ID: 15639.drn

Scott Summers, Esq.
Agency Legal Counsel's Office
Nebraska Department of Education
301 Centennial Mall South
P. O. Box 94987
Lincoln, NE 68509-4987

Dear Mr. Summers:

This responds to your letter asking about the difference in definitions of "schoolbus" at 49 U.S.C. 30125 and at 49 CFR 571.3. This question arose from comments on Nebraska's proposed change in the State definition of "school bus." You attached a letter from Mr. James R. Cunningham, Executive Director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, questioning the "inconsistency between the August 1995 document ['Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements'] and the Federal Statute."

The statutory definition of "schoolbus" at 30125 is "a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school."

In NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 571.3, a "school bus" is "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation" (emphasis added). Section 571.3 defines "bus" as a motor vehicle "designed for carrying more than 10 persons." The 571.3 definition of "bus" includes the driver, who is a "person" carried on the bus.

In the August 1995 "Frequently Asked Questions" document, NHTSA restates the regulatory definition of "school bus" found at 49 CFR 571.3.

NHTSA enacted its regulatory definition of "school bus" following enactment of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974. In the final rule establishing the new definition of "school bus" (49 CFR 571.3), NHTSA addressed the point raised by Mr. Cunningham. In that final rule, NHTSA explained that it adopted a more expansive definition of "school bus" that differs somewhat from the statutory definition, so that the definition would apply to school buses that transport 10 students. In a Federal Register notice of December 31, 1975 (40 FR 60033, at 60034) (copy enclosed), NHTSA stated:

In conforming its proposal to the Congressional definition, the NHTSA limited "school bus" to a bus that carries at least 11 passengers in addition to the driver. Based on comments received ... , it appears that the definition should be expanded slightly to include buses that carry 10 passengers. This eliminates a departure from previous NHTSA vehicle categorization that classifies vehicles with 10 or fewer occupant seating positions as MPVs or passenger cars and vehicles with 11 or more seating positions as buses. To adhere strictly to the Congressional definition would leave the small group of vehicles that transport 10 students without coverage under either the school bus, the MPV, or the passenger car standards.

Some commenters incorrectly assumed that the Congressional definition of "school bus" established an outer limit on the NHTSA's authority to regulate vehicles that transport students as such. To the contrary, the Congressional definition is a direction to the NHTSA that the new standards in this area must not be applied to a narrower category of vehicle. As long as that direction of Congress is satisfied, the NHTSA is, however, authorized to decide the scope of its standards, and in this case to expand on the Congressional definition to implement the mandate effectively.

Please note that Nebraska may adopt a state definition of "school bus" that differs from the Federal definition. State definitions of "school bus" affect the scope of State school bus requirements, while the Federal definition affects the scope of Federal requirements. For example, the State definitions determine which vehicles are subject to the State operational requirements for school buses. However, the Federal definition determines which new vehicles sold or leased by dealers are required under Federal law to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

This agency has urged the States to follow NHTSA's definition of "school bus" and not to establish operational rules that would allow schools and school districts to carry students on buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards. School buses that comply with NHTSA's school bus safety standards are the safest form of pupil transportation.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref: 571.3
d.10/14/97

ID: nht87-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Clarence M. Ditlow III

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Clarence M. Ditlow III, Esq. Center for Auto Safety 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

Thank you for your letter concerning how the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to the displaying, test driving, and delivery of a passenger car with an automatic safety belt. The agency has rece ntly issued the enclosed Federal Register notice that addresses the issues you raised.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

With the 1987 model year less than a month away, automobile dealers will soon be selling large numbers of vehicles equipped with passive restraints. Unfortunately, while the passive restraint requirement has the potential for saving thousands 0f lives an nually, these benefits will not be realized if dealerships mock the standard by disconnecting the automatic seat belts offered by some manufacturers.

The cumbersome and easily detached automatic belts offered by General Motors, for example, will actually encourage disconnection by dealerships and consumers. The GM automatic belt has a buckle to disconnect it with the window shade retractor convenientl y rolling the loose belt up into the retractor. GM is introducing this system over the express objections of safety groups and the criticism of the Supreme Court which asked in its unanimous decision overturning DOT's revocation of the passive restraint standard whether such automatic belt disconnects should be outlawed.

Moreover, GM's easy-to-release but hard-to-wear automatic belts are particularly reprehensible given that other auto companies will have far superior belts on their 1987 models. Ford, Nissan and Toyota will all use motorized passive belts with demonstrat ed consumer acceptance. For the past ten model years, Volkswagon has sold an automatic belt that is so easy to use consumers don't disconnect it. DOT's own studies of the VW "easy rider" automatic belt show usage of over 80%. In contrast, GM's "hard ride r" automatic belt is unlikely to obtain more than 15% usage.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any dealer from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard." The NHTSA has previously ruled this section does not prohibit dealers from disconnecting an, automatic seat belt to demonstrate the emergency release mechanism. However, this section clearly prohibits dealers from disconnecting and disablin g automatic seat belts in all other circumstances. If they do so, they are liable for a $1,000 fine per car under Section 109 of the Act.

The temporary disconnection of an automatic belts for the purpose of demonstrating the emergency release mechanism is a separate and unique activity easily distinguishable from having display models with disconnected automatic belts sitting on the showro om floor. The same is true of allowing vehicles to be test driven with disconnected belts, or delivered to purchasers with detached automatic belts. These practices have no safety benefit and serve only to encourage consumer disuse or automatic belts, th ereby undercutting their unique contribution of automatic belts to occupant protection.

Accordingly, the Center for Auto Safety petitions the NHTSA to issue, prior "to the beginning or the 1987 model year, an interpretive legal opinion of Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act stating it is illegal for dealers to: (1) display 1987 models with disconnected automatic seat belts on the showroom floor or on the dealership lot, (2) conduct test drives with automatic belts disconnected, and (3) deliver 1987 models at the time of purchase with automatic belts disconnecte d. NHTSA is also requested to rule that dealers who so violate Section 108 by displaying and selling new cars with automatic belts disconnected are subject to a 81,000 per vehicle fine.

Sincerely, Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director cc: Sen. John Danforth Rep. Tim Wirth

ID: nht87-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Y. Osaki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Y. Osaki Manager, Truck Engineering MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 501 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Osaki:

This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between the maximum load ratings for the tires on a medium duty truck and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) specified for that truck pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked if the GVWR specified for a truck could slightly exceed the sum of the gross axle weight ratings specified for the truck. While none of our regulations prohibit your company from assigning a GVWR that exceeds the sum of the gross axle weight r atings for this medium duty truck, we recommend that you not do so, for the reasons explained below.

Your letter correctly notes that paragraph @5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @571.120) requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to each truck axle shall b e not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for the axle system, as specified on the vehicle certification label required by Part 567. However, Part 567 does not limit the GVWR that can be assigned to the sum of the GAWR's specified for a vehicle . Instead, 5567.4(g)(3) requires that the vehicle certification label specify the GVWR of the truck and requires only that the specified GVWR shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicl e's designated seating capacity.

Although, Part 567 does not prohibit such a practice, we note that assigning a GVWR to a vehicle that exceeds the sum of the GAWR's assigned to the vehicle (other than a semitrailer) would be encouraging the user of that vehicle to overload it. If the ax les of a medium duty truck cannot safely bear the load specified in the GVWR, the vehicle will be overloaded whenever it is loaded to the specified GVWR. Such overloading poses a serious safety hazard for the affected vehicle in particular and for the mo toring public in general. Several past interpretations on this subject have stated if a vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction while in use that can be traced to the overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect p rovisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and under common law product liability doctrines. To avoid giving rise to a potential safety hazard and the accompanying liability, we recommend that you specify a GVWR not greater than 17,19 6 pounds for the medium duty truck in question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subject: SPECIFICATION OF GVWR AND MAXIMUM LOAD RATING OF THE TIRES

This is to inquire about the relationship between maximum load rating of the tires and GVW.

We are planning to develop the medium duty truck installing LT235/85R16 tires. According to FMVSS 120.5.1.2, the sum of the maximum load rating of tires fitted to an axle shall not be less than the GAWR of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's ce rtification label.

In our case, the sum of the maximum load rating of LT235/85R16(E) tires are 6,084 lbs. (front) and 11,112 lbs. (rear). TRA So, we can specify at most these values for each GAWR on the certification label as follows:

GAWR: Front - 6,084 with 235/85R16(E) tires 6K rims, at 80 psi cold single GAWR: Rear - 11,112 with 235/85R16(E) tires 6K rims, at 30 psi cold dual

Question: In this case, is it possible for us to specify 17,200 lbs. as GVW on the certification label raising up the fraction, or should we specify 17,196 lbs. strictly?

Your kind advice will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

ID: lynch.df

B. Daniel Lynch, Esq.
B. Daniel Lynch Law Offices
CalFed Building, Suite 709
301 E. Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, California 91101-1911

Dear Mr. Lynch:

This responds to your letter and telephone calls asking whether 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. would preempt legislation that you would like to have introduced in the California Assembly. I apologize for the delay in responding. Based on our understanding of your letter, we believe that the answer is a qualified no.

You explain that the California law you wish to see introduced would require a mirror on the passenger side of the hood of conventional "big rig" trucks (i.e., trucks with hoods that extend forward from the driver, as opposed to flat-faced "cab-over" trucks"). The law would be to correct a "blind spot" on the passenger side of the hood. Your inquiry arose out of a desire to prevent the kind of crash that a former client of yours had experienced. That person's car was in the right lane of a highway and was struck when a big rig truck moved into that lane without seeing the car. The truck was equipped with side-mounted rearview mirrors, but the passenger side mirror did not provide a view of the area to the right side of the hood, forward of the mirror. You would like California to enact a law to require big rig trucks to have a passenger-side mirror that would enable the driver to see small cars and other vehicles that could be obscured by the truck's large hood.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), requires side rear view mirrors on trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,563 kilograms (kg) or more. The standard at S7.1 (for trucks with GVWRs of between 4,536 kg and 11,340 kg) and at S8.1 (for trucks with GVWRs of 11,340 kg or more) requires mirrors on both sides of the vehicle. The mirrors must be "located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and shall be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene." The use of the words "a view to the rear" and "rearward scene" indicates that the specified field of view does not extend forward of some point. That point, logically, is the driver. Our review of the rulemaking history of the standard indicates that there is no Federal intent to regulate the view of the driver and passenger side of a truck forward of the driver. California would thus be regulating a different aspect of performance (i.e., a different field of view) than that regulated by Standard No. 111.

Section 30103(b) of our statute, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) (formerly 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), states in part:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

If the State regulation would address only the area forward of the driver, it would not be preempted by 30103(b). ⁽¹⁾ However, it is difficult to respond categorically that the State regulation would not be preempted because you have provided little information on what the State would require. The State regulation could still be preempted if it conflicts with Federal law, either by creating a situation in which manufacturers cannot comply with both the State and Federal laws, or by interfering in some way with another Federal motor vehicle safety standard (such as the field-of-view requirements for the lighting standard, 49 CFR 571.108).

The Department's Office of Motor Carrier Safety has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You should contact that office at (202) 366-4012, for information about that agency's requirements.

In closing, we want to make clear that we are not providing any views with respect to the merits of the State mirror requirement which you briefly described and which you would like to see enacted in California. This letter only addresses the preemption issue you raised.

If you have any further questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref: 111#VSA
d.12/6/99

1. If NHTSA were to issue a standard in this area, inconsistent State laws of general applicability would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Of course, we would consider any relevant State laws when adopting a Federal standard.

ID: nht90-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING NHTSA

TO: MIKE LOVE -- MANAGER, SAFETY COMPLIANCE PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL ENTITLED PORSCHE'S MODIFIED ANTITHEFT EXEMPTION, LETTER DATED 04/12/90; LETTER DATED 03/30/90 FROM MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR ON 49 CFR PART 543 EXEMPTION

TEXT: This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new feature added to the antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 911 and 928 Porsche car lines, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the age ncy's previous granting of a theft exemption for those car lines beginning in MY 1990, and that therefore Porsche 911's and 928's containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Porsche 911 and 928 car lines were granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Porsche showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on these car lines was likely to be as effec tive as parts marking. This exemption was issued on May 25, 1989, and appeared in the Federal Register on June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6( a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Porsche plans to modify the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Porsche 911 and 928, as follows: integrate the alarm control unit with the central locking and interior light contro l units; incorporate a feature that will also monitor the glove box for unauthorized opening; improve

P2

diagnostic capability in order to enhance serviceability; and install a capability to accept other features (such as motion sensors) if they are desired in the future.

In addition, it was stated that the changes in the system will be virtually unnoticeable to the operator, and that the system will still be armed passively by locking either door with the key. Further, with the addition of the glovebox, all the same poi nts of entry, such as the doors, hood, and hatch, will be monitored by the system and the engine disabling and alarm features will be the same. Porsche further stated that the system "will be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system."

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspec ts of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessar y for Porsche to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Porsche does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Porsche notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in an April 13, 1990 telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, you stated that Porsche was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a c opy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

REF: PART 543

ID: nht89-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT D ATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EG LEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Egley:

This is in reply to your letters with respect to the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF), your invention, now registered with the U.S. Patent Office. Your first letter is a "Request for Evaluation/Interpretation" of your invention; your second is "An Appeal for V ariant Interpretation." I regret the delay in responding.

You have explained that the SSF operates as follows: when a vehicle reaches a certain high rate of deceleration, the SSF automatically flashes all three of the stop lamps on passenger cars at a rapid rate. If the vehicle has crashed, the SSF continues t o flash until the ignition switch is recycled. You recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning. You nevertheless ask for a favorable interpr etation because the SSF will be actuated only rarely, and "the concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system." Because of the expense of developing the SSF, you state that you are n ot willing to undertake it "unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model."

You are correct that Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady burning, and hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that stop lamps are intended to be operated whi le the vehicle is in motion, while the hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning begins to flash, the ag ency is concerned that the signal will prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its effectiveness.

Even if we did not have this reservation about the SSF, we could not change the steady burning requirement through interpretation. A change could be made through rulemaking only.

We do not currently have information indicating that a flashing signal would be be superior to a steady burning one. The SSF is based upon the concept that a flashing lamp increases vehicle conspicuity, and hence should shorten the reaction time of foll owing drivers. As you noted, "whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration." In research sponsored by this agency that led to the adoption of the center high-mounted stop lamp, a field study was conducted using 600 tax icabs in San Diego and Sacramento. The cabs were equipped with one of three kinds of center lamps, a steady-burning one, or one that flashed at 2.5 Hz, or one that flashed at either 1.5, 2.5, 4.5, or 7.0 Hz depending on the degree of deceleration. The test fleet accumulated 41 million miles. The study found that there was no statistically significant differences among the lamps (Mortimer, R.G., Field test evaluation of rear lighting deceleration signals: II - Field test. Final Report, DOT-HS-806-125 , 1981).

The agency would be unlikely to issue grants or fund research for the SSF, a proprietary device. Most of its vehicle safety research is devoted to obtaining data to support the development of standards that are more performance-oriented.

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive in our response, but we do appreciate your interest in reducing traffic accidents, and deaths and injuries associated with them.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jacques M. Delphin, M.D.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Jacques M. Delphin, M.D. 84 Haight Avenue Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12603

Dear Dr. Delphin:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1986, enclosing a description of your device to improve car signals, and asking about the regulations applicable to it.

According to the information that you furnished, the device "cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn". The purpose of the device is to eliminate "the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch". The effect of the device is "to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals".

As you know, pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, have been required to have self-cancelling turn signal indicators. However, there are no performance requirements for the self-cancelling feature. As a general rule, motor vehicle lighting equipment not required by Standard No. 108 is permissible as original equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and as aftermarket equipment if its installation can be accomplished without crafting a noncompliance. The device as you have described it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the turn signal operating unit, or create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 (the requirements of SAE Standard J589 Turn Signal Operating Unit, April 1964, which is incorporated by reference). Since Standard No. 108 does not preclude its use, the question of its legality is therefore determinable under the laws of each State where it will be used.

Although there is no Federal safety standard that applies to it, the device is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1411) if its manufacturer or this agency determines that it incorporates a safety related defect.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 2, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration Room 5219 407 St, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I appreciate the privilege to communicate with you regarding my device to improve traffic safety.

I am enclosing a copy of the description of the product. Please advise me as to the regulations such a device will fall under.

Respectfully yours,

Jacques M. Delphin M.D.

JMD/bp

RCC-237 DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS

A Poughkeepsie, New York inventor has developed an automotive accessory which monitors and controls the operation of a vehicle's turn signal equipment.

DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn. Equipped with an electronic timer, the device automatically triggers the vehicle's standard signal release mechanism and returns the signal switch to the off position. The device is sensitive to all turns of the steering wheel, regardless of the degree of the turn. Installation of the device eliminates the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch. Use of DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS is designed to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals.

The original design was submitted to the Rochester Office of INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED, a national invention development organization for research and marketing. INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED is currently offering this invention for licensing to manufacturers interested in research and development.

Details May Be Obtained By Contacting: NEW PRODUCT LICENSING DEPT. INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED TRIANGLE BUILDING - 701 SMITHFIELD ST. PITTSBURGH, PA 15222

Note: We are unable to reveal working details of this invention, and this release does not constitute an offer for sale. This data is available only to qualified manufacturers and marketing agents on a confidential basis.

ID: nht81-2.7

DATE: 03/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. Roger Fry, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

W. Roger Fry, Esq. Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis 900 Central Trust Bank Tower Fourth & Vine Streets Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Dear Mr. Fry:

This responds to your January 23, 1981, letter concerning tires used with multipiece rims. Specifically, you asked if this Department has considered whether tires should have a warning concerning use with mismatched multipiece rim assemblies.

We have not considered this question, nor have our studies of multipiece rim explosions considered the tires involved. The agency has determined through its investigations that mismatched multipiece rim assemblies are dangerous. These mismatched assemblies are highly prone to explosive separation, regardless of the nature of the tire mounted on them. Accordingly, our efforts have been directed toward labeling requirements for rim components (see the enclosed copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120) in an effort to reduce the incidence of mismatched multipiece rim assemblies. There are no labeling requirements for tires which specifically warn against use with mismatched multi-piece rim assemblies.

Per your request, I have enclosed a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (99 CFR S 571.119). Section S6.5 of this standard specifies the marking requirements for these tires. This standard took effect on March 1, 1975, and the enclosed copy represents the requirements which were applicable from that date to December 31, 1975.

This regulation does somewhat restrict the markings a manufacturer may put on the sidewall of its tires. For instance, the manufacturer cannot list more than one size designation (S6.5(c)) or more than one maximum load rating for single and dual loads (S6.5(d)). However, a manufacturer is free to include safety information in addition to that specified in section S6.5. Thus, a manufacturer might choose to print on the sidewall of its tires that the tires should only be used with a specified rim size or type. Such an additional warning need not be approved by this agency. In fact, this agency does not offer advance approval that a tire's markings comply with the requirements of Standard 119. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine that its tires are in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 23, 1981

United States Dept. of Transporation National Highway Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20591

Gentlemen:

I am involved in a matter in which I represent the manufacturer of a truck tire which was on a vehicle when a multi-piece rim suddenly came off and critically injured someone in the immediate vicinity of the tire and rim. The rim had been assembled, in some manner with incompatible parts from different manufacturers, which parts combined both two-piece and three-piece rim assembly parts.

My question of you surrounds the tire itself. Has the Department addressed the question of whether or not the tires shou1d have any kind of warning regarding use with either mismatched multi-piece rim assemblies, or multi-piece rim assemblies generally?

I would be very interested in seeing your regulations and requirements governing data which is to be legible on the tire itself, auch as tire size, maximum air pressure and identifying marks. Could you send me your regulations which we in force in 1975?

Do your regulations restrict the printing on tires to the specific items covered in your regulations, or is a tire manufacturer free to add and delete other messages?

Must "other messages" be approved by you?

Have your studies of injuries with multi-piece rim assemblies included consideration of the tires themselves? If so, to what extent?

Thank you very much for any help you are ab1e to give me on this.

Very truly yours,

RENDIGS, FRY, KIELY & DENNIS

W. Roger Fry

WRF:rst

ID: nht92-1.37

DATE: 12/07/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-15-92 FROM KENNETH W. WEBSTER, II TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7872)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to me dated October 15, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims - Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.110). More specifically, you were interested in a clarification of the test conditions for determining compliance with the requirement in S4.4.1(b) of Standard No. 110, which provides that each rim on a new passenger car shall "[in] the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at a speed of 60 miles per hour, retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application."

In your letter, supplemented by your November 2, 1992 telephone conversation with Mr. Walter Myers of my staff, you explained that your company, Transportation Research Center Inc., has conducted tests on a passenger car that is to be marketed in the United States. Two tire and rim configurations are available with the car: a steel rim mounted with a Goodyear tire, and a decorative aluminum rim mounted with a Michelin tire. I understand these tires and rims to be the same size and to have the same nominal dimensions. In addition, I understand the tires to be of the same type and construction. You stated that you tested both tires on both rims in accordance with this agency's test procedure for determining compliance with Standard No. 110 (TP-110-02). The tire/rim combinations being tested were mounted on the left front and right rear positions, but in some cases tires made by a different manufacturer, but of the same size, type, and composition as the tires at the test positions, were mounted at the other wheel positions. You asked whether all tire and rim configurations on the vehicle for testing under S4.4.1(b) of Standard No. 110 must be made by the same manufacturer and otherwise be exactly alike. The short answer to your question is no.

Before discussing your specific question, however, I would like to explain how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determines compliance in cases where a standard does not specify a particular adjustment position or test condition. In issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA endeavors to specify all relevant adjustment positions or test conditions to ensure that our standards are objective and practicable. As a practical matter, however, it is not always possible to anticipate every conceivable adjustment position or test condition.

In those cases where a standard does not specify a particular adjustment or test condition, we consider several factors in interpreting the standard. We begin with the presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met regardless of such adjustment position or test condition, because the language of the standard does not limit the applicability of its requirements to any such adjustment position or test condition. NHTSA then examines the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes, to see if the language of the standard or its purposes indicate an implicit intent to limit such adjustment positions or test conditions and what limitation was intended.

Applying this approach in response to your inquiry, we believe that the language and the purpose of S4.4.1(b) of Standard 110 are clear, namely that the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application. The focus of the test is the ability of the rim to retain the deflated tire without unduly affecting the vehicle dynamics. Hence, the only limitation on the tire/rim combinations at the other wheel positions would be that those other tire/rim combinations that are not being tested must not unduly affect the dynamics of the vehicle (and, hence, the test result) when combined with the tire/rim combination being tested. Thus, unless testing the compact spare tire provided by the vehicle manufacturer, NHTSA would conduct its compliance testing for S4.4.1(b) of Standard 110 using tires of the same size, type (all-season, mud/snow, etc.), and construction (radial, bias-belted, etc.) as the tire being tested on the other three wheel positions. NHTSA would not, however, limit its testing to using only tires made by the same manufacturer as the tire being tested at the other three wheel positions.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.40

DATE: May 8, 1993

FROM: Daniel L. Kokal -- Champagne Importers

TO: Johnathan Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Joe Marino -- Champagne Imports; Clive Van Orden -- OVSC

TITLE: RE: Request for Use of Continuous Surety Bonding for Importation of Non-Conforming Vehicles Under the Registered Importer Program

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-93 from John Womack to Daniel L. Kokal (A41; Part 591)

TEXT: On April 29th, 1993, Joe Marino of Champagne Imports and myself met with Clive Van Orden and Ted Bayler of OVSC, and Taylor Vinson of Chief Counsel's office, to review and discuss various aspects of the Registered Importer program as they relate to vehicle entries from Canada.

Champagne Imports is the largest Registered Importer processing entries from Canada. At the April 29th meeting, we raised the possibility of providing a continuous bond that would provide surety on the compliance obligations on these vehicles. Currently, single entry bonds are filed with each vehicle at 150% of the vehicle's declared value to ensure the vehicle meets, or will be modified to meet U.S. safety standards.

This type of bonding, currently the practice with non-conforming vehicles from Europe, is expensive for the importer, especially considering that Canadian vehicles rarely, if ever, require safety modifications to meet U.S. standards.

Continuous bonding would allow the Registered Importer to bundle a group of vehicles under a given bond and conserve costs to the importer while maintaining the SAME LEVEL OF LIABILITY for compliance to OVSC.

For example

10 vehicles at a value of $1O,000/vehicle would require 10 single entry bonds at a total bond value of $150,000 liability for compliance.

Alternatively, a continuous bond, valued at $150,000, would be posted to cover all 10 vehicles. The importer would be saved the costs of issuing 10 bonds, but the level of liability for compliance of these vehicles would remain the same. In fact, the $150,000 liability would remain until ALL vehicles are released.

It has been suggested that use of a continuous bond might create additional administrative burden on OVSC by requiring constant monitoring of the number of cars imported under a given bond. This burden can be obviated by establishing a discreet number of vehicles for each continuous bond used.

We are requesting the ability to import no more than 15 vehicles under a given continuous bond at 150% total vehicle value. These vehicles will all be imported together, and, when all vehicles are released, the bond itself is liquidated. The next 15 vehicles imported would require a new bond.

It is widely accepted that the Registered Importer requirements, as written. failed to consider the special case of Canadian vehicles. OVSC has moved to

mollify the unusual burden on Canadian vehicles by recognizing manufacturers letters of compliance as evidence of U.S. certification. As Registered Importers, we see many importers who cannot obtain these letters, yet still have vehicle that rarely, if ever, require modification, and are forced to cope with extreme bonding costs.

Fulfilling the enclosed request will enable us to lower these costs to the importer, while maintaining the same level of surety to OVSC that compliance will be demonstrated. There will be no burden on OVSC to "track" the vehicles under a given continuous bond, as each bond will hold a discreet number of vehicles (our request is 15 vehicles), after which the bond is liquidated, and a new bond is issued for subsequent vehicles.

Please review the enclosed request at your earliest convenience, and inform us as to its applicability under the Safety Act and the Registered Importer program. Comments received during the April 29th meeting seemed to indicate that there is no reason why this method could not be employed.

Cost cutting and paperwork reduction is imperative to our remaining in service as an importer of Canadian vehicles, and we believe use of continuous bonds will achieve cost reduction without limiting in any way our responsibilities as a Registered Importer.

We greatly appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Please contact me at 703-349-1166 with any questions, or to discuss this matter further.