ID: 20576.ztv

Mr. Michael Lafon
Fleet Manager
Lincoln County Fleet Services
410 N.E. Harney Street
Newport, OR 97365

Dear Mr. Lafon:

This is in reply to your FAX of August 27, 1999, asking for an interpretation of the rear lighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the drawing you enclosed of a dump body.

This drawing depicts, first, two red clearance lamps (not identification lamps as you stated) mounted on the sides and at the top of the dump body. This aspect of your lighting scheme meets the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be mounted so as to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and as near the top as practicable.

We note also that the three red identification lamps are mounted below the dump body, on 12-inch centers. You relate that the requirement that identification lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle (as required by Table II) "has been a tough one for dump trucks to fully meet because of no practical place to mount these lamps up high," and that "to meet the highest practicable point of the requirement, these lamps have been traditionally mounted on the truck's rear frame cross member." You are correct that this is an acceptable location for the three identification lamps for trucks having dump bodies with rear full width/full height dumb gates.

You may be aware that we issued an interpretive rule on identification/clearance lamp location in April of this year, but it was addressed to trucks and trailers with rear doors and headers abovethem. Because your dump body has no header above the rear gate, this interpretive rule is not applicable to it. Further, the 12-inch spacing of your vehicle's identification lamps is in accordance with the requirements of Table II.

Below the clearance lamps, on each side, are two identical lamps mounted one over the other. These, plus the outer lamps of the identification lamp cluster mounted beneath the dump body, are intended to comprise the tail and turn signal lamp system. In addition, the three identification lamps would be activated when the brakes were applied. This would provide a six-lamp taillamp system, a system of three turn signals per side, and a seven-lamp stop lamp system. You point out that Standard No. 108 does not prohibit combining the identification lamp system with other lamps.

You are correct that S5.4 does not prohibit the lighting scheme you propose. However, in this instance the controlling authority is S5.1.3: "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Intuitively, it may seem to you that providing additional stop lamp, turn signal, and taillamp functions can only enhance motor vehicle safety. However, we are convinced that our current standardized approach to motor vehicle lighting has positive safety benefits by virtue of its broad public and international acceptance, and that lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108 for a specific purpose ought not to be used for a different purpose. A driver, when confronted with a signal, must not be confused and must react to it as quickly as possible. The use of the outer lamps of the identification lamp cluster as supplementary turn signals, carry the potential for confusion and hence impairment of the lamps that are intended as the turn signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 because they are closer to the vertical centerline of the dump body than its outermost edges where the turn signal lamps are properly located. We therefore believe that this aspect of your lighting scheme is precluded by S5.1.3.

We note that a similar distance separates the identification lamps from the primary stop lamps. We believe that the simultaneous activation of the four primary stop lamps located as far apart as practicable on the truck body, and the three low-mounted identification lamps mounted on the frame member under the truck body and used as supplementary stop lamps may have a similar distracting effect; the public is not used to seeing a change of intensity in identification lamps mounted in that location. Therefore, this aspect of your lighting scheme is also precluded by S5.1.3. However, we have permitted identification lamps mounted at or near the top of a wide vehicle to serve as auxiliary stop lamps on the theory that the public is now conditioned to seeing high-mounted stop lamp arrays on many narrower motor vehicles and would perceive an increase in intensity of identification lamps as indicating that the brakes had been applied.

We would also like to remind you that, in mounting lamps on the dump body, the stop, turn, and taillamps must be located within the height limit specified in Table II of Standard No. 108. You did not mention the two required rear facing red reflex reflectors required by Table I. These also must be located with the height and width requirements of Table II.

We appreciate your writing us. If you have questions, you may call Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/26/99

ID: GF007569-2

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your letter asking us to reconsider our May 22, 2003, interpretation letter to Mr. Babcock of Hyundai concerning whether a multi-component rear reflex reflector configuration would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that each passenger car (and certain other specified vehicles) be equipped with 4 red and 2 amber reflex reflectors. Table IV of the standard requires that two red reflex reflectors be located on the rear of the vehicle, one on each side of the vertical centerline, and as far apart as practicable. The applicable photometry requirements for reflex reflectors are incorporated by reference from SAE J594f, "Reflex Reflectors," January 1977.

In our letter to Mr. Babcock, we addressed a rear reflex reflector configuration which consisted of three separate reflex reflectors. One reflector was installed on the fender and a second reflector was located adjacent to it, on the deck lid. The third reflector was hidden by the deck lid and was not visible until the deck lid was raised. No single reflector fulfilled the photometric requirements for a rear reflex reflector, but these requirements were met when the reflector on the fender and either of the other two reflectors were measured.

We explained that this design was not a permissible configuration under Standard No. 108. We stated that the text and setup for testing set forth in SAE J594f clearly indicate that the requirements of this standard apply to a single reflex reflector, and may not be met using a combination of separate reflex reflectors.

In requesting reconsideration, you state that our interpretation is potentially inconsistent with a prior interpretation of Standard No. 108, sent to Mr. Bataini of DBM Reflex Enterprises on July 19, 2000. In that interpretation, we addressed a configuration where side mounted reflective devices were incorporated into a headlamp housing and visible from the side when light is reflected from them. We stated that the relevant question was "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same housing." We concluded that the answer is yes, provided that when assembled they meet the requirements of SAE Standard J594f.

You suggest that the standard should be interpreted to "permit a reflex reflector to consist of two (or more) reflective devices molded separately and installed on a single, rigid part of the vehicle (such as the fender or bumper) as long as the devices are mounted closely enough together that they meet the test requirements of SAE J594f." You noted that SAE J594f allows reflex reflectors to "have any linear or area dimensions," as long as the photometric performance is met with a specified maximum projected area contained within a 10 inch diameter circle.

We are pleased to clarify Standard No. 108s requirements for reflex reflectors. After considering your letter, it continues to be our opinion that for each reflex reflector required by the standard, all of the standards requirements for that reflex reflector must be met by a single reflex reflector.

We interpret the word "reflector" to refer to a single reflector, that must fully comply on its own. In other situations where Standard No. 108 allows the requirements for an item of lighting equipment to be satisfied by more than one item, it explicitly says so. See, e.g., section 3.1 of SAE J585e (tail lamps), section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J586 (stop lamps), and section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 (turn signal lamps). (These SAE recommended practices are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.)

We do not believe there is any inconsistency between our letters to Mr. Babcock and Mr. Bataini. In our letter to Mr. Bataini, we addressed the issue of "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same [headlamp] housing."(Emphasis added.) We were not addressing the issue of multiple reflectors.

We note that Standard No. 108 does not specify that all of the reflective elements of a reflex reflector need to be contiguous. Our view when we issued the letter to Mr. Bataini was that whether the reflective elements of the reflex reflector were molded to each other and then mounted on a headlamp housing, or instead separately mounted on the headlamp housing, the finished product was a single item (both a single reflector and a combination lamp). By contrast, multiple unconnected reflective devices installed on the vehicles fender or bumper would not constitute a single reflector.

Finally, we note that the use of multiple reflectors in place of a required single reflector would not only raise testing issues but also concerns related to replacement of broken reflectors. Standard No. 108 specifies requirements only for single reflectors. If a vehicle manufacturer used multiple reflectors in place of a single reflector, there would be no way of knowing the apportioned contribution of each of the separate reflectors. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for an aftermarket manufacturer to supply parts that have the same reflectivity as the original parts, and there would be certification problems for these manufacturers. Therefore, if one of the separate reflectors became broken and the vehicle owner replaced it (but not all of the reflectors), the vehicle might not provide the minimum required performance in this area.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/14/04

ID: aiam0070

Dear Mr. Leu: Thank you for your letters of January 15 and March 25, 1968, to th National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to snow removal and heavy duty on-off highway vehicles manufactured by Oshkosh.; Standard No. 108 requires that headlamps be mounted not more than 5 inches above the road surface. Since your snow removal vehicles may be used in hauling operations as a secondary function, and since your heavy duty vehicles are used on the public roads, they are required to be equipped with headlamps located in accordance with Standard No. 108. Additional headlamps mounted on the cab roof or elsewhere on the front of the snow removal vehicle is permitted by the standard.; With reference to your heavy duty vehicles, headlamps located in th bumper, with adequate openings in front of the headlamps, or headlamps located below the bumpers, with protective shields around the headlamps would be permitted by Standard No. 108.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, we must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard. The certification information that you have provided us in your letter of January 15 is in accordance with our requirements.; We trust this information will be of assistance to you in your desir to comply with the existing safety standards.; Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: nht73-1.40

DATE: 06/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Mobil Oil Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1973 and confirms the telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff on June 14, 1973.

The amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 published on May 17, 1973 modified container labelling requirements only for silicone-based brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil (paragraph S5.2.2.3) and did not affect the requirements for conventional DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids (paragraph S5.2.2.2) as you assumed. Therefore you appear to have no problem, and it is not necessary to consider your letter as a petition for reconsideration.

The sample label you enclosed appears to designate the contents as "Super Heavy Duty Brake Fluid", rather than "DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID" as paragraph S5.2.2.2(e) requires. Otherwise, it is adequate compliance with paragraph S5.2.2.2.

Sincerely,

Mobil Oil Corporation

June 1, 1973

T. Vinson -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUIDS

PACKAGE LABELING

DOCKET NO. 71-13

Dear Mr. Vinson:

You may recall that on May 23, we spoke about the Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid Standard No. 116, identified as 571.116, Docket No. 71-13; Notice 4 and previous Notices. I mentioned that there were some changes in labeling instructions in Notice 4 as compared to the instructions which appeared in the Federal Register on Thursday, June 24, 1971, page 11989. I also mentioned that it would be virtually impossible to comply with the new labeling outlined in the May 17, 1973 Federal Register by the effective date of July 1, 1973.

You suggested that we might like to file a Petition of Reconsideration mentioning the two items which we discussed. Would you, therefore, please consider this letter as a Petition of Reconsideration.

1. Since it would be virtually impossible to prepare new graphics and lithography and have material packaged between now and July 1, 1973, and since the wording does not seem to represent a substantive change, we would like to make the labeling change in an orderly way. I would estimate this could be done in six to eight months after we know the exact wording to be used on the package.

2. The June 24, 1971 Federal Register carried as a caution, "DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS." The May 17, 1973 Federal Register carries the caution, "Do not refill container or use other liquids." It seems to me that the former wording is better than the latter. There is also a difference in the various Notices with respect to the use of upper and lower case letters. We would like to know exactly which words should be used before changing the graphics and notifying the can manufacturers to use new lithography on future containers.

You may be interested to see the marking on our current 16-oz Mobil Super Heavy Duty Brake Fluid package, so here is a copy of the art. When we redo the graphics, we will, of course, change the text in the upper half of the rear panel to reflect the newest SAE Specification J-1703c and the newest Federal Specification VV-B-680-B. We will also change the wording in the lower part of the back panel when we find out exactly what is wanted with respect to the caution and the use of upper and lower case letters.

Very truly yours,

J. W. Lane, Manager --

Product Promotion, Technical

Publications and Packaging

Attachment

DRY BOILING POINT EXCEEDS 450 F (232 C)

Mobil Registered

super heavy duty brake fluid

Surpasses SAE Specification J-1703b, conforms to Federal Specification VV-B-680-A, and to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, DOT 3 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid.

KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN

A non-volatile super heavy duty fluid for use in all types of auto and truck hydraulic brake systems where vehicle manufacturer specifies SAE J-1703b or DOT 3 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid. Mixes perfectly with any automotive hydraulic brake fluid approved by vehicle manufacturers or which meets SAE Specification J-1703b, Federal Specification VV-B-680-A, or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, No. 116, DOT 3. Minimum wet boiling point 284 F (140 C). Do not spill on vehicle finishes.

CAUTION -- COMBUSTIBLE MIXTURE N.Y.F.D.C. OF A. NO. 1095

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY, Contamination with dirt, water, petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

4. CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

Distributed By Mobil Oil Corporation, New York, N.Y.

ID: nht79-1.34

DATE: 11/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEV Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 9 1979

Mr. H. J. T. Young Vice president - Technical Affairs SEV Corporation 33201 Harper Avenue St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office in which you requested an interpretation of S4.1.1.19 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.1.1.19 states:

A lamp manufactured on or after January 1, 1974 and designed to use a type of bulb that has not been assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating by its manufacturer and is not listed in SAE Standard J573d "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units", December 1968, shall meet the applicable requirements of this standard when used with any bulb of the type specified by the lamp manufacturer, operated at the bulb's design voltage. A lamp that contains a sealed-in bulb shall meet these requirements with the bulb operated at the bulb's design voltage.

It is noted that this paragraph consists of two sentences. You have asked whether the "lamp" and "bulb" of the second sentence are the same "lamp" and "bulb" of the first sentence.

The answer is no. The first sentence would require testing, at the bulb's design voltage, of bulbs used in sealed beam headlamps but not of bulbs used in, for example, taillamps; the former, though listed in J573d (Table 2), is not assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating since these bulbs emit shaped beams while the latter are both listed in J573d and have assigned mean spherical candlepower ratings. However, if the latter is used in the sealed lamp, it is tested at the bulb's design voltage rather than using the rated mean spherical candlepower. Furthermore, the rulemaking history of the paragraph clearly indicates that the two requirements are separate. As the agency noted in the preamble to the proposal, "The proposal specifies that when no rating has been assigned by the bulb manufacturer or the SAE or if the lamp is sealed and the bulb cannot be replaced, the bulb shall be operated at design voltage" (emphasis supplied) (38 FR 16230).

You noted that your question relates to the voltage required by Standard No. 108 for the photometric testing of a sealed beam headlamp that utilizes a European halogen bulb that meets ECE Regulation 37.

Since J579c requires the test voltage to be 12.8 volts for all the sealed beam bulbs, the photometric tests should be at 12.8 volts and not at the so-called "system voltage" of 12 volts.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street S W WASHINGTON DC 20590 September 24 1979

Dear Mr Vinson

Request for Interpretation

With reference to S4.1.1.19 of FMVSS 108, are the "lamp" and "bulb" of the second sentence the same as these two items referred to in the first sentence, that is to say, is the bulb of the second sentence one to which the two conditions attaching to the bulb of the first sentence also apply?

This question relates to the voltage required by FMVSS 108 for the photometric testing of a sealed beam headlamp that comprises, in part, a "sealed-in bulb" that is an H1, H2, H3 or H4 halogen bulb that bears the E-mark signifying that it is in compliance with E/ECE/TRANS/505/rev.1/Add.36 Regulation 37 of the Geneva Agreement of 20 March 1958 as adopted by the several European governments. Yours sincerely

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

ID: nht94-2.3

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributor Association, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to faxes dated 2/14/94 and 1/12/94 from Richard Kreutziger to Walter Myers (OCC 9559); Also attached to letter dated 2/20/87 from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

This responds to your Fax of January 12, 1994, requesting an information on the extent to which a state can adopt requirements for school buses which exceed the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This also responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the location requirements for a side emergency door exit in Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

Your January 12, 1994 FAX requested clarification of when a state could impose requirements on school buses which exceeded the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Specifically, you asked whether the state could impose suc h requirements on (1) a public school and (2) a contractor providing transportation for a public school. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State o r political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with th e otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103 (d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable FMVSS that are different from the applicable FMVSS, except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law imposing higher requirements would be preempted under S103(d) to the extent that the law requires ALL school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would n ot be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. In addition, the agency has previously interpreted the phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" to include public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a pri vate contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school. See, for example, February 20, 1987 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin (copy enclosed).

Your February 14, 1994 FAX asked whether the November 2 final rule permits a right side emergency exit door to be to the rear of the passenger compartment.

The answer is yes. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors. I have attached for your i nformation an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

(Appendix omitted.)

ID: nht94-1.31

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ramin Bogzaran -- General Manager, Remedquip International Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/1/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to John Womack; Also attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Amar Chhabra to whom it may concern; Also attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 1, 1993, in which you asked whether two trailers on which are mounted specialized equipment would be classified as motor vehicles. We are sorry we were unable to respond by your requested date of December 14, 199 3.

You stated that the trailers in question were manufactured in Greenville, TN in 1991 and Shipped to a company in Canada which is no longer in business. A transportable soil remediation plant was mounted on the trailers, but they have not been used or mo ved since their delivery. You stated that you now expect to import the trailers with their mounted equipment into the U.S. for use as a transportable soil remediation plant. You stated that the trailers will not be registered and will be moved only wit h permits because the anticipated projects for the equipment are long term and "the trailers will hardly see the road in their lifetime." You stated that the trailers will be inspected before they are moved to assure their safety, and that you will assu re the safety of the equipment on the road while transporting it from Vancouver, Canada to your shop in San Diego, CA. You enclosed with your letter a certificate of origin, pictures of the trailers with the equipment mounted thereon, a letter from the company that originally purchased the trailers, and a letter from the manufacturer of the trailers.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S. Code S1381 to S1431, as amended (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles or new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. The term "motor vehicle" is defined in the Safety Act as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted that language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or that are otherwise incapable of highway travel are clearly not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport ru nway vehicles and underground mining devices, are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicl es and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles, nor is equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spends

extended periods of time at a single job site. Those vehicles or equipment are not considered motor vehicles because their intended use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary off-road use.

Based on your representations that your trailers will be utilized on long-term off-road projects, they would not be classified as motor vehicles. Therefore, they would not be subject to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards nor the import requ irements of 49 CFR 591.5. That determination, however, does not mean that the trailers would necessarily be exempt from state motor vehicle requirements, especially the states through which you intend to transport the equipment from Vancouver to San Die go. For information on state laws in that regard, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22204, (703) 522-4200.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht87-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/87 EST

FROM: REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119; LETTER DATED 09/13/88 FROM JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE TO LARRY COOK -- NHTSA, OCC 2539; LETTER DATE D 08/26/88 FROM R. E. MORGAN TO MARVIN ORNES; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM RE MORGAN TO R. ROGERS RE GOODYEAR MILEAGE TIRES, REF BRUCE RUMAGE PHONE CALL

TEXT: SPECIAL SERVICES

Fares can be paid in cash (exact amounts only), with tokens, tickets or a monthly pass. Peak hours are weekdays 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. All other times are off-peak hours. Transfers are free and are issued upon boarding. Riders must p ay the difference in fare when transferring to a more expensive level of service. Peak Off-Peak Elderly & Handicapped Off-Peak Circulator $ .50 $ .50 $ .10 Local .75 .50 .10 Express 1.25 1.25 .10 Regional 2.00 2.00 .10 Boulder City .50 .50 .10 Longmont City .25 .25 .10 Tokens Tokens are available in 25 cent and 75 cent denominations from all RTD sales outlets. The 25 cent tokens are also available from Albertsons, King Soopers and Safeway stores. 10-Ride Books of 10 single trip coupons are avail-Ticket Books able at 10 percent discount for Regional, Express and Local service at all RTD sales outlets. The coupons are good during the calendar year in which they are purchased. Monthly RTD monthly passes are valid throughout Passes the stated month for which they are purchased. The passes are good for unlimited rides on the level of service purchased, less expensive levels of service, or as a credit toward more expensive levels of service. The passes offer a 15 percent discount over cash fares and can be valid for extra benefits too, such as discounts from local merchants or for special events. Passes are available at any RTD sales outlet and at Safeway and King Soopers stores. Passes also can be obtained through the mail or by phone (777-8893). Some individuals are eligible for additional pass discounts, including youths 18 and under, students of any age at accredited schools, senior citizens 65 and over and disabled individuals. The reduced rate passes are available from RTD sales offices or through the mail.

DIRECTORS

RTD offers a variety of special services, including those for the elderly, handicapped and students. More than 77 percent of the District's fleet is fully accessible to handicapped persons in wheelchairs. RTD also offers the handyRide program, a cur b-to-curb subscription service to meet the needs of those more severely disabled individuals who cannot use regular accessible service.

The popular seniorRide gives thousands of elderly persons the opportunity to participate in more than 300 social, educational and recreational events during the year. A shopper service provides midday trips to shopping centers for the elderly and han dicapped. For information call 778-3503.

Persons ages 18 and under are offered independence during the summer months with the Summer Youth Pass. For just $ 7 a month, the pass gives unlimited rides on all Local, Limited and Circulator routes and may also be good for discounts at selected ar ea merchants.

RTD also offers BroncoRide and BuffaloRide to get fans directly to Denver Bronco and University of Colorado (Boulder) home football games. The Mall The 16th Street Mall, built by RTD, was officially opened in October 1982. It is anchored at both ends by transit stations, linked by the free Mall shuttles. A fleet of 26 shuttle buses operates along the mile- long mall, and carried 11.9 million people in 1986. District A Jack McCrosky Downtown & Central DenverDistrict B Glenda Swanson Lyle, Northeast Denver District C Henry L. Solano, North Denver District D Michael J. Garcia, Southwest Denver District E Bob Jacobsen, Southeast Denver District F Mary Duty, Aurora District G Richard P. Karma, Second Vice Chairman Arapahoe/Douglas CountiesDistrict H J. Bear Baker, Secretary Arapahoe CountyDistrict I Bill Womack, First Vice Chairman East Boulder/Adams CountiesDistrict J Kevin Sampson, Northwest Adams County District K Robert June, East Adams County District L Thomas G. Thomas North Jefferson CountyDistrict M Helen W. Steele, Treasurer Central Jefferson CountyDistrict N Stephen C. Millard, South Jefferson County District O Roger Cracraft, Chairman West Boulder County GeneralChester E. Colby Manager

(PHOTOGRAPH OMITTED)

OPERATING STATISTICS 1985-1987

The Regional Transportation District is a public agency created in 1969 by the Colorado General Assembly to develop, operate and maintain a mass transportation system for the benefit of the people in RTD's six-county service area.

The service area includes all of Boulder, Denver and Jefferson counties, and the urban portions of Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas counties.

The District is governed by a 15-member board of directors elected for four-year terms. Route/ Telephone Information Center, open 5 a.m. Schedule to 10 p.m. weekdays; 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.Information weekends and holidays. 778-6000 Denver Metro Information 777-3343 Boulder Information 1-800- Calls to TIC from outside Denver Metro 223-1565 dialing area 778-1034 TDD Information (for persons with speech or hearing impairments) Customer For information not related to routes and Service schedules. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.573-2343 District-wide Customer Service 573-2202 TDD (for persons with speech or hearing impairments) 1,843,000 Population within six-county service area 35 Cities and towns served 2,304 Square miles in service area 26,830,314 Current annualized route service miles 2,278 Miles of routes (1986) 8,900 Bus stops 149 Total number of routes 47 Local 54 Express 16 Regional 6 Circulator (including mall) 10 Boulder City 5 Longmont City 9 Limited 2 Paratransit 170,000 Estimated 1987 average weekday boardings (includes approximately 40,000 Mall Shuttle boardings) 51,500,000 Estimated 1987 annual boardings (includes approximately 11,500,000 on Mall Shuttle) 91,813 Daily miles operated (1987 average weekday) 7,535,325 Diesel fuel consumption (1986 gallons) 759 Total active buses in fleet 588 Wheelchair lift-equipped buses 5.3 years Average fleet age 38 Park-n-Ride facilities 598 Peak-hour buses required (October 1987) 2,055 Total number of employees (1987 Adopted Budget) 419 Salaried employees 1,636 Represented employees (including approximately 110 part-time bus operators) 1987 1986 1985 Adopted Actual Actual Budget .6 of one $ 79,500,000 $ 77,941,000 $ 78,851,000percent general sales tax Transit Fares $ 18,000,000 $ 17,423,000 $ 17,927,000 Federal $ 30,231,000 $ 32,569,000 $ 20,557,000Grants Investment $ 8,679,000 $ 8,419,000 $ 8,689,000Income & Other Debt $ 0 $ 19,485,000 $ 1,275,000Financing From 1986 fund balance carryover: Federal $ 11,797,000 $ 0 $ 0Capital Grants Local Funds $ 11,219,000 $ 0 $ 0 Total $ 159,426,000 $ 155,837,000 $ 127,299,000 Operations & $ 100,122,000 $ 104,959,000 $ 103,011,000Administration Capital $ 63,688,000 $ 39,749,000 $ 25,381,000 Total $ 163,810,000 $ 144,708,000 $ 128,392,000 Ending $ 51,479,000 $ 51,269,000 $ 58,377,000accumulated revenues over expenditures

ID: alliance.ztv

Mr. Robert S. Strassburger
Vice President
Vehicle Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 2003, asking two questions with respect to the final rules set forth in 49 CFR Part 579.

Your first question cited a portion of the early warning reporting final rule, Section 579.21(b), which applies to "all light vehicles less than ten calendar years old at the beginning of the reporting period." Under subsection (b)(1), a manufacturer must report "each incident involving one or more deaths occurring in a foreign country . . . involving a manufacturers vehicle, if that vehicle is identical or substantially similar to a vehicle that the manufacturer has offered for sale in the United States." You asked that we concur in your understanding that the ten-year old limitation "applies both to the age of the vehicle in which the fatality occurred in a foreign country and to the offering for sale of a substantially similar vehicle in the United States." You presented a situation in which a fatality occurs in a vehicle that is substantially similar to a vehicle previously offered for sale in the United States but whose sale was discontinued more than ten years before the beginning of the reporting period. In this event, the Alliance understands that the "ten calendar year" limitation applies and that a manufacturer would not have to report the incident.

You are correct that the purpose of the regulation is to identify potential defects in vehicles in the United States. Although safety defects can and have existed in vehicles older than ten calendar years, the early warning reporting requirements are intended to be consistent with the amendment to 49 U.S.C. 30120(g) under which the period for remedy of defective and noncompliant motor vehicles without charge was increased from eight to ten years. Therefore, we confirm your understanding that a claim involving a fatality or injury occurring in a foreign vehicle need not be reported if no sales of a substantially similar vehicle have occurred in the United States for more than ten years before the beginning of the reporting period. On the other hand, in a situation in which a fatality or injury occurs in a foreign vehicle that is more than ten years old and a substantially similar U.S. vehicle has been sold within a ten-year period before the reporting period, a related claim must be reported to us. This interpretation applies not only in the context of Section 579.21(b), but also with respect to the ten-calendar-year language of Sections 579.22(b), 579.23(b), and 579.24(b), and the five-calendar-year provisions of Section 579.25(b) and 579.26.

Your second question arises in the context of the foreign defect reporting final rule. Section 579.11(d)(2) (as originally adopted) provided that a manufacturer need not report a foreign safety recall or other campaign to NHTSA if "the component or system that gave rise to the foreign recall does not perform the same function in any vehicles or equipment sold or offered for sale in the United States." It is your understanding that "no report would be required when a foreign campaign is conducted on a vehicle that is substantially similar to one offered for sale in the United States, but the component or system that gave rise to the foreign recall is not installed on the U.S. vehicles."

In response to the Alliances petition for reconsideration of the foreign defect reporting final rule, we amended Section 579.11(d)(2) to state that a manufacturer need not report if "the component or system that gave rise to the foreign recall or other campaign does not perform the same function in any substantially similar vehicles or equipment sold or offered for sale in the United States." 68 FR 4111, January 28, 2003. Since we have clarified that we do not require reporting if a component or system is present on a substantially similar U.S. vehicle but does not perform the same function as on a foreign vehicle, we believe that it is also clear that a manufacturer need not report to us if the system or component leading to the foreign recall or other campaign is not installed at all on the substantially similar U.S. vehicle.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/11/03

ID: nht80-1.9

DATE: 02/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your September 10, 1979, letter to our Tire Division has been referred to me for reply, since you are requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). You asked two questions in your letter. First, you asked whether the definition you offered for "maximum speed" was correct. If it was correct, you stated that the tire could exceed the speed restriction shown on the tire at a lighter load, and showed how the information could be set forth on the tire. The listing of varying maximum loads at different maximum speeds is not permitted to appear on the tire. Second, you asked if speed restricted tires could specify a speed restriction other than the 35, 50, and 55 mile per hour (mph) restrictions shown in the endurance test schedule of Standard No. 119. The answer to this question is no.

Regarding your first question, you defined a tire's maximum speed as "the highest speed at which a tire can carry the maximum single load that is molded on the tire sidewall." This definition is an acceptable one for tires with a speed restriction listed for them. However, you went on to note that if this definition was acceptable, then a tire could list varying maximum loads at varying maximum speeds. Such a listing is expressly prohibited by the language of Standard No. 119.

S6.5 of Standard No. 119 specifies that each tire subject to the Standard shall be marked with the information that is set forth in following paragraphs. Paragraph (d) of S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressures for single load tires, the type of tire about which you are inquiring, to appear as: Max load lbs. at psi cold. Paragraph (e) of S6.5 requires that a speed restriction on the tire appear only as: Max speed mph. Hence, a single load tire can be labeled with only one maximum load and only one maximum speed.

Your second question was whether a manufacturer could restrict the speed of a tire subject to Standard No. 119 to a speed other than the three speed restrictions shown in Table III of the Standard. Paragraph S6.1 requires all tires to pass the endurance test requirements of the Standard, and Table III shows the load and speeds to which the tires will be subjected during the endurance test. If the tire being subjected to the endurance test does not qualify for the special speeds and loads as one of the three speed restricted tires shown in the table or as a motorcycle tire, the tire would be tested at the speed and load shown under the heading "All other". This would mean that the tire's speed restriction would be ignored for purposes of the endurance test, and it would be tested as if it were a non-speed restricted tire. Such a tire would presumably fail the endurance test under these conditions, and no tire which fails to pass the endurance test can be sold in the United States. As a practical matter, therefore, speed restrictions other than the three shown in Table III of the Standard are not recognized by this agency.

The three speed restrictions shown in Table III of the Standard were adopted from descriptions of three types of speed restricted tires used by the United States tire industry in 1972, when the agency was initially promulgating Standard No. 119. If your company would like to add another speed restriction to those shown in Table III, you should file a petition for rulemaking with this agency requesting an amendment to Standard No. 119.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 10, 1979

Tire Division, National Highway Safety Administration,

Re: Confirmation of the definition of Max. Speed

Dear Sirs,

We would like to confirm that meaning of Max. Speed specified in S6.5e of FMVSS No. 119 is as follow:

1 Max. Speed means the highest speed at which a tire can carry the max. single load that is molded on the tire sidewall.

If the actual carrying load is lower than max. single load, the tire can run at a higher speed than the Max. Speed molded on the tire sidewall.

Example

Tire Size 1000R20 Load range H

Max. Load single 6610lbs

Max. Speed 35MPH Load LBS Speed MPH 6610 Max. Load 35 Max. Speed 5300 42 4600 50

2 According to Table Endurance Test Schedule, Max. Speed For Speed-restricted Service is specified as 55, 50 or 35 MPH. May we choose speeds different from the above?

In this case, if Max. Speed chosen is 40 MPH, should the 50 MPH endurance test condition be used?

We would appreciate it very much if you would give careful consideration to our questions.

Very truly yours,

The Yokohama Rubber Co., LTD -- Tire Quality Assurance Department; Taiji Ide, Manager