ID: nht92-1.10

DATE: 12/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PHILIP E. STERN, ESQUIRE -- RAND, ALGEIER, TOSTI & WOODRUFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COPYEE: DAVID LOMBARDI -- TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MARSHA SAILESBURY -- CONSULTANT, PUPIL TRANSPORTATION, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-25-92 FROM PHILIP E. STERN TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 8054)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 25, 1992, to this agency requesting information on placement of video cameras on school buses. You stated that you are the attorney for the Sussex Wantage Board of Education, a school district in Northern New Jersey, and that you are interested in speaking with other school districts that may use video cameras on their school buses.

This agency knows of no specific studies or tests that have been conducted on the use of video cameras in school buses from the standpoint of either motor vehicle or behavioral safety. With respect to the latter, this agency is also not aware of any data which would indicate any safety consequences resulting from passenger behavior on school buses. We have, however, had occasion recently to address the issue of the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the installation of "silent monitors" in school buses.

Please find enclosed, therefore, a copy of a November 17, 1992, letter of interpretation that we wrote to Ms. Shirley A. Stewart of Herndon, VA. Ms. Stewart explained that her company was installing "silent monitors," which she described as six-inch cubes of welded steel designed to hold video cameras, in school buses in Prince George's County, Maryland. Should you wish to discuss this issue with Prince George's County school officials, your point of contact would be Mr. David Lombardi, Transportation Director, Prince George's County Public Schools, 13300 Old Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20702, (301) 952-6570. Another possible source of information is Ms. Marsha Sailesbury, Consultant, Pupil Transportation, State Board of Education, 100 North First Street, Springfield, IL 63777; (217) 782-5256.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-1.11

DATE: 12/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DANIEL K. UPHAM -- PRESIDENT, SYS TEK CORPORATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-17-89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO ALAN S. ELDAHR (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-9-92 FROM DANIEL K. UPHAM TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 8111)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 9, 1992, with respect to whether a "portable lighted message display using L.E.D. technology" is permissible under Federal law. The product would be sold in the aftermarket. As you indicate, "[i]t will be either battery powered or it will be powered using the vehicle power source via cigarette lighter or directly to the car's electrical harness." It will be installed in either the side rear or rear window.

We assume that battery-powered devices, and those activated through the cigarette lighter, are so simple that the vehicle owner can install and use the device without resorting to the assistance of others. Under this circumstance, there is no restriction that applies to this device under the laws administered by this agency. Nevertheless, the device may be subject to restrictions imposed by a State in which it is operated.

However, if attaching the device to the car's electrical harness is a task that may be performed by a person other than the vehicle owner, a different consideration applies. A manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may not install the device if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Examples of equipment added pursuant to a Federal standard and that could be affected by the sign board are the stop lamps, both center highmounted and conventional, and the inside rear view mirror. I enclose a copy of an interpretation of the agency dated August 17, 1989, to Mr. Alan S. Eldahr, and call your attention to our views on impairment by message boards expressed on the second page. This letter also provides the address of an organization that you may consult on applicable State laws.

Installation of the message board in a side rear window by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would appear permissible. The only required side lighting equipment are front and rear lamps and reflectors, intended to mark the extremities of the vehicles, and we do not believe that their function would be negatively affected by installation of the message board.

ID: nht92-1.12

DATE: 12/24/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-26-92 FROM KENNETH W. WEBSTER, II TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7930)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR @ 571.124). More specifically, your letter requested clarification of the correct test procedure for S5 of Standard No. 124 under a specific condition.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a vehicle or product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations.

Section S5 of Standard No. 124 requires vehicles to comply with certain requirements "when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40 degrees F. and +125 degrees F. after 12 hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range." (Emphasis added.) For purposes of the safety standards, the term any "means generally the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." (49 CFR @ 571.4) Therefore, vehicles must meet Standard No. 124's requirements at all temperatures within the specified range.

Your letter states that some vehicles are impossible to start after conditioning for 12 hours at -40 degrees F. You asked which of the following procedures would be correct when testing a vehicle which will not start:

Alternative (1): Test with engine not running at the -40 degrees F. test condition.

Alternative (2): Raise temperature until engine will start. Record test temperature and perform test.

In conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would follow the procedures set forth in Standard No. 124. The agency would not follow the Alternative (1) test procedure since the standard specifies requirements that must be met "when the engine is running."

The agency could conduct a compliance test at any temperature or temperatures within the specified -40 degrees F. to +125 degrees F. range. I note that S5.3 specifies that the performance requirement for maximum time to return to idle position varies depending on whether the vehicle is "exposed to ambient air at 0 degree F to -40 degrees F. during the test or for any portion of the 12-hour conditioning period." This language makes it clear that the ambient air does not need to be held at a single temperature during the conditioning period or during the test.

If NHTSA chose to conduct a compliance test at -40 degrees F. and the vehicle would not start because of the extreme cold, the agency would most likely either use a standard engine heater to assist in starting the vehicle or warm the entire vehicle to a temperature where it would start. I note, however, that if the agency did warm the vehicle to assist in starting, it might lower the temperature back down to -40 degrees for purposes of conducting the test.

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

ID: nht92-1.13

DATE: 12/23/92

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

ID: nht92-1.14

DATE: December 23, 1992

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

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

ID: nht92-1.15

DATE: December 22, 1992

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

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht92-1.16

DATE: 12/18/92

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht92-1.17

DATE: 12/18/92

FROM: KENNETH A. GALLO -- HOWREY & SIMON

TO: Marion C. Blakey -- Administrator, NHTSA

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT

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

ID: nht92-1.18

DATE: 12/17/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DOUGLAS BERG -- PRESIDENT, ASCEND PRODUCTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht92-1.19

DATE: 12/16/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

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

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

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

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

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

We appreciate your desire to meet current safety requirements.

(ATTACHMENTS OMITTED)