ID: nht79-4.44

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Montgomery Tire Service Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1979, with respect to your wish to import used truck tire casings for the purposes of recapping. You have been advised in a telephone conversation with our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that there are two ways to do this: the casings must bear DOT markings, or be accompanied by some proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975, the effective date of the truck tire standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. You believe that this is impossible and have requested our advice.

There is an additional solution whose feasibility we will leave to your determination. While Section 108(a)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as we interpret it, prohibits the importation of used truck tires that do not comply with Standard No. 119, Section 108(b)(3) (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)) allows their importation under bond "to insure that any such [tire] will be brought into conformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard" (The corresponding provision of the importation regulation is 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(3)). Since the agency presently has no standard that applies to the retreading of truck tires, the applicable standard would be that in effect when the tire was new - Standard No. 119. Thus, if Montgomery Tire Service can demonstrate that its retreaded truck tires conform to Standard No. 119, and are willing to affix a DOT symbol to each tire as certification of that fact, your casings may enter the country under bond as provided for in 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(3), releasable when upon an affirmation of compliance to Standard No. 119.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Montgomery Tire Service, Inc.

April 26, 1979

National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

Chief Counsel

Subject: Interpretation of existing ruling on importing worn (used) truck tire casings.

Sirs:

Having recently imported from England a shipment of used truck tire casings (tires worn smooth) for the purposes of recapping, we are now told we cannot use these casings.

This was brought to light by John S. Conner, Inc. of Baltimore, acting as brokers for this incoming shipment. It was brought to their attention by newly installed D.O.T. form #HS-7 which they were not familiar with prior to this time.

Having personal knowledge of these casings having been entering this country and having been recapped by other retreaders throughout the U. S. for quite a lengthy period of time we ask your indulgence in our first venture of this nature. As a point of information; I might say that the quality of these casings is much superior to their American made counterpart.

In phone conversation with Mr. George Shifflett of your Department, Mr. Shifflett informed me that the casings have to fall in either one of two categories; that is, (#1) having to have D.O.T. markings, or (#2) information to the fact that they were manufactured prior to March 1, 1975, the date Standard #119 took effect. This is nigh onto impossible.

Needless to say, we would appreciate your indulgence in clarifying this matter; as we have quite an investment involved, and I'm sure customs have time limits before penalties are imposed.

Assuring you of our proper intent, and not choosing to interpret a ruling of which we have no knowledge, we are holding these casing in our warehouse awaiting an interpretive ruling from yourselves concerning our using and recapping said casings.

Awaiting your reply, I remain,

Sincerely,

Raymond L. Smallwood Retread Plant Manager

C.C.: ORION YOUNG -- John S. Conner, Inc.;

Ref. #111755

ID: nht79-4.45

DATE: 01/11/79

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

TO: Grumman Flxible

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

JAN 11 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. L. Ratz, P.E. Product Safety Engineering Grumman Flxible 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43015

Dear Mr. Ratz:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1978, asking whether the front and rear clearance lamps on your Model 870 Urban transit coach comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The front clearance lamps on the Model 870 are combined with the turn signal lamps, side marker lamps, and side reflex reflectors. The units are located "on line with and just outboard of each rectangular headlamp," with lens center 32 inches above the road surface, at a point that appears to be at the vehicle's overall width. The rear clearance lamps are combined with the stop lamps and rear side marker lamps, their horizontal center lines 64 inches above the road surface, at approximately the vehicle's overall width. Front and rear identification lamps are mounted at the top of the vehicle.

The general rule expressed by Table II of Standard No. 108 is that clearance lamps must be mounted "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle ... and as near the top thereof as practicable." But a partial exception is provided by S4.3.1.4.: When the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle."

This means that the mid-body location of the rear clearance lamp is acceptable since the rear identification lamps are at the extreme height of the vehicle. But the exception does not extend to the front clearance lamps. While Standard No. 108 allows the manufacturer to determine what location is "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle", there will be instances when the overall width of the vehicle will not be indicated by the highest location. In such instances the best location will be the one that most closely approximates the intent behind the requirement - to indicate the overall width.

Specifically with reference to the Model 870, it appears to us that the close proximity of the combination lamp to the headlamp may result in the effectiveness of the clearance lamp being impaired by the brightness of the headlamp, and that the most practicable location sufficiently indicating the overall width of the vehicle, would be at the outer edges of the body directly below the windshield.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel

GRUMMAN FLXIBLE 970 PITTSBURGH DRIVE DELAWARE, OHIO 43015 614/369-7671 Telex : 245484 70-0220rlr

December 8, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

References: (a) FMVSS No. 108. Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, current edition. (b) Grumman flxible Model 870 Advanced Design Transit Coach, photographs attached. (c) Certificates of conformance copies attached.

Dear Sirs:

Your assistance is requested with respect to an official interpretation of reference (a) above as it relates to the installation location of the clearance lamps on our new Grumnan Flxible Model 870 urban transit coach as shown in the enclosed photographs.

Refering to Photograph #1, the amber lamp seen on line with and just outboard of each dual, rectangular headlamp is a combination lamp which performs the functions of a turn signal lamp, a clearance lamp, a sidemarker lamp and a side reflex reflector. The lamp contains a single, dual-filament bulb. A 3 c.p. filament provides the light source for the combination clearance/sidemarker lamp functions. and a 32 c.p. filament provides the light source for the front turn signal function. This lamp has been certified as being in conformance with FMVSS No. 108 by the manufacturer (See Attachment #1) and certificates of approval have been issued by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (See Attachment #2) and the Department of California Highway Patrol (See Attachment #3). These lamps are mounted with lense centers 32 inches above road surface, on the outermost edges of the vehicle front view envelope thus indicating the overall width of the Model 870. It should be noted from Photo #1 that the vehicle sides converge from a point just beneath the baseline of the windshield up to the topmost roof corners. The amount of this convergence is such that each roof corner is eleven inches inboard if the base of the windshield cornerpost. Therefore, clearance lamps mounted at the top-most roof corners would identify the vehicle as being twenty-two inches narrower than it actually is.

Our rear exterior lamp configuration is shown in Photo #4. The upper red lamp on each outer edge of the rear view functions as a stop signal lamp, a clearance lamp and a sidemarker lamp. The horizontal center line of this lamp as installed is 64 inches above road surface. The lower red lamp functions as a tail lamp, a turn signal lamp, rear reflex reflector and a side reflex reflector. It's horizontal center line as intalled is 50 inches above road surface. Each lamp contains a single, dual-filament 3 c.p. & 32 c.p.) bulb. The stop signal and turn signal functions utilize the 32 c.p. filament. The clearance, sidemarker and tail lamp functions utilize the 32 c.p. filament.

The white lamp shown between the two red lamps on each side are backup lamps. Attachments #4, #5 and #6 are copies of the certificates associated with these lamp units.

We would greatly appreciate a review and evaluation by the Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, of the installation locations of the clearance lamps on the Model 870 bus as regards to conformance with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

Sincerely,

R.L. Ratz, P.E.

Product Safety Engineering

Enclosures

ID: nht79-4.46

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: LEO BACHYNSKY -- R.E. DIETZ COMPANY

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/01/79, FROM FRANK BERND -- NHTSA TO LEO BACHYNSKY; OPINION BOOK; STANDARD 108, A17

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Our company is presently developing a new product and is in need of a clarification concerning the legality of the proposed product as it pertains to FMVSS 108.

Briefly, the device is a bi-directional Emergency Vehicle Warning Lamp consisting of two 7-1/2 inch diameter lenses. The lenses contain a 5/8 inch wide band of reflex reflector around their periphery. The two lenses are locked to a mounting flange by a special locking feature and two screws. When mounted, the device will have one lens facing to the front of the vehicle and the other to the rear. The device is to be supplied in a variety of colors, red, yellow, blue, and can be used in either a steady or flashing state.

We manufacture a similar device less the reflex reflector area and previous sales data indicates the majority of the market for this type of device is for tow trucks and utility company vehicles.

We are aware of the fact that Emergency Warning Lamps are not regulated by FMVSS 108 or any other Federal standard, but rather our questions concern the reflex reflector area in the device.

The areas that need clarification with respect to our application are the following:

1. Paragraph S.4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 - "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by this standard."

Does this Paragraph S.4.1.3. restrict the use of the reflex reflector in our proposed device as imparing effectiveness of required equipment?

2. Do Tables 1-4 of FMVSS 108 "Required Equipment for Motor Vehicles" and "Locations of Required Equipment" restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear of the vehicle?

An early reply will be appreciated.

Enclosed is our blueprint of the subject device and an advertising poster showing exact application of the intended device.

Sincerely,

Enclosure (2)

ID: nht79-4.47

DATE: 10/16/79

FROM: EDWIN F. RIEDEL -- COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BLANCHE KOZAK; REDBOOK A33 (2); VSA 108 [A] [1] [A]; LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 03/29/89 FROM CHESTER G. ATKINS -- HOUSE TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT, RE MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM BLANCHE KOZAK TO BERRY FELRICE; REPORT UNDATED; LETTER DATED 08/09/88 FROM BLANCHE G. KOZAK TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Re: Lawrence General Hospital, 1 General Street Lawrence, Massachusetts 01842 Reg. #TX6539, issued 10-16-79 1976 Cushman, Police vehicle with enclosed cab

V.I. #501081

A three wheeled vehicle with enclosed cab is by definition of law not a motorcycle and therefore the operator of[Illegible Word] is not required to be licensed for motorcycles.

Yours truly,

[Please be informed the above unit is not enclosed since it does not have doors.

Blanche G. Kizak]

ID: nht79-4.48

DATE: 07/20/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA, DOT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: J. C. ECKHOLD -- FORD MOTOR COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 5/23/79 FROM J. C. ECKHOLD OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO JOAN B. CLAYBROOK OF NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Eckhold:

This is in response to your letter of May 23, 1979, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. Specifically, you requested a clarification of Section 5.3.3 which states that each tell-tale and its identification must be "visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions." You indicated that under certain conditions the intensity and color characteristics of sun lighting could cause transitory reflections that obscure either the intensity or color, or both, of the tell-tale.

It is the interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the manufacturer must manufacture a tell-tale with a light intensity that ensures visibility under the most adverse general lighting conditions. This means that the tell-tales and their identification need not be visible to the driver when the tell-tales are struck by direct sunlight. Since conditions such as these are typically short-lived, the NHTSA does not believe that the length of time the driver may be unable to view the tell-tales is significant enough to warrant requiring the manufacturer to prevent their occurrence.

Sincerely,

ID: nht79-4.49

DATE: 05/23/79

FROM: J. C. ECKHOLD DIRECTOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY OFFICE

TO: JOAN B. CLAYBROOK -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF DAYLIGHT CONDITIONS FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 101-80; CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS (DOCKET NO. 1-18; NOTICE 13)

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7/20/79 [EST] FROM FRANK BERNDT, CHIEF COUNSEL OF NHTSA TO J. C. ECKHOLD OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY

TEXT: In considering various aspects of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80 (43 Fed. Reg. 27541, dated June 26, 1978) Ford Motor Company (Ford) seeks clarification of certain portions of Section 5.3.3.

That portion of Section 5.3.3 for which Ford seeks clarification reads in pertinent part:

". . . The light intensity of each tell-tale shall not be variable and shall be such that, when activated, that tell-tale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. . . ." (Emphasis added.)

Ford testing experience indicates that under certain possible, but infrequent, morning or evening sun lighting conditions the angle, intensity and color characteristics of sun lighting may cause transitory reflection characteristics that obscure either the intensity or color, or both, of the required tell-tale indicators at times when the angle of reflected sunlight is virtually the same as the viewing angle of the driver.

Because tell-tale illumination level may not be variable, tell-tale intensity must represent a compromise between daytime and nighttime visibility requirements.

Ford suggests that consideration be given to issuing clarifying language to specify that the situations as described are not intended to be included in the requirement that tell-tale indicators must be visible under all daytime and nighttime conditions.

Your early consideration of this request will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht79-4.5

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the proper "designated seating capacity" for three hypothetical seat designs. You ask whether each of the designs would be permitted to have only two "designated seating positions."

The amended definition of "designated seating position" provides, in part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating. Your three hypothetical designs are derived from a basic seat design having 52 inches of hip room (Figure 1 in your letter). This basic design would be required to have three designated seating positions since it has greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless the center position cannot be used because of some obstruction or other impediment. You ask whether the agency would consider the three hypothetical designs illustrated in your letter to adequately establish impediments to use of the center position.

Your "Figure 2" illustrates an unpadded depression at the center position of the bench seat. Since this center depression is unpadded, 3.1 inches deep and 6.7 inches wide, it is the agency's opinion that the center position lacks an essential attribute of a seating position and would not likely be used for seating (even though there might be some unorthodox use of the position from time to time). If a seat of this design is equipped with seat belt assemblies, location of assembly hardware in the center depression would further clarify that the area is not a seating position. It must be emphasized, however, that designs of this type would be required to have three designated seating positions if the depth and width of the depression is so minimal that a person could easily straddle the depression and use the center position. Also, stiffness of seat belt assembly hardware located in the center depression becomes a more determinative factor the more narrow the width of such a depression.

The seat design illustrated in "Figure 3" of your letter includes a "partition pipe" at the center of the seat cushion. Whether such a design would preclude the use of the center position would depend greatly on the physical dimensions and characteristics of the "pipe" that is used and whether it is removable. If the "pipe" were made of soft, pliable padding similar to the other portions of the seat, for example, the "pipe" might not be sufficient to discourage use of the center position. Since your letter provides no information on the nature of the "partition pipe" that is illustrated, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design.

In "Figure 4," there is a padded "swelling" in the center seat position. Although the Figure specifies a height of 3.9 inches at the front of the "swelling," it appears that the "swelling" slants down toward the seat back so that it is only about one-half inch high where it joins the seat back. The illustration also does not describe whether the "swelling" is made of soft padding or of some rigid material. Without this information, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design. I would point out, however, that if the "swelling" is made of soft, flexible padding, it would not likely discour age use of the center position. In fact, if as it appears the "swelling" slants down to the seat back to create a "saddle effect," young children might be encouraged to use this center position.

To summarize, it is the agency's opinion that "Figure 2" in your letter illustrates a seat design that could qualify as having two designated seating positions. Regarding Figures 3 and 4, your letter did not include sufficient information for the agency to provide an opinion. On the basis of the information that was provided, however, I would say that these two designs are very dubious and do not indicate an adequate attempt on the part of the manufacturer to clarify that the center position is not to be used. It does not behoove a manufacturer to attempt to come narrowly within the meaning of the amended definition of "designated seating position." It would be much wiser to make sure that there is no question that the center position is not to be used. In the design illustrated in your "Figure 4," for example, you could easily design the "swelling" to be 4 or more inches tall from front to rear and made of a rigid material, and there would be no question concerning your compliance.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

August 13, 1979

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to ask you for your interpretations concerning FMVSS "Designated Seating Position". Final Rule, issued on April 19, 1979 in the Federal Register.

At the NHTSA/Industry meeting in June, NHTSA said that if manufacturers have close questions as to whether or not there must be two or three designated seating positions in their particular configuration of the vehicle and seat, they may send NHTSA their letter concerning this matter. Therefore, we would like to as (Illegible Word) your interpretations as to whether there may be able to be only two designated seating positions in the seat configurations of our Questions (a), (b) and (c), which are derived from the basic seat (shown in Figure 1). Because we need to start designing our 1981 model seats, your prompt answers will be appreciated. Please treat our material as confidential.

Request withdrawn 8/31/79

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

ENC.

cc: HUGH OATES. RALPH HITCHCOCK; GUY HUNTER

Questions

Do you consider the following seat configurations (a) (b) and (c) to be two designated seating positions which are derived from the basic seat (as shown in Figure 1)?

Figure 1

Note: There is a hard board covered with vinyl-chloride leather on the bottom of the depression with a 3.1 inch depth at the center of the seat cushion.

(Graphics omitted)

Note: There is a partition pipe at the center of the seat cushion.

Figure 3

Note: At the center of the seat cushion, there is a 3.9 inch swelling.

Figure 4

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-4.50

DATE: 03/28/79

FROM: D. J. ARNOLD -- VESELY COMPANY DIRECTOR OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

TO: FREDERIC SCHWARTZ -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schwartz:

With issuance of Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8, relating to Vehicle Identification Numbers I must assume the NHTSA is getting closer to "finalizing" FMVSS No. 115 notwithstanding the VIN litigation upcoming in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As such, and in follow-up to my several letters and telephone conversation with you on January 9, 1979 I am again requesting official NHTSA written replies to these as soon as possible to enable our small company to try and comply with the Federal requirements.

To date, I have not received approval of our requested first three digit assignments (letter of October 30, 1978) as required by the standard and I have not received written permission to utilize digits 12 and 13 for our own in-house use (letter of December 11, 1978). Further, I have never received an official answer to my letter to President Carter other than a post card from Secretary Adams saying he will be replying.

All in all, not much action to help our company comply with these Federal mandates. If our company is going to be able to meet the effective date of September 1, 1980 we must have some answers now! Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8 has done nothing to alleviate or reduce this company's burden as I interpret the impact of it. Since we not only manufacture motor homes (MPV's) but recreational trailers as well, we must institute this 17 digit system even though the chassis manufacturer would assign his VIN. We cannot stay with our current VIN system for one product and change to a completely different VIN system for our other products.

Your replies will be anxiously awaited to enable us to continue the necessary work to comply with FMVSS 115 as it now stands by the effective date of September 1, 1980.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht79-4.51

DATE: 01/01/79 EST

FROM: NHTSA

TO: DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN -- ADMINISTRATOR, VEHICLE REGULATIONS VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: A78; STANDARD 115

TEXT: Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the term "restraint system type" as contained in Table I of S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. In addition, this is in confirmation of Volkswagen's statement of the conclusions reached in the meeting with Messrs. Carson, Parker and Schwartz of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The agency has carefully considered your request that "restraint system type" not be interpreted to require a distinction between active and passive belt systems. The agency must deny your request. As the introduction of mandatory passive restraints approaches, information concerning restraint system type is of exceptional importance to the agency. It is important not only to evaluate the overall effectiveness of passive restraints, but also to determine the effectiveness of the various types of passive restraint system types. Consequently, it is necessary that passive belt systems be differentiated from other restraint system types by decoding the vehicle identification number (VIN).

The agency has also considered the alternative Volkswagen suggested which is to submit this information separately to the agency on a magnetic tape. Motor vehicle safety research is carried out by many organizations aside from the NHTSA, however, and Standard No. 115 is intended to make information available to these other researchers as well. Consequently, the agency can not accept the alternative you suggest.

ID: nht79-4.52

DATE: 09/13/79

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Market Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Dave Schmeltzer of this office dated August 11, 1971.

In your letter you ask to be advised if it would be permissible under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574) to use your own form, instead of the form supplied by the tire manufacturer, to report the required information to the tire manufacturer.

The regulation does not expressly provide that you must use the form supplied by the tire manufacturer to record the required information. However, from the manufacturer's point of view using a form other than the one he supplied would cause double work and extra expense. As the regulation is presently written this would be a matter between you and the manufacturer.

The problem you describe has been brought to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's attention and methods of giving dealers who handle many different tire manufacturer's lines some relief are presently being considered.

THANK YOU FOR WRITING.