ID: aiam4342

Dear Ms. Black: Your letter to Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 114 has been referred to me for response. This response is based on your letter, and a telephone conversation of March 17, 1987, between Mr. Edward Stumpkey of Jaguar and Mr. Kenneth Rutland of this agency clarifying certain matters raised in your letter. I regret the delay in this response.; Standard 114, *Theft Protection, requires that each vehicle subject t it must have a key-locking system which must prevent not only normal engine activation, but also either steering or forward self-mobility or both when the key is removed.; You mention a system intended to meet the standard, but indicate tha 'for security reasons,' you are reluctant to supply specific details on that system. Without reference to specific data, you state that your system meets paragraph S4.2(a) of Standard 114, that is, removing the key from the ignition prevents normal engine activation.; You go on to say that the microprocessing systems that control vehicl operations will not function when the driver removes the ignition key. Therefore, you state, you meet one of the conditions in S4.2(b) of the Standard, that is , removing the key must prevent forward self-mobility of the vehicle.; Based on the information you supplied, NHTSA can not agree that you key- locking system meets either requirement of S4.2(b). As I understand your description of Jaguar's system, deactivating the engine is the means by which you assert you prevent vehicle forward self-mobility. If a manufacturer could comply with the S4.2(b) with respect of preventing forward self-mobility by preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a), S4.2(b) would be redundant. Paragraph S4.2(b) requires an added safeguard with respect to forward self-mobility, such as a transmission lock or other means, to prevent a vehicle from moving under its own power should the engine somehow be activated without inserting the key.; Therefore, preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a) will no meet the condition in S4.2(b) of preventing vehicle forward self-mobility. If Jaguar has some means other than deactivating the engine to prevent forward self-mobility, its system may be acceptable. Otherwise, Jaguar must add some means to meet at least one of the conditions in S4.2(b).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2994

Dear Mr. Goode:#I regret the delay in responding to your July 17, 1978 letter petitioning for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. You requested that the standard be amended to add three ISO symbols so that British Leyland could adopt common specifications in satisfaction of both FMVSS 101-80 and EEC directive 78/316. Your petition is in effect granted in part and is denied in part.#You asked that the ISO symbol (an illuminated light bulb) for the Master Lighting Switch be either substituted for Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol (an illuminated headlamp) specified in Table 1 of FMVSS 101-80 or added as an option to that specified symbol. This aspect of your petition is denied. If a vehicle contains a master lighting control in addition to a headlamp and tail lamp control, the Master Lighting Switch symbol may be used for the master lighting control. We recognize, however, that most vehicles presently sold in this country have one control that operates all lights, including the headlamps and tail lamps. On vehicles having one control for all lights, the control must be identified by the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol. We believe that this is appropriate since the headlamps and tail lamps are the most important lights controlled by a master light control. Further, we believe that the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol is more easily recognized than the Master Lighting Switch symbol.#You also asked that the ISO symbol for the Manual Choke be added to Table 1 and the ISO symbol for the Brake System be added to Table 2. No amendment of the standard is necessary to permit your use of these two symbols since FMVSS 101-80 does not specify any requirements regarding symbols for those items. Amendment of the standard to require the use of those symbols would require a new proposal to be issued since such an amendment would be beyond the scope of the October 12, 1976, proposal which led to the June 26, 1978 final rule. Treating this part of your petition as a petition for rulemaking instead of a petition for reconsideration, we grant it. It should be understood that granting the petition does not necessarily mean that an amendment will ultimately be adopted.#Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking;

ID: aiam2995

Dear Mr. Goode:#I regret the delay in responding to your July 17, 1978 letter petitioning for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. You requested that the standard be amended to add three ISO symbols so that British Leyland could adopt common specifications in satisfaction of both FMVSS 101-80 and EEC directive 78/316. Your petition is in effect granted in part and is denied in part.#You asked that the ISO symbol (an illuminated light bulb) for the Master Lighting Switch be either substituted for Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol (an illuminated headlamp) specified in Table 1 of FMVSS 101-80 or added as an option to that specified symbol. This aspect of your petition is denied. If a vehicle contains a master lighting control in addition to a headlamp and tail lamp control, the Master Lighting Switch symbol may be used for the master lighting control. We recognize, however, that most vehicles presently sold in this country have one control that operates all lights, including the headlamps and tail lamps. On vehicles having one control for all lights, the control must be identified by the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol. We believe that this is appropriate since the headlamps and tail lamps are the most important lights controlled by a master light control. Further, we believe that the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol is more easily recognized than the Master Lighting Switch symbol.#You also asked that the ISO symbol for the Manual Choke be added to Table 1 and the ISO symbol for the Brake System be added to Table 2. No amendment of the standard is necessary to permit your use of these two symbols since FMVSS 101-80 does not specify any requirements regarding symbols for those items. Amendment of the standard to require the use of those symbols would require a new proposal to be issued since such an amendment would be beyond the scope of the October 12, 1976, proposal which led to the June 26, 1978 final rule. Treating this part of your petition as a petition for rulemaking instead of a petition for reconsideration, we grant it. It should be understood that granting the petition does not necessarily mean that an amendment will ultimately be adopted.#Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking;

ID: aiam1929

Dear Mr. Faull: Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1975, concerning the manufactur and installation of replacement tanks for Dodge, Ford, and Chevrolet vans.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated n motor vehicle safety standard relating to replacement fuel tanks. There is, however, a safety standard which imposes performance requirements upon motor vehicles with regard to their fuel systems (Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*). Thus, if installation of your replacement tank is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the tank or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of S108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563). That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) prohibi any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle of item or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (S108(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, even if installation of your replacement tank occurred after the first purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle's compliance with the fuel system integrity standard would still be mandatory where one of the above named persons performed the installation. If the replacement tank caused the fuel system to no longer comply with the safety standard, the installer would have rendered inoperative a system installed in compliance with Standard 301.; The Traffic Safety Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation t make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. Therefore, even though replacement fuel tanks are not the subject of a standard, they still must be designed for safety.; In addition, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulates interstat carriers, including fuel systems for operational and auxiliary equipment. These regulations might be of interest to you and are enclosed. Your attention is directed to the section concerning fuel systems, pages 51 through 54.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: nht88-4.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WES SPRUNK -- SAF-TEE SIPING & GROOVING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SA FETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the siping of tires. You asked whether "there is any possible problem with the siping of new, used, truck, passenger, or light duty tires," under Department of Transportation regulations. Your question is respond ed to below, to the extent that it concerns regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We note that your letter indicates that you have also discussed this issue with officials of the Federal Highway Administration.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that it s motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards.

As noted by your letter, the term "siping" should be distinguished from "grooving." You stated that grooving is a "process of removing rubber from the tire to give it an additional space for water release." You stated that siping is "a process of cross c utting the tread, never deeper than the original tread depth of the tire; and in most cases, 1/32" or less, with a fine knife -- either four or five cuts to the inch -- that does not remove rubber."

Section 108(a)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling or offering for sale, introducting or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States, any item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The prohibitions of section 108 (a)(1) do not apply after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. (Section 108(b)(1).)

NHTSA has issued several safety standards for tires. Standard No. 109 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; Standard No. 117 specifies performance and

labeling requirements for retreaded pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; and Standard No. 119 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

The siping of new tires (including retreaded tires) is permissible only if that operation does not adversely affect the compliance of the tire with Standard No. 109, 117 or 119, as applicable. If a dealer offers for sale or sells new tires (including ne w retreaded tires) that have been siped and those tires do not comply with Standard No. 109, 117 or 119, as applicable, the dealer would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each tire that did not comply.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in an item of motor vehicle equipment in compli ance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, any persons or businesses within the above categories that perform siping should ensure that the siping does not render inoperative the compliance of tires with applicable Federal moto r vehicle safety standards.

You should also be aware that the agency's regulation on regrooved tires (49 CFR Part 569) specifies requirements concerning regrooved tires and regroovable tires which have been siped. See section 569.7(a)(2)(vii) and 569.7(b).

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht89-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/89

FROM: GAY M. ARTHUR

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO GAY M. ARTHUR; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

I am requesting clarification on the restrictions (if any) for the exterior roof on passenger cars. More specifically, I'd like to know if detachable, lighted novelty items are legally allowable on passenger cars.

In addition, if your office knows of specific restrictions by state, i.e., size or color, lighted or not, etc., I would also appreciate that information as well. If there is any cost for the photocopies, please let me know and I would be happy to send i t to you. Enclosed you will find a self-addressed stamped envelope for your use.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, and for your prompt reply.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam4831

Dear Mr. Brown: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, l99l, t the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company has been asked to 'develop a high mounted stop light and turn signal to be installed into the door of over the road trailers.' You have not found a reference in Standard No. 108 to such a lamp, and you have concluded that, as long as you add to the trailer's existing lamps without eliminating any of its lighting devices that are standard equipment, you will be in compliance. You have asked us for our opinion on this matter. You are correct that the requirement for a center high mounted stop lamp does not extend to trailers. Moreover, trailers are not included in the agency's pending rulemaking to extend the requirements to vehicles other than passenger cars. Although your design appears to combine the stop lamp and turn signal, a combination prohibited for passenger cars, you are under no Federal legal obligation to design a center high mounted stop lamp for trailers that complies with Standard No. 108. As the lamp is not intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. 108, it is permissible under section S5.1.3 of the standard as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. The judgment of whether impairment exists is initially that of the trailer manufacturer, who certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will review it and inform the manufacturer accordingly. Assuming that the trailers for which the lamp is intended have an overall width of 80 inches or more, your lamp would be mounted in closest proximity to the three-unit identification lamp cluster, which Table II of Standard No. 108 requires to be located 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle.' Identification lamps indicate to following drivers the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway ahead. It is possible that an activated center stop lamp or adjacent turn signal could mask the light from these lamps. However, these trailers are also equipped with clearance lamps, which serve the same purpose of identifying a large vehicle. Thus, it would appear that your device would not impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps within the prohibition of section S5.1.3. We assume that the turn signal portion of the lamp is a supplement to others on the trailer that are located to comply with the 83-inch maximum mounting height imposed by Table II. I hope that this is responsive to your concern. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: nht94-5.44

DATE: May 9, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bloomfield, John -- Manager, Engine Management, Legislation and Certification, Lotus Cars, Ltd. (ENGLAND)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To a Letter Dated 10/28/93 From Rachel Jelly To John Womack

TEXT: This responds to the letter from Ms. Rachel Jelly, formerly of your company, concerning low volume CAFE exemptions. I apologize for the delay in our response. Ms. Jelly asked whether Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. (Bugatti) and Lotus Cars, Ltd. (Lotus), both of which are controlled by the same holding company, may submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two alternative standards. The answer to this question is no. Since any alternative CAFE standard would apply to Bugatti and Lotus together, a single combined petition must be submitted for a single alternative standard.

The reasons for the above response are discussed in the attached letter from NHTSA to Mr. Lance Tunick, of Bugatti. Mr. Tunick's letter to NHTSA raised issues that are of concern to both Bugatti and Lotus. Thus, NHTSA's response to Mr. Tunick should address Lotus' concerns about filing for alternative CAFE standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9325

Mr. John Bloomfield
Manager, Engine Management
Legislation and Certification
Lotus Cars, Ltd.
Hethel, Norwich, Norfolk NR14 8EZ
England

Dear Mr. Bloomfield:

This responds to the letter from Ms. Rachel Jelly, formerly of your company, concerning low volume CAFE exemptions. I apologize for the delay in our response. Ms. Jelly asked whether Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. (Bugatti) and Lotus Cars, Ltd. (Lotus), both of which are controlled by the same holding company, may submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two alternative standards. The answer to this question is no. Since any alternative CAFE standard would apply to Bugatti and Lotus together, a single combined petition must be submitted for a single alternative standard.

The reasons for the above response are discussed in the attached letter from NHTSA to Mr. Lance Tunick, of Bugatti. Mr. Tunick's letter to NHTSA raised issues that are of concern to both Bugatti and Lotus. Thus, NHTSA's response to Mr. Tunick should address Lotus' concerns about filing for alternative CAFE standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:525 d:5/9/94

ID: nht94-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 9, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bloomfield, John -- Manager, Engine Management, Legislation and Certification, Lotus Cars, Ltd. (ENGLAND)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To a Letter Dated 10/28/93 From Rachel Jelly To John Womack

TEXT: This responds to the letter from Ms. Rachel Jelly, formerly of your company, concerning low volume CAFE exemptions. I apologize for the delay in our response. Ms. Jelly asked whether Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. (Bugatti) and Lotus Cars, Ltd. (Lotus), bot h of which are controlled by the same holding company, may submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two alternative standards. The answer to this question is no. Since any alternative CAFE standard would apply to Bugatti and Lotus together, a single combined petition must be submitted for a single alternative standard.

The reasons for the above response are discussed in the attached letter from NHTSA to Mr. Lance Tunick, of Bugatti. Mr. Tunick's letter to NHTSA raised issues that are of concern to both Bugatti and Lotus. Thus, NHTSA's response to Mr. Tunick should ad dress Lotus' concerns about filing for alternative CAFE standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.