ID: nht78-1.8

DATE: 11/20/78

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

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Nov. 20, 1978

Mr. R. W. Cheetham Director, Quality Assurance The Armstrong Rubber Company 500 Sargent Drive New Haven, Connecticut 06507

Dear Mr. Cheetham:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1978, requesting approval of the tread labels Armstrong Rubber Company proposes to use in satisfaction of the labeling requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). You propose to include the applicable UTQGS grades for a particular tire on a trend label identifying the tire brand, type and size. A separate label would contain the general grading information from Figure 2 of the rule, including a listing of all possible traction and temperture grades, with the text on the label oriented along the tread circumference instead of across it.

Part 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) requires that each passenger car replacement tire, other than a snow tire or temporary use spare tire, have affixed a tread label containing both the specific UTQGS grades for the tire and an explanation of the grades in the form illustrated in Figure 2. Thus, the specific grades for the tire must appear on the same label that contains the explanation of the grading system. The regulation calls for a depiction of all possible traction and temperature grades with the grades applicable to the specific tire indelibly circled.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no objection to the inclusion of the required UTQGS information on the same label with other data such as tire size and brand name, failure to provide the required explanations of the same label with the applicable tire grades is not permitted by the regulation. Your proposed labels also fail to meet the regulation's requirement that applicable traction and temperature grades be denoted by circling the appropriate letter in a display of all possible grades. Finally, the general UTQGS information in your proposal is not in the form illustrated in Figure 2, since the text in your example will appear along the tread rather than at right angles as specified by Figure 2.

While your proposed tread labels do not meet the present requirements of Part 575.104(d)(l)(i)(B), NHTSA will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking and consider amending the UTQG regulation to permit greater flexibility in tread labeling.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 19, 1978

Dr. Cecil Brenner Automotive Rating NRM-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Brenner:

Subject: Part 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading page 30549 of the Federal Register, dated Monday, July 17, 1978.

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of October 19, 1978, concerning the labeling requirements of the subject part.

The Armstrong Rubber Company requests an interpretation of this section. As stated to you, Armstrong requested that the treadwear, traction, and temperature identification be added to our regular label, which identifies a specific tire. In addition, the legend labeled as figure 2 in the subject part number would be affixed to the tread surface a maximum of 1/2" from the end of the label, which has the identification symbols. In this manner we will minimize the possibibities of mislabeling tires.

The Armstrong Rubber Company has requested that only one identification symbol be placed on the label which clearly defines the traction and temperature resistance of the particular tire. This would replace indelibly circling on the label one of the three grades under the traction and temperature resistance characteristics.

The Armstrong Rubber Company respectfully requests that part 575.104 be modified so that the labeling can be interpreted as indicated above.

Please find attached a copy of the two labels that the Armstrong Rubber Company would appreciate your consideration and concurrence. Label number 2, which is the legend describing the D.O.T. quality grading, was not printed verbatum and will be changed as shown in figure 2 of part 575.104. Figure 2 on page 30552 of the Federal Register was changed to reflect your thinking on the traction grades as A, B, C.

I trust this request will meet with your approval. If additional information is requested, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

R. W. Cheetham Director, Quality Assurance

cc: J.A. Walsh R. L. Donnelly

RWC/eam

ID: nht78-2.37

DATE: 06/20/78

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

TO: Minnesota Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Administrator Claybrook has asked me to respond to your recent letter concerning the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van vehicle for the purpose of securing wheelchair patients. Apparently, your legal counsel has advised you that such installation might be prohibited by Federal law or might give rise to private litigation problems in the future.

In answer to your questions, there is nothing under Federal law or the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would prevent the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van to secure wheelchairs. In fact, Administrator Claybrook and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration encourage you to make the installation requested by the senior citizens home. The safe transportation of disabled persons is currently a serious problem and every effort should be made to ameliorate the situation.

The only instance in which you would have any responsibilities under Federal law would be an installation of additional safety belts prior to first purchase of the van by a consumer. In that case you would be a vehicle alteror, and under our certification regulations you would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle is still in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7, copy enclosed). For example, you could not destroy the vehicle's compliance with our Fuel System Integrity standard by penetrating the gas tank with the safety belt anchorage bolts.

Concerning your liability in private litigation, the general provisions of negligence law would be applicable, as with any maintenance, repair or alteration done by a motor vehicle repair business. I must defer to the advice of your own counsel on that matter, however.

Once again, the agency does encourage the installation of safety belts for the securement of wheelchairs, since the disabled are seriously endangered without some type of restraint to protect them in a crash. Further, I believe that your fears of liability should be minimal as long as the installation is accomplished with normal consideration and due care.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

MINNESOTA MOTOR COMPANY

May 19, 1978

Joan Claybrooke National Hwy Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Ms. Claybrooke:

We have been approached by a local senior citizens home to install safety seat belts in the rear cargo area (of a 1978 Chevrolet Sport Van) to protect patients confined to wheelchairs when being transported.

We have discussed this matter with our state auto dealer legal counsel and they are reluctant to give an affirmative opinion in view of possible litigation in the future. In your recent talk to the Economic Club of Detroit, one of your suggestions concerning safety belts was to "look for ways to increase usage." The administrator of the home is asking us to put them in, but our concern centers around recent court decisions regarding liability, which apparently lasts forever. We would be willing to do the installation, we have found a local supplies of webbing to be used, and the people want it done. However, where do we go.

Possibly, some of the answer could lie in lesser degree of governmental intervention in all phases of business, and getting away from the idea that because some individual has a disagreement with a small business firm or a large manufacturer, the individual is always the one who has been wronged. As a general rule, anyone in business knows full well that he has to satisfy the customer to stay in business and make a profit. Certainly, there are the marginal and downright crooked businessman, as there are in many other portions of our working population. But, the majority of businessmen are conscientious enough to outweigh the bad apples.

Getting back to the problem at hand - what would be your suggestions in the matter of the seat belt installation. Are we asking for problems in case of a failure, or should we try to protect our senior citizens by offering them some safety?

Please advise at your earliest opportunity.

Warren L. VanderLinden Sales Manager

ID: 3244yy

Mr. James Watson
Post Office Box 153
Finleyville, PA 15332

Re: United States Customs Service File No. 866522R

Dear Mr. Watson:

This responds to your request for my opinion of whether a particular vehicle, an e-tant manufactured in Thailand by P.S.N, that you wish to import into the United States for your own use as a "farm vehicle," would be considered a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). According to materials you submitted, the e-tant has the appearance of a small flat bed truck. However, since it has a small 11.5 horsepower engine, you believe its top speed would be under 20 mph. You believe that the e-tant should be classified as a "farm vehicle," explaining that you disagree with the U.S. Customs Service classification (NY ruling 866522 dated September 11, 1991) of the e-tant as a motor vehicle. You further explained that the e-tant is generally used as a farm vehicle in Thailand. Based on the information provided in your letter, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 mph or less.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under any of these groupings. In such circumstances, we are sometimes able to evaluate factors related to how manufacturers/dealers will advertise, market, and service a particular vehicle in the United States. However, these factors are not relevant where a person is importing a single vehicle for his or her own use. I also note that an individual owner's planned use for a vehicle being imported is not determinative of whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle.

We believe that the relevant factors concerning whether the e-tant is considered a motor vehicle are as follows. First, the e-tant has a body configuration similar to a standard truck. Moreover, in the country where it is manufactured for sale, your letter indicates that the vehicle is used on rural highways to carry crops to market in nearby towns and for visiting friends. In addition, since the e-tant closely resembles a standard small truck, it is likely that states would register it for use on the public highways. The only factor you have identified which suggests that the e-tant should not be considered a motor vehicle is its slow speed, which you believe would be under 20 mph. However, NHTSA does not consider slow speed to be a sufficient factor by itself to take a vehicle which otherwise would be considered a motor vehicle outside of that category. Therefore, after considering all of these factors, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be considered a motor vehicle.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Area Director of Customs New York Seaport New York, NY 10048

Office of Regulations and Rulings U.S. Customs Service Headquarters 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20229 /ref:VSA#571 d:l2/l0/90l

ID: 3266o

Erman Jackson, Sales Manager
Trailmaster Tanks, Inc.
P. O. Box 161759
1121 Cantrell-Sansom Road
Fort Worth, TX 76161-1759

Dear Mr. Jackson:

This is in response to your letter which requested our interpretation of the applicability of certification requirements to your company. You indicate that you attached a new body to a truck chassis that has been in service for a number of years. Your customer believes that Trailmaster Tanks, Inc., (Trailmaster) should have issued a new final-stage manufacturer certificate at the time of the mounting of the new body. Trailmaster, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the final-stage manufacturer certificate is only issued when the chassis is new. You asked me whether your company was required by Federal law or regulations to certify that the new body on the used truck chassis complies with all applicable safety standards. The answer to your question depends on whether the used chassis consisted of any new components and, if not, whether the used components of the chassis came from different vehicles, as explained below.

As a general matter, our safety standards and certification requirements apply to vehicles only before the first sale of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Generally speaking, vehicles that are produced from a chassis that has already been sold to the public are not considered new vehicles, and are not subject to our safety standards or certification requirements. However, there is a special provision in our regulations for vehicles that are produced by combining new and used components. This provision is in 49 CFR 571.7(e), which provides:

(e) Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components are from the same vehicle.

This regulation means that a party attaching a new body to an old chassis is not required to attach a new certification label or make any certification under Federal law if that party simply uses the engine, transmission, and drive axle that are installed on the old chassis at the time the party receives the old chassis. Based on your statement that the truck "was not modified in any way" at the time the new body was installed on the old chassis, this would appear to be the case in your situation. If this is true, you were not required to make any certification in connection with this vehicle.

On the other hand, if you substituted a new engine, transmission, or drive axle in the old chassis when you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured under 571.7(e) and your company was required to certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567. Similarly, if you substituted used components on the old chassis at the time you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured unless at least two of the three specified components (engine, transmission, and drive axle) were from the same vehicle.

It should be noted that, even if the vehicle created when you attached a new body to a used truck chassis did not result in a newly manufactured vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR 571.7(e), your company was still subject to the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used vehicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the first instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited "rendering inoperative" violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I believe you can use the information presented in this letter to determine whether or not the vehicle your company made was considered a newly manufactured vehicle, subject to our safety standards and certification regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#571 d:l2/9/88

ID: 77-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/77

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

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3-23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598); Also attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacoste; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel

TEXT: This responds to your August 25, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to buses other than school buses.

Your first state your conclusion that paragraph S5.2 of the standard applies only to buses other than school buses. Your interpretation of S5.2 is correct. Secondly, you state that S5.2.1 applies to all buses with GVWR's of more than 10,000 pounds. This assertion is incorrect. See S5.2.3. Paragraph S5.2.1 applies only to buses other than school buses that have GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds.

Your final inquiry pertaining to Standard No. 217 concerns the requirement for unobstructed emergency exits in both school and non-school buses. You first correctly state that paragraphs S5.4 through S5.4.2.1 describe the required size of the unobstructed openings for school buses. You then claim that there is no equivalent description for the size of unobstructed openings required in buses other than school buses. This last statement is not entirely accurate. The amount of unobstructed emergency exit openings required for buses other than school buses is detailed in S5.2. This section establishes requirements for the total area of unobstructed emergency exit openings and for the location of those exits. This section also specifies the extent to which the area of each exit is to be counted in determining compliance with the total unobstructed opening requirement. Therefore, although the standard does not specify minimum size requirements for individual exits in buses other than school buses, the standard does contain other requirements for unobstructed openings in buses other than school buses.

You concluded in your letter that buses other than school buses are not required to use the parallelepiped device in determining whether their rear exits comply with the requirements. This conclusion is accurate. For purposes of clarity, however, you should note that Standard No. 217 does not mandate rear doors in buses other than school buses. Those buses can utilize either rear exits or roof exits. Further, regardless of the fact that you use a rear emergency door in buses other than school buses, you must insure that you also provide the other mandatory exits and the correct area of unobstructed openings as described in paragraphs S5.2 through S5.2.2.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 25, 1977

Office of The Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Chilton

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of FMVSS No. 217 regarding the range of it's application, as follows: Para.S.5.2 - Speaks to buses other than schoolbuses and requires "unobstructed" openings for emergency exit . . ." going on to define the area requirements.

Para.S.5.2.1 - Speaks to "Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds". This presumably covers all buses. It further states that ". . . buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. shall meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing . . . one rear exit that conforms to S.5.3 through S.5.5".

Under paragraph S.5.4 thru S.5.4.2.1.(a) as amended May 25, 1976, the unobstructed opening of a school bus is described as "an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 45 inches high, 24 inches wide and 12 inches deep, keeping . . .". There is no description that pertains to the unobstructed opening of a non-school bus.

We have, therefore, decided that the non-school bus needs only a 12 inch wide clear aisle opening at the rear door to meet the requirements of FMVSS 217. Is this interpretation correct?

We would appreciate an early answer to this query.

Malcolm B. Mathieson, Engineering Manager

ID: 7768

Mr. C. Morris Adams
1201 Rockford Road
High Point, NC 27260

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your FAX of September 24, 1992, requesting a ruling regarding the legality of lap belts at the passenger seats on school buses. As explained below, Federal law has long required lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at every passenger seating position on small school buses. Federal law has also long permitted, but not required, lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at passenger seating positions on large school buses, provided that those belts do not adversely affect the large school bus's compliance with the applicable safety standards. This is still the agency's position.

As you know, in 1977, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum levels of crash protection that must be provided for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] of more than 10,000 pounds), the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Small school buses (those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

Ever since 1977, NHTSA has indicated that Federal law permits lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions on large school buses as long as the vehicle would still comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 222. NHTSA has no information to indicate that installation of seat belts at the passenger seating positions on a large school bus would affect the bus's compliance with any safety standard. The allegations in your FAX that using seat belts in large school buses will result in crash forces producing concentrated loading on the head, instead of being spread evenly over the upper torso as is the case without a seat belt, are nearly identical with the explanations included in a 1985 Transport Canada report on school bus safety. NHTSA carefully evaluated and considered the Canadian report and these explanations in connection with its rulemaking action considering whether to specify requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts on large school buses. 54 FR 11765; March 22, 1989. After fully considering the Canadian report, the agency stated at 54 FR 11770:

NHTSA shares commenters' concerns about any implications that safety belts negatively affect the protection provided to passengers on large school buses. However, the agency is not aware of accident data showing an injury caused or made more serious by the presence of safety belts on a school bus. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot conclude from the Canadian report's findings that belts actually degrade the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system renders inoperative the safety of large school buses, but the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur.

The agency then identified some possible safety benefits that could result from seat belts in large school buses, benefits that were not considered in the Canadian tests. The agency concluded that, "Although these benefits are not significant enough to justify a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts on all large school buses, they are enough to provide a basis upon which the agency will decline to prohibit the installation of belts on large school buses." 54 FR 11765, at 11770; March 22, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of this notice for your information.

As you can see, NHTSA has carefully considered the subject raised in your FAX and reviewed all available information in this area. After that review, the agency concluded that there was no justification for changing its longstanding position that persons that wish to do so should be permitted to install seat belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Your letter did not provide any data that NHTSA had not already considered. Hence, there is no basis for the agency to change its longstanding position in this area.

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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:222 d:10/9/92

ID: 77-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Michelin's March 23, 1977, letter concerning its February 20, 1976 petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your petition for reconsideration was responded to on February 7, 1977 (42 FR 7140). By this letter, you attempt to resubmit your petition for reconsideration.

Petitions for reconsideration must be received by the agency within 30 days of the publication of a notice. Since the resubmission of your petition is untimely, it has been considered a petition for rulemaking as required by Part 553.35 of our regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 49). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.

Your petition suggests that consumers will be confused by the tire label information if the vehicle is not equipped with the tires identified on the label. The agency has determined that confusion will be minimized by the use of the optional heading "Suitable Tire-Rim Choice."

Your petition raises a second problem concerning tires of identical size designations manufactured by different companies. These tires may have different inflation pressures even though their sizes are identical. The agency understands that this difference in inflation pressure could result in confusion. Manufacturers, however, can avoid this problem through the use of the manufacturer's name on the tire information label as part of the tire information. Use of the manufacturer's name on the label should distinguish between two otherwise similar tires.

SINCERELY,

MARCH 23, 1977

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Reconsideration

Docket No. 71-19; Notice 6

Part 567 - Certification

Docket No. 75-32; Notice 2

Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars We are writing regarding your response to our petition for re-consideration of FMVSS 120 which we submitted February 20, 1976, wherein we requested deletion of the requirement that tire information appear on the certification label. It is our contention that many consumers upon seeing this label will be led to believe that the tires listed are the only tires that can be legally used on the vehicle and that the inflation pressures on the label are the required operating pressures for the tires.

In addition, the inclusion of tire pressures on the FMVSS 120 certification label will be especially confusing since tires of the same size designation can require different pressures for the same load carrying capacity.

In the response to our petition, which appeared in the Federal Register Vol. 42, No. 25 dated Monday, February 7, 1977, it is stated that it is the agency's view that any possibility of confusion can easily be avoided by an indication that the tire designation represents a radial tire, so that a person substituting a non-radial tire size with the same designation is aware that the two tires are not identical.

However, we wish to point out to the agency that we were not only referring to tires of different constructions but also to tires of the same construction. For example, a Michelin 10.00R20 LR G radial tire carrying a tire load of 6040 lbs. requires 100 psi whereas a 10.00R20 LR G radial tire standardized by the American Tire and Rim Association requires 105 psi for the same load.

Since FMVSS 119 does not require tires of the same size designation to have identical load/inflation values, the fact is that many Michelin tires have different pressure requirements than T&RA tires of the same size -- designations, even though they are both radial tires. This fact could, in some cases, cause users to underinflate their tires based on the inflation pressure indicated on the certification label.

We therefore re-submit our petition for re-consideration and once again urge the agency to reconsider the necessity of requiring information on the certification label that will lead to a great deal of confusion. We request that the requirement that tire information appear on the certification label be deleted.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: 6972

Mr. Lance Watt
Director of Engineering
The Flxible Corporation
970 Pittsburgh Drive
Delaware, Ohio 43105-2859

Dear Mr. Watt:

This responds to your letter of February 11, l992, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to several scenarios regarding the wiring and use of optional brake retarder transmissions on city transit buses manufactured by your company.

In your current design, the retarder is designed so that it is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn illuminates the stop lamps. You have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 20. 1990, confirming that this design conforms to Standard No. 108, specifically S5.5.4 which states that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Since that time, several additional scenarios have presented themselves. First, some customers have requested that the transmission retarder be activated when the accelerator pedal is released, rather than when the brake pedal is applied. In this configuration, the stop lamps would not be illuminated, "and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed", unless the service brakes were also applied. However, some customers wishing this option would like to have the stop lamps illuminated by the retarder, that is to say, when the accelerator is released. Second, some customers have also requested a retarder cut-off switch in order to disable the retarder during icy or slippery road conditions. In such a case, the stop lamps would also be activated at the time of accelerator release "with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes." To date, your company has resisted these requests, but these customers, without a specific NHTSA interpretation on the point, threaten to declare your company a nonresponsive bidder on transit bus procurements. You have asked whether a noncompliance with section S5.5.4 would result "if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers."

The purpose of the retarder feature is to provide supplemental braking to city transit buses. This braking results in the deceleration of the vehicle. A stop lamp is defined by SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width as one that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Whenever the brake retarder is activated with the intent of diminishing speed by braking, Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated. The only mandate of the standard (S5.5.4) is that when the service brakes are applied, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

Nor does Standard No. 108 prohibit illumination of the stop lamps by release of the accelerator pedal followed by activation of the retarder. This is because the intention of the driver is to diminish speed by the braking action of the retarder. We distinguish this situation from the one in an interpretation provided Larry Snowhite, Esq. on January 25, 1990, in which a device activated the stop lamps whenever the accelerator pedal was released, regardless of the intent of the driver. Activation of the stop lamps initiated by release of the accelerator pedal is permissible only when the intent of the driver is to reduce the speed of the vehicle by an immediate subsequent act of braking, whether that is achieved through his use of the service brake system, use of retarders, or a combination of the two.

However, a configuration where the stop lamps operate in the absence of service brake application or activation of a retarder system (as appears to occur when a retarder cut off switch has been activated) would be subject to S5.1.3 of the standard. This prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In this instance, the retarder cut off feature would permit the stop lamps to send the false signal that the operator intended to stop or reduce vehicle speed when, in fact, there was no intent to do so.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:4/10/92

ID: 1983-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA--30

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter of August 25, 1983, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Your specific questions concern the application of the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard to an armrest.

The answers to your four questions are as follows:

A) The requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements of S3.5.1(a), apply to the whole area of an armrest. In contrast, the requirements of S3.5.1(c) only apply to a part of an armrest (i.e., the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area).

B) See answer to A.

C) The agency does not give prior approval to specific designs. It appears, however, that your design would not comply, since apparently the armrest will not deflect or collapse to within 1.25 inches of a rigid test panel surface without permitting contact with any rigid material, in this case the power window switch. In addition, the power window switch apparently does not have a minimum vertical height of not less than one inch. It is difficult to provide you with a definitive answer since section A-A of your drawing appears to be drawn to a different scale than the scale shown in the lower left corner of your drawing.

D) It appears from your drawing that even if the requirements of S3.5.1(b) were amended, as you suggested, to limit their application to the pelvic impact area of the armrest, the design would not comply since the power window switch area of the armrest is within the pelvic impact area. Rather than seeking an amendment to the standard, you may want to consider modifying your design so that it will comply with either 3.5.1(a) or (c) of the standard.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 25, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda submits this letter to request an interpretation of the requirements for standard S3.5.1.(b) of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Mazda is developing a new model in which the armrest, by design, should meet the standard S3.5.1.(b). It is difficult for the design to meet standard S3.5.1.(a) or (c). The requirement states, "It shall be constructed with energy-absorbing material that defects or collapses to within 1.25 inches of rigid panel surface . . ."

Our questions are as follows:

A) Is this requirement applied to the whole area of an armrest or part of an armrest?

B) If this requirement applies to part of an armrest, what is the area that it applies to?

C) Does Mazda's design conform to standard S3.5.1(b)? (See attached sketch)

D) If Mazda's design does not conform to standard S3.5.1.(b), what kind of amendment is required? Example: At least the pelvic impact area has to meet the requirement.)

We would appreciate your interpretation with regard to this matter at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Office Manager

HN/ab

***Insert Diagram Here***

ID: 7066

Mr. Kevin J. Stoll
Technical Advisor
Russell Products, Inc.
21419 Protecta Drive
Elkhart, IN 46516-9704

Dear Mr. Stoll:

This responds to your letter of February 27, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions relating to center high-mounted stop lamps.

Your questions are:

"1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?"

A center high-mounted stop lamp whose illumination is provided by LEDs is legal, provided that the light meets the photometric specifications for such lamp specified in Figure 10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and all other requirements.

"2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake light on pickup trucks?

b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer?

c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?"

With respect to (a), the center lamp may be installed at any point on the rear vertical centerline of pickup trucks. Because this requirement is not effective until September 1, 1993, we have no specific knowledge as to where the manufacturers of pickup trucks will locate the lamps.

With respect to (b), NHTSA discussed the relationship of center high-mounted stoplamps to aftermarket slide-in campers or caps in the preamble to the final rule adopting the requirement. I enclose a copy of the rule (56 FR 16015) with our discussion highlighted on pages l6017 and 16018. After reading this material, if you have further questions regarding the effect on truck cap manufacturers and dealers, we shall be pleased to answer them.

With respect to (c), we assume that the situation you envision is that a truck cap has been manufactured with a center stop lamp and the dealer is installing the cap on a pickup truck. If the cap is being permanently installed, the dealer may wire the cap's lamp directly to the existing center lamp light harness, as the cap lamp is intended as a surrogate for the original lamp. If the cap is removable, the dealer may also wire in the manner you discuss, provided that when the cap is removed (and the cap lamp disconnected) the original lamp will perform in conformance with Standard No. 108. The specific connections to be made should be done in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations.

"3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck.

b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationery. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved?"

The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs. We can advise you as to whether designs appear to conform or not to conform with the applicable laws of our agency. Conformance with Standard No. 108 is determined with respect to the vehicle in its normal operating state. With respect to your question, this would be with the pickup cap window in its closed position. Thus, your design does not raise a question of conformance with Standard No. 108.

"4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated rulings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings?"

We do not maintain a mailing list of any sort. However, "rulings" are not "passed" at "committee meetings" but are published in the Federal Register, initially as proposed rules affording a minimum of 45 days in which to comment. After evaluation of comments, a final rule may be published, with an effective date no earlier than 30 days after issuance. We believe it likely that any future proposals and amendments would be publicized, and that you would be likely to hear of them. There are no current plans to amend these requirements.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:4/27/92