ID: nht87-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SIDNEY A. GARRETT -- PRESIDENT, BROWN CARGO VAN INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM SIDNEY A. GARRETT TO TAYLOR VINSON, OCC 16580

TEXT: Dear Mr. Garrett:

This is in reply to your letter of June 29, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108. You state that you are a manufacturer of truck van bodies. With respect to intermediate si de market lamps and reflectors, you state that you are currently "installing lights on our upper rail and reflectors just above the lower rail". You have asked whether you are installing lights and reflectors on the front of each side that are unnecessa ry under current Federal regulations.

The requirements of Standard No. 108 come into effect only when a truck chassis is completed with the addition of the van body. Front side markets and reflectors on a truck must be located as far forward as practicable. This is generally in the front f ender area, and not on the front edge of the van body. Thus, we think you are correct in concluding that the front lights and reflectors you install are unnecessary.

You have also asked "whether compliance with Federal regulations constitutes compliance with the various States' regulations. . . ." As a practical matter, the answer is yes. Under the Act, a State may have its own requirements for the number and locati on of side marker lamps and reflectors but they must be identical to Federal requirements. Once you comply with the Federal requirements for side market lamps and reflectors you cannot be in noncompliance with any State requirement that may differ, beca use the Act prohibits States from having requirements that differ from those of Standard No. 108.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely

ID: nht87-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hiroshi Kato -- Assistant Vice President, Technical, WC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous (Part 581); 12/1/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H. Nakaya, Mazda, Inc.

TEXT:

Mr. Hiroshi Kato Assistant Vice President, Technical WC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

This responds to your letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you sought my confirmation of a previous interpretation I sent to you. The issue is the classification of a new mini-van for the purposes of our safety and bumper standards. I stated in a july 2 8, 1987 interpretation to your company that, based on the information you had provided, this new mini-van could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the mini-van's chassis cou ld be considered a truck chassis Has based on information you had provided showing that the chassis design and construction Has more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis.

In response to this letter, you sent me another letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you stated that my previous interpretation by have been based on the erroneous belief that you were going to introduce a cargo version of this mini-van into the United States, and that this cargo version would have a chassis that was substantially reinforced as compared with the chassis on a passenger version of this mini-van.

My previous interpretation Has based on the fact that the mini-van you will introduce into the United States is built on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the chassis can properly be characterized as a truck chassis has based on the facts that the chas sis has a heavier-duty rear suspension and longitudinal members and a 25 percent higher gross vehicle weight rating than the sedan version of this vehicle. Assuming that these understandings are accurate, because nothing in your August 3 letter indicates they were inaccurate, the agency's position was accurately expressed in my July 28, 1987 letter to your company.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 3, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is a letter to confirm your response dated July 28, 1987 (attached II) to our letter seeking an interpretation (attached I) as to whether a new mini van will be classified as a "Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle" for the purposes of the FMVSS and the bumper standards. Because it seems to me that you may misunderstand our statement, I will illustrate our statement and ask your interpretation again as soon as possible.

The component reinforced for commercial vehicle

o rear suspension changed

o rear floorpan and longitudinal members are changed o GM + 300kg

o the flat cargo floor

o the roof raised for cargo

o the end of the cargo floor, no stepped up cross rail

MMC is going to launch Vehicle 3 in U.S. market as MPV. Vehicle 3 & 1 have been sold in Japan as passenger car and Vehicle 2 as van. MMC is asking that, although Vehicle 3 has been sold as wagon in Japan, Vehicle 3 should be classified to be MPV. Because Vehicle 3 has the same chassis and body

(continued)

construction as Vehicle 2 (Van), and Vehicle 2 is developed to withstand the commercial use criteria changing rear suspension, rear floor pan configuration, longitudinal members, GM and roof configuration, etc. from Vehicle l (Sedan). Therefore, Vehicle 3 is considered to have truck chassis...

NHTSA' s understanding

We presume that you misunderstand our statements as follows after reading your response.

However, Vehicle 2 has the same construction as Vehicle 3 and there is no fact that vehicle 2 is substantially reinforced from Vehicle 3 as mentioned before.

MMC's request

Therefore, could you re-examine our statement and give us your interpretation on Vehicle 3's classification as soon as possible. We do believe that Vehicle 3 should be classified as an MPV because Vehicle 3 has the truck chassis although MMC is responsib le for the proof that this Vehicle 3 has a truck chassis.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (313) 355-5444.

Sincerely yours,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Hiroshi Kato

HK/xsg Assistant Vice President, Technical Attached: I: MMC Services letter to NHTSA II: NHTSA's response letter

See 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous.

ID: nht87-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/06/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Deborah L. Brown

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ms. Deborah L. Brown Office Manager Callaway Engineering 3 High Street Old Lyme, CT 06371

Dear Ms. Brown:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation of your understanding of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as it relates to convertibles. You asked that we verify your understanding in two specific areas. These were:

1. NHTSA has decided to exempt convertibles from the automatic restraint requirements set forth in Standard No. 208 for passenger cars during the phase-in period (September 1, 1986 to August 31, 1989).

This statement is correct. In a final rule published October 17, 1986 (51 FR 37028: copy enclosed), the agency announced its decision to exempt convertibles from the automatic restraint requirements for passenger cars during the phase-in period. In a sub sequent notice terminating further rulemaking on this subject, the agency announced its decision to retain the automatic restraint requirements for convertibles manufactured on or after the first day after the end of the phase-in period, i.e., September 1, 1989 (52 FR 10122, March 30, 1987; copy enclosed). Thus, convertibles manufactured on or after that date will be subject to the same requirements as all other passenger cars.

You also asked about the exact requirements for restraints in convertibles. Prior to September 1, 1989, convertibles must comply with the requirements of section @4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208. However, convertible manufacturers may, at their option, cho ose to certify that convertibles manufactured before September 1, 1989, comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in section @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. After September 1, 1989, Standard No. 208 draws no distinction between convertible s and other passenger cars. Section @4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 provides that all passenger cars, including convertibles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the automatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1, unless section @4.1.1 is rescinded pursuant to @4.1.5.

2. A manufacturer does not have to count convertibles as part of its passenger car production volume when determining its annual production during the phase-in period.

This statement is also correct. The October 17, 1986 amended Standard No. 208 and 49 CFR Part 585, Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting, to explicitly provide that manufacturers may exclude their production of convertibles that do not comply with the a utomatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208 from the calculation and reporting of annual production during the phase-in period.

If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

July 6, 1987

Passive Restrains Department of Transportation 400 7th St. SW Washington, DC 20590

Subject:

Passive Restraints - Verification of Legislation

Re: Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 (Docket No 74-14; Notice 47)

Occupant Crash Protection and Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting.

Federal Register/Vol 51, No 201/Friday October 17, 1986. Would you kindly verify the following in writing for our records: 1. NHTSA has decided to adopt a exemption from the automatic restraint requirement for convertibles. The exemption to apply during the phase-in period.

2. A manufacturer does not have to count convertibles as part of its passenger car production volume when it is calculating its phase-in requirements.

Also, please include the exact requirements regarding restraints for convertibles, i.e. type of system required ad when the system is required.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely yours,

Deborah L. Brown Office Manager

ID: nht87-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/7/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Tom George

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Tom George P.O. BOX 475 Howard, KS 67349

Dear Mr. George:

Secretary Dole has asked me to respond to your letter to her, in which you asked why we believe it is necessary to have laws mandating the use of safety belts. You stated that you believe a public education campaign about safety belt use would have been sufficient. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our position to you.

During thy past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year, an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic deaths and injuries have resulted in an annual cost to society of approximat ely 57 billion dollars resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenue.

Numerous analysis have shown that safety belts reduce fatalities by 40-50 percent and reduce serious injuries by 45-55 percent. I have enclosed copies of a safety belt face sheet and several pamphlets we have published explaining how and why safety belts are so effective. Because of the extensive body of evidence about the effectiveness of safety belts, the United States Supreme Court has said, "We start with the accepted ground that, if used, seatbelts unquestionably would have many thousands of lives and would prevent tens of thousands of crippling injuries."

This Department and other groups tried many public education efforts to make these facts known to the public, with the anticipation that more people would use safety belts when they knew the facts. Despite these efforts, the rate of usage for safety belt s did not change substantially from what it had been in 1967. As recently as 1983, the overall safety belt usage rate for front seat occupants Has only slightly above 12 percent.

This trend suggested that public education campaign alone would not substantially reduce unnecessary deaths and injuries on our highways. In an effort to protect their citizens by substantially reducing vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and to reduce the financial burden on their taxpayers, 29 Stated and the District of Columbia have enacted safety belt use laws. I want to emphasize that each of these state legislatures made their own decisions with respect to safety belt use laws. This Department ne ither has nor seeks any authority to withhold. Federal funds if states do not adopt or repeal safety belt use laws. We do, however, believe that safety belt use laws are more than justified by the possibility of achieving substantial reductions in vehicl e-related deaths and injuries, and reducing the financial burden on thy taxpayers. The available data show that among front seat occupants, safety belts saved about 2,200 lives in 1986, and 1,750 of those lives were saved in States that have safety belt use laws.

We agree with you, however, that safety belt use laws alone may not ensure long-term increased usage of safety belts. Simply requiring persons to wear their safety belts does not get to the heart of the problem of non-usage: lack of knowledge and negativ e attitudes regarding occupant restraints. experience has shown that a combination of usage requirements and information and education campaigns are the most effective way to get more people to wear their safety belts. Therefore, we have continued our pu blic information and education campaigns about safety belts, as has the State of Kansas. As a result of these combined efforts, our most recent data show that the overall safety belt usage rate for front seat occupants is now slightly above 40 percent.

We in the Department of Transportation are committed reducing as much as possible the deaths and injuries on our nation's roads. This mission can only succeed with the cooperation and input of concerned citizens like yourself. Thank you for taking the ti me to express your concerns, and please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns about our programs.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 4, 1987

The Honorable Elizabeth R. Dole Secretary of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mrs. Dole:

My name is Tom George and I am a senior at West Elk High School in Howard, Kansas. I have a few questions to ask you.

Why do you feel it is necessary to make the use of seat belts a law? I understand the effectiveness of seat belts in saving lives, but is it necessary to make it mandatory by law? I personally feel public service announcements educating the general public about seat belt use would have been sufficient.

Sincerely yours,

Tom George

Tom George P.O. Box 475 Howard, KS 67345

ID: nht88-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT G. YORKS -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS GROUP, TRUCK-LITE CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 8-1-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO ROBERT G. YORKS, STD 108, REDBOOK A32; ALSO ATTACHED MEMO DATED 5-24-88, TO KATHLEEN DEMETER FROM ROBERT G. YORKS, 25220

TEXT: In a letter dated March 31, 1988, you requested our interpretation as to whether a new motor vehicle device would comply with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You also asked that the description, general design concept, and details of the device be afforded confidential treatment.

Please be informed that this agency requires all of its interpretations to be made publicly available. Hence, you must decide if you still desire a interpretation to be issued in this matter, with the result that the confidential status of the informati on will be compromised. I am prepared to delete any information specifically identifying you or your company from our analysis if you so request, but the substantive information describing the item of motor vehicle equipment will be made part of the pub licly available analysis.

No further action will be taken in this matter until we have received a response from you.

ID: nht88-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 4, 1988

FROM: ROBERT J. KAUFMAN -- GINGOLD, KAUFMAN & CHAIKEN

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: GK&C FILE NO. 1012-271

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-18-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO ROBERT J. KAUFMAN, TITLED: GK & C FILE # 1012-271

TEXT: This law firm represents a Volvo dealership in the State of Georgia, which dealership purchases certain accessory products for the aftersale market. Specifically, one of the products which my client acquires is an armrest to be installed in a Volvo 240 s eries automobile, which product is acquired from a company known as Auto Accessories, Inc., located at P. O. Box 10044, New Iberia, Louisiana 70562. Recently, my client has received a circular from Auto Accessories, Inc., relative to the installation pr ocedure for the "240 armrest", which procedure ostensibly was either approved, mandated or suggested by the Department of Transportation. A copy of the circular is enclosed for your review.

It would greatly be appreciated if you could

furnish to the undersigned a detailing of the specific installation procedures for the "240 armrest". Moreover, it would be appreciated if you would advise the undersigned as to whether these procedures are merely suggested or required.

Of additional concern is the question as to whether the installation procedure which the Department of Transportation has suggested satisfies the "inoperative" or "inaccessible" test as alluded to in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966, Standard No. 208, Section S7.2 and Section 108(A) (2) (a).

Finally, if your office has any additional information relative to this specific accessory, to-wit: the "240 armrest", or anything related to its installation, operation or tests or studies pertaining to it, it would be most helpful if you could furni sh to the undersigned copies of all relevant data. Naturally, we would be more than happy to be invoiced for any costs incurred in the production of these documents.

Obviously, it is my client's firmest desire to provide the utmost in safety to its customers, and, consequently, my client is most desirous of insuring that the accessories which it installs and the method of installation are of the highest caliber an d any information that you could provide to facilitate that endeavor will be received most graciously. Thank you for your kind assistance and cooperation.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-1.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/88

FROM: GARY M. CEAZAN -- RIKEN AMERICA, INC.

TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Attn: Tire Division

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GARY M CEAZAN; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 109, 119; LETTER DATED 02/16/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO MIKE KAIZAKI; STANDARD 119; UNDATED LETTER FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO E.W. DAHL

TEXT: Dear Commissioner:

Riken-America, Inc. is the importer, and national distributor, of Riken Tires for the United States. Riken Tires are manufactured in Japan by Okamoto Industries, Inc., Tokyo, Japan (D.O.T. Code No. ED).

The purpose of this letter is to obtain from your office a ruling on the following question:

...If a tire carries both the E.T.R.T.O. and the I.S.O. size markings, would this tire be considered by U.S. -- D.O.T. as a dual sized tire; and, therefore, not allowed to be sold in the United States?

Specifically, Okamoto Industries, Inc. is currently producing a line of metric size radial tires for sales in both Europe and Japan and both the E.T.R.T.O. and the I.S.O. size markings appear on the tires, at different locations, for example, the size marking 165/80R13 (I.S.O.) appears mid-way on the sidwall, and the size marking, 165R13 (E.T.R.T.O.) appears above the bead (see attached sketch).

Please advise if these tires could be imported into the United States with the size markings mentioned above. You may write to me at Riken-America, Inc., P. O. Box 3698 Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California 90051, or telephone me at 1 (800) 421-1838. Thank you for your consideration of and response to this inquiry.

ID: nht88-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: E. W. Dahl -- Vice President, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/1/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Gary M. Ceazan (Std. 109; Std. 119) 2/16/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Mike Kaizaki 4/18/88 letter from Gary M. Ceazan to U.S. Dot (occ 1951)

TEXT:

Mr. E. W. Dahl Vice President Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

This responds to your letter concerning the tire marking requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether the standard would prohibit the following size designations from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 REPLACES 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5

As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. 119.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1."

As noted by your letter, NHTSA recently provided an interpretation letter to Michelin, dated July 9, 1987, concerning one of the exact sizes included in your request. The agency stated the following:

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical infor mation necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109: 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire si ze.

The tire size marking at issue in the Michelin interpretation differs from your proposed marking in that it did not include the word "replaces." You stated the following:

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

As indicated in our letter to Michelin, the only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. Any practice of us ing dual-size markings has the potential for confusing consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle, since consumers may erroneously believe that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of more than one tire size design ation. For example, a consumer seeing a tire marking that size A replaces size B might erroneously believe that it is appropriate to replace size A with size B.

You cited a 1974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. 109 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR 10162.

I would note several things about the background and subsequent history of that NPRM. The NPRM indicated that despite the clear language in Standard No. 109 that each tire must be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used," NHTSA had previously taken the position in interpretation letters that replacement markings constituted an exception to this requirement. (Emphasis added.) The interpretation letters had not offered any basis for concludi ng that this exception existed. (See June 8, 1971 letter to Mercedes-Benz; January 19, 1972 letter to Kelly-Springfield; March 2, 1973 letter to Samperit.)

The NPRM sought to "clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109, to allow, subject to certain conditions, the labeling of replacement tire size designations." However, the NPRM was not adopted as a final rule. We also note that while the 1971-7 2 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, 1980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. 109 prohibited replacement markings.

NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. 119 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, 1987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. 119 prohibits a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if the word "replaces" is used.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure August 12, 1987 Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter concerns the tire marking requirements of FMVSS 119, section S6.5(c), the tire size designation. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company wishes to mark three sizes of wide base super single tires whose size designations are being changed from conv entional inch-based markings to metric-based markings. We propose to use, for a transitional period, the format: "METRIC SIZE replaces inch size", for each of the following three sizes--

385/65R22.5 REPLACES 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5 (We propose to mark the word "replaces" and the replaced size designation adjacent to the primary size designation, in characters no larger than one-half the height of the primary size designation.

Since the time FMVSS109 and FMVSS119 became effective, the question of size marking tires has come up frequently, the last time being your recent opinion letter to Mr. J B White of Michelin, Greenville, South Carolina. Since the subject of that letter in volves one of the exact sizes in this letter, we feel it necessary to further discuss the intent of this request.

August 11, 1987 -2- Erika Z. Jones

The NHTSA has reiterated in opinion letters and rulemaking that the purpose of the tire labeling requirements is to provide

with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. The NHTSA has previously stated that:

"Replacement size markings, however, represent that a particular size is replacing or superseding an existing size designation. The NHTSA believes this type of information to be advantageous to consumers, providing on the tire itself information that a s pecified size designation is intended to be used in place of another." (39 FR 10162, 18MAR74).

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

We will appreciate your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

E W Dahl

ID: nht88-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Koji Tokunaga -- Manager, Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/6/91 letter from John Mayeda to NHTSA (OCC6034); 7/1/91 letter from Paul J. Rice to John Mayeda (A38; Std. 101); 6/4/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Robert J. Heath; 9/21/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Jim Bowen

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, as amended by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 3244) on February 3, 1987. We apologize for the delay in our response. You described a proposed design for a radio and asked whether the requirements of section @5.a.s would apply to the source of illumination for the radio and, if so, whether your design would meet those requirements. The following represents our opinion base d on the facts provided in your letter.

As discussed below, the requirements of section @5.3.5 would apply to the source of illumination for your planned radio. Your current design would meet the requirements of that section. You described your planned radio as follows:

In the case of the radio to be installed on our vehicle, radio display is automatically illuminated when radio switch is turned "on." Likewise, when the switch is turned "off,' this display is automatically extinguished. This illumination is a single int ensity, but the intensity is not "barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions."

The current language of section @5.3.5, which reflects an amendment made by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 33416) on September 3, 1987, is as follows:

@5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (110.6 mm) reward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the con trols and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passe nger compartment illuminated.

The first issue raised by your letter is whether section @5.3.5 would apply to your proposed design. The answer to that question is yes. You suggested that the section might not apply, since "display illumination turns 'on' or 'off' simultaneously with t he 'on' or 'off' operation of radio switch irrespective of vehicle motion." However, section @5.3.5's limitation of applicability to sources of illumination which are "capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion" does not refer to illumin ations which are provided only when the vehicle is in motion but instead incorporates all sources of illumination which are "capable" of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion.

The second issue raised by your letter is whether your proposed design meets the requirements of section @5.3.5. You suggested that the "off" switch of the radio would be "a means of being turned off," under that section. We agree with your suggested int erpretation. Section @5.a.5 requires that the "source of illumination" have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at "least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a dri ver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. As discussed in the preamble to the February 3, 1987 final rule, the purpose of providing section @5.3.5's three options was to meet concerns raised by commenters , while maintaining essential limits on glare. Although a driver may use the radio while driving at night, he or she will have the means to remove the radio as a source of glare by turning the radio off. In our view, this meets section @5.3.5's third opt ion. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to seek the interpretation of the NHTSA authorities on the FMVSS 101 Controls and Displays amended in the Federal Register dated February 3, 1987.

In the case of the radio to be installed on our vehicle, radio display is automatically illuminated when radio switch is turned "on." Likewise, when the switch is turned "off," this display is automatically extinguished. This illumination is a single int ensity, but the intensity is not "barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions."

1. Said Federal Register states that new section @5.3.5 applied only to those sources of illumination which are capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion. For above radio, display illumination turns "on" or "off" simultaneously with the "on" or "off" operation of radio switch irrespective of vehicle motion. Therefore, we think this section is not applicable to our case. Is our opinion correct?

2. If @5.3.5 should apply to the illumination of above radio, we think the "off" switch of the radio corresponds to "a means of being turned off" stated in the section. That is, the "on" or "off" switch of this radio is not the switch which controls only the illumination of the radio display, but we think it is a means of turning off the illumination source stated in this section. Is our opinion correct? We would high appreciate your prompt reply.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

jh

pc: Mr. Fukuhara, Isuzu Motors, Japan

ID: nht88-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Harris W. Fawell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Harris W. Fawell House of Representatives Washington DC 20515

Dear Mr. Fawell:

I have been asked to respond to your recent letter asking the Department of Transportation to provide you with information concerning the use of safety belts on school buses. You ask for this information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Wayne Mann, in the Illinois Palos Community Consolidated Schools. Mr. Mann specifically seeks "factual information relative to seat (lap) belts on school buses," and information on funding for traffic safety programs involving hazardous conditions outside the school bu s.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those wit h a gross vehicle weight' rating over 10,000 pounds) to have passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include h igh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's 'position is not compartmentalized. Further; because small school buses experience greate r force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening 'c rash forces'); the drivers' training and experience: and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject. I think your constituent may find this information helpful.

With respect to hazardous conditions outside the school bus, the agency realizes that there are special problems of driver visibility associated with transporting students. NHTSA has addressed these problems in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111, Rearview mirrors, paragraph S9. In 1975, NHTSA established special mirror requirements for school buses "to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children (by giving) the school bus driver the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle... " (The proposed rule, including this preamble quotation, appears at 40 FR 33828, 33829, August 12, 1975. The final rule was published originally at 41 FR 36023, August 26, 1976.) One of these special requirements is that manufacturers equip a school bus with a crossview mirror that permits the driver to see the area in front of the bus. These special school bus mirror requirements help contribute to the low number of fatalities associated with school bus travel.

Your constituent also mentions funding to implement a program to address hazardous conditions outside the school bus. The agency believes that its school bus regulations effectively address the safety of school bus design and performance, and contribute to occupant safety.

We note, however, that 5402 of the Highway Safety Act, provides funds to each State for its use in conducting a highway safety program. Some of these funds are distributed by the State to local governments or organizations within the State. To get inform ation on Illinois' S402 funds, I suggest that your constituent contact the Illinois Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, Mr. Melvin E. Smith, Director, Division of Traffic Safety, 319 Administration Bldg., 2300 South Dirksen Pkwy., Springfield, IL 62764.

If you or Mr. Mann have further questions, I encourage you to contact our agency.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure