ID: 1985-01.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Addressee not given

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1984, (not received until October 17, 1984) with respect to questions of compliance of lighting and bumper requirements on a vehicle equipped with a variable height control system.

Standard No. 108 requires that the center of a headlamp lens be not less than 22 inches from the road surface. You stated that this minimum might not be met with respect to certain headlamp configurations when the ignition is off, and the hydraulic pressure in the height control system relaxes, a period of approximately three hours. You believe that compliance with the mounting height requirement should be judged "with the ignition switch in only the 'on' position," the apparent point at which the height control system begins to operate.

We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height.

We also call to your attention paragraph S4.1.3 which forbids the installation of motor vehicle equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and ask that you consider whether a height control system would change vehicle height, pitch, roll, etc., in response to some external or internal condition, in a manner which would affect the performance of headlamps and other lighting equipment.

You have also asked, in essence, which conditions of operation of the system are appropriate for the pendulum and barrier impact tests of the bumper standard, 49 CFR Part 581. Under Sec. 581.5(c), the suspension system is to remain in adjustment and operate in the normal manner; under Sec. 581.6(c) the engine is operating at idling speed. In our opinion, the vehicle is required to meet the pendulum test of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates, and the barrier test of Part 581 when the engine is idling.

Finally, you requested confidentiality for all information submitted which pertains to the variable height control system. After carefully reviewing the documents, I have determined that your request should be granted. The release of these documents could cause substantial injury to the competitive position of your company. Therefore, I am withholding from the public your letter which contains a detailed description of the variable height control system currently under consideration. I am also deleting all references to the company name. I will instruct all agency personnel having access to this information to accord it confidential treatment.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: 1985-01.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Dave Durenberger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Pius Lacher, the Superintendent of Schools in Mora, Minnesota. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

As I understand Mr. Lacher's letter, the Mora public schools would like to use 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport children to and from extra-curricular activities. Mr. Lacher believes that he is restricted by our Federal regulations to using only large, 72-passenger buses for this purpose. He urges a change in the regulations.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations. In this letter, I would like to explain how our regulations might affect Mora's choice of buses. Before I begin, let me explain that our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 or more passengers. Our regulations require manufacturers and dealers to certify that new buses comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, including our school bus safety standards, when these vehicles are sold to schools.

Our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect Mora's choice of buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, and windows and windshields. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date. If Mora plans to buy a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. New conventional 12 or 15 passenger vans that are not manufactured to comply with these standards could not be sold for use as school buses.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit Mora from using vehicles that carry more than 10 persons. There might, however, be impediments under Minnesota State law. We administer a set of guidelines for state highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program

Standards, cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport 16 or less students must either be identified with the words "School Bus" and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). Because it must have this equipment, a 12 or 15 passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a state that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS 17 will affect Mora only if Minnesota has adopted it and if Minnesota accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. If Minnesota chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

Having said this, however, I will conclude by restating the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. In the years since buses began to be manufactured to the school bus safety standards, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. Mora should consider these safety features when the school district decides to buy their school vehicles.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

ENC: Constituent's Correspondence

UNITED STATES SENATE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

January 15, 1985

Timothy Cole Office of Congressional Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

The attached communication is submitted for your consideration; and, I wish to ask that the request made therein be complied with, if possible.

I would appreciate your looking into this matter and sharing with me your findings. In responding to me, please return the attached correspondence along with your reply in duplicate to the attention of my assistant: Christopher Barton, (phone 224-9482), c/o United States Senate, SR 375, Washington, D.C. 20510.

With appreciation for your assistance and cooperation, I am, Dave Durenberger United States Senator

ENC.

MORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MORA, MINNESOTA 53051

January 7, 1985

The Honorable David Durenburger

United States Senator

Dear Senator:

School Administrators have been frustrated for several years with the Department of Transportation rule that prohibits the use by schools to transport students to any event unless that vehicle meets the definition of a school bus or carries ten passengers or less.

Several Day Care Centers, Senior Citizens Centers, residential facilities for the retarded, airport limousine services, etc., use twelve and fifteen-passenger vans, and if these vehicles are unsafe for school use, we wonder why they are safe for all other public agencies of the private sector.

For most of us, this means using a 72-passenger bus and paying a licensed bus driver for driving time and waiting time, while students participate in a tennis or swimming match. In the past, a team coach could drive a twelve or fifteen-passenger van, saving the school district precious dollars which are always in tight supply for these types of non-revenue activities.

We solicit your help in finding the source of this rule and its possible elimination.

Pius J. Lacher, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools

ID: 1985-01.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Phyllis A. Sirine -- Adminis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/28/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Joseph C. Bright, Jr.

TEXT:

Ms. Phyllis A. Sirine Administrative Secretary St. Peter's School 319 Lombard Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147

This responds to your letter to me concerning your use of 13 and 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from extracurricular activities. In a telephone call on January 30, 1985 Mr. John Womack explained how our school bus regulations affect your school's choice of buses. This letter follows up on that conversation and confirms Mr. Womack's discussion of our regulations.

As I understand it, Pennsylvania has recently amended its law to define "bus" to mean "a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons, including the driver." The old definition had excluded the driver. In effect, a van designed to carry more than ten persons is now a "bus" under Pennsylvania law. To transport students in a van of that size, a school would need to conform the van to the State's requirements for school buses.

The recent change in Pennsylvania law does not in any way affect how our regulations apply to your 13 and 15 passenger vans. Your vehicles have always been classified as buses under Federal law, since under our regulations a bus is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons. Further, your vehicles are "school buses" as that term is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act. The basic test under the Vehicle Safety Act is whether, as determined at the time of its first sale, a bus would be used to transport school children to or from school or related events. It is not relevant that the school uses the vehicles only occasionally. When the buses were sold to your school, it should have been clear to the dealer or manufacturer that the vehicles would be used as school buses.

It appears that St. Peter's purchase of new vans for the transportation of students raises questions of compliance with Federal law by the dealers who sold you the vans. The Vehicle Safety Act required the dealer or manufacturer to sell vehicles which were certified as meeting all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to your future purchases of new vehicles, I urge you to keep in mind that the dealers are obligated to sell you vehicles that meet the school bus safety standards. They should know that they are at risk if they sell nonconforming vehicles.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit you from operating the 13 and 15 passenger vans. There might, however, be impediments under Pennsylvania State law. We administer a set of guidelines for state highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport 16 or less students must either be identified with the words "School Bus" and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). Because it must have this equipment, a 13 or 15 passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a state that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS 17 will affect you only if Pennsylvania has adopted it and if Pennsylvania accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. Your State officials will be able to give you more information about other State requirements for school buses.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 15, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I am writing from St. Peter's School, a private independent school, in Philadelphia. In trying to determine how we can comply with Pennsylvania House Bills #2095 and #2522, I have spoken with Mr. William Hilton at the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles. When I explained to him that we have two vans, one holding 13 people and the other 15, which enable us to transport an entire class, and that we use the vans only for class trips and school sports events, he suggested I write you about your legal opinion exempting schools from compliance because of "occasional use" as opposed to "significant use" of school vehicles.

We do not transport students to and from school on a daily basis. In September 1984 our vans were used for school activities a total of three times. In October 1984 they were used eleven times.

Would we qualify for the above exemption from the Pennsylvania State House Bills? If so, would you send us a copy of your legal opinion.

I appreciate your help in this matter especially since we are a small school and it would be a hardship for us to comply with these bills.

Sincerely yours,

Phyllis A. Sirine Administrative Secretary

ID: 1985-01.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nick Martz -- Regional Sales Manager, Isuzu Diesel of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nick Martz Regional Sales Manager Isuzu Diesel of North America 41169 Vincenti Court Novi, Michigan 48050

This responds to your letter asking about identification requirements applicable to water temperature, oil pressure and alternator instruments on bread delivery trucks. You asked whether the symbols specified by Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, are required for such trucks and, if so, whether it is permissible to use transparent decals with the proper symbols on the lenses. You also asked whether waivers can be issued. The answers to your questions are provided below.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. Water temperature, oil pressure and alternator instruments are displays. While the standard's requirements for controls apply to all trucks, the standard's requirements for displays are only applicable to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds. See section S5.

Assuming that your bread trucks do have a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds, the instruments must be identified by the symbols specified by Standard No. 101. Section S5.2.3 provides in relevant part:

Except for informational readout displays, any display located within the passenger compartment and listed in column 1 of Table 2 that has a symbol designated in column 4, shall be identified by that symbol. Such display may, in addition be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 3. . . . Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. The identification required or permitted by this section shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies. The identification of any display shall, under the conditions of S6, be visible to the driver and appear to the driver perceptually upright.

The displays described by your letter are conventional guages rather than informational readout displays. (Informational readout displays are defined by the standard to be displays using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information may be displayed.) Table 2 specifies symbols for, among other displays, oil pressure gauges, coolant temperature gauges, and electrical charge gauges. Therefore, under S5.2.3, the displays must be identified by the specified symbols.

Standard No. 101 does not specify the nature of the material to be used in identifying displays, i.e., paint, decals, etc. Therefore, it is permissible to use decals.

You also asked whether waivers can be issued. In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that some trucks have been produced using words rather than symbols to identify the gauges discussed above. 49 CFR Part 556 sets forth procedures for petitioning for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act due to the inconsequentiality of a noncompliance with a safety standard as it relates to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed a copy of Part 556 for your convenience, as well as a copy of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

Lyall F. (Nick) Martz Zone Sales Manager Isuzu Diesel of North America 41169 Vincenti Court Novi, Michigan 48050-2689 (313) 474-8000

November 1, 1984 National Highway Traffic Safety Assoc. Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Re: Engine Instruments

Gentlemen:

We need your advice on water temperature, oil pressure, and alternator instruments in 1984 bread delivery trucks. We have had to change the above mentioned gauges since the original instruments in the vehicle are not compatible with our diesel engine.

The gauges we installed in the vehicle in an accessory panel are 2-inch dials with illumination lights.

The new oil pressure gauge manufactured by F. W. Murphy has a black dial with white numbers and pointer and is calibrated in PSI and K/CM3 but has no ISO symbol.

The water temperature gauge manufactured by VDO has the same type dial and is calibrated in Fo and Co. This gauge has an ISO symbol like the one used in SAE J-298 for industrial applications.

The alternator light has Alt. between the red 1/2" diameter lense and the light. This light is illuminated in the accessory position and crank position but goes out when the engine is running.

We have contacted V.D.O. and Murphy Mfg. and they informed us they do not make gauges with the FMVSS 101 symbol on them.

The problem we have is that the 96 vehicles with these gauges are now ready for delivery, but the missing ISO symbols will delay delivery to the customer. The gauge manufacturer says it will take 12 weeks to develop the proper symbol.

Is it necessary to use Automotive ISO symbols on E-350 delivery trucks, or can a waiver be issued? If symbols are necessary, is it acceptable to use transparent decals with the proper symbols on the lense?

I would appreciate your prompt attention and answer on this matter since time is critical.

Please call at your earliest opportunity.

Regards, Nick Martz Regional Sales Manager Enclosures

ID: 1985-01.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Rose Marie Sigismondo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Rose Marie Sigismondo Star Route Box 346 Dingman's Ferry, PA 18328

This responds to your letter asking whether our agency has any authority under current law to require school bus drivers to wear safety belts immediately. Practically speaking, the answer is no. Our authority over school transportation is indirect and can be effectuated only through the States. Let me explain.

The regulations on school transportation were issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). The Highway Safety Act deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States. The standard to which you refer in your letter, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (hereafter HSPS 17), was issued under the authority of that Act. You are correct that section IV.C.d. (4) of this standard provides that drivers of school vehicles equipped with lap belts shall wear the belts whenever the vehicle is in motion. We issued this provision because we believe that safety belts protect school bus drivers in the event of an accident and assist to avoid accidents by helping drivers maintain control of their vehicles.

The great majority of the States have recognized the importance of requiring school bus drivers to wear safety belts, and have issued appropriate requirements either by law or through regulations issued by State agencies. It is the States' responsibility to require the use of safety belts by bus drivers. We have no authority to displace the States and issue regulations directly applicable to drivers. It is up to Pennsylvania to adopt regulations or legislation to require that school bus drivers wear their safety belts and to enforce its law.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Star Route Box 346 Dingman's Ferry, Pa., 18328 November 5, 1984 NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.D., 20590

Attn: Mr. Brundt

Dear Sir:

I have spent the last 8 weeks examining many aspects of school bus safety, especially seat belts on school buses. While researching I came across: a) Standard 17 amended 5/73 - Drivers of School Vehicles equipped w/ lap belts shall be required to wear them whenever the vehicle is in motion.

b) Pa. Equip and Safety Standards of School Buses and School Vehicles Ch. 171 9/1/83 Pg. 25 171.68 - Seat belt for driver. A seatbelt meeting the requirements of FMVSS 209 shall be provided for the driver. c) Pa. School Bus Operators Manual Dept of Trans. Pub #117 rev. 1978 Pg 48 - Adjust your seatbelt to provide firm yet comfortable support. Pg 56 Daily Inspection Form-Inside Bus-Seat belt adjustment.

It is obvious that Pa. complies w/ standard 17 in as far as requiring a belt for the driver. Most of our drivers do not wear their belts. I have called our state troopers asking for info on written warnings or citations that the drivers or contractors would receive when breaking this law.

When I couldn't get a firm answer I called Mr. Robert William who referred me to David Soule. after some discussion he referred me to Elana West Penn DOT 717/787-6453 her office referred me to Mr. William Hilton, 717/787-2895. Mr. Hilton explained that seat belts are required in driver positions although there is no law mandating the driver to use the belt, even when his operators manual tells him to do so. Mr. Hilton said that regulation will be written, it will take 3 mos. to a year for law to be passed.

I hope that your dept can do something in the way of mandating drivers to wear belts. Pa. complies w/ standard 17 on paper yet the most important factor isn't there, the penalty or incentive to wear the belt. I am confident that Mr. Hilton will do all he can to rectify this, but can't help to wonder how many other states are in the same position. As good as standard 17 is, it doesn't mean a thing when not enforced in real life.

I am writing you with hope that you can guide us in the proper direction in enforcing standard 17. Is there anyway presently to interpret current law so that the drive is will have to wear their belts immediately.

Sincerely yours,

Rose Marie Sigismondo

cc: Mr. John a Pachuta Director Bureau Motor Vehicles Pa. Judy Dranov Nat. Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses Rep. William S. Foster Senator Frank O'Connell Senator H. John Heinz Congressman Joseph McDae Senator Arlen Spector Rep. Peter Nostmayer Senator Stewart Greenleaf Doctor G. Strock Superintendent. Delaware Valley School District

Dingmans PTA debates school bus seat belts

[Text Omitted]

ID: 1985-01.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John Humphrey -- Fleet Maintenance Division, U.S. Postal Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John Humphrey General Manager Fleet Maintenance Division Office of Fleet Management United States Postal Service Delivery services Department 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, D.C. 20260-7200

This is in response to your letter of January 15, 1985, to Taylor Vinson of this office asking for a waiver of the maximum height requirement so that the Postal Service may install center stop lamps on its new delivery trucks mounted from 75 to 83 inches above the road surface.

You do not need an exemption in order to install the lamp at the height you desire. First, Standard No. 108 requires the installation of a center high mounted stop lamp on passenger cars only, and not on trucks. Secondly, the 72-inch limitation on stop lamp mounting height imposed by Standard No. 108 for stop lamps applies only to the stop lamps that are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline. There is no limitation on the mounting height of the center lamp, when required on a vehicle, or prohibition against mounting it above 72 inches on a vehicle that is not required to have it.

We appreciate the interest of the Postal Service in reducing rear end accidents but would like to point out that the efficacy of the lamp on vehicle other than passenger cars is unknown. Our studies showed that the lamp was most effective at the approximate eye height of the driver in a following vehicle, and also as an alert to the driver behind who saw the highmounted light through the intervening car. Thus, the Postal Service with its lights mounted above the rear door should not expect its vehicles in service necessarily to replicate this agency's test experience.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 15, 1985

Mr. Taylor Vinson, Legal Counsel Room 5219 - FMVSS - 108 NHTSA - U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

The U.S. Postal Service is in the process of testing and procuring a new Long Life Vehicle (LLV). These vehicles are light delivery trucks and will be used primarily for residential mail delivery and collection and will replace the vehicle (Jeep) presently used for this function.

In the interest of safety we have required a high center mounted brake light on these units. Since the units will be slightly larger than the current vehicle the high mounted brake light will exceed the maximum of seventy-two (72) inches from the roadway as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Part 511, 108 Table IV Location of Required Equipment.

Due to the configuration of the proposed LLV the center mounted stop lamp will be between 78 and 83 inches from the roadway at curb weight. I have enclosed a photo of the three units we are currently testing, so that you might have a better understanding of the stop lamp location.

We are requesting a waiver to this requirement to permit placement of a center mounted stop lamp on these vehicles. Your assistance will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Mr. John Humphrey General Manager Fleet Maintenance Division Office of Fleet Management

ID: 1985-01.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bernt Svensson -- Marketing Director, Viskafors Gummifabrik AB

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bernt Svensson Marketing Director Viskafors Gummifabrik AB Box 2059 S-515 02 Viskafors SWEDEN

This responds to your letter to Ms. Kathleen DeMeter of my staff, asking for information on how to get a new temporary spare tire size included in the tire tables following Standard No. 109 New Pneumatic Tires --Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.109). The agency rescinded tire tables in Standard No. 109 in a final rule published at 46 FR 61473; December 17, 1981. I have enclosed a copy of that rule together with a current copy of Standard No. 109 for your records.

Section S4.4.1 requires tire manufacturers to provide a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire size it produces. Section S4.2.1(c) requires a tire's load rating to be the load rating for that size specified in a submission under S4.4.1. This may be provided by the manufacturer in a document furnished to each of the manufacturer' s dealers, to this agency, and to the public upon request. Alternatively, the manufacturer may use the data for that tire size shown in a current publication of one of the standardization organizations listed in S4.4.1(b). Your company will have to use one of these two means of complying with this requirement, instead of relying on the tire tables, as was formerly done.

The current publication of the American standardization organization (the Tire & Rim Association) shows no listing for the tire size about which you inquired. It is possible that the size is listed by one of the other standardization organizations. If not, you should either get the size listed by the standardization organization of your choosing or submit the data directly to this agency, all your dealers and the public, upon request.

Should you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

1985-02-01 U.S. Department of Transportation M/MA2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.S. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 U S A

Att.: Mrs. Kathleen DeMeter

Dear Mrs. DeMeter,

From your files you may record that we are a producer of tires having the plant code VV.

We are in the process of manufacturing a spare tire for one of our clients in Sweden and would kindly ask for your advice and information as to the following points:

In the MVSS 109 regulation there are several sizes listed under the heading "T-series" 60 psi tires.

Due to various technical reasons we are considering one particular size which as far as we know is not listed namely T 125/90 R 15. (We understand that "D"-bias and "R"-radial are equal alternatives.

In connection with this we have the following questions:

Is T 125/90 "D" alt. "R" 15 now recorded in the latest edition of MVSS 109. If so could you please send us this edition showing all required data or alternatively the specific data for this tire as a complement to the MVSS 109 needed to consider and meet the USA legal requirements.

If you are not familiar with this particular size in the "T-series" range could you please advise us how we should proceed to have this tire recorded and recognized.

We would appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to your early response.

Very truly yours, VISKAFORS AB

Bernt Svensson Marketing Director

ID: 1985-01.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Giorgio Kirchner Federazione Italiana Fuoristrada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. Giorgio Kirchner Segreteria Generale Federazione Italiana Fuoristrada 20131 Milano Via Capranica, 4 ITALY

Dear Mr. Kirchner:

This responds to your letter asking for information about U.S. Federal laws covering tires. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a letter I sent to a Brazilian tire manufacturer last year, explaining all of the requirements which must be satisfied by a foreign manufacturer selling tires in the United States and enclosing copies of the pertinent regulations.

You stated that you were particularly interested in knowing the meanings and the corresponding values of identification symbols required to appear an sidewalls of tires subject to Standard No. 119. You listed as examples of symbols you were interested in load range and "P.R."

The load range is a letter between "A" and "N", with an A being the lowest load range and N being the highest. Load ranges are designed to tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars because such tires may have identical physical dimensions and, therefore, identical size designations, but widely differing load-carrying capabilities. To ensure that these tires are used only in situations where their load-carrying capability is sufficient, section S6.5(j) of Standard No. 119 requires a letter designating the load range to appear on the sidewall of each tire for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. If you are interested in learning the load-carrying capability of the load ranges assigned to a particular tire size, you should contact one of the standardization organizations listed in section S5.1(b) of the enclosed copy of Standard No. 119.

I believe that the symbol "P.R." refers to the ply rating for a tire. The ply rating is an older system which performed the same function now served by the load range. Under the ply rating system, tires were rated from 2 to 24 plies, with the lower numbers indicating a lesser load-carrying capability. Standard No. 119 does not require that a ply rating appear on the sidewall of tires. I have enclosed a copy of a page from the most recent yearbook published by the American standardization organization, the Tire a Rim Association, which shows how to convert a ply rating to the appropriate load range.

If you need further information or have any questions on the enclosed materials, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 407 7th St. S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20580 (Stati Uniti)

Milano, 27.12.84

Re : U.S. Federal Laws covering Tires

Dear Sirs,

We should like to receive information covering the above mentioned U.S. Federal Laws and the one named FMVSS119.

We are particularly interested in knowing the readings (and the corresponding values) of identification symbols carried on tire sidewalls, i.e.:

Load Range, P.R., etc.

We thank you for your assistance.

We remain Yours faithfully Federazione Italiana Fuoristrada Segreteria Generale Giorgio Kirchner

ID: 1985-01.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Horiyoshi Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Horiyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

Dear Mr. Horiyoshi:

This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it would apply to a contemplated parking lamp system.

Usually passenger cars are designed with two parking lamps, one on each side of the vehicle front. Mazda would have two such lamps on each vehicle side, each of the two lamps flanking the headlamp. You have asked whether, in determining the H-V axis, one takes the axis as the center of each lamp, or should one consider the pair a single device and place the H-V axis at the midpoint between them.

Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be equipped with a minimum of two parking lamps, located "as far apart as practicable." Therefore, the outermost parking lamp, (the one located between the turn signal lamp and the headlamp) is the lamp that must meet the parking lamp requirements of Standard No. 108, and the H-V axis for purposes of compliance would be determined at the center of the lens of that lamp. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 and does not have to meet the standard's requirements, but it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Because of the difference in candela between parking lamps and headlamps, information available to us does not indicate that your supplementary parking lamp would have this effect, and consequently, the design would be permitted.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hiroshi Shimizu

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 19, 1984, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You noted that section S4.1(e) of the standard provides that "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant. . . ." [Emphasis added]. You asked whether the standard would permit a seat belt assembly with two buckles as shown in the schematic attached to your letter. The answer is that while Standard No. 209 would permit such an assembly, whether such an assembly can be installed in a particular vehicle is determined by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Standard No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protection of occupants in a crash. Section S4.1.2.3.1 provides that Type 2 lap and shoulder belt systems used in passenger cars must have a nondetachable shoulder belt. Likewise, S4.2.2 provides that certain trucks and buses with Type 2 belts must have a nondetachable shoulder belt. The belt system you illustrated in your diagram consists of one continuous loop of webbing which serves as both the lap and shoulder belt. However, your design provides a separate buckle for the shoulder anchorage and thus an occupant could release the shoulder buckle and use the belt solely as a lap belt. Thus, we would not consider your design to have a nondetachable shoulder belt.

In addition, section S7.2 of the standard sets requirements for the latch mechanism of non-automatic seat belt assemblies used in passenger cars and certain trucks and buses. Section S7.2(c) requires that the latch mechanism used in those vehicles must release at a single point. Therefore, a two buckle system could not be used in those vehicles.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 19, 1984

Diane Steed -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

This is to ask for your confirmation that a design of seat belt assembly having two buckles is allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209.

Section S4.1(e) of the standard sets forth "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant . . . . .". Based on that provision, we believe that FMVSS 209 permits such a seat belt design as shown in the schematic enclosed as long as they meet all the applicable provisions in the regulation.

We should appreciate your confirmation letter.

Very truly yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.;

Hiroshi Shimizu, Asst. Manager -- Overseas Operations Dept.

Encl.

(Graphics omitted)

Schematic of Seat Belt Assembly having Two Buckles