ID: 1984-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/19/84

FROM: ROGER HAGIE -- KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP USA

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION...FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/02/85 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO ROGER HAGIE, REDBOOK A26, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the provisions of FMVSS 108 with respect to a new headlamp design/concept under development at Kawasaki.

We are aware of the interpretation issued by your office to Koito Manufacturing Co. (letter dated July 24, 1984) in response to their request of June 21, 1984. In this interpretation, you confirmed that two headlamps, each meeting the requirements of SAE J584 may be used on a motorcycle when mounted side-by-side as described by Koito's letter.

Kawasaki wishes to clarify a question which we feel was raised by the Koito request and your response, and to further determine your position with respect to our design ideas. Concerning the Koito request, Koito stated that their "headlamp unit is optically designed to be less than 75,000 cd". It is unclear to us whether Koito was referring to the output of a single lamp in their dual-lamp system, or whether the maximum output of both lamps together would not exceed 75,000 cd. Therefore, our first question is: Does the 75,000 limit (as specified by SAE J584) apply to each lamp individually, or must the total output of both lamps be limited to 75,000 cd?

Kawasaki is considering a headlamp design that consists of two reflectors, each with its own dual-filament bulb, and each capable of independent aim, installed in a single housing, and behind a single lens. Bulbs would be a standardized, replaceable unit, accessible from the rear of the housing. The assembly would meet all of the environmental and other requirements of SAE J584 and FMVSS 108. In some respects, this unit would be similar to the headlamp design proposed by Ford and approved by NHTSA on May 20, 1983. Our questions with respect to this design are: First, is such a design acceptable for a motorcycle? Secondly, would both reflectors have to be independently aimable, or could the aiming be accomplished by moving the whole lamp assembly as long as the aiming requirements of SAE J566 and the photometric requirements of SAE J584 are met?

Kawasaki would appreciate your earliest response to these questions. Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions or if any additional information is required.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: 1984-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/29/84

FROM: FRED W. BOWDITCH -- MVMA TECHNICAL AFFAIRS DIVISION

TO: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/14/85 EST, FROM BARRY FELRICE TO FRED W. BOWDITCH, REDBOOK A27, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Miss Steed:

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA) * files this petition under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

* MVMA members are AM General Corporation, American Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, International Harvester Company, M.A.N. Truck and Bus Corporation, PACCAR Inc., Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volvo North America Corporation.

MVMA requests removal from section 4.1.1.36(a)(2) of the limitation requiring the three aiming pads to be located on the exterior face of the headlamp lens. So long as the aiming pads are accessible to the adjustable legs of the aimer locating plates described in Figure 9, there is no motor vehicle safety need to limit pad placement to the face of the lens. Adoption of this requested amendment would remove an unwarranted design restriction. By allowing the aiming pads to be located on a part of the headlamp other than the lens, e.g., the mounting flange at the lens-reflector joint, such amendment would facilitate, for example, the design of lower profile replaceable bulb headlamps. Use of such headlamps could enhance the aerodynamic properties of future vehicle designs. Accordingly, we request substitution of the following text for the current section 4.1.1.36(a)(2):

"S4.1.1.36(a)(2) Each replaceable bulb headlamp shall have three pads on the front surface of the lamp which form an aiming plane for mechanically adjusting and inspecting headlamp aim. In the front view of the lamp taken in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the three pads shall be positioned to match corresponding locations, for either Group I or Group II, that are specified in Figure 9 (front view) for the adjustable legs of the locating plate. The pads shall be designed to permit use of a mechanical aimer conforming to SAE Standard J602 October 1980 "Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units", together with an adjustable locating plate described in Figure 9, to check the aim of the Headlamp. Group I aiming pad locations are those prescribed for the 2B1 sealed beam headlamp unit and Group II aiming pad locations are those prescribed for 1A1/2A1 sealed beam headlamp units. Each lens face shall have molded into it the settings, appropriate for that headlamp, of the lengths of the three legs of the adjustable locating plate. Each setting is to be located adjacent to the aiming pad to which it applies. The molded characters specifying the settings shall have a minimum height of 4mm".

If you would like to discuss this petition further, please call on us.

Very truly yours,

ID: 1984-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Yea-tung Hung, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to this office, asking for information on the necessary steps for certifying that a rim complies with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You were particularly interested in how to obtain "authorization" to place the required markings on rims. Markings are only required by Standard No. 120 to appear on rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, to be certain that I answer your request fully, I will explain our requirements for both passenger car rims and rims for use on other motor vehicles.

The two applicable standards are No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims -- Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.110), and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120). I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. For passenger car rims, section S4.4 of Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional requirements shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire and Rim Association, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, or the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application. No markings are required on rims subject to Standard No. 110.

For rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not the rim manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will actually be mounted on the rim.

The second requirement, set forth in S5.2, is that the rim be marked with five specified items of information. These are:

(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions;

(2) The rim size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

(3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards;

(4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and

(5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

You specifically asked how to obtain "authorization from D.O.T." to engrave the symbol on the rim which indicates that it complies with the standards and regulations. As explained in Standard No. 120, this symbol is the letters "DOT". The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to the governmental entity, and that entity tests the rims to determine if it can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. Once the manufacturer determines that its rims do meet the requirements of Standard No. 120, it stamps the symbol "DOT" into those rims, without any authorization from this agency.

Should you have any further questions regarding the requirements applicable to rims, please feel free to contact me.

ENCLS.

OCC-1208

September 18, 1984

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

Dear Sir,

This is to inquire that how to obtain the authorization from D.O.T. to engrave the symbol or words on the rim which shall indicate the quality of the rim is manufactured in accordance with the regulation set forth by the D.O.T.

On behalf of Shinn Fu Company of Taiwan, I have discussed this matter with Mr. Casanova and was told that there is not necessary to get special authorization for the rim except for the tire.

Please confirm this advice or advise us otherwise.

I am looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Yea-tung Hong

cc: SHINN FU CO.

ID: 1984-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; FRANK BERNDT; NHSTA

TO: H.K. Porter Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. F. Netzer Hose Development Manager H.K. Porter Company, Inc. 1301 W. Sandusky Avenue Bellefontaine, Ohio 43311

Dear Mr. Netzer:

This responds to your September 19, 1984 letter to Mr. Vern Bloom of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. Your letter was referred to this office for our reply.

You asked whether Standard No. 106 would permit the manufacture of an air brake hose for use with permanently attached end fittings when the size of the hose is not listed in Table III of that standard. The answer to your question is yes. Table III of Standard No. 106 specified dimensional requirements for air brake hose intended for use with reusable end fittings. The table does not limit the sizes of hoses used with permanent fittings.

He wish to emphasize that all other requirements applicable to air brake hoses which are found in Standard No. 106 would apply to your air brake hoses.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 19, 1984

Mr. Vern Bloom U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA NRM11 CAD 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

We, as air brake hose manufacturers, have been requested by several customers to produce an air brake hose having an inside diameter as listed under SAE J1402 table "A" specification for permanently attached fittings. We find that the DOT 106 specification table "III" does not list a hose diameter for permanently attached fitting and would like to know if we would have any problems if we manufactured a hose with the dimensions as listed in SAE J1402 table "A".

Thank you very much, I remain

Very truly yours,

A. F. Netzer Hose Development Manager AFN/jah

ID: 1984-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/02/84

FROM: Diane K. Steed -- NHTSA

TO: Jim Burnett -- Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is in further response to recommendations H-83-44 and H-83-45 which your agency made to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Highway Accident Report, "Jonesboro School District Schoolbus Run-Off-Road and Overturn, State Highway 214 at State Highway 18, near Newport, Arkansas, March 25, 1983" (NTSB/HAR-83/03).

NHTSA agrees with the National Transportation Safety Board that properly inspected and repaired school buses are essential to the safe transportation of school children. We also believe that the current provisions in Highway Safety Program Standard 1, Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection, and Highway Safety Program Standard 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, as well as the relevant Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, provide for an adequate level of safety when children are transported to and from school.

Of the 15,840 school districts in the United States, about 15,000 provide pupil transportation. Over 400,000 buses are involved in transporting the Nation's 22 million public, private and parochial school children to and from school each day. These buses are maintained by a number of persons having diverse backgrounds ranging in skill from "grease monkey" to those certified by the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE). This fleet travels over three billion miles a year, and is remarkably free of problems. Information reported at national meetings indicates that accidents due to mechanical failure are estimated to be between three and five percent and very few result in injury or death.

With respect to the specific recommendations, we have the following comments:

RECOMMENDATION H-S3-44 (Class II, Priority Action)

Include in Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) 17 -- Pupil Transportation Safety and in the "Program Manual" for HSPS 17 the requirement that the States institute quality control procedures for schoolbus repairs to determine if needed repairs have been performed adequately or if major repairs are required.

COMMENT

State Directors of Transportation, school business officials and fleet supervisors with whom NHTSA has talked agree that school buses should be kept in good repair. They questioned, however, how quality control procedures could be applied to the repair of school buses when almost every repair is different. Most school buses currently undergo at least two inspections a year, as suggested by Standard 17, which procedure helps to detect major defects that require repair. In addition to this inspection, we understand that most drivers conduct a daily inspection which identifies the need for minor repairs. One supervisor observed that school bus drivers act as a form of practical quality control because they check to determine if the school bus is operating safely after the repair has been made.

A survey of almost 1,000 fleets by the National School Transportation Association revealed that 49 percent operated fewer than 10 buses. To institute quality control procedures for these small fleets would quickly exhaust the limited resources of most States. Instituting formal quality control procedures would be costly to the States, no matter whether facilities were built and equipment purchased, or alternative checking procedures were utilized.

Recommendation H-83-45 (Class II, Priority Action)

This five part recommendation would include in the Program Manual of Highway Safety Program Standard 17 -- Pupil Transportation Safety, the program areas listed below.

1. Specific, well-defined qualifications for hiring schoolbus mechanics;

2. Specific skill areas for schoolbus mechanics for which certification of proficiency is required;

3. A biolography of available courses that can be attended or course curricula that can be used as an example to obtain certification of proficiency in the required skill areas;

Comment

NHTSA plans to use a portion of staff resources to review the literature that pertains to school bus mechanic qualifications and skill areas needed for certification. Upon completion we will disseminate the appropriate information to State and local governments.

Many schools, colleges and vocational training centers offer various courses in auto-mechanics, but few people ever master all the major areas of vehicle repair and become master-mechanics. The majority of small fleet operators could not afford to hire such a skilled mechanic. Car dealers employ many skilled mechanics but many are neither equipped nor do they desire to repair school buses. It is highly unlikely that owners of small fleets would or could hire an ASE certified mechanic. It is also unlikely that most of the garages or service stations that maintain school buses have such a person in their employ because they are small independent private entrepreneures. The extreme diversity of the school bus fleet in the United States would be a major complication for a practical certification program.

In 1978, hearings were held by the House Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance, of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to examine State and local as well as private sector approaches to the problem of unnecessary, incompetent, or fraudulent repair practices. Senator Philip Hart also held hearings in the late 1960s on Mechanic Training and Licensing. In spite of the adverse findings by these two committees, neither the Federal Government nor any State has gone so far as to require certification of mechanics doing work on cars or school buses. Because of the complexity of this problem, and the lack of Congressional action, NHTSA is of the opinion that it cannot go beyond publishing qualifications for school bus mechanics and identifying available training centers.

States whose accident records show the need for better maintenance care can be expected to take remedial action. Michigan, for example, provided workshops especially designed for school bus mechanics for over 10 years.

4. A requirement to institute and enforce procedures to prevent school activity groups from organizing, beginning, or continuing trips in mechanically unsafe vehicles;

Comment

A requirement to institute and enforce procedures to prevent school activity groups from organizing, beginning or continuing trips in mechanically unsafe vehicles is commendable. Such a requirement, however, would be effective only if it were enforced. Standard 17 currently suggests pre-trip inspections and a written report of any defect or deficiency discovered. We believe a reminder to the States of this suggestion would encourage them to give the proper attention to this safety area.

5. Requirements to place fire extinguishers at the front and rear of school buses, post signs in school buses on the location and use of emergency equipment, and brief passengers on the location and use of emergency equipment, both periodically and before beginning activity trips.

Comment

The placement of additional fire extinguishers outside the bus driver's compartment has led to increased theft and vandalism. These essential pieces of emergency equipment need to remain under the watchful eyes of the bus driver. The benefits of placing a second fire extinguisher in the rear of the school bus are so few as to make this requirement unwarranted. In case of a fire, a bus driver's first responsibility is to get the pupils to a place of safety. Having the personal skill and the equipment to handle a small fire are helpful, but not a necessity.

NHTSA suggests that all pupils who ride school buses should have instruction twice a year in safe riding procedures and emergency drills. This should provide sufficient information to students concerning the location and use of emergency equipment carried on the school bus. The location and use of fire extinguishers should be a part of this instruction.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these safety recommendations. If NHTSA can supply any additional information, please let me know.

ID: 1984-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent, Fox, Kintner,Plotkin and Kahn

TEXT:

Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washigton Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

This responds to your letter of August 27, 1984, on behalf of your client, the Breed Corporation. You asked whether section S4.5.2 of Standard No . 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to totally mechanical air bag restraint systems such as those to be produced by Breed. As explained below, the readiness indicator requirements do not apply to a totally mechanical system.

The readiness indicator requirement was first adopted by the agency in November 1970. The text of the rule provided, in applicable part, that "an occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash should have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The system components monitored shall include all electrical and compressed gases, if present." As you correctly pointed out, the agency explained in the problem to the November 1970 rule that it was particularly concerned about monitoring electrical circuitry and pressure vessels, two critical elements of then available crash-deployed system. The agency said that "although manufacturers are urged to provide monitoring for all system elements for which it is feasible, the specific requirements of the standard in this regard are that electrical circuitry and pressurized gases, if present, be monitored,...."

In response to petitions for reconsideration, the agency modified the readiness indicator requirement on October 1, 1971. Several petitioners argued that monitoring of pressure vessels and electrically actuated explosive release devices could impair the integrity or reliability of those devices. The agency deleted the specific reference to an electrical and compressed gas monitoring system so that manufacturers could "avoid designs that are prone to deterioration. . . ." The amendment did not, however, otherwise affect the coverage of the requirement and therefore a totally mechanical system does not have to have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 27, 1984

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation; Inapplicability of Readiness Indicator Provision of FMVSS 208 to Non-Electric Crash Protection System

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Our firm represents Breed Corporation, located in Lincoln Park, New Jersey, which anticipates the production and marketing of a mechanical, self-contained air bag module. Breed seeks a letter of interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirming that sub-section 54. 5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, the "readiness indicator" provision, does not apply to totally mechanical airbag restraint systems such as those to be produced by Breed.

Regulatory Background

A readiness indicator requirement, as proposed by NHTSA, first appeared in an advance notice of proposed rule making for passive occupant restraint systems such as the air bag in July of 1969. Passive crash protection technology then and for a number of years thereafter suggested electrical, rather than mechanical, systems for this purpose.

Indeed, in a final rule notice issued on November 3, 1970, Douglas Toms, the then Director of NHTSA' s predecessor agency, the National Highway Safety Bureau, observed:

"The proposed requirement for a readiness indicator for crash-deployed systems brought forth several questions as to which system elements were required to be monitored. Obviously any deployable system will have some qualities . . . that are not suitable for monitoring, and other aspects whose monitoring would be very difficult and costly. System monitoring of electrical circuitry and pressure vessels, two of the most critical elements where they exist, is, however, feasible with present technology. Therefore..., the specific requirements of the standard in this regard are that electrical circuitry and pressurized gases, if present, be monitored...." (35 Fed. Reg. 16928 (1970).)

The narrow application of subsection S4.5.2 was reconfirmed in an October 1971 rule making notice, in which the Safety Administration observed:

"To permit manufacturers to avoid designs that are prone to deterioration, the readiness indicator requirement has been amended by omitting specific reference to compressed gases and electrical circuits. " (36 Fed. Reg. 19254 (1971).)

Request for Interpretation

Breed Corporation respectfully submits that its completely mechanical air bag system, which consists of five basic components (knee bolster, steering column, nonpressurized, solid state gas generator, air bag and crash sensor), is not subject to the readiness indicator requirement of subsection S4. 5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, 49 C.F.R. 571.208, which is intended to cover occupant protection systems with electrical circuitry and/or pressurized gases.

We request that the agency confirm, by letter of interpretation, our understanding of the city provision.

Sincerely,

Lawrence F. Henneberger cc: Thomas C. McGrath, Jr., Esquire John C. Culver, Esquire

ID: 1984-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Nigel Stansfield -- Product and Training Manager, JCB Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nigel Stansfield Product and Training Manager JCB Inc. Box 209 White Marsh, Maryland 21162

Dear Mr. Stansfield: This responds to your letter of October 4, 1984, asking whether Standard No. 205, Glazing Material, applies to your JCB rubber tired backhoe loaders and rough terrain loadall machines. As explained below, your loaders and machines are not considered motor vehicles and thus Standard No. 205 would not apply to them.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to vehicles manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways. Construction vehicles which are manufactured for use at off-road job sites but which will use the public roads on a frequent basis for moving between job sites are subject to these requirements. However, the agency has previously concluded that construction vehicles which use the public roads in frequently and which would stay at a particular job site for an extended period of time are not subject to our requirements.

You state in your letter that the vehicles involved are designed primarily for off-highway use, but will use the highway for travel from site to site at speeds not exceeding 25 mph. Based on your description and the specification brochures you enclosed, the agency has decided that the backhoe loader and rough terrain loadall machines you manufacture are not motor vehicles for the purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Chief Council NHTSA RE: Specifications of the tyre of glass required for installation in the cab windshield of JCB rubber tired backhoe loaders and rough terrain loadall machines.

Dear Sirs:

Federal safety standard 205 and ANSI Code Z 26.1 1977, 26.1a 1980 indicate the glass used must be a laminated type meeting AS 1 specifications.

These regulations and standards relate primarily to vehicles designed specifically for on highway use.

JCB Inc. wish to be advised if laminated glass meeting AS II specifications is acceptable in our case where the vehicles involved are designed primarily for off highway use but will use the highway for travel from site to site at speeds not exceeding 25 mph.

A set of specification brochures are enclosed for your information.

Yours sincerely,

JCB INC.

Nigel Stansfield Product and Training Manager

enclosures: Specifications brochures omitted.

ID: 1984-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Anthony Lauro, President, Vredusu

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Anthony Lauro President VREDUSA P.O. Box 766 South Plainfield, NJ 07080

This responds to your recent letter asking for an interpretation of the Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you sought an interpretation of the term "limited production tire," as set forth in 49 CFR S 575.104(c). That section specifies that the UTQGS applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars, but does not apply to certain types of tires . The tires excluded from the UTQGS include limited production tires, as defined in 49 CFR S575.104(c)(2). You noted that your company produces two different tread designs in fourteen different sizes, and asked if limited production tires are determined by the number of sizes, the number of tread designs, or both. The UTQGS specify that a tire may qualify as a limited production tire if the annual domestic production or importation of tires of both the same design and size as the tire in question does not exceed 15,000.

Subparagraph (c)(2) of 5575.104 specifies that a tire will be considered a limited production tire if the tire meets the four criteria set forth in that section. Two of those four criteria specify that no more than 15,000 tires of the same design and size may be manufactured in or imported into the United States. The tire design is defined as "the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does not include cosmetic, identifying, or other minor variations among tires." Hence, if you wish to determine how to group these tires to see if they qualify as limited production tires, you must determine how many tires are imported with both the same size and tread pattern.

Judging by the last paragraph in your letter, however, it is not necessary for you to determine if these tires qualify as limited production tires to exclude them from the requirements of the UTQGS. You stated that all of these tires have a nominal rim diameter of 10 to 12 inches. 49 CFR S575.104(c)(1) excludes all tires with a nominal rim diameter of 10 to 12 inches from the requirements of UTQGS, regardless of whether those tires would qualify as limited production tires.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 10, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Councel Office of the Chief Councel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: section 575.104 of title 49 Transportation Chapter V of the Code of Federal Regulations

Dear Mr. Berndt:

By way of correspondence with National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, manager of Regulatory affairs, Mr. K. Wayne Malbon, I am writing this letter to obtain your opinion to a specific area of concern-namely "limited production of tires".

Vredusa, Inc. is the U.S. Sales and Marketing office of Vredestein Banden B. V. Enschede, Holland, the Manufacturer of Vredestein tires. Our Dutch office has asked us to obtain a clearer understanding into the criteria of what is meant by "limited production tires". More specifically, if the manufacturer produces two different tread designs with fourteen difference sizes, how is the criteria detemined, is it per size, per design or a combination of both?

We raise this question with respect to tires we produce with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches, which the Dutch office is classifying as "limited production tires".

Your comments and early response would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Anthony Lauro President

AL/bf TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Mr. Noel M. Torres

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Noel M. Torres 2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, California 92704

Dear Mr. Torres:

This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1984 asking questions about the relationship of your "Panic-Stop Detection Brake-Lite System" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The photographs you enclosed show a segmented lamp mounted on the centerline of a passenger car directly below the rear window. Another picture shows the lamp installed on the rear of a motorcycle above the license plate. These pictures contain the notation "The harder you brake the faster the lite sweeping motion." Your questions are:

"(1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108?"

Section 108(a)(2) ((A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device, or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would appear to preclude removal of the mandated center high-mounted stop lamp on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and replacement of it with your lamp.

"(2) Is it legally all right to use it now on cars and motorcycles?"

Standard No. 108 was recently amended to permit manufacturers to install the center high-mounted lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and General Motors is already equipping some of its 1985 models with it. Thus, a center high-mounted stoplamp already installed on a passenger car in accordance with Standard No. 108 would be subject to the prohibition in Section 108(a) (2) (A) discussed above.

As for other passenger cars, we assume that you wish to make your lamp available as an aftermarket device. In this circumstance, where it is installed on a vehicle in use, its permissibility is to be determined under local law; Federal law does not apply.

Finally, as to motorcycles, your photograph, by depicting your lamp mounted above the license plate, indicates that it substitutes for the original equipment stop/taillamp. Inasmuch as the stop/taillamp was installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) apply to it as well.

We are returning your tape to you and appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, Ca 92704 September 25, 1984

Madam Diane K. Steed NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Madam Steed:

I hope you don't mind my taking the liberty of sending you this letter together with a 10-minute videotape of a brake-lite system for cars and motorcycles which I thought you might want to review and evaluate, if you have the time.

I have been thinking for a while now that it is amazing in this day and age of space shuttles, maze of freeways and fast driving, our cars are still equipped with the most out-dated brake-lite system that have been in use for hundreds of years, and when driving on the road, there's no way of telling if a car braking in front of you is trying to make a panic stop.

An idea came to mind which I developed. I call it "PANIC-STOP DETECTION BRAKE-LITE SYSTEM", applicable for cars and motorcycles. I honestly believe it is a very effective system that would reduce more than 90% of rear-end collisions. You'll see what I mean when you view the videotape enclosed.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me: 1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108? 2) Is it legally alright to use it now on cars and motorcycles?

Thank you so much for your kind consideration and I hope to hear from you.

Yours truly,

Noel M. Torres

P.S. If you think you might want to see the prototype samples, I'll be more than happy to ship them to you.

Encls./ 3-photos, 1-videotape

ID: 1984-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Firma Laupp

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kevin C. Graves Firma Laupp Lerchenfelder Str. 63 1070 Wien Austria

Dear Mr. Graves:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch, of my staff, asking for information about testing your client's child restraint system for use in automobiles. You indicated that you were interested in making arrangements for testing that child restraint system under the U.S. requirements. You also stated that the restraint has been tested for compliance with the European ECE Regulation 44, and asked for instructions on how to proceed with testing, how much time should be allowed for testing, and an estimate of the costs involved in testing.

Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213) (copy enclosed). This standard sets forth performance and labeling requirements which must be satisfied by the child restraint system. This country does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that the child restraint system fully satisfies all requirements of Standard No. 213. Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint systems comply with Standard No. 213. Certainly we recommend that a manufacturer selling child restraint systems in the United States test the systems according to the test procedures specified in the standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its child restraints meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by labeling that certification onto the child restraint, as specified in section S5.5 of Standard No. 213.

If your client decides to market its child restraint system in the United States, I would like to call your attention to the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45 (copy enclosed). That section requires that before offering any item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States, a manufacturer must designate an agent for the service of process. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:

1. A certification that the designation 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 the 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 one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in S551.45(b).

Should you need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

Stephen Oesch Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington D.C.

Kevin Graves Firma Laupp Lerchenfelder Str. 63 1 0 7 0 W I E N Austria telex # 13/6592 telephone 01143/222/93-82-04

April 11, 1984

Dear Mr. Oesch,

We are an Austrian Exporting firm who represent the manufacturer of a unique childrens automotive restraint seat. We are interested in making contacts with the appropriate department in order to make arrangements for testing the seat under your requirements.

We have recently undergone tests in Holland at the "Institut voor Wegtran-sportmiddelen" (Institute for road transport vehicles) or TNO under the classification of ECE regulation forty-four. It is my understanding that these requirements were to be incorporated into a United Nations regulation and therefore would suffice your particular requirements. However, I have not yet heard that this has actually taken place. Therefore I would appreciate it if you could give us the necessarry instructions on how to proceed, how much lead time we should allow for the required tests.

I have read the documents under the Standards for Vehicles and Equipment-Seating Restraints, and Occupant Protection, number 5120, 5135 dated 1980 but with amendments dated as recent as 9/27/82 by the Commerce Clearing House for the Consumer Product Safety Guide. Having passed all the required tests for TNO, must we actually retest for NHTSA or DOT or does the TNO test suffice? If not then which stipulations in particular must we pay attention to? The requirements and actual tests appear to be quite similar.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could assign to our firm one person to handle all communications. We have found that matters proceed with much less confusion this way, especially considering the complexities involved. As far as supplying information if it makes any difference I am a U.S. citizen. Please instruct us how to proceed, how much time we should allow for testing, and what the costs involved are. We thank you very much for your cooperation and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Kevin C Graves

ID: 1984-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Mr. Noel M. Torres

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Noel M. Torres 2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, California 92704

Dear Mr. Torres:

This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1984 asking questions about the relationship of your "Panic-Stop Detection Brake-Lite System" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The photographs you enclosed show a segmented lamp mounted on the centerline of a passenger car directly below the rear window. Another picture shows the lamp installed on the rear of a motorcycle above the license plate. These pictures contain the notation "The harder you brake the faster the lite sweeping motion." Your questions are:

"(1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108?"

Section 108(a)(2) ((A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device, or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would appear to preclude removal of the mandated center high-mounted stop lamp on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and replacement of it with your lamp.

"(2) Is it legally all right to use it now on cars and motorcycles?"

Standard No. 108 was recently amended to permit manufacturers to install the center high-mounted lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and General Motors is already equipping some of its 1985 models with it. Thus, a center high-mounted stoplamp already installed on a passenger car in accordance with Standard No. 108 would be subject to the prohibition in Section 108(a) (2) (A) discussed above.

As for other passenger cars, we assume that you wish to make your lamp available as an aftermarket device. In this circumstance, where it is installed on a vehicle in use, its permissibility is to be determined under local law; Federal law does not apply.

Finally, as to motorcycles, your photograph, by depicting your lamp mounted above the license plate, indicates that it substitutes for the original equipment stop/taillamp. Inasmuch as the stop/taillamp was installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) apply to it as well.

We are returning your tape to you and appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, Ca 92704 September 25, 1984

Madam Diane K. Steed NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Madam Steed:

I hope you don't mind my taking the liberty of sending you this letter together with a 10-minute videotape of a brake-lite system for cars and motorcycles which I thought you might want to review and evaluate, if you have the time.

I have been thinking for a while now that it is amazing in this day and age of space shuttles, maze of freeways and fast driving, our cars are still equipped with the most out-dated brake-lite system that have been in use for hundreds of years, and when driving on the road, there's no way of telling if a car braking in front of you is trying to make a panic stop.

An idea came to mind which I developed. I call it "PANIC-STOP DETECTION BRAKE-LITE SYSTEM", applicable for cars and motorcycles. I honestly believe it is a very effective system that would reduce more than 90% of rear-end collisions. You'll see what I mean when you view the videotape enclosed.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me: 1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108? 2) Is it legally alright to use it now on cars and motorcycles?

Thank you so much for your kind consideration and I hope to hear from you.

Yours truly,

Noel M. Torres

P.S. If you think you might want to see the prototype samples, I'll be more than happy to ship them to you.

Encls./ 3-photos, 1-videotape