently attached to flat trailers which are manufactured by another company. You emphasize that the equipment your company designs and manufactures is a "process system where the trailer is used as a base skid with wheels for mobility and erection." As an example of your company's products, you included a photograph of an "air classification system" used in the bridge and industrial painting industry and in the quarry and mining industry.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time your company's equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a maintenance or construction site or at a quarry for years at a time. You stated that the equipment rarely stays at a job site for less than six to eight weeks.

NHTSA's statute defines "motor vehicle" at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Whether the agency considers your products to be motor vehicles depends on their use. The statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of our statute, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on your description, it appears that your company's vehicles are not motor vehicles within the meaning of our statute. This is because the vehicles stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months or years) and only use the highway to move from site to site. We may reassess this interpretation if we were to receive additional information indicating that your vehicles use the roads more than on an incidental basis.

Please note that since States may require products such as those which your company manufactures to be registered, you may wish to contact State motor vehicle administrators to determine whether there are State requirements you must meet.

You also pose several questions about the application of excise taxes to your product. We are unable to answer questions relating to taxes. For further information about Federal taxes, please contact the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS's web site is at www.irs.gov. You should contact the State of Maryland for information about Maryland tax law.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.10/26/99

ID: 1786y

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Panetta:

This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements.

The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are:

1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror.

2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive.

3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion.

4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object.

Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:111 d:4/l7/89

ID: 1985-02.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Russ L. Bomhoff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1985, concerning the applicability of our safety standards to a passenger van you are designing. Specifically, you asked whether you can install a stationary, side-facing passenger seat with lap safety belts. As discussed below, you can use such a seat with a lap safety belt, but its use would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 207, Seating Systems, 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A copy of each of those standards is enclosed.

Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat back.

Standard No. 208 sets requirements for the installation of safety belts in motor vehicles. You stated that the vehicle you are designing is a passenger van that carries under 10 passengers. If your vehicle carries a total of 10 persons (9 passengers and a driver) it would be considered either a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), if it is manufactured on a truck chassis or has special features for occasional off-road use, or a passenger car.

If your vehicle is a passenger car, section 4.1.2.3(c) of the standard provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder safety belt) that conforms with Standard 209 and the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If your vehicle is a MPV, then S4.2.2, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds or less, or S4.3, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt that conforms to Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 sets performance requirements for safety belts anchorages in passenger cars, MPV's, trucks, and buses. The standard exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to the anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

ENCLS.

PRECISION PATTERN INC.

April 18, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir:

This letter is a request for a ruling concerning a safety standard as applicable to passenger van seating. Specifically, I need to know if putting a stationary side facing seat, with lap seat belts is legal and acceptable.

This side facing seat would be equipped with lap seat belts if necessary. It would be located at the rear of the vehicle, behind the drivers seat.

The vehicles in question are for under 10 passengers, and are of 15', 17', and 20' lengths.

We are in the middle of a design project on this and your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please call 316/ 942-0905 if you have any questions. Thank you.

Mr. William Smith in your engineering dept. requested that I consult you for a permanent ruling. His interpretation of the rules would allow the use of this side facing seat.

Russ L. Bomhoff

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-1.34

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Retreaders' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1980, to the Office of Chief Counsel presenting a problem that has occurred recently with the importation of retreadable casings.

You noted that for the last 12 years this agency has allowed the importation of 150,000 to 200,000 truck casings annually but, "suddenly and without notice" in September 1980, prohibited importation of casings not labelled with the letter DOT and the manufacturer's identification symbol which are required by Standard No. 119. You also pointed out that there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering retreading of truck tires but that after retreading "they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49." Finally, you have indicated that there is a demand for the casings "by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators."

As I am sure you realize, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation of motor vehicles and equipment that were not manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, whether those vehicles or equipment are new or used. We have no knowledge of the importation of noncomplying used truck tires without bond. We can only act on those importations reported by the Customs Service.

Standard No. 119 is the applicable standard covering truck tires, and one of its requirements is that truck tires bear the label DOT. The standard, however, has only been in effect since March 1, 1975 (the last 6 years). The prohibition on the importation of nonconforming tires manufactured after the effective date of Standard No. 119 may well not have been much of an issue until recently because sufficient numbers of used tires manufactured before the effective date were available for importation. Now that pre-March 1, 1975 tires are becoming progressively scarcer, importers are presumably turning increasingly to post-March 1975 tires.

Your comment that after retreading the tires comply with Part 574 is of interest. Under S574.5, "the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable . . ." We have advised that the DOT symbol be buffed off truck tire casings before retreading to avoid confusion on the part of interested parties that the tire might meet some nonexistent safety standard.

Importers of truck tire casings that do not bear the symbol "DOT" have two options for release of conformity bond. They may provide a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the applicable standard. Alternatively, they may provide a verifiable serial numbering system from the original manufacturer to demonstrate that the tires were manufactured prior to the applicable standard.

In a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this office on January 12, 1981, you asked whether importers could test the casings after entry to verify conformance as a means of satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 1280(b)(1)(iii). The answer is a qualified yes. Certainly NHTSA would accept meaningful test data with respect to the tire tested. The problem lies in extrapolating these data to other tires of the same manufacturer. As you know, most tire manufacturers as part of their quality control program test tires at random to ensure continuing compliance with Standard Nos. 109 and 119. Thus, an importer's test data might be acceptable to NHTSA with respect to similar tires produced nearly contemporaneously with those tested, but not acceptable with respect to tires produced farther away in time. If your members chose to pursue this method of demonstrating conformance, each case would be treated on an ad hoc basis.

One further possibility is suggested by your letter if the tires do not comply with Standard No. 119. There is an implication that the primary use of these tires is in off-road applications, "gravel, coal, and mining truck operations." If the importers would be willing to submit an affidavit that the tires, after retreading, will be sold to those purchasers that will use them on private property and not the public roads, then we would consider admission on such basis. Where similar affidavits have been previously submitted, we might seek information from the affiant regarding the actual use of the tires covered by those prior affidavits.

If further questions are raised, I would be happy to answer them.

SINCERELY,

November 17, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219

Gentlemen:

Subject: Imported Retreadable Casings

Re: Title 19 Customs Duties, Chapter 1, U. S. Customs Service, 12.80

Worn casings suitable only for retreading and use on vehicles other than passenger cars have been imported by retreaders and importers who resell them for approximately fifteen years.

These casings have been cleared by customs during this period of time without question or delay. The casings are predominantly of Japanese manufacture and are eminently suitable for retreading. The casings are 10.00-20 bias and radial ply. All are extra ply. The bias ply are load range G (14 ply rating) and the radial ply are load range H (16 ply rating) manufactured for use, when new, on Japanese busses. The bus companies remove the worn tires and re-sell them. The tires are manufactured by companies such as Bridgestone, Yokohama, Sumitomo, Toyo and Ohtsu.

Worn casings, because they are load range G and H, are not available in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet the demand by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators, that operate under severe conditions.

The predominant types of worn tires of U.S. manufacture available to such operators are load range F (12 ply rating) for bias ply and load range G (14 ply rating) for radial ply.

Imported worn casings have been retreaded for the past fifteen years and have performed to the satisfaction of the user. Had they not done so, they would no longer have been accepted. The relationship between retreader and customer is such that the retreader must give a verbal or written warranty that his product, the retreaded casing, will give satisfactory service and be free from defects in workmanship and material for the life of the retreaded casing, which is a guarantee equal to or better than that offered by new tire manufacturers in the United States.

The imported casings do not, in general, indicate compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 by the letters DOT and manufacturer's mark. There is not a standard governing the retreading of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. FMVSS 117 applies only to retreaded pneumatic tires for passenger cars. Standard 119 regulates only new tires. Therefore, the 13,800,000 truck retreads produced each year might or might not be manufactured on a casing that meets the standard 119, even though these retreads can and do meet the test requirements of MVSS 119. Additional proof is in their performance on the highway. Further, tests conducted under the auspices of the American Retreaders Association by Dr. S. K. Clark of the University of Michigan proved that the strength of a worn truck tire is the same as a comparable new tire.

As of September 1980, the DOT, NHTSA suddenly and without notice initiated activity under title 19, Customs Duties, Chapter 1, United States Customs Office, Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1980, Par. 12.80 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

This activity was specifically directed against imported truck casings, even though the customs service had been permitting entry without restrictions since the promulgation of this standard, January 1, 1968. The logical question would be why wait over twelve years to direct its application to imported worn casings?

During this period of time, a sorely needed source of retreadable truck casings has been developed. The economics are there. A truck operator can purchase a retreaded casing for one-third to one-half the price of a new tire and will use retreads whenever possible. The economics justify it. The imported casings, although they are motor vehicle equipment, are not suitable for application to motor vehicles until they are re-manufactured through retreading, at which time they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49. The manufacturers mark appears on the retreaded casing.

We respectfully request that you rescind this sudden requirement, continuing to allow importation of worn truck casings in the same manner as you have in the past twelve years. In lieu of this, you should allow at least 180 days for the importers to make whatever arrangements will be necessary to bring imported casings into compliance.

At this point in time, we estimate there are approximately 150,000 to 200,000 worn truck casings imported annually. Compare this to the 13,800,000 total and imports are a small percentage. To the small businessman who is a retreader who buys 200-300 of these casings, it is an important item for him and his customers.

We look forward to your approval of our request.

Arden H. Faris Assistant Director