ID: 77-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peter Cooper

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 1, 1977, question whether your client, a retail tire dealer, would be in violation of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) if he were to sell tires which do not contain an identification number as required by the NHTSA.

Paragraphs S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 of 49 CFR 571.109, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, requires passenger car tires to be labelled in accordance with Part 574. The absence of an identification number means that the tire is not in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 109. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) provides in part that no person shall sell any item of motor vehicle equipment that is not in conformity with applicable standards. Since your client would be selling nonconforming tires, he would be in violation of our Act and, therefore, subject to the penalties imposed thereunder. Section 109(a) of the Act establishes a penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the Act, not to exceed $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

SINCERELY,

PETER COOPER ATTORNEY AT LAW

March 1, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In connection with an inquiry from a client of mine, I have studied the 1975 regulation with reference to the requirement that all tires sold must have identification numbers thereon. My client is a retail tire dealer and tells me he has an opportunity to buy a lot of tires on which the identification numbers have been removed. I am told that these tires were bought for export but by reason of some restriction, the owner of said tires is unable to export them and is trying to sell them to my client.

The regulation seems to impose a penalty on manufacturers, or possibly others who sell tires on which the numbers have been removed.

It is my desire to inform my client that the regulations must be complied with but I am not clear as to whether the penalty imposed by the regulation would apply to a retail dealer.

I would appreciate it if you would advise me whether or not my client would be in violation of the regulation and subject to penalties if he buys the tires and then sells them at retail to his customers.

Peter Cooper

ID: 77-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 16, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, preempts the parking brake requirements specified in New York's school bus brake system regulations.

Safety Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) becomes effective April 1, 1977, for school buses and establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems on these vehicles. The standard includes a static test requirement for parking brake systems (grade-holding capability) and a dynamic test requirement for service brake systems (emergency stopping capability). The New York brake system regulations include a static test requirement and also a dynamic test requirement for parking brake systems. You ask whether Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of New York's dynamic test requirement for parking brakes.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivisions of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

As noted, Standard No. 105-75 includes requirements for the parking brake control aspect of braking performance. The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to this aspect of performance in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. It is the agency's opinion, therefore, that Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of the nonidentical aspects of New York's school bus parking brake requirements.

However, the second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on State safety regulations of general applicability does not preempt governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use if such requirements impose a higher standard of performance. Thus, the State of New York may specify these additional parking brake requirements for public school buses. The second sentence of @ 103(d) does not permit governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all aspects of Standard No. 105-75. A school bus manufacturer, therefore, would have to meet the force requirements specified in Standard No. 105-75 for engagement of the parking brake, even for school buses intended for New York's own use.

ID: 77-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: D. T. Schellhase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter inquiring whether you may inlay whitewall rings on black tires. You state that in the process a groove is cut around the tire and a white compound is inserted into the groove.

Assuming that you are discussing applying this process to new passenger car tires, whether the process is permissible depends upon whether or not it adversely affects the tire's compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, which prescribes performance requirements for all passenger car tires sold in the United States. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

If after using the process the tire will not comply with Standard No. 109, the use of the process is prohibited, and its use can result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per tire and of other sanctions as well (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1), 1398, 1399). In addition, it is the responsibility of the one who wishes to use the process to determine whether it will cause the tires to fail the standard.

SINCERELY,

February 23, 1977

David T. Schellhase

This is in response to your letter of February 17, 1977, concerning the manufacturing of tires.

I have forwarded your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of this Department, which has regulatory jurisdiction over highway safety matters, including the establishment of safety standards, enforcement of standards, and the investigation of apparent defects in motor vehicles or automobile components.

You will hear from NHTSA directly.

(Miss) Antonia P. Uccello Director Office of Consumer Affairs

Feb. 17, 1977

Dear Sirs,

I have been refered to your office by the Highway Patrol. My question is this. I have been offered a business opportunity which consists of servicing car dealers and making whitewall tires out of existing blackwall tires on both new and used cars. This is done by a machine which cut a grove into the sidewall of the tire and then a white compound is flowed into the grove. My insurance agent told me that because of the cutting of the tire he could not write me business insurance. Is the alteration of tires like I have explained illegal, as I myself question weather the process may cause tire failure or a blow out. I would certainly appreciate, any information you could offer. Thank you!

David T. Schellhase

ID: 77-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1977, asking two questions about the use of strobe lamps on school buses.

Your first question is whether it is "legal to install strobe type warning lamps on school buses?" The answer is yes provided such lamps meet the specific performance requirements in S4.1.4 which incorporates SAE Standard J887 "School Bus Red Signal Lamps."

You also reference "certification from our vendor . . . that his system meets FMVSS if installed according to his instructions." You have asked if this letter from your vendor is "adequate documentation upon which we could certify that a bus with such a system meets FMVSS 108?" In an earlier opinion letter on this subject (to Yankee Metal Products Corporation of April 12, 1976) we opined that an ETL test report submitted by the company plus an opinion by a professional engineer indicating compliance of a strobe lamp design with SAE J887 provided a basis upon which Yankee could certify that its system meets Standard No. 108. Since you did not enclose the letter from your vendor we cannot comment upon it. However the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that a manufacturer exercise due care in insuring that its certification is not false and misleading in a material respect, and you should exercise the same care in this instance that you do with respect to insuring compliance of other items of lighting devices with which your buses are equipped.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 29, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 108

REFERENCE: 1. New Jersey Register, January 6, 1977

2. Letter, Donald J. Sumple to Mr. Donald Peck dated 3-25-77

"On December 1, 1976, Fred G. Burke, Commissioner of Education and Secretary to the Board of Education, pursuant to authority of N.J.S.A. 18A:39-21 and in accordance with applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, adopted a new rule, to be cited as N.J.A.C. 6:21-19.1, concerning school bus warning lamps (strobe), substantially as proposed in the Notice published October 7, 1976, at 8 N.J.R. 454(a), but with subsequent, substantive changes not detrimental to the public, in the opinion of the Department of Education.

This rule is mandated for school buses manufactured May 1, 1977, and thereafter. This rule is permissive for school buses manufactured prior to May 1, 1977."

The above quote from reference 1 indicates that strobe type warning lamps are required on New Jersey school buses manufactured after May 1, 1977.

We have worked with several vendors to get a system to meet both the New Jersey requirements and FMVSS 108. We have no test facility of our own to determine compliance of such a system with FMVSS 108 and, furthermore, understand that there is some ambiguity of FMVSS 108 with regard to strobe lamps.

We have received certification from our vendor, reference 2, that his system meets FMVSS 108 if installed according to his instructions.

We have these questions:

1. Is it legal to install strobe type warning lamps on school buses?

2. If so, is reference 2 adequate documentation upon which we could certify that a bus with such a system meets FMVSS 108?

Your early response is needed so that we can adequately meet May 1 production requirements for New Jersey.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

C: DON PECK; JIM MOORMAN; JIM SWIFT

ID: 77-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your oral request of March 28, 1977, for clarification of the language of S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In particular, you ask whether the long side of a rectangular roof exit is required to be parallel to the center line of a bus.

S5.4.1 requires that an exit provide "an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches." Further, S5.2.1 of the standard states that a roof exit shall meet these requirements when the bus is overturned on either side. The requirement that the major axis be kept horizontal while the bus is on its side means that the major axis, and therefore the long side of the rectangular roof exit, would be parallel to the center line or the side wall of a bus.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Irene Glessner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 21, 1977, letter asking whether a tire dealer is required to record the serial numbers of the tires he sells.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates regulations pertaining to tires. One of these regulations, Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires tire dealers and distributors to obtain information when the tire is sold and to forward that information to the tire manufacturer. I am enclosing a copy of this regulation for your information. In @ 574.7 of the regulation you will find the exact information for which a tire dealer is responsible.

A tire dealer would not be responsible for the ultimate recall of tires. The information which a dealer submits to a manufacturer enables the manufacturer to undertake recalls. Failure to record and submit the information to a manufacturer would be a violation of Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1397). Each violation is punishable by a civil penalty of $ 1,000 up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of violations (15 U.S.C. 1398).

SINCERELY,

March 21, 1977

The Chairman National Transportation Safety Board

Dear Sir:

I am very much interested in finding out about the law (if there is one) that requires a tire dealer to record the serial numbers of the tires that he sells.

If I am not writing to the correct government agency, will you please tell me where to direct my inquiry?

I want to find out if there is a specific penalty or fine that can be levied against a tire dealer if he has not recorded the serial numbers of tires he sells, and at a later time there is some conflict or a recall pertaining to the sale of those tires.

Thank you for your assistance.

Irene Glessner

ID: 77-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Brock Adams; NHTSA

TO: Commission on Federal Paperwork, Frank Horton - Chairman

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 9, 1977, letter requesting a copy of the report prepared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in response to the Senate Commerce Committee's inquiries concerning the recordkeeping requirements of the tire registration program. I too am interested in reducing the burden upon the public occasioned by unnecessary paperwork. In accordance with your request, I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA report.

Regarding your comments concerning the viability of a voluntary tire registration technique to replace the present registration program, you should note that the NHTSA has considered the possibility of a voluntary registration procedure similar to the warranty card procedure utilized by appliance manufacturers. Through informal inquiries of appliance manufacturers, the agency discovered that return of warranty cards averages about 50 percent in the case of expensive appliances and falls as low as 10 percent in the case of 10- to 35-dollar items. An entirely separate problem arises with voluntary registration of tires in that the purchaser cannot be expected to distinguish the serial number from other numbers that appear on each tire. More important, the identification number is placed on the side opposite the whitewall on many tires, and it is probable that the purchaser would fail to locate the correct number in the typical situation where the tires are mounted on his vehicle before he sees them.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

SINCERELY,

COMMISSION ON FEDERAL PAPERWORK

Honorable Brock Adams Secretary Department of Transportation

We greatly appreciate the Department of Transportation's past cooperation with the Commission on Federal Paperwork. It is our hope that in continuing to work together on specific paperwork problems we will be able to reduce significantly the burden borne by the public.

The Commission has received comments concerning the burdensome reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the mandatory new and retread tire registration program of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It has been brought to our attention that voluntary registration may be a viable alternative to the current reporting program which could reduce the burden on tire dealers and manufacturers.

We have learned that the Senate Commerce Committee has sent you a letter requesting data on the tire registration program including the number of new and retread tires recalled and the percentage of registrants who comply with the program. In order for the Commission to adequately review the reporting requirements we would like to receive a copy of the report you are preparing for the Committee.

We appreciate your continuing cooperation and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

With kindest personal regards,

Frank Horton Chairman

ID: 77-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ASTM Subcommittee F9.10

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 2, 1977, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) still emphasizes or frequently conducts tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating tests as authorized by Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

As you know, the bead unseating test procedure was adopted from the Society of Automotive Engineers Practice J918. It is our understanding that the SAE continues to use this procedure for tire performance tests. The NHTSA is of the opinion that the bead unseating test procedure is a viable laboratory evaluation of the compatibility of a tire and rim combination. This has become especially important since 1975, when the table of approved alternative rims of Appendix A of Standard No. 110, Tire and Rim Selection, was deleted, and the tables of standards organizations were adopted. The bead unseating test provides an additional verification of the tire and rim combinations listed in the yearbooks of these organizations.

Standard No. 109 requires several tire performance tests: physical dimensions, resistance to bead unseating, strength, endurance, and high speed performance. The NHTSA compliance testing is conducted on a random selection basis. In the case of tires, not every test is conducted on each brand of tire selected for compliance testing. Therefore, the bead unseating test is not always conducted during compliance testing. However, the agency does conduct bead unseating tests whenever appropriate and will continue to do so.

SINCERELY,

ASTM

March 2, 1977

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The ASTM Subcommittee F-9.10 on the Structural Integrity of Tires has been developing a Standard Test Procedure for Unseating the Bead of a Tubeless Passenger Car Tire from the Rim. The draft of this Proposed Standard Test Procedure was approved by the Subcommittee and submitted to the F-9 Main Committee for ballot. The Test Procedure is essentially that of the Bead Unseating Test contained in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration test MVSS 109 put in ASTM format.

Discussion of five negative ballots which were received disclosed that there exists considerable doubt concerning the validity of the Bead Unseating Test among the engineers representing the tire producing companies. The principal objections to it are:

a. It is believed that the unseating test does not reflect actual field results, nor performance characteristics.

b. The test is not functional for all current sizes (profiles, construction, etc.) of tires.

c. The origin and data base of the bead unseating test, as well as the reasons for its incorporation into the repertoire of testing, are not clear to the persons presently involved in tire test work.

d. That the regulatory bodies no longer emphasize nor do they frequently conduct the test.

The Task Group is planning a survey to obtain information from the tire producing companies which will assist in the resolution of (a) and (b) above. Since the test originated with the motor car companies and was developed by their representatives in the tire committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers, the Task Group expects to obtain the early history of the test from the SAE group to resolve (c).

It is the purpose of this inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine whether that regulatory group no longer emphasizes nor frequently conducts the test as stated in (d) above. Is this the present situation? Does NHTSA consider that this test has lost significance since it was adopted as part of the original MVSS 109.

The ASTM Subcommittee F-9.10 would appreciate a response from NHTSA to clarify the situation in which the passenger tubeless tire bead unseating test is presently considered and conducted by them.

Louis Marick, Chairman Subcommittee F-9.10

ASTM

March 2, 1977

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from ASTM subcommittee F9.10 on the Structural Integrity of Tires questioning the validity of the "Bead Unseating Test Procedure MVSS109" which is being considered for development as an ASTM Standard.

The purpose of my letter is to request your response to the problem presented and ask that you reply directly to:

Mr. Louis Marick, Chairman ASTM Subcommittee F9.10 339 Merriweather Road Grosse Pointe, Mich 48236 Your assistance on this standards development project will be sincerely appreciated.

William T. Cavanaugh Managing Director

CC: L. MARICK; F. CECIL BRENNER -- NHTSA

ID: 77-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Onics Holdings, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 29, 1977, letter asking whether several vehicles that you describe would be considered "vehicles other than passenger cars" for purposes of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

Vehicles other than passenger cars includes: multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers, all of which are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 571.3. Since the vehicles you describe appear to fall within the definition of multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck, they are considered "vehicles other than passenger cars." Accordingly, they must comply with the rim marking requirements of Standard No. 120.

SINCERELY,

ONICS HOLDINGS INC.

March 29, 1977

NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel

I note that for wheel rim marking purposes you define a "vehicle other than passenger car" as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), truck, bus, motorcycle, or trailer". Would you be kind enough to give me a ruling as to whether the following vehicles fall into this category:

General Motors Pickups, Type C and K (100 Series)

General Motors Blazers, Type C and K (100 Series)

General Motors Suburban, Type C and K (100 Series)

General Motors Vans, Type G (100 Series)

Similar vehicles made by other manufacturers

I would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience as the matter is urgent.

Stuart A. Mossman President

ID: 77-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pupil Transportation Service - Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 18, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, permits the use of a two-passenger front-row seat with a corresponding two-passenger front-row restraining barrier. Secondly, you ask whether the State of Virginia can require the use in joints of discrete fasteners and welding, and not adhesives, without conflicting with the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. Finally, you ask who must certify that a vehicle complies with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

The NHTSA has issued an interpretation allowing the use of a two-passenger front-row seat with a two-passenger restraining barrier. This can be accomplished by the use of a two-passenger seat cushion and a three-passenger seat back as you suggest. I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA interpretation for your information.

Regarding your second question concerning the use of adhesives in bus body joints, the Federal bus body joint standard requires only that joints meet a specified strength requirement. The NHTSA does not require any particular type of joint construction. Therefore, the purchaser and manufacturer can decide upon any method of joint construction as long as the joint meets Federal strength specifications.

Your final question asks who must certify that a small school bus (under 10,000 pounds) is in compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. To assign responsibility for the certification of multi-stage vehicles, NHTSA has issued Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (enclosed). The manufacturer of an "incomplete-vehicle" (such as a cab-chassis) must provide documentation to the intermediate- and final-stage manufacturer of the vehicle on how to complete it so that it complies with all applicable standards. It is the responsibility of the final-stage manufacturer to affix a certification label unless the incomplete- or intermediate-stage manufacturer assumes this responsibility.

On a related matter concerning small school buses, it is our understanding that school buses weighing under 10,000 pounds will be available after April 1, 1977.

SINCERELY,

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

February 18, 1977

Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration This is in further regard to my questions mentioned during our telephone conversation on February 17, 1977 and my conversation with Mr. Roger Tilton of your office on this date. As indicated to you and Mr. Tilton, written questions would be submitted. They are as follows:

1. FMVSS 222

1. Will standard allow for a two passenger right front barrier to allow wider entrance into aisle?

2. Can right front seat be a two passenger cushion with a three passenger back allowing all other seats to be a three passenger seat?

2. FMVSS 221

1. Will State of Virginia be able to require the use of discreet fasteners and welding only in the joining of panels without the use of adhesives? If not, why?

3. Question of certification and availability of completed van conversion type school bus under 10,000 lbs. GVWR.

Who will certify compliance with FMVSS 105?

Do you have information or position which indicate such small school buses can comply with April 1, 1977 requirements of federal standards?

Do you have information which indicate such small buses will be available after April 1?

Your response to these questions is needed at the earliest possible date because many local school districts are in the process of bidding for purchase of school buses which comply with both state and federal standards.

R. A. Bynum, Supervisor Pupil Transportation Service