ID: aiam0332

Dear Mr. Blackwell: This is in response to your letter of April 14, 1971, concerning th Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation. The answers given you by Mr. David Schmeltzer in your telephone conversation are, for the most part, correct. This letter is to confirm those answers where appropriate and reply to the unanswered questions you raised.; The numbered paragraphs correspond to the numbered questions in you letter.; 1. The regulation speaks of a three year retention period for th information required by section 574.7(a) and the same three year period would be considered an appropriate length of time to retain the records required by section 574.7(c).; 2. The regulation specifies that each manufacturer or brand name owne shall record and maintain the records required by the regulation. Therefore, the regulation allows anyone to maintain those records but the legal responsibility may not be shifted. Thus, a brand name owner may have the manufacturer maintain the required records, but he remains legally responsible for their maintenance.; 3. Under the regulation, the distributors and dealers are required t submit the required information to the brand name owner, or the tire manufacturer, whoever has the legal responsibility of maintaining the records or to the manufacturer's designee. In other words, the person responsible for maintaining the records is the person who should receive the records unless he designates someone else to receive them.; 4. The tire manufacturer is required to furnish a means of recordin the required information to distributors and dealers, but not to brand name owners. However, this does not preclude the possibility of an arrangement whereby the tire manufacturer supplies the brand name owner the means for recording the required information.; 5. The records required by Part 574 need not be kept for reclassifie tires. However, Standard No. 109, the passenger car tire standard, sets forth requirements for maintaining records for reclassified tires.; 6. Under the regulation, the brand name owner has no obligation t supply information to the tire manufacturer.; 7. Your understanding that brand name owners are not responsible fo keeping records of reclassified tires under Standard No. 109 is correct.; 8. Tires which are manufactured for off public road use are no considered to be items of motor vehicle equipment under either the Act or the regulation.; 9. The repurchasing obligations for the manufacturer or brand nam owner for tires in the hands of dealers and distributors in the event of a defect notification, are contained in Section 111 of the Act. There are no repurchasing obligations under the Act which relate to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of the tire involved in the defect notification.; 10. Because the legal responsibility for defect notifications rest with the brand name owner, as well as the tire manufacturer (Section 113(f) of the Act) the requirements of Section 113(d) also apply to the brand name owner. We consider copies of notices received from either the manufacturer or the brand name owner as fulfilling the requirements of Section 113(d). It has been our practice to notify both the manufacturer and brand name owner in the event of a defect described as a result of our investigation.; 11. The brand name owner will be required to give a defect notificatio when he receives information that a defect has been determined whether that information comes from the manufacturer or from the Administrator or from his own knowledge.; 12. The certification regulations are satisfied, in the case of tires by the symbol 'DOT' embossed on the sidewall of the tire. This is the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with the tire standard.; 13. At this point in time, there are no regulations requirin performance of technical data to be furnished with new or retreaded tires. However, at any time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to require such information pursuant to Section 112(d) of the Act.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5115

Dear Senator Wellstone: Thank you for your letter on behalf of you constituents, Ms. Tutti Sherlock and Ms. Mary Bock, regarding the application of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus standards to Head Start facilities. Your constituents ask that NHTSA inform the Minnesota Department of Transportation that we do not require school bus manufacturers to provide school bus equipment, such as stop arms and special stop lights, on Head Start buses. They base this request on their belief that in 1985, NHTSA said that states may decide which regulations should apply to Head Start buses. They also believe that stop arms and lights for Head Start buses are unnecessary, and that painting Head Start buses yellow could be confusing. We cannot provide the requested interpretation, because the understanding of your constituents is incorrect. By way of background, your constituents' concerns relate to two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act'), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSS's for school buses, including FMVSS's requiring these buses to have a stop arm and warning lights. The Safety Act requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSS's for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement. The question of whether Head Start facilities are 'schools' under the Safety Act has been addressed by NHTSA since the beginning of the school bus FMVSS's. The agency's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore 'schools' under the Safety Act. We base this conclusion on a review of the goals and functions of the Head Start program (see, e.g., 45 CFR 1304.1-3), and on past NHTSA interpretations of 'school.' NHTSA has stated its position that Head Start facilities are schools most recently in an August 21, 1992 letter to Mr. Chuck Anderson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Any new bus that is sold to a Head Start facility must have the safety features of a school bus at the time of the vehicle's sale, including the stop arm and signal lights. However, the Safety Act does not require Head Start facilities to use school buses or any other particular vehicle, nor does it require school buses to be painted yellow. The maintenance and operational characteristics of school buses are matters left to the individual states. NHTSA's second set of school bus regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, is a set of recommendations to the states for developing effective pupil transportation programs. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, 'Pupil Transportation Safety' (copy enclosed), recommends that any vehicle designed for 11 or more persons that is used as a school bus should comply with the FMVSS's for school buses and should be painted yellow. However, Guideline 17 would affect the operation of your constituents' school buses only to the extent that Minnesota has incorporated it into state law. I hope this information will be helpful in responding to your constituents. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam4739

"Dear Senator Bentsen: Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curr on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. The Administrator has asked me to reply. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out Ford's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and asked for additional information about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information. Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that the vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends that dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from the customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new 'school buses,' which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are 'sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events.' Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a 'school bus' for the purposes of the safety standards. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable safety standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for ensuring that the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applicable school bus standards. The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of 'school bus,' that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportation, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statement indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified school bus. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, the person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students is not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person who plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicle is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are 'probably the biggest customer' Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either: a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in Voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation. Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact the State government to learn more about any State requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses. Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety considerations, NHTSA endorses Ford's recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes. I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional information. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. W.A. Jacques Dealer Fleet Operations Manager Ford Rent-A-Car System 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 43311 Detroit, MI 48243";

ID: nht89-1.90

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1989

FROM: Billy Mohr -- Commander, Support Section, Motor Carrier Division, Michigan Department of State Police

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/1/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (VSA S103(a)), letter dated 8/9/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack, and letter dated 5/12/89 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Billy Mohr

TEXT:

I have reviewed the S. 108 DOT interpretations you have provided. The 53 foot trailers have been allowed in Michigan for several years. The Michigan Legislature was specific in its requirements for use of trailers over 50 feet in length. The requirements are those recommended by the University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not notified the State of Michigan that the requirement of an additional "clearance lamp" as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Be advised that the lamp is not a marker lamp as mentioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations.

The statute that covers height, length and underride protection is within the Motor Vehicle Code, Act. 300 P.A. 1949 as amended. I cannot provide you with a copy of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, as it must be purchased from the Michigan Department of State. However I am including Section 719 as a part of this letter. Section 719 is as follows:

"Sec. 719. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a vehicle unloaded or with load shall not exceed a height of 13 feet 6 inches. The owner of a vehicle which collides with a lawfully established bridge or viaduct shall be liable for all damage and injury resulting from a collision caused by the height of the vehicle, whether the clearance of the bridge or viaduct is posted or not.

(2) A truck, truck tractor, semitrailer, or trailer manufactured on or after July 27, 1978, shall not be used to transport flammable liquids, in bulk, having a flash point at or below 70 degrees Fahrenheit, if the truck, truck tractor, semitrailer, or trailer exceeds 11 feet 8-1/2 inches in height. However, safety equipment and those appurtenances which are required by state law, when added to a vehicle, may cause the vehicle height to exceed 11 feet 8-1/2 inches, but shall not cause the vehicle height to exceed 13 feet 6 inches. A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(3) A vehicle, except a truck tractor, trailer, or semitrailer, including load, or articulated buses operated by a local public transit system funded by Act No. 51 of the public Acts of 1951, being Sections 247.651 to 247.674 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, shall not exceed a total length of 40 feet. The total length of a semitrailer operating in a truck tractor and semitrailer combination shall not exceed 53 feet, including load. All

semitrailers longer than 50 feet shall have a wheelbase of 40.5 feet plus or minus 0.5 feet, measured from the kingpin coupling to the center of the rear axles or to the center of the tandem axle assembly if equipped with 2 axles. Articulated buses operated by a local public transit system funded by Act No. 51 of the Public Acts of 1951 may operate with a maximum length of 65 feet. A combination of truck tractor, semitrailer, and trailer, or truck and semitrailer or trailer, or a combination of truck tractor and 2 semitrailers, including load, shall not exceed a total overall length of 59 feet except as provided for on routes designated and approved by the state transportation department and by local authorities with respect to highways under their jurisdiction on which a person may operate a combination of a truck tractor, semitrailer, and trailer or a truck tractor and 2 semitrailers with no limit on the overall combination length, if the length of each semitrailer or trailer including load does not exceed 28-1/2 feet. The state transportation department and local authorities with respect to highways under their jurisdiction may designate highways where the overall length of a truck and trailer or semitrailer shall not exceed 65 feet. A truck tractor and semitrailer combination with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet shall not be allowed to operate with more than 2 axles on the semitrailer. All truck tractor and semitrailer combinations with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet shall travel exclusively on highways designated by the appropriate road authority. City, village, or county authorities shall have the option of prohibiting stops within their jurisdictions unless the stop occurs along appropriately designated routes, or is necessary for emergency purposes or to reach shippers, receivers, warehouses, and terminals along designated routes. A trailer or semitrailer in actual and lawful use in this state on December 1, 1982, may be operated in this state for the life of the vehicle in a combination with other vehicles in actual and lawful use in this state on December 1, 1982, if the combination was of legal length under the law of this state immediately preceding January 24, 1984. In calculating the length of a trailer or semitrailer under this subsection, the length shall be based on the cargo carrying portion of the vehicle only, including load. A truck tractor or other motor vehicle shall not haul more than 1 trailer and 1 semitrailer or more than 2 semitrailers in combination at any 1 time, except that a farm tractor may haul 2 wagons or trailers or garbage and refuse haulers may, during daylight hours, haul up to 4 trailers for garbage and refuse collection purposes, not exceeding in any combination a total length of 55 feet at a speed of not to exceed 15 miles per hour. In determining the length of a vehicle or a vehicle combination under this subsection, the length shall not be considered to include safety and energy conservation devices including, but not be limited to, impact absorbing bumpers, rear view mirrors, turn signals lamps, marker lamps, steps and hand holds for entry and egress, flexible fender extensions, mud flaps, or splash and spray suppressant devices; load induced tire bulge; refrigeration or heating units; or air compressors. A device shall be excluded from a determination of length only if it is not designed or used for the carrying of cargo.

(4) If a combination of 2 semitrailers is pulled by a truck or truck tractor, a fifth wheel connecting assembly which conforms with motor carrier safety rules promulgated by the department of state police pursuant to the motor carrier safety act of 1963, Act No. 181 of the Public Acts of 1963, as amended, being sections 480.11 to 480.21 of the

Michigan Compiled Laws, shall be used on each semitrailer.

(5) A train of vehicles or a vehicle operated alone shall not carry a load extending more than 3 feet beyond the front of the train of vehicles or vehicle.

(6) A motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer whose frame or body extends more than 36 inches beyond the rear of its rear axle and is more than 30 inches above the roadway shall not be operated on the highways of this state unless equipped with a fender or bumper on the extreme rear of the frame or body. The bumper shall extend downward from the rear of the frame or body to within 30 inches of the roadway and be of substantial construction. In addition to the requirements of subsection (7), no vehicle which is required by federal law to have an underride guard of not more than 22 inches above the roadway shall be operated upon the highways of this state without such an underride guard.

(7) A truck tractor and semitrailer combination with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet whose frame or body extends more than 36 inches beyond the rear of its rear axle and is more than 30 inches above the roadway shall not be operated on the highways of this state unless equipped with an underride guard on the extreme rear of the frame or body. The underride guard shall meet all of the following requirements:

(a) Provide a continuous horizontal beam having a maximum ground clearance of 22 inches, as measured with the vehicle empty and on level ground.

(b) Extend to within 4 inches of the lateral extremities of the trailer on both left and right sides.

(8) A truck tractor and semitrailer combination with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet shall not be operated on the highways of this state at the times specified in section 684 unless equipped with all of the following lamps and reflectors, in addition to any other lamps and reflectors required under this act:

(a) Two side marker lamps which display an amber light, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear of the semitrailer.

(b) Two reflectors which reflect an amber light, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear of the semitrailer.

(c) Two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.

(9) A lamp required under subsection (8) shall be lighted at the times specified in section 684 and shall be visible when lighted at a distance of 500 feet from the side of the semitrailer on which it is mounted. A reflector required under subsection (8) shall be visible at the times specified in section 684 from all distances from 50 to 500 feet from the semitrailer when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps.

(10) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, a person may operate a combination of truck tractor, semitrailer, and trailer, or truck tractor and semitrailer or trailer designed and used exclusively to transport assembled motor vehicles or bodies, recreational vehicles, or boats, which does not exceed a total length of 65 feet. The load on the combination of vehicles may extend an additional 3 feet beyond the front and 4 feet beyond the rear of the combination of vehicles. Retractable extensions used to support and secure the load that do not extend beyond the allowable overhang for the front and rear shall not be included in determining the length of a loaded vehicle or combination of vehicles.

(11) A combination of vehicles shall not have more than 11 axles.

(12) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, a number of motor vehicles, wholly or partially assembled, may be transported over the highways of this state in combination, utilizing 1 tow bar or 3 saddle mounts with full mount mechanisms and utilizing the motive power of 1 of the vehicles in combination. The combination shall not exceed the maximum length of 65 feet for the transportation of assembled motor vehicles, and the vehicles in the combination shall be adequately and securely fastened together in compliance with regulations of the state and of any federal agency having jurisdiction over the transportation. If motor vehicles are towed by means of triple saddle mounts, the towed vehicles shall have brakes acting on all wheels which are in contact with the roadway. A combination exceeding 55 feet in length may be operated only on highways and routes approved and designated for that operation by the state transportation department and by local authorities with respect to highways under their jurisdiction.

(13) The total gross weight of a truck tractor, semitrailer, and trailer combination or a truck tractor and 2 semitrailers combination which exceeds 59 feet in length shall not exceed a ratio of 400 pounds per engine net horsepower delivered to clutch or its equivalent specified in the SAE handbook published by the society of automotive engineers, inc., (1977).

(14) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction. The owner of the vehicle may be charged with a violation of this section."

Your diagrams of trailers with pin setting measurements, marker lamps and underride protection is correct. However I want to point out that I cannot visualize a semitrailer such as you have on pages 4 and 5 where there would be less than 36 inches from the rear of the last axle to the rear of the semitrailer. There would be more than 9 feet from the pin to the front of the semitrailer.

If I can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please contact me at 517/373-4910.

ID: 1985-03.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/85

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY, DEAN HANSELL, LAW OFFICES OF DONOVAN, LEISURE, NEWTON & IRVINE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5); LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell:

Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1985, concerning the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our reply.

You asked about the requirement in S4.1.3 of the standard concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated your assumption that the standard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the United States and asked how a manufacturer is to determine if a vehicle is a part of its annual production for the United States. You pointed out that there are a number of possible sales transactions, beginning with the sale of a vehicle by Porsche to the U.S. importer and ending with the first sale to a consumer in the U.S. that can be used in determining at which point a vehicle becomes part of Porsche's annual production for the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

As discussed in the agency's April 12, 1985, (50 FR 14596) notice on Standard No. 208, your assumption that the term "average annual production" refers only to cars manufactured for sale in the United States is correct. S4.1.3 specifies that percentages of production are to be based on the number of cars manufactured between discrete dates. In the case of foreign cars, as in the case of domestic ones, "manufactured" means produced or assembled. Part 567 Certification (49 CFR Part 567) of the agency's regulation requires all vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to have a tag affixed to them certifying that they meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Therefore, in determining which vehicles are to be counted as the manufacturer's average annual production, the manufacturer should determine how many vehicles were produced and certified in accordance with our regulation during the applicable time period. Using production and certification provides the agency and manufacturers with an easily verifiable event to determine which cars are to be counted.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 5, 1995

FROM: Richard Mark Gergel -- Gergel, Burnette, Nickles, Grant And Leclair, P. A.

TO: Stephen P. Wood, Esquire -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/23/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO RICHARD MARK GERGEL (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

I am writing as a follow-up to our recent telephone conversation concerning the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to transactions between a local car dealer and purchasers within the same state. As I explained to you, the litigation in which I am involved concerns the sale of a motor vehicle with a capacity of more than 10 passengers to a school to transport students which did not meet the safety standards for a "school bus" under the Act. The defendant car dealer has asserted that a trans action between a car dealer and purchaser within the same state is beyond the scope of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act since such a transaction allegedly is not within interstate commerce.

We have diligently searched the case law for authorities which might address this issue. The only case we have found on point is National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar, 483 F2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 948, 950 (1974). I was hoping that your office might be aware of other case authorities or interpretations by the Secretary of Transportation which might provide further legal authorities on this point.

Since the judge now has this matter under advisement, I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If you need any further information from me, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

ID: nht80-3.10

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 22, 1980, asking two questions about Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

your first question concerns whether a display incorporated in the tachometer instrument face that shows which gear position has been selected by the automatic transmission control lever is an "informational readout display." You explained that the display "consists of 5 stacked transparent screens on which are printed 'D', '2', 'N', 'P', 'R' to identify the transmission control lever positions. Each screen is illuminated by an incandescent bulb which is energized selectively through contacts at the control lever."

The display which you have described is not an informational readout display. Section 4 of the standard defines "informational readout display" as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." As explained in the June 26, 1978, preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 101-80, the agency did not want to inhibit the development of electronic "readout" panels which present the driver with specific information concerning vehicle and environmental conditions affecting safety. The preamble further described these devices as displays "capable of exhibiting information and warning with word messages and not with symbols." The device you have described uses symbols instead of words and conventional incandescent bulb technology instead of electronic technology and thus is not an informational readout display.

The display you have described is a guage. Section 4 of the standard defines "guage" as "a display that is listed in S5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale." Section 5.1 and Table 2 do not identify the automatic gear position as a telltale. Likewise, an automatic gear position display does not meet the definition of "telltale." Section 4 of the standard defines "telltale" as "a display that indicates, by means of a light-emitting signal, the actuation of a device, a correct or defective functioning or condition, or failure to function." In this case, the display does not indicate the activation of a device since a transmission is always activated. Likewise, the display does not indicate that the transmission is functioning correctly or improperly or has failed to function, Section 5.3.3 provides that the light intensity of each gauge shall be continuously variable. The display you have described does not comply with section 5.3.3, since it only has two light intensities.

Your second question concerns "a display adjacent to the shift control lever which shows the transmission shift level sequence. The identifying characters 'P', 'R', 'N', '2', 'D', are shown on a transparent screen, the position selected is indicated by a colored panel which moves with the shift control level." You explained that the "colored panel only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on showing which position is selected, the other positions on the display are not illuminated." [Emphasis in the original] You asked whether the display is exempt from the illumination requirements of the standard because it is "a hand-operated control mounted upon a . . . floor console" or because it is a "telltale." Section 5.1 and Table 2 of the standard classify an automatic gear position indicator as a display. Thus, an automatic gear position indicator cannot be a "hand-operated vehicle control."

Further, the display that you have described is not a "telltale." As explained above, an automatic gear position display is a gauge. According to your description, the display "Only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on." Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires the light intensity for gauges to be continuously variable. Since the illumination for the display you have described apparently is not variable, it would not comply with the standard.

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

SINCERELY,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

April 22, 1980

Chief Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation regarding the applicability of certain provisions of FMVSS 101-80 to items of equipment which are intended to be used in 1981 model year Honda automobiles equipped with automatic transmission.

1. Incorporated in the tachometer instrument face is a display to show which gear position has been selected by the automatic transmission control lever. This display consists of 5 stacked transparent screens on which are printed 'D' '2', 'N', 'P', 'R' to identify the transmission control lever positions. Each screen is illuminated by an incandescent bulb which is energized selectively through contacts at the control lever. There are two light intensities for these bulbs; high enough for daylight visibility and reduced when the headlights are switched on. The display is activated whenever the ignition switch is in the "on" position. The display is identified only in the owners manual, not adjacent to the display.

We classify this as an "informational readout display" using an" "other electro illuminating device" and, as such, complying with the requirements of FMVSS 101-80.

2. There is a display adjacent to the shift control lever which shows the transmission shift lever sequence. The identifying characters 'P', 'R', 'N', '2', 'D' are shown on a transparent screen, the position selected is indicated by a colored panel which moves with the shift control lever. The colored panel only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on showing which position is selected, the other positions on the display are not illuminated.

We believe that, either this display is exempted from the requirements of FMVSS 101-80 under section S5.3.1 as a "hand-operated control mounted upon a . . . . floor console", or that the display and colored panel constitute a "telltale". As such, they comply with the requirement of S5.3.3 in that the light intensity of the telltale is not variable and the telltale and display are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions.

We would appreciate your earliest attention and response in this matter. Please call me at (213) 327-8280 if you have any questions.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

ID: nht81-2.36

DATE: 06/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1981 with regard to turn signal pilot indicators on motorcycles.

You noted that the front turn signal lamps are directly in front of the operator and are fully visible. You therefore believe that a separate pilot indicator is unnecessary. You are correct. Pursuant to SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, no separate pilot indicator is required for Turn Signal Lamps that are "readily visible to the driver."

You have also pointed out that the motorcycle controls and displays standard, No. 123, "does not indicate the provisions and location of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator." That is correct. Standard No. 108 and J588e establish the requirements for this item of vehicle equipment. I enclose a copy for your information.

ENC.

Date May 25, 1981

To

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400, Seventh Street, S. W.,

Dear Sir,

We are manufacturing scooters which fall under the catagory of Class I Motorcycles. The scooters are provided with Turn Signal Lamps both at the front and rear. The front turn signal lamps are directly in front of the rider and are fully visible to the rider. In view of the fact that the front turn signal lamps are visible to the rider, we feel the same lamps can serve as a pilot indicator and provision of seperate pilot indicator is not necessary. Please let us know whether our contention is proper from the standards point of view.

In this connection we would like to bring to your kind attention that Standard No. 123 - Motorcycle Controls & Displays as well as the statement of compliance does not indicate the provision and location of the turn signal pilot indicator.

We are enclosing herewith the pamplet which shows the photograph of the vehicle. Thanking you

For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED (M. S. KESHAV) MANAGER (R&D)

ID: nht88-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA 2. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAY COSTA -- ASSISTANT PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST, METROPOLITAN SEATTLE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7-21-87, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM JAY COSTA; MEMO DATED 6-18-87, CONTRACT No. T/F 19-84 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW; MEMO DATED 6-25-87, CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-83 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW

TEXT: I am responding to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). Specifically, you expressed concern that some transit system passengers are opening the rear emergency exits on your public tr ansit vehicles. Apparently, some passengers open these emergency exits to commit acts of vandalism. You state that "in the interest of safety the rear emergency window (in these vehicles) should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window." You asked whether Standard 217 would prohibit your "body shop" from modifying your "transit buses" in this manner.

Assuming that your body shop does not hold itself out to the public as a business that repairs motor vehicles for compensation, the shop would not be prohibited from modifying the buses as you describe.

Under paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard 217, buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more (such as your transit buses) must have at least one "rear emergency exit", unless the configuration of the bus precludes installing an accessib le rear exit. The manufacturer of your buses has stated that the bus configuration does not preclude installing an accessibel rear exit. Therefore, your manufacturer must deliver buses that are equipped with a rear emergency exit.

On the other hand, your "repair shop" is subject to different considerations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) prohibits certain commercial establishments from "rendering inoperative" an y device or element of design included on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In your example, the rear emergency exit is an element of design included in the buses in compliance with an applicable safety standard, and remo ving these exits would render inoperative that element of design.

However, the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defined in @ 108(a)(2)(A) as "any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensatin." Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard.

Assuming that your transit system body shop does not hold itself out to the publci as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles for compensation, it can make the modification you describe without violating any Federal requirements.

The problem you describe apparently involves the design for releasing the kind of emergency window exit in your vehicles. Standard 217 does not require a specific design for releasing an emergency exit. Rather, the Standard sets out a ceiling for the m agnitude of force necessary to release the exit, and a required direction for applying the release force. The transit system could replace the "operable" rear emergency window with a push-out window or other type of design that would still meet the rele ase requirements of Standard 217, yet make it difficult or impossible for a passenger to commit the acts of vandalism you describe.

Please note that the purpose of our emergency exit requirements for buses is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit in the event of an emergency. Though nothing prohibits you from modifying the vehicles to close off the rear emergency exit, I urge you to give your fullest consideration to the implications of making this modification. It is NHTSA's position that compliance with Standard 217 is the safest way to facilitate vehicle exit in an emergency, and it is my opinion that you needn't eliminate th e rear window exit to resolve your problem. Further, you might want to check with the State of Washington to learn if it prohibits modifications that would make your transit buses no longer comply with Standard 217.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht94-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Martin M. Sackoff -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2/7/94 FROM MARTIN M. SACKOFF TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC - 9646)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Sackoff:

This responds to your letter to this agency with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Your specific question addressed S 4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: "Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S 5.3." You asked for an interpretation of the term "breaking, " whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard.

The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that te st, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire i s continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever-increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things wil l happen:

1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim; or

2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The "breaking" of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although , obviously, a blow-out would constitute a "breaking."

The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction

2

described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure.

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