ID: 1985-03.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Melinda Maggs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Melinda Maggs 243 Washington Ave. Scotia, New York 12302

Thank you for your March 25, 1985, letter asking about Federal motor vehicle safety regulations that might affect an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. You described your product as a pad to cushion safety belts. The pad, which is removable, is made of 1/4 inch foam and is attached with velcro to the safety belt. I regret the delay in our response.

You first asked for confirmation of information received in a phone conversation with Paul Bauer of this office. As Mr. Bauer explained, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) may affect the sale of your product. As you requested, I have enclosed a copy of the Act for your reference. That section provides that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not render inoperative any safety device installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. Since safety belts are safety devices installed in accordance with Safety Standards No. 208 and 209, those types of businesses may not install any other products which would impair the effective operation of the belts. Individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherwise modify existing equipment, without risk of violating the "render inoperative" provision.

I should emphasize that we are unable to offer any opinion on whether your product would impair the effectiveness of safety belts. We do recommend that manufacturers carefully consider that possibility before placing their products on the market.

You also asked whether any Federal regulations relating to material content and flammability affect your product. Although no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards directly govern material content, Standard No. 302 does provide flammability requirements for components of new vehicle occupant compartments, including safety belts. Thus, your product would need to meet the flammability standard if it was installed as original equipment in new vehicles.

Standard No. 302 would not apply directly to your product if it is sold only as aftermarket equipment. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, discussed above, could affect your product as it relates to the flammability standard. NHTSA would consider the installation of safety belt pads that do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 as "rendering inoperative" an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in accordance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Again, this provision prohibits only manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses from installing such products; it does not prohibit consumers from purchasing and installing those products on their own.

Again, we are not offering any opinion as to whether your product would meet those flammability standards, but we recommend that you consider that aspect.

The agency believes that all Federal motor vehicle safety standards are important and that all manufacturers should strive to meet those standards, whether required by law or not. Additionally, if noncomplying pads were to catch fire in a situation where a pad complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, a manufacturer might face possible product liability consequences under state law. Likewise, a manufacturer might face product liability consequences if its product impaired the effectiveness of the safety belts. You may wish to consult a local attorney in this regard to discuss your product.

I am enclosing copies of Safety Standards Nos. 208, 209 and 302. We appreciate your interest in devices which may encourage safety belt usage, and I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 25, 1985

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Auth. 400 7th Str. S.W. Washington, D.C., 20590

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to confirm information given to me from your office on the phone today. I called asking about possible regulations regarding accessory items sold for us in automobiles.

I am a manufacturer of a product that will be used as a pad to cushion seatbelts. It is attached with velcro, is made of 1/4" foam and velcro (808 cotton 208 polyester), and is completely and easily removable. It will be sold in stores to the general public.

I was told by your office staff there is a regulation stating car manufacturers and dealers cannot render inoperative any part of the car, but when an individual does after a car is purchased regarding accessory items such as this is their choice.

I would appreciate a prompt reply in writing to confirm this regulations interpretation and a copy of the specific regulation.

I am also interested in knowing if there are any regulations regarding material content. Are there restrictions on types of material used for flammability anything else we need to know before we sell this product? Thank you for your interest in this matter.

Sincerely,

Melinda Maggs

ID: 1985-04.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/21/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: W.S. Deason -- Development Manager, IMI Norgren Enots Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W.S. Deason Development Manager IMI Norgren Enots Ltd. Enots Works, P.O. Box 22, Eastern Avenue Lichfield, Staffordshire WS 13 6SB ENGLAND

This responds to your June 14, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

You asked about "DOT Certification" of your air brake hose and fitting assemblies. Our agency does not certify or approve in advance motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, under tne National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This "self-certification" process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. This determination can be made by product testing. The tests in Standard No. 106 are performance requirements that your products must meet when tested by the agency for compliance.

The data forming the basis for your certification is retained by you, and does not have to be submitted to NHTSA for approval. Our agency investigates safety-related defects and noncompliances with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If a question should arise as to the compliance of your product with NHTSA requirements, you will be requested to produce records to show how you determined compliance. If you or the agency determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, you are obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge.

Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

We wish to emphasize that the definition of "brake hose" includes flexible conduits manufactured out of nylon tubing that transmit or contain the pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. To be sold in the United States, your brake hose assemblies consisting of nylon tubing and "push-in" type tube fittings must be certified as meeting all applicable requirements of Standard No. 106.

Under Standard No. 106, certification is accomplished when you mark one component of each of your reusable fittings with the "DOT" symbol, pursuant to paragraph S7.2.2. The DOT symbol is your representation that your products were manufactured in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You are also required by the standard to mark your products with a designation, identifying you as the manufacturer, that is filed in writing with the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. The designation is intended to identify the manufacturer or assembler of brake hoses in the event of a safety-related defect or noncompliance necessitated recall.

You asked whether there are standard forms for manufacturers to register their designation. The answer is no. Standard No. 106 describes the procedures for designation registration. NHTSA will accept any designation consisting of letters, numerals, or a symbol, or a combination of these. If your chosen designation has not been selected previously by another manufacturer, it is accepted and recorded by NHTSA.

I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which apply to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires your company to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days after you import your products into the United States.

The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of tne United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

In addition to the copies of the materials described above, I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 106 with amendments to the standard. You will also find an information sheet describing Federal statutes and regulations affecting manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and information on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's standards and regulations.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Crash Avoidance Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW WASHINGTON DC 20590 United States of America

Gentlemen,

We are a UK based Company manufacturing pneumatic components, many of which are finding application on UK and European commercial vehicles.

In particular we manufacture a range of push-in type tube fittings, for use with SAE J 844 nylon tubing, and these are now becoming widely used for commercial vehicle pneumatic systems, including braking, by UK manufacturers. We should now like to widen our potential market for these fittings by fulfilling the requirements for Department of Transport Certification. We have confirmed by testing that tube and fitting assemblies, comprising our fittings and J 844 type nylon tubing, meet the requirements of FMVSS-106.

Could you please advise us whether this is sufficient for meeting the DOT Certification requirements and whether you have any standard forms for manufacturers to register details of their official designation?

We thank you in advance for your help in this matter. Yours faithfully for IMI NORGREN ENOTS LIMITED W S DEASON Development Manager

ID: 1985-04.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edmund Gabler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edmund Gabler Colonial House Apartment 507 1150 Atlantic Shores Blvd. Hallandale, Florida 33009

Thank you for your letter asking about our requirements for lap belts and expressing your views on state laws requiring the proper use of safety belts. We appreciate hearing from concerned citizens on the important subject of improved motor vehicle safety.

You asked whether safety belts on your county buses are legal if those belts are designed only as lap belts and do not restrain both the pelvic and upper torso areas of the body. The answer to your question is that those belts are permitted to be installed on buses. Some background information may be helpful. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. Our Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires installation of safety belts in new motor vehicles.

Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle. For large "buses" (i.e., those carrying 11 or more persons), the standard requires installation of a lap belt for the driver. The passenger seats on buses are not required to have belts, but lap belts may be installed if desired. For smaller van-type "buses" (i.e., those carrying 10 or fewer persons) and for passenger cars, the standard requires installation of lap-and-shoulder belts for the driver and right-front passenger positions, and lap belts for all other seating positions.

Safety belt usage requirements are established by the states, not by the Federal government. To date, 14 states have enacted safety belt use laws, and two other states have belt use laws awaiting gubernatorial approval. Those laws generally require belt usage only in passenger cars; we are not aware of any state which requires belt usage in buses. Moreover, as a practical matter, belt use requirements are limited to the equipment actually installed in the vehicle. This agency does urge all motorists to use safety belts wherever they are available, regardless of whether usage is required by state law.

In your letter, you stated your disapproval of state laws that require the use of safety belts by motorists. You expressed concerns that being restrained by a belt would be unsafe in an accident and that belt usage laws invade your privacy. We appreciate this opportunity to explain our position on those issues relating to belt usage laws, and hope that this discussion will help shed some light on this very important topic.

You seem to believe that the chances of escaping injury in a crash are greater if safety belts are not worn. Our accident data clearly show that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. Our traffic records show that venicle occupants who do not wear their safety belts are nearly twice as likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries than belted occupants. One important reason is that belt usage reduces that likelihood of being thrown outside the vehicle in a crash. We estimate that ejected occupants are 25 times more likely to be killed than those who remain inside the car. Even in the rare cases of vehicle fires or submersion under water, the use of a safety belt improves the chances for survival by keeping the occupants conscious and uninjured so that they may escape quickly.

While we believe the evidence is overwhelming as to the benefits of safety belt usage, we recognize that there are always a few exceptions to the general rule. We are aware that belt usage is not a panacea; some accidents are so severe that injuries or fatalities will result regardless of whether any occupant protection systems are used. However, we believe that the preliminary data from New York, the first state to enact a belt use law, confirms our belief in the lifesaving potential of belt usage. The New York belt usage law went into effect on January 1 of this year and belt usage climbed to roughly 60 percent, and traffic deaths during the first six months of the year declined by 18 percent compared to the same period last year.

We recognize that a safety belt use law requires an action that many people do not take voluntarily. However, all traffic laws involve some restraint on individual behavior. Most are accepted without a second thought: we drive on the right side of the road, obey speed limits and stop at red lignts. In many cases, the failure of motorists to obey these laws will have an impact on other motorists as well as themselves. The same is true for failing to wear safety belts, because automobile accidents have many "victims"--family, friends, employers and taxpayers--all of whom bear some measure of the human and economic cost. During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic injuries and deaths have resulted in an annual cost to society of $57 billion resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenues. We believe tnat the relatively small intrusion resulting from safety belt use laws is justified by the substantial societal burden of vehicle-related deaths and injury.

Thank you again for sharing your views witn us. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 29, 1985

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Malcolm Wallop

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for letter to Secretary Dole requesting clarification of the regulations pertaining to school bus identification. Your letter has been referred to our agency for reply, since we administer the school bus regulations.

You explained that several of your constituents are concerned that our regulations prohibit identifying nine-passenger vehicles that carry children to and from school as school buses. You suggested that school bus identification should be allowed as an added safety measure to alert other drivers to the nature of the vehicle.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns. In brief, our regulations do not prohibit States from identifying smaller school vehicles as "school buses." States have the discretion to choose to identify nine-passenger school vehicles as school buses if the States wish to include such a requirement in their highway safety programs.

We have two sets of regulations, issued under separate Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes the motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, provides guidelines to the States for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards provides recommended procedures for the identification of school vehicles.

Under the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act, motor vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The applicability of our motor vehicle safety standards to a particular vehicle depends, in part, on the classification of that vehicle. Under Federal law, school vehicles carrying 10 or more passengers are "school buses" which must meet our school bus safety standards. The demarcation between school vehicles carrying 10 or more passengers and those carrying fewer than 10 is thus pertinent for the purpose of determining the classification of a vehicle, and the applicability of our school bus safety standards. Nine-passenger ven-type school vehicles are not considered "school buses" under our regulations, but are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's). While MPV's must be certified as meeting the safety standards for MPV's, they may also be voluntarily manufactured to meet the requirements for school buses as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

I wish to emphasize that our safety standards for school buses are performance standards which apply only to the manufacture and sale of new school buses.

They do not govern the manner in which a school bus is identified or marked. Under the Highway Safety Act, we issued Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), which contains recommendations for the identification, operation, and maintenance of school vehicles. However, the implementation of Program Standard No. 17 is a matter for the States to decide, and State law would determine the operational requirements, such as those for school bus identification, that school vehicles must meet.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

September 24, 1985

Elizabeth Dole -- Secretary, Department of Transportation

Dear Madame Secretary:

I recently received several letters from constituents who express concern about Department of Transportation regulations regarding minimum standards for school buses. These regulations prohibit the identification of 9 passenger vehicles from being classified as a "school bus." These vehicles, however, are used to transport children to and from school and should be identified as such as an adequate safety measure. The roads used by these vehicles are heavily traveled and if they are not appropriately marked as a vehicle transporting children, other vehicles may not drive respectfully.

I would appreciate it if you could look more closely at these regulations, keeping in mind the safety of school children in rural areas like Wyoming. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Wallop -- United States Senator

ID: 1985-04.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 30, 1985

FROM: NHTSA

TO: K. Douglas Scribner -- Mini City, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you were interested in learning whether that standard applies to tires for use on "antique and classic automobiles." You stated that your firm deals in tires which are authentic replacement tires for antique and classic cars, and that none of those tires has ever been marked with a DOT number. Standard No. 109 requires that all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 be marked with DOT numbers, among other things, and there is no exception to this requirement for tires designed for "classic" cars.

It is unclear when you refer to a "DOT number" whether you are referring to just the tire identification number, which is required to appear on all new tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 by 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, or that identification number together with the symbol "DOT." The DOT symbol is a certification by the tire manufacturer that the tire complies with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. I have enclosed copies of both Standard No. 109 and Part 574 for your information.

In any event, Standard No. 109 applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 of the standard requires the DOT symbol to be permanently marked on the tire, while section S4.3.2 requires the tire identification number assigned to a manufacturer in accordance with Part 574 to be permanently marked on the tire. Standard No. 109 contains no provisions making an exception to these requirements.

Accordingly, if the antique and classic cars to which you refer were manufactured in or before 1948, the tires are not subject to Standard No. 109 or Part 574. Sales of such tires would not violate any of this agency's requirements.

If, however, the tires are designed for use on cars manufactured after 1948, the tires must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109, including the requirements to have a DOT symbol and a tire identification number marked permanently on the sidewall. If you sell tires which are subject to, but do not comply with, the requirements of Standard No. 109, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). Section 109 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a maximum civil penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108, and this agency would consider each sale of a noncomplying tire to be a separate violation.

If you need any further information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ATTACH.

Mini City Ltd.

SEPTEMBER 16, 1985

JEFFREY R. MILLER -- Office of Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Further to conversations with your office today, regarding DOT Standard 109 and its application to our marketing of tires for antique and classic automobiles, I am writing to request a copy of the "interpretation book" which will explain qualifying exceptions or exemptions.

Basicall, we have dealt, and wish to continue dealing, in tires which are obsolete in nature (non-radial, odd sizes, etc.) but which are necessary for authentic replacement tires on antique and classic cars.

Some of these are still supplied by their original manufacturers (Firestone, Goodyear, Dunlop, etc.) and some are reproductions made from original molds (Denman, Lucas, etc.). None of these have ever carried DOT numbers.

I look forward to your reply at your early convenience.

Sincerely,

K. Douglas Scribner -- President

ID: 1985-04.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Sam Verma -- Erincraft Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Sam Verma Erincraft Mfg. Co., Inc. 742 East 8th Street Michigan City, Indiana 46360

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1985, asking how to obtain a "DOT number," so that your company can import truck tires into the United States from a plant in India. The procedures to be followed are set forth in 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. That regulation requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see 574.5), including the identification mark assigned to the manufacturer. To obtain an identification mark, the actual manufacturer of the tires should provide the information specified in 574.6 of the regulation. Please note that an identification mark will be assigned only to the actual manufacturer of tires, and not to companies importing those tires. This is because 574.5 requires that this identification mark be molded into or onto all new tires. The only party which can mold the mark on the tire is the actual manufacturer. Therefore, the entity which owns the tire plant in India must apply for the identification mark. An identification mark is normally assigned within two weeks after the receipt of such a request. The owner of the tire plant in India should also be aware of a procedural rule which applies to all parties subject to the regulation of this agency, 49 CFR Part 551 (copy enclosed). This rule requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. The identification mark required by Part 574 will not be assigned until this agency has received a valid designation of agent from the Indian tire manufacturer. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and p;ace where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the Indian tire manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of that manufacturer's tires which do not bear the name of the company; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the Indian tire manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the Indian tire manufacturer, and the agent may be an individual or U.S. firm or corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. If you need any further information or a clarification of some of the information set forth in this letter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-04.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo, 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of September 19, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This paragraph forbids the installation of lamps and reflective devices other than those specified by the standard, as well as other types of motor vehicle equipment, if such will impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. You have asked if this prohibits the installation of any lamp that is not specified by the standard, and if there are any restrictions for the color, mounting location, or luminous intensity. You ask this with reference to "a decorative extra lighting device".

Paragraph S4.1.3 does not prohibit the installation of lighting devices not required by the standard. There are no restrictions covering the areas that interest you. Whether a "decorative extra lighting device" would be prohibited by S4.1.3 would, of course, be determined by its size, shape, luminous intensity, proximity to required lighting equipment, etc. but in the absence of a description of your device we cannot offer an opinion as to whether it would conflict with S4.1.3.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 19, 1985

Att.: Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No.l08

Dear Mr. Berndt,

We are thinking of producing a decorative extra lighting device, which will be mounted on the rear side of motor vehicle. FMVSS mentions about such lighting device, as below.

FMVSS N0.108, Paragraph 4.1.3 -

No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.

Does this paragraph mean that any lamp which is not specified in Regulation, shall not be mounted on the motor vehicle? If there is any restriction for the color, mounting location, luminous intensity for the decorative extra lighting device, including reflex reflective device, please let us know.

We are looking forward to your quick reply.

Very truly yours, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

ID: 1985-04.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/05/85

FROM: JIM BURNETT -- NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TO: T. C. GILCHREST -- NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL

TITLE: SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS, H-85-30, ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108 (A) 2 (A); LETTER DATED 01/12/89 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2989; REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNING LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST

TEXT: NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C.

ISSUED: November 5, 1985

Forwarded to:

Mr. T. C. Gilchrest

President

National Safety Council

444 N. Michigan Ave.

Chicago, Illinois 60611

SAFETY RECOMMENDATION(S) H-85-30

Motor vehicles are equipped with lights for seeing, but also for being seen. During hours of darkness, it is illegal in every State to operate a vehicle with the lights unilluminated. During the daytime, lights also can help to make vehicles more readily visible. Daytime illumination can enable other motorists, as well as pedestrians and cyclists, to perceive hazards earlier, take evasive action sooner, and thus possibly avoid a collision.

When ambient illumination is low, in conditions such as dawn, dusk, rain, and overcast, conspicuity may be significantly improved by the use of lights. They also can be valuable when there is little contrast between the color of a vehicle and that of its background, i.e., a light car against snow, or a green car against foliage. Small cars are harder to see at a distance than large ones, and so, as average vehicle size decreases, it, becomes increasingly important to enhance vehicle conspicuity.

It has been demonstrated that improved conspicuity can help prevent a variety of accidents. Among these are head-on collisions and sideswipes with the vehicles traveling in opposite directions, as well as collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. In 1983 there were 156,144 injuries and 10,531 deaths in such accidents. n1

n1 Analysis of data from Department of Transportation's National Accident Sampling System and Fatal Accident Reporting System.

Vehicle conspicuity is one of the factors in highway accidents involving older motorists and pedestrians. As a person ages, he or she needs more light than before to see properly. According to one expert optometrist, those illumination requirements double for each 13 years of a person's age. n2 He recommends that cars be driven with lights on

during the day to improve safety for this growing portion of the population. Today 22 percent of U.S. drivers are age 55 or over, but by the year 2000 that proportion is expected to grow to 28 percent, and to 39 percent by 2050. n3 In 1984, 35.7 percent of the U.S. pedestrians killed by motor vehicles during the hours of daylight, dusk, and dawn were age 55 or older. n4

n2 Merrill J. Allen, "Older Drivers and Pedestrians: Vehicle/Highway Design and Driver Testing," Workshop on the Highway Mobility and Safety of Older Drivers and Pedestrians, Automotive Safety Foundation, Washington, D.C., June 11-12, 1985.

n3 Forward by James L. Malfetti, Editor, "Needs and Problems of Older Drivers: Survey Results and Recommendations -- Proceedings of the Older Driver Colloquium, Orlando, Florida," AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, February 4-7, 1985.

n4 Analysis of data from Fatal Accident Reporting System.

There already have been numerous instances of vehicles operated with daytime running lights. n5 For the last 25 years, Greyhound bus drivers have been Instructed to use headlights both day and night. In the early 1960s, a campaign entitled "Drive Lighted and Live" urged Texas drivers to use their headlights during major holidays. In 1972, the Private Truck Council called for round-the-clock headlight use by its member fleets. In the same year, AT&T's Long Lines Division began a two-year program for its fleet to use headlights at all times.

n5 "Daytime running lights" are any vehicle lights illuminated during the day to make that vehicle more readily visible.

In Finland, motorists driving outside urban areas are required by law to have lights on at all times. A law in Sweden requiring daytime use of lights applies to motorists using all public roads. The requirement can be met in both countries with low-beam headlights or with special running lights described in the regulations. And in countries such as Norway, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, light use is required at times when visibility is low. Most States in the U.S. have similar requirements, but the level of compliance is not known.

Questions of concern to authorities promoting the use of daytime running lights, as well as those contemplating such action, include: Are the lights effective in reducing accident losses? If so, to what degree? And which type of light is best?

Numerous studies have been conducted on the subject, and each has produced the same answer to the first question: Running lights definitely are a means to help reduce the toll in lives and property from highway accidents. However, there is no consensus as to which type of light is best suited to the task, and data are not yet available to predict the degree to which lights will reduce accidents in a given region.

In Finland, the use of daytime lights was studied over a six-year period: two years before there was any government involvement concerning daytime running lights (July 1968 through June 1970), two years in which their use was recommended (July 1970 through June 1972), and then two years in which it was required (July 1972 through June 1974). In the first period, before government action, at least 40 percent, and perhaps as many as 75 percent of the country's motorists already were using daytime running lights. When the practice was a recommended one, the rate was 84 percent, and when light use became mandatory in rural areas during winter, the percentage rose to 97. n6

n6 Kjell Andersson, Goran Nilsson and Markku Salusjarvi, "The Effect of Recommended and Compulsory Use of Vehicle Lighting on Road Accidents in Finland," Swedish National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Report No. 102, 1976.

Researchers found that the increased percentage of use resulting from the new law prompted a measurable decline in a broad range of accidents. The winter daylight accidents in which more than a single vehicle was involved (including collisions with pedestrians, animals, and other vehicles) dropped as much as 21 percent from the first test period to the third, according to several accounts of the results in Finland. n7 A 28-percent reduction was reported in collisions involving vehicles traveling toward each other. n8 These crash reductions were achieved despite increasing traffic volume during the six-year period. With the law initially applying only in winter, the reductions appeared only during those months and not during summer months.

n7 Ibid. Also, Charles H. Kachn, "A Cost/Benefit Study of a Potential Automotive Safety Program on Daylight Running Lights," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1981; and Michael Perel, "Daytime Running Lights: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Research," NHTSA, June 1980.

n8 Andersson et al., op. cit., cited in Kaehn, op. cit.

In Sweden, the daytime running light legislation raised the use level from about 50 percent to more than 95 percent. The estimates of resulting crash reductions vary from 6 to 13 percent, for accidents involving more than a single vehicle. n9

n9 Jkell Andersson and Goran Nilsson, "The Effects on Accidents of Compulsory Use of Running Lights during Daylight in Sweden," Swedish National Road and Traffic Research Institute, S-581 01, Linkoping, Sweden (no date). Also, crash reductions of 5 to 15 percent were reported by Karc Rumar, "Daylight Running Lights in Sweden -- Pre-Studies and Experiences," Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper Series, 810191, presented at SAE International Congress and Exposition, February 23-27, 1981.

In both Finland and Sweden, the safety benefits were particularly significant for nonmotorists. Daylight winter accidents involving pedestrians declined 24 percent in the Finnish study. n10 In Sweden, the decline was 17 percent, and accidents in which motor vehicles struck "cycles or mopeds" dropped 21 percent. n11

n10 Kaehn, op. cit., and Perel, op. cit.

n11 Andersson and Nilsson, op. cit. Crash reductions of 27 percent for pedestrians and 25 percent for cyclists were reported in built-up areas in Sweden during summer by David B. Richardson, "Daytime Running Lights -- A Concept Whose Time Has Come," Institute of Traffic Engineers Journal, October 1984.

These studies, both conducted in the 1970s, were particularly valuable because they dealt with entire populations. Since Sweden and Finland are the only countries in which daytime running light use is nearly 100 percent, all types of vehicles and all types of drives in each country were represented. Other studies have been limited to specific fleets, and the results of using such limited test samples may not be extrapolated reliably to the full population.

But the very reasons that prompted these Nordic countries to lead the way in daytime running light use also limit the applicability of their research to the United States. The light conditions are very different. During the long winter in high northern latitudes, ambient light is low throughout most of the day, with lengthy periods of twilight. And with the sun frequently low in the sky, glare is common. These are the kinds of conditions in which daytime running lights are thought to be most effective, but such conditions are not found with comparable frequency throughout the United States.

There are differences as well in climate and road conditions. However, there have been studies in this country that suggest that daytime running lights would be effective, to some extent, in cutting the toll from highway accidents.

One of the earliest studies was conducted by the New York Port Authority. n12 About 200 vehicles operated by the Port Authority were modified so the parking lights and taillights were illuminated automatically when the ignition switch was turned on. The vehicles, some painted black and others yellow, were predominantly sedans and station wagons, with some light trucks and a few heavy trucks. For a year, beginning in July 1967, accidents involving these vehicles were monitored, along with those of a control group of about 400 unmodified vehicles.

n12 Edmund J. Cantilli, "Daylight 'Running Lights' Reduce Accidents," Traffic Engineering, February 1969.

Overall, the group of modified vehicles was involved in 18 percent fewer accidents than those without the change. In addition, the modified group had accidents that were less severe. A "severity index" was calculated, based on a graduated scale of damage and injury, and the modified vehicles scored 66 percent better than the control group. When passenger vehicles only were considered, the modification lowered the accident rate 23 percent, and the severity index improved 41 percent.

Experiments were conducted with other fleets. The daytime running lights program at AT&T's Long Lines Division produced a 32 percent reduction in that fleet's accident rate. n13 Greyhound Lines reported a 12 percent drop. n14 When a group of Checker cabs drove with lights on during the day, and a group of Yellow cabs did not, the Checker cabs had 7.2 percent fewer collisions, according to a 1979 report. n15 A 1965 survey of 181 U.S. companies with lights-on policies found accident reductions up to 38 percent. n16

n13 Editorial, "What Happened to All the Lights?" Diesel Equipment Superintendent Journal, November 1973.

n14 Dennis A. Attwood, "The Potential of Daytime Running Lights as a Vehicle Collision Countermeasure," Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper 810190 (1981).

n15 Merrill J. Allen, "The Current Status of Automobile Running Lights," Journal of American Optometry Association, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1979, cited in Attwood, op. cit., and Kaehn, op. cit.

n16 Merrill J. Allen, "Running Light Questionnaire," American Journal of Optometry, Vol. 42, No. 3, March 1965, cited in Attwood, op. cit.

In 1974, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) conducted tests in Arizona to determine the effect of daytime running lights on the distance at which drivers were able to detect oncoming vehicles. Without lights, the average detection distance was 2,074 feet; with lights, the average distance increased to 4,720 feet. n17

n17 R. W. Oyler, Executive Engineer, General Motors (personal communication to Kare Rumar, March 28, 1977).

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently completed a study using more than 2,000 cars, vans, and light trucks operated by three corporate fleets. Half the vehicles were equipped with increased-intensity parking lights that were turned on

automatically with the ignition switch; no changes were made in the other half. The modified vehicles experienced 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than did the unmodified ones. n18

n18 Howard Stein, "Fleet Experience with Daytime Running Lights in the United States," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, May 1985.

The running light studies so far have varied widely in results and test procedures. Their sample sizes often have been to small to provide statistical confidence in the specific results of each individual study. However, all the studies that have been reviewed suggest that the use of running lights during the day will indeed result in a decrease in accidents. The issue now is to determine the level of crash reductions and how this would vary by accident type.

A study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1981 produced inconclusive results about the relative benefits and costs of daytime running lights. To help clarify the issue, NHTSA is sponsoring a field study involving approximately 10,000 vehicles throughout the United States. As in the IIHS study, some of the vehicles will be modified so that lights come on automatically with the ignition; others will serve as a control group. The modified vehicles probably will have lamp intensities of various levels. Accident data will be collected on the vehicles for at least a year, starting in late 1985. There also will be an attempt to compare maintenance and repair costs.

NHTSA is unlikely to consider regulatory efforts until this large-scale fleet study is completed. It is expected to give the clearest picture so far of the likely decreases in accidents, deaths, and injuries from a daytime running lights program.

If a Federal standard were issued to require that vehicles be equipped with ignition-activated daytime running lights, it would have to specify whether low beams, high beams, parking lights, or turn signal lamps should be used, or whether a special running light should be added. If a light were to be added, the size, shape, location, lamp color, and lighting would have to be established. The standard also would have to specify the required light intensity. The NHTSA study should help provide a basis for determining these specifications.

It will take many years before the NHTSA study is evaluated, an acceptable Federal standard is developed, and running lights are incorporated into the U.S. fleet in substantial numbers. Those are years in which a measure already recognized as a means to improve safety would continue to be largely unused on U.S. highways.

Canada is facing a similar problem. As in the U.S., the Canadian government has been studying the crash-reduction potential of daytime running lights. In 1984, the Canadian Minister of Transport said that widespread use of daytime running lights could save 200 lives a year, which is about 5 percent of the total highway deaths each year in Canada. In addition, he said highway injuries could be cut by 2,500 and property losses by $ 200 million. n19

n19 Statement by Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Transport, Press Release, Transport Canada, May 31, 1984.

An official notice has been drafted describing a proposed regulation that would require ignition-activated daytime running lights on new automobiles. The choice of the type and intensity of the light to be used would be left to the manufacturers, as long as the lights met certain specifications. n20 n20 Winson Ng, Transport Canada (personal communication to NTSB staff, July 5, 1985).

Staff of Transport Canada say the earliest such a regulation could be in effect would be for model year 1988 and 1989. After that, it would be 8 to 10 years before the nation's fleet would be converted substantially to the automatic daytime running light system. Because of this likely delay, programs have been undertaken in at least two Canadian provinces that encourage motorists immediately to start driving during the day with their lights on.

Saskatchewan Government Insurance, which provides mandatory insurance to all motorists in that province, has mounted a major public education campaign. Called "Lights On For Life," this program employs a variety of means to encourage motorists to drive with low-beam headlights on. In print and broadcast media, there are public service announcements, as well as paid advertising. Four vans tour the province, promoting the message. Signs at border crossing say, "In Saskatchewan we drive with our lights on." n21

n21 Suzzane Hart, Program Director, "Lights On For Life," Saskatchewan Government Insurance (personal communication to NTSB staff, July 8, 1985).

The Premier of Saskatchewan has ordered that all vehicles of the provincial government be driven with their lights on during the day, and family members of government workers are encouraged to do the same in their private vehicles. Corporate fleets have followed suit. The message is being promoted as well by trucking associations, car rental companies, tourist information agencies and many other groups and companies. As a result, with the program in operation only about a year, daytime light use has increased in the province from 8.2 to 24.7 percent. n22

n22 Ibid.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) required drivers of its own fleet of 300 vehicles to use low-beam headlights during the day, and strongly recommended that staff members and their families follow the same practice in their private vehicles. ICBC subsequently urged the operators of 140,000 fleet vehicles insured by the corporation to use lights in the daytime. The insurance company plans to monitor the damage claims filed by fleets using daytime running lights, and to use the expected crash-reduction results to convince more fleets, as well as the general public, to take up the practice. n23

n23 "ICBC Backs Use of Daytime Headlights," Press Release, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, June 4, 1984; and "Support Growing for Daytime Driving Lights," ICBC People, no date.

CKIQ, a radio station in Kelowna, British Columbia, has taken the lead in a campaign to promote daytime use of running lights in the province, and the station reports endorsements and participation by groups such as B. C. Telephone, B. C. Transit Co., and

the Canadian Armed Forces. n24 Canadian military vehicles are required to be driven with lights on not just in British Columbia, but in many operations throughout the country. n25

n24 Dave Daniels and Yvonne Svensson, "Headlights for Life," Public Education Fact Sheet, CKIQ Radio, Kelowna, British Columbia, no date.

n25 Hart, op. cit.

The organizers of all these efforts stress that the programs are short-term, designed to enable the Canadian public to start realizing the benefits of daytime running lights immediately -- while work continues toward adoption of a Federal standard.

The National Transportation Safety Board believes that a similar approach could be undertaken in the United States. As in Canada, this would be an interim step in anticipation of a Federal standard. Motorists would be urged to keep their low-beam headlights on when driving during the day.

Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the National Safety Council:

Develop and conduct a program to encourage motorists to drive with their low-beam headlights on during the day. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-85-30)

BURNETT, Chairman, GOLDMAN, Vice Chairman; and BURSLEY, Member, concurred in this recommendation.

ID: 1985-04.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. K. Douglas Scribner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. K. Douglas Scribner President Mini City Ltd. 876 Turk Hill Road Fairport, NY 14450 Dear Mr. Scribner:

This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically, you were interested in learning whether that standard applies to tires for use on "antique and classic automobiles." You stated that your firm deals in tires which are authentic replacement tires for antique and classic cars, and that none of those tires has ever been marked with a DOT number. Standard No. 109 requires that all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 be marked with DOT numbers, among other things, and there is no exception to this requirement for tires designed for "classic" cars.

It is unclear when you refer to a "DOT number" whether you are referring to just the tire identification number, which is required to appear on all new tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 by 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, or that identification number together with the symbol "DOT." The DOT symbol is a certification by the tire manufacturer that the tire complies with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. I have enclosed copies of both Standard No. 109 and Part 574 for your information.

In any event, Standard No. 109 applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 of the standard requires the DOT symbol to be permanently marked on the tire, while section S4.3.2 requires the tire identification number assigned to a manufacturer in accordance with Part 574 to be permanently marked on the tire. Standard No. 109 contains no provisions making an exception to these requirements.

Accordingly, if the antique and classic cars to which you refer were manufactured in or before 1948, the tires are not subject to Standard No. 109 or Part 574. Sales of such tires would not violate any of this agency's requirements.

If, however, the tires are designed for use on cars manufactured after 1948, the tires must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109, including the requirements to have a DOT symbol and a tire identification number marked permanently on the sidewall. If you sell tires which are subject to, but do not comply with, the requirements of Standard No. 109,you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). Section 109 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a maximum civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and this agency would consider each sale of a noncomplying tire to be a separate violation.

If you need any further information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 Attn: Jeffrey R. Miller

Further to conversations with your office today, regarding DOT Standard 109 and its application to our marketing of tires for antique and classic automobiles, I am writing to request a copy of the "interpretation book" which will explain qualifying exceptions or exemptions.

Basically, we have dealt, and wish to continue dealing, in tires which are obsolete in nature (non-radial, odd sizes, etc.) but which are necessary for authentic replacement tires on antique and classic cars.

Some of these are still supplied by their original manufacturers (Firestone. Goodyear, Dunlop, etc.) and some are reproductions made from original molds (Denman, Lucas, etc.). None of these have ever carried DOT numbers.

I look forward to your reply at your early convenience. Sincerely, K. Douglas Scribner President KDS:se

ID: 1985-04.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Norman Friberg, P.E. -- Manager, Product Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647

This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated June 27, 1985, for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Paragraph S4.3 of the standard requires that a specified placard show the recommended tire size designation. Volvo has provided labels on approximately 3,200 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state "185/65R15" but the correct information is "185/70R14." However, Volvo intends to mail correct placards "to owners of all affected vehicles."

By providing the corrective placard, Volvo will remedy the noncompliance. Because the noncompliance will no longer exist, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moot. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Volvo will provide owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek renotice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.

The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and do not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.

Our records indicate that Volvo is in technical noncompliance with 49 CFR Part 575, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, by failing to file a report within 5 days of its determination of the existence of the noncompliances. We will, however, treat the submission of information in your petition as a Part 575 report. Part 575 also requires 6 quarterly reports on the progress of recall campaigns. In your situation, the campaign will be accomplished in a single mailing. We ask that you furnish the agency with a report of the number of letters sent and the number of letters returned as undeliverable in lieu of the Part 575 quarterly reports.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 27, 1985

CERTIFIED MAIL

Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Re: Petition For Inconsequential Non-Compliance

In accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR S556, Volvo submits herein a petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act, on the grounds of that the the subject non-compliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

FULL NAME ADDRESS OF APPLICANT

Volvo North America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07637

a Delaware corporation

DESCRIPTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE

It has come to our attention that the tire information placard, as required by FMVSS No. 110 Sect. 4.3, installed on about 3,200 l985 model year Volvo 740 Turbo Diesel passenger cars, may contain the incorrect tire size designation.

The correct tire size designation for these vehicles is 185/70 R 14, whereas the labels read 185/65 R 15.

DATA AND VIEWS SUPPORTING PETITION

Volvo believes this error to be inconsequential because the other information regarding these tires, vehicle capacity weight and inflation pressure, are the same for both tire types. Thus, an owner could not inadvertently overload his vehicle as long as he did not exceed the weight shown on the existing placard.

If an owner were to attempt to mount a 185/65 R 15 tire on the 14-inch rim supplied with the car, he would find it to be impossible, and a quick check of the other tires on the car would show that a 13-inch tire is required.

Even in the unlikely event that an owner mounted a 15-inch tire and rim in one or more locations on the vehicle, it would not result in any significant adverse vehicle characteristics since the rolling radii of the two tire sizes are very close to each other, differing only by approximately 1.1%.

We request your earliest possible decision on this matter. In the meantime, Volvo intends to send correct tire pressure placards to owners of all affected vehicles. -

Please have your staff contact me if you have any questions regarding this petition.

Sincerely yours, Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF: cmr cc: B. Holthe W. Shapiro P-O Beiring S. Bengtson G. Leoj R. Mercer

July 10, 1985 Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Petition for Inconsequential Non-Compliance Clarification

Dear Ms. Steed:

This is to supplement my letter of June 27, in which we requested exemption under 49 CFR S 556 on the basis of inconsequential non-compliance.

Please be advised that, as stated in page 2 of the letter, a tire placard (reference FMVSS No. 110 S4.3) containing correct tire size information will be sent to all owners of record of affected vehicles. This label will be of the peel-off, adhesive type. Instructions for affixing this label in place of the original label will be included.

We trust that this will serve to clarify our intent in this matter. Sincerely yours, VOLVO CARS Of NORTH AMERICA Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF:jy cc: P.O. Beiring S. Bengtson