ID: nht78-2.22

DATE: 04/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1977, to the Administrator asking whether an Illinois standard applicable to school bus lighting is neither preempted by nor violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S4.1.4(b) (ii) of Standard No. 108 requires that:

"The [school bus signal lamp] system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation and, if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened."

Under the Illinois requirement (4.2.18.2) the amber signal lamps appear to be activated only by manual or foot control (4.2.18.2 (d)), and are automatically deactivated when the bus entrance door is opened (4.2.18.2 (e) and (f)). The red signal lamps are activated before the bus entrance door is opened (4.2.18.2 (e)) and remain activated when the door is opened (4.2.18.2 (f)). Thus, these portions of the Illinois requirement comply with Standard No. 108.

As for the remaining portions of 4.2.18.2, they dictate sequential operational requirements of the 8-lamp system and stop arm (an item of equipment not required by Standard No. 108). To accomplish this operation, 4.2.18.2 requires that "A separate circuit breaker and a master switch shall be provided for this signal system." You have asked whether this is preempted by Standard No. 108.

The aspect of performance involved here is that of wiring requirements for school bus warning lamps. Standard No. 108 specifies the manner in which these lamps shall operate but it is silent as to the ways this performance shall be achieved. Therefore Illinois is not preempted from requiring a separate circuit breaker and master cylinder in school bus lighting systems, a specification which is one of good engineering practice and probably used as a matter of course by most school bus manufacturers.

SINCERELY,

Illinois Department of Transportation

September 22, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

In this letter, I ask you to advise that the Illinois safety standard for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps does not violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. I also ask that you advise this Illinois standard is not preempted under provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (PL 89-563). We are asking for these statements because a representative of one school bus manufacturer has stated the Illinois standard violates a portion of FMVSS 108, as interpreted by his company.

Before going into details, I will present some background information.

School buses are defacto mobile traffic control devices. To lessen confusion and earn public respect and compliance, their signals must be displayed in a consistent and reasonable manner.

When a conventional traffic signal at an intersection changes to yellow (amber) some drivers will decelerate and stop; others will continue or will accelerate (if traffic permits), attempting to enter the intersection before the signal changes to red. Drivers usually react the same way to yellow alternately flashing school bus signal lamps -- some slow down; some continue or speed up. In addition, some drivers tend to disobey the red school bus signals even though they might tend to obey red traffic signals at intersections.

Exuberant and impulsive pupils rushing out of a school bus are likely to dash into a roadway -- without checking whether all vehicles have stopped.

Under very cold, inclement, or severe weather conditions, many pupils tend to remain in their homes or other shelter until the school bus arrives.

Police have reported that school bus drivers tend to keep the service door closed while waiting in cold, inclement, or severe weather, opening the door as each pupil arrives. This is done to prevent loss of heat and/or entrance of snow, sleet, or rain. (This tendency was mentioned in the 2nd paragraph on page 4 of "ILLINOIS COMMENT ON PROPOSED TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM STANDARD 17, PUPIL AND YOUTH TRANSPORTATION SAFETY -- DRAFT OF JUNE 30, 1970, VERSION A" which was submitted 9-30-70 in response to Traffic Safety Program Letter 42-11, dated 6-30-70.)

Studies show a significant portion of school bus related pupil fatalities and injuries in Illinois occur while the pupil is a pedestrian.

A copy of "ILLINOIS MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR TYPE 1 SCHOOL BUSES", effective July 1, 1977, a copy of Section 12-812 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (referred to therein), and a transmitting memorandum are enclosed. Please note that these Standards apply to every Type 1 school bus procured for use in Illinois. Also, the FMVSS applicable to buses are included by reference (1.2, 4.1, & 5.1). This inclusion eliminates doubts about state and local agencies with enforcement powers having authority to enforce those FMVSS.

The Illinois standard for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps is set forth at 4.2.18.2 on pages 15 and 16 of the enclosed Standards. The prescribed sequence of operations, (a) through (j), describes operations on a typical Type 1 school bus equipped with a manual service door operating mechanism, in which a signal control switch (or switches) is operated by movement of the door control handle. Of course, each of the described operations is not used deliberately by the school bus driver at every stop.

The "master switch" is moved to "off" only when complying with statutory and administrative requirements (upper portion of page 15).

After stopping on a clear roadway to load or unload pupils, the school bus driver might move the door control handle from its "secured" or "travel" position to its "door-fully-open" position in one rapid and continuous movement. In this case Operation (e) is of very short duration but, still, the signal switch(es) acts to deactivate and activate the yellow and red signals before the service door is opened.

After discharging or loading pupils, the driver might move the door control handle from its "door-fully-open" position to its "secured" or "travel" position in one rapid, continuous movement. In this case Operation (g) is of very short duration, Operation (i) is bypassed, and Operation (j) is completed. But, still, the door is closed before the signal switch(es) acts to extinguish the red signals.

There are many stops, however, where Operations (e) and (f) and/or Operations (g) and (h) are important to pupil safety, orderly traffic movement, and traffic safety.

When a school bus driver reaches a stop where other vehicles are moving on the roadway, Operation (e) allows him to hold exuberant and impulsive pupils in the bus by keeping the service door closed until all other vehicles have stopped in response to display of the red alternately flashing signal lamps. With the manual service door control, he does this by moving the door control handle, or lever, only a short distance from its "secured" or "travel" position, but not far enough to open the service door. After all other vehicles have stopped, the bus driver can use Operation (f) and allow pupils to leave the bus. Without either Operation (e) or its equivalent, which usually has not been provided with power operated doors, the school bus driver must open the service door to activate the red signals, and thereby, discharge exuberant and impulsive pupils onto the roadway before all drivers of moving vehicles react to the signal change from yellow to red.

Operation (e) also allows a school bus driver to prevent loss of heat and/or the entrance of snow, sleet, or rain during very cold or severe weather conditions by keeping the service door closed while pupils dash from their home or other shelter to the stopped, red-signalling bus.

When a school bus driver has stopped and admitted a pupil, Operation (g) allows him to maintain display of red signals without losing heat or allowing entrance of snow, sleet, or rain while waiting for the arrival of other pupil(s) during cold or severe weather. With a manual service door, he does this by moving the door control handle, or lever, far enough to close the door but not far enough to extinguish the red signals (which happens when the control is moved to its "secured" or "travel" position). With signal controls arranged as they often are on power operated service doors, closing of the door prevents display of the red signals and other vehicles move. This endangers pupils as they arrive at the school bus. When alternate opening and closing of such a door causes intermittent operation of the red signals, drivers of other vehicles become confused or frustrated and tend to lose respect for the special school bus signals.

The sequence of operations prescribed in 4.1.18.2(a) through-(j) (including ability to "skip through" Operations (e) and (g) and to "bypass" Operations (f) and (h), as desired) is either inherent in or easily provided with nearly every manually operated service door control device on Type 1 school buses. However, many power operated service door control devices in use and being manufactured do not provide for such a sequence of operations -- particularly Operations (e) and (f) and Operations (g) and (h). In the past, a typical power door has been either fully-closed-and-secured or fully-opened, with the signals controlled by those conditions and with no provision for intermediate conditions and/or Operations (e) and (g).

We have been requested to change the Illinois Standard (4.2.18.2) so as to accommodate typical power operated door mechanisms and controls as they have been designed and manufactured in the past. We have responded by stating the required sequence of signal operations must be provided whether the service door is manual or power operated and have interpreted the standard so as to ease certain apparent requirements in 4.2.18.2(e) and 4.2.18.2(g). The enclosed letter dated September 15, 1977, was sent to each school bus manufacturer.

Conditions causing traffic hazards or confusion should not be perpetuated merely to accommodate the traditional designs of a convenience such as a power operated service entrance door -- whether the bus is procured by the State, a local government, a public school district, or a religious or private organization or person. School buses that conform to the Illinois standard for alternately flashing school bus signal lamps (4.2.18.2) will provide for lessening or preventing dangers to pupils in roadways near stopped buses.

It seems clear that such buses conform to S4.1.4(b)(ii) in FMVSS 108. On such buses the yellow (amber) signals are activated only by manual or foot operation and, if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signals automatically activated when the bus service entrance door is opened.

It seems clear that the Illinois Standard (4.2.18.2) is not preempted by FMVSS 108 under provisions of Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (PL 89-563). The Illinois requirements for a separate circuit breaker and a "master switch" and for controls that provide Operations (e) and (f) and Operations (g) and (h) apply to each Type 1 school bus procured by a person, organization, or government in Illinois. They are prescribed to govern aspects and provide safety not governed or provided by FMVSS 108.

Will you please affirm that:

The Illinois standard (4.2.18.2) for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps does not violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108; and The Illinois standard (4.2.18.2) for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps is not preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

Karsten J. Vieg Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ID: nht78-2.23

DATE: 06/30/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Pupil Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 9, 1978, asking whether a school bus manufacturer may install strobe lights on the top of vehicles as original equipment, without violating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. As you indicated in your letter of December 28, 1977, this would be permissible under local law.

I informed you on February 14, 1978, in requesting a clarification, that legality depended on whether the additional lighting impaired the effectiveness of the required equipment. If so, paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 would prohibit installation. The lamps in question are strobe lights, either white or amber in color, that would be used during inclement weather. We do not know whether these lights would be used while the bus is in motion, or when it is stopped and the required schoolbus warning lamps are activated. If the strobe lights are used while the vehicle is in motion, during inclement weather, we do not know whether they would impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps by distracting the attention of a driver following the bus. If the light of the strobe lamp is white, and the light operates while the vehicle is at rest and its red or red and amber warning signals are also activated, the signals might prove confusing to other motorists. However, on the basis of the data presented, it is not possible to determine whether the strobe lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment within the meaning of S4.1.3. Therefore, we are willing to defer to the judgment of the State of Washington on this question, until such time, if ever, as data may be presented supporting a conclusion of impairment.

SINCERELY,

Superintendent of Public Instruction DR. FRANK B. BROUILLET

March 9, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

In reply to your letter of February 14, 1978, it was our intent to request information about the use of strobe lights on school buses, as explained in the first sentence of my letter of December 28, 1977.

I am sorry that I did not notice the incorrect word used in the second paragraph, which made it sound like a stop light attached to the top of the buses.

In addition, your letter has asked for other information about "intended use of the strobe light". The intended color if used would be either amber or white, and it will not be located closely to any other clearance or other identification lamps. The strobe light nit itself has a lense size of approximately 3 to 4 inches. So far the information provided to this office does not rate strobe lights in terms of candle power output.

I trust that this is sufficient information for you to answer my earlier request about the legality of a manufacturer installing the strobe lights and delivering them to school districts upon the school districts' request.

DIVISION OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

Don M. Carnahan, Supervisor Pupil Transportation

ID: nht78-2.24

DATE: 07/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Niles Parts Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We refer to your letter of March 15, 1978, concerning the testing of hazard warning and turn signal operating units (switches) in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

The purpose of requiring 3-inch wire leads on any operating unit during testing is to permit the measurement of any voltage drop across a connector in the circuit. Since the connector is an integral part of your type of operating unit with its "terminal-direct" connection system, the wire leads are not necessary. We, therefore, interpret the society of Automotive Engineers Standards J589 and J910, covering Hazard Warning and Turn Signal Operating Units respectively, to require 3-inch wire test leads only on those units that are supplied with integral wire leads. During the prescribed tests, voltage measurements on units such as those that you provide shall be made at the electrical contacts on the units.

ID: nht78-2.25

DATE: 03/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: General Cable Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1978, concerning placement of the rear identification lamps on a truck. Because the truck has a mast assembly located on the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and center of the rear axle, you have asked whether the lamps should be mounted "on the mast as high as possible or on the rear face of the rear floor decking."

Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires rear identification lamps to be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. . . ." If placement on the mast interferes with the operation of the lift, or if the lamp would be easily damaged in that location, that location would not appear to be "practicable" within the meaning of Standard No. 108, and the deck location would fulfill the practicability requirements.

You have also asked which is more important in locating identification lamps: "(1) . . . as high as possible on a stationary surface and face the lights toward the rear, or (2) to locate to the most rearward surface and then as high as possible on that surface". Your first choice is the correct one. The purpose of the three lamp cluster is to identify large and frequently slow moving vehicles under conditions of reduced visibility. Therefore, it is more important for the lamps to be located high than it is for them to be at the rear end of the vehicle, for example, on the cab rather than at the deck end. However, the decision as to what is "practicable" is initially that of the manufacturer and we have generally found those decisions to be correct.

SINCERELY,

General Cable

February 3, 1978

Department of Transportation c/o Bradley E. Marks

Dear Mr. Marks:

We, at General Cable, primarily design and manufacture vehicles with aerial lifts for personnel to service electrical utilities. For this type of equipment, we seem to have a problem truly defining a section of F.M.V.S.S.108 for our application.

The particular section in question is the location of the rear identification lights.

Since we design a lift whose mast assembly is located approximately on the longitudinal axis of the truck and centerline of the rear axle, should we mount the cluster of lamps on the mast as high as possible, or on the rear face of the rear floor decking? The definition of the exact location is rather vague for our industry.

Also, Mr. Marks, we have a secondary problem. Standardization of the lighting location. This mast assembly may, at some time in the future, be located further forward, just behind the truck cab. This would require the turret, boom, boom rest and basket to be positioned towards the rear of the vehicle.

The way I've interpreted the law for this particular configuration would have us locating the cluster of lights on the rear face of the rear floor decking. This due in part to the photometric interference from the basket and/or boom and boom rest assemblies.

At this point in time I must now ask, which is more important in locating these lights: (1) to locate as high as possible on a stationary surface and face the lights towards the rear? or (2) to locate to the most rearward surface and then as high as possible on that surface?

We would like a ruling on this matter as soon as possible as production of this unit is scheduled within the coming weeks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Marks, for your co-operation in this matter. Any response to this problem may be addressed either to myself or my superior, Mr. Bill Hensley, Chief Engineer.

Garry Williams Body Designer Telsta Group

cc: Bill Hensley; Van Walbridge

ID: nht78-2.26

DATE: 04/05/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: C. S. Ullman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 28, 1978, to Mr. A. P. Uccello, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints (copy enclosed).

In this Standard, under section 4(b)(1), the minimum height of the head restraint shall not be less than 27.5 inches above the seating reference point which is determined with a three-dimensional H Point Machine per SAE Standard J826B placed on the seat. Thus, we have specified a minimum dimension that the car builder must comply with, but we have no limit on the maximum dimension of the head restraint. This latter dimension is set by the builder to suit his requirements.

Certainly your height is a problem in this case and for future rulemaking actions along this line we are placing your letter and the Buick reply in the appropriate docket.

SINCERELY,

February 28, 1978

A.P. Uccello Transportation Dept.

Dear Sir:

You are impossible to get on the phone so I will resort to writing.

I have nothing but plaudits for my '77 Buick but I have written to them about the height of the head restraint (head rests). I am 6' 7" tall and the head rest probably would not prevent whip lash in my case. Previously the head rest was made so it could lock in at least three positions-the highest position was correct for me. Now the head rest only tranerses about 1 inch and does not lock so people getting in the back seat could depress the head rest.

Enclosed please find copy of my reply from Buick. I call your attention to the second paragraph. I would like to know what safety standard effects the head rest? If there is such a standard, then it should be corrected.

I welcome your comment and advice.

THANK YOU.

Charles S. Ullmann

BUICK MOTOR DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION January 31, 1978

S. C. Ullmann Associates, Inc. 94 Highland Road Scarsdale, NY 10583

Att: Mr. Charles S. Ullmann

Dear Mr. Ullmann:

Thank you for your recent note of January 23, 1978 addressed to our Zone Manager, Mr. R. G. Royer, and we appreciate the interest you have shown in bringing to our attention the characteristics of the front seat head rest supports in your 1977 Buick Electra Limited.

As you probably realize, your car was manufactured in compliance with many vehicle safety standards, and one of these considerations is the head rest suitability throughout the range and size of the car occupants.

However, since we welcome comments from all of our owners, it is with this thought that we are forwarding your letter to the attention of those parties responsible for these design caracteristics.

Thank you again for writing, and please be assured of our interest.

K. J. Mariano Manager, Zone Service Operations

ID: nht78-2.27

DATE: 08/16/78

FROM: A. MALLIARIS FOR M. M. FINKELSTEIN -- NHTSA

TO: Department of Radiology and Nuclear Radiology

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 21, 1978, regarding the height of head restraints in U.S. manufactured cars.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, Passenger Cars, copy enclosed, requires that when the head restraint is adjusted to its fully extended design position, the top of the head restraint shall not be less than 27.5 inches above the seating reference point. The 27.5 inches approximates the distance from the hip point to the occiput of a 95% percentile anthropometric male figure. The seating reference point in turn corresponds to the hip point. Therefore, head restraints would be expected to be adjustable to the normal sitting height of 95 percent of the male population.

On March 10, 1978, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a notice of a draft plan for rulemaking, copy enclosed. Plans for rulemaking concerning head restraints are noted on page 11106 under Docket 74-13. To support future rulemaking regading the height of head restraints we would appreciate any data that you may have in your possession regarding cervical spine injuries in rear impact accidents. It may be forwarded to NHTSA, Docket 74-13.

A copy of your letter is being forwarded to the docket as a matter for the public record.

SINCERELY,

Orlando General Hospital

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Office of the Rule Making

July 21, 1978

Dear Sir:

It is my opinion that the headrest on U.S. manufactured cars are designed to prevent injury to the cervical spine and the skull. Through personal experience and experience as a Radiologist, I find that the maximum height of these headrests are not high enough to prevent injury to taller people.

I strongly encourage that the headrests installed in U.S. manufactured automobiles be adjustable by the occupant so that people over 6 foot 2 inches tall may have the benefit of safety. At the present time, the maximum height sometimes encourages more traumatic injuries of the cervical spine rather than preventing them in regards toward tall people.

Bodo E. Pyko, D.O. Chairman Department of Radiology and Nuclear Radiology

ID: nht78-2.28

DATE: 01/17/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hendrickson Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 21, 1977, letter asking whether a school bus that is propelled by a propane-fueled engine is required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75).

Paragraph S3 of Safety Standard No. 301-75 specifies that the standard applies to school buses that have gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds and use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. Since the boiling point of propane is below 32 degrees F, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would not be applicable to a school bus propelled by a propane engine.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

November 21, 1978

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: 571.301 Standard No. 301: Fuel system integrity

Dear Sir:

Hendrickson Manufacturing Company, as a manufacturer of custom school bus chassis over 10,000 GVWR pounds, requests a ruling that would determine if a school bus propelled by a propane fueled engine is required to comply with Standard 301, fuel system integrity.

HENDRICKSON MFG. CO.

Kenneth R. Brennan Engineer Mobile Equipment Division

CC: M. A. SIGNA; T. F. CRAMER; A. TABB

ID: nht78-2.29

DATE: 08/04/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Quinn Cuzzone & Geremia

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 29, 1978, concerning the requirements for designating an agent pursuant to section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1399(e)).

Title 49 CFR @ 551.45 specifies the procedural requirements for service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers. The purpose of these requirements is to enable the Department of Transportation to effectuate service of process on manufacturers who are outside the jurisdictional limits of the United States. It is not necessary for manufacturers or importers located within the United States to designate an agent for service of process. Therefore, the New York corporation which you represent need not make such designation.

This letter also confirms Ms. DeMeter's statement that Sprinter Moped Incorporated has not designated an agent. They will have to do so prior to the importation of the mopeds. Since the corporation you represent is the importer, it may be desirable for Sprinter to appoint that corporation or one of its officers as the agent.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not impose any requirements on domestic importers. However, they may want to make sure that the manufacturer complies with the regulations regarding manufacturer identification, certification, and applicable safety standards. I have enclosed two information sheets on the "Application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" and "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Enclosures

ID: nht78-2.3

DATE: 12/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 13, 1978 NOA-30

Mr. T. F. Brown Mack Trucks, Inc. Engineering Division P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

I regret the delay in responding to your August 31, 1978, letter requesting an interpretation of S5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. In that letter, you stated that you had been contacted by an employee of this agency's enforcement office and advised that the certification labels for Mack trucks did not comply with the requirements of that section. The reason given for this conclusion was that the labels used the word "on" between the tire and rim information instead of the comma shown in the example following S5.3.3.

S5.3 requires that the labeling information specified in S5.3.1 -S5.3.3 must appear in the format shown in the truck example following S5.3.3. This requirement does not mean that certification labels must be identical to the example in every respect. Minor variations are permitted. By "minor variations", I mean such things as a slight difference in punctuation or the substitution of a word for a punctuation mark that do not change or obscure the meaning of the label. Mack's substitution of "on" for a comma is such a minor variation and, accordingly, is permissible under the standard.

The label enclosed with your letter shows spaces to provide information for the front, rear and three intermediate axles. When this label is used on vehicles with fewer than five axles, you should stamp "Not applicable", or words of similar import, in the spaces provided for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle which is being labelled.

Without this indication, the label could be confusing and so would fail to clearly provide the required information for that vehicle. An indication of nonapplicability would alert the reader to that fact.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 31, 1978

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

Dear Sir:

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation GAWR-Tire-Rim Labeling Requirements FMVSS 120 - Vehicle Certification Labels

Mack Trucks, Inc, a manufacturer of heavy duty diesel trucks of 26,000 pounds GVWR and greater, is requesting an interpretation of the specific GAWR-tire-rim labeling requirements of FMVSS 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

We were advised, by telephone, by a member of the NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance staff that there were several minor discrepancies found on one of our vehicle certification labels. Four items were noted as being incorrect. Three of these four items were well-taken, and steps to avoid a reoccurrence of these errors have been taken. The fourth item, however, is the reason for this letter.

Our certification labels set up the gross axle weight ratings, tire, and rim information as follows:

FRONT AXLE WITH TIRES ON RIMS AT COLD SINGLE

We were advised that we could not use the word "ON" as shown above, but should instead use a comma as is illustrated in the "Truck example" shown following Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS 120.

Paragraph S5.3 oF FMVSS 120 states that the information shall appear in the "format" set forth in the example following Section S5.3.

It is our contention that the GAWR and associated information on our certification labels, including the word "ON", does comply with the format set forth following Section S5.3 of FMVSS 120. The word "ON" actually makes the meaning of the statement clearer.

If you look closely at the attached sheet showing one of our labels and the "Truck example" from FMVSS 120, you will note that they are not exactly identical. Therefore, we wonder why only our use of the word "ON" was singled out. (NOTE: The other three items noted in the telephone conversation dealt with information that had been added to the certification label on the vehicle inspected by NHTSA.)

We believe we are presenting all the required information in a form substantially identical to that illustrated in the "Truck example", and that we are in compliance with the applicable regulations. Therefore, we are requesting an interpretation of the specific GAWR-tire-rim labeling requirements of FMVSS 120.

If further discussion of this subject is necessary, please contact the writer at 215-439-3877.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC,

T. F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy Attach.

Insert attachment here (FMVSS 120) found in card copy file.

ID: nht78-2.30

DATE: 09/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Fiat Research & Development - U.S.A. Branch

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 16, 1978, letter asking whether a manufacturer is permitted to list on the certification label required by Part 567, Certification, the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) in kilograms as well as pounds. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has permitted the use of kilograms on the certification label as long as the label continues to list the GAWR in pounds also.