ID: aiam0810

Dear Mr. Long: This is in reply to your letter of July 26, 1972, on the subject of th situations in which S7.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 permits operation of the engine starting system, notwithstanding the ignition interlock requirements of S7.4.1 of the standard.; Your first question is whether the engine may be restarted if th ignition switch is turned off after the driver has left the seat. Our reply is that restart would not be permitted except within a period of three minutes after the switch has been turned off. There is no sequential relationship between the operation of the switch and the driver's leaving the seat, so that the starting system will have to become inoperable if the driver has left the seat and has turned the ignition off, regardless of whether he turned the switch before or after leaving the seat.; Your second question is whether the engine may be restarted if th ignition switch is turned off, then on, and the driver leaves his seat. Our reply is again that restart would not be permitted. S7.4.3 refers to operation 'if the ignition has not been turned off'. Once the ignition has been turned off, turning it on again will not revive the restart mode unless the engine is actually started again and then stopped with the ignition 'on'.; We have forwarded your check for a Federal Register subscription to th Superintendent of Documents. Enclosed you will find a copy of Notice 20, as you requested.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-1.9

DATE: 03/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of November 19, 1974, petitioning the NHTSA to amend Part 567, Certification (@ 567.4(f)), to allow the use of certification labels on which the lettering is embossed or engraved without regard to whether it contrasts with its background.

The NHTSA has decided that your petition should be denied. Our experience has been that certain types of engraving, those that are stencil-typed or stamped, are difficult to read without color contrast. The NHTSA considers it essential that certification labels be readable under all lighting conditions, and has not found embossing or engraving to produce by themselves sufficiently readable lettering for these labels. Of course, there is no prohibition against embossing or engraving if the finished lettering contrasts with its background.

We appreciate your point that Standard No. 105a accepts embossed or engraved lettering on the master cylinder reservoir label without requiring a color contrast. We are presently considering amending Standard No. 105a to eliminate this discrepancy.

ID: 21884.ztv

Mr. Greg Hayes
Marketing Director
Benson International
I-77 & Route 14 South
Mineral Wells, WV 26150






Dear Mr. Hayes:

This is in reply to your e-mail of June 23, 2000, seeking a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding the location of clearance and identification lamps on the front of dump trucks, and asking five related questions. By way of background, you referenced a letter of this Office dated April 25, 1990, to J. Douglas Smith of Duralite Truck Body and Container Corp.

Your first question is:

"1. If a final stage manufacturer adds a dump body to a chassis and installs clearance lamps on that body, must the cab mounted clearance lamps be disconnected or removed or can they stay in place and remain operational?"

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires, in pertinent part, that front clearance lamps be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as near the top as practicable. Assuming that the clearance lamps on the dump body meet this requirement, the cab-mounted clearance lamps are not necessary for compliance with Standard No. 108, and may either be disconnected or removed, or remain in place and be operational, as indicated in our 1990 letter to Mr. Smith.

"2. If a final stage manufacturer receives a cab equipped chassis that is shipped to it with no top of cab clearance or identification lamps installed and the final stage manufacturer installs a dump body that requires the installation of body mounted clearance lamps, where may the final stage manufacturer install the identification lamps? On the top of the cab, at the top of the body or in whichever is the most practicable location?"

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires, in pertinent part, that front identification lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle and as close as practicable to the vertical centerline. Alternatively, the front identification lamps may be located as close as practicable to the top of the cab. The final stage manufacturer must determine which location is "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle," whether it is on the body or the cab, and install the identification lamps in the location chosen. However, if the top of the vehicle is on the body and it is not practicable to locate the identification lamps on the body, such as may occur on a cement mixer, the lamps must then be located as close as practicable to the top of the cab.

"3. [Where a vehicle is equipped with a cab shield and the chassis is equipped with vertical exhaust stacks, and ] clearance lamps would not be visible if mounted on the body bulkhead and would not indicate true over-all width if mounted on the face of the cab shield, where should they be mounted? Would chassis top of cab clearance lamps suffice if spaced wider than would be possible on the cab shield face under these circumstances? Would installing these lamps on the face of the shield, if spaced wider than the top of cab lamps, be acceptable even though they do not indicate the true over-all width of the vehicle?"

As noted in our response to your first question, Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that front clearance lamps be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as near the top as practicable. In our opinion, locating any clearance lamp so that its center is more than 6 inches from the outermost edge of a vehicle does not indicate its overall width within the meaning of Standard No. 108 (see our letters of June 9, 1997, to Donald W. Vierimaa, and September 4, 1996, to John W. Cook, copies enclosed). Only secondarily must the lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. The need to indicate overall width on wide vehicles is so important to safety that S5.3.1.1.1 of Standard No. 108 permits clearance lamps to be located other than on the front (and rear) if it is " necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle. . . ." This allows clearance lamps to be mounted on the fenders or on the left and right mirrors or their brackets if they represent the widest part of a truck body. These alternate locations are possible solutions to the problem you raise.

Your letter indicates that there is a configuration in which front clearance lamps located on the body bulkhead would be obscured by vertical exhaust stacks directly in front of them. We do agree that it is better to have front clearance lamps that are visible to oncoming traffic but we do not agree that they do not have to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. If a vehicle configuration is such that front clearance lamps cannot be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and be as high as practicable, they still must be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, i.e., centers not more than 6 inches from the outermost edge of the vehicle.

"4. . . . In the case of a single vertical stack . . . the shield will be mounted off-center on the dump body. Application of the clearance lamp on the non-stack side would indicate the over-all width on that side, but [not on the other]. . . . [C]an the clearance lamps still be installed on the cab shield face even though they do not (1) indicate the true width on [one] side and (2) would no longer be an equal distance from the centerline of the vehicle."

The answer to your question is that this is not acceptable for the reasons stated in our reply to your third question. Although clearance lamps need not be located at the same distance from the vertical centerline, they must still be mounted at the same height, and must indicate overall width, in order to comply with Standard No. 108.

"5. . . . [W]here there is no practicable location to mount any lamps [because of the installation of a tarp storage system], will chassis cab mounted clearance and identification lamps meet the requirements of Standard 108?"

This appears to be the first time that we have ever been asked this question (though on October 19, 1999, we provided an interpretation regarding tarp storage systems and rear clearance and identification lamps to Mike Spencer of Timpte, Inc., which is not on point). In our view, if a tarp storage system installed as original equipment prevents mounting front identification and clearance lamps at the highest point of the truck, the identification lamps may be located lower, such as on the cab if, in that location, they are mounted as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. Clearance lamps are intended to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and must be located in a manner to accomplish that. If the highest location that indicates overall width of the vehicle is on the top of the fender, the lamps should be mounted on the fender, as high as practicable, to meet the secondary requirement that clearance lamps be located "as near the top [of the vehicle] as practicable." In this instance, cab-mounted clearance lamps would not comply because they would not indicate the overall width of the vehicle even though they would be located "as near the top [of the vehicle] as practicable." However, as mentioned above, should the vehicle be equipped with mirrors and/or mirror brackets that are higher than the fenders, and if they are so located that clearance lamps mounted on them can indicate the overall width, then the clearance lamps must be located on the mirrors or mirror brackets.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.10/24/00

ID: aiam3775

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding th classification of certain hypothetical mini- van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pa geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.; Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume tha passenger carrying volume (see, e.g., 49 CFR Part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (In the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meets the agency's 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MPV is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a 'truck chassis.' The 'chassis' of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.; The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, on member of which is classified as a 'truck,' is evidence that the common chassis is a 'truck chassis.' However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into an MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.; The floor pan differences mentioned in your first question do no appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same 'chassis,' since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.; Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs o whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.); Your third question involves the significance of the relative sale levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a 'truck chassis,' with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.; If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-2.94

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 22, 1990

FROM: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to Ford Bulletin number 10 dated 12-15-89 entitled Splicing Into The Stop Lamp Electrical Circuit, signature by R.R. Chestnut; Also attached to memo dated 6-6-90 from Tekonsha Engineering Company; Also attached to letter dated 8-31-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 5-2-84 from F. Berndt to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 11-30-81 from F. Berndt to K.G. Moyer (A23; Std. 108; Redbook 3); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to L.F. Henneberger (A36; VSA Sec. 103 (d); Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am submitting this request for interpretation on behalf of my client, Echlin Inc. and more specifically Tekonsha Engineering Company, a subsidiary of Echlin, concerning a California Vehicle Code lighting provision which, in our view, conflicts with and is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108.

The respective NHTSA and California requirements at issue are subparagraph S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 and subparagraph 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code. These provisions are reproduced in juxtaposition at Attachment A to this letter. Essentially, the conflict arises from the California Highway Patrol's (CHP) interpretation of 24603(f) as requiring the activation of a vehicle's stop lamps upon the application of the manual emergency override for use in controlling trailer sway.

Tekonsha believes that the California provision is at odds with S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 since its hand controlled emergency device (a) is not intended to and in the usual case, does not result in diminished vehicle speeds; (b) does not involve application of the vehicle's service brakes; (c) if connected to the stop lamps, would provide an unsafe, false braking signal; and (d) by not being connected to the stop lamps, eliminates other unsafe conditions caused by electrical interference.

BACKGROUND

Tekonsha has recently developed and introduced into the market a new generation, "state of the art" product known as the Commander Electronic Brake Control specifically designed to avoid splicing into the stop lamp switch circuit. This new development eliminates electrical interference including interference which causes serious safety problems. Electrical interference can, for example, prevent the speed control from disengaging upon braking, or deactivate antilock brake system operation. See Ford Motor Company Bulletin No. 10 (December 15, 1989) and Tekonsha product memorandum (June 6, 1990), both enclosed, respectively, as Attachments B-1 and B-2.

The Commander brake control permits the driver of a vehicle to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to

control swaying. In this emergency condition, the Commander brake control does not send out false signals because it is not connected into the stop lamp switch circuit. It is not the intention of the driver in controlling sway to stop or diminish speed. Therefore, by definition, the stop lamps should not be activated.

REGULATORY APPLICATION

Subparagraph S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 provides that the "stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." A review of the applicable SAE Standard, SAE J586 FEB84 (currently referenced by FMVSS 108), provides, at S2.1 of the SAE standard, a definition of "stop lamps" as "lamps giving a steady light to the rear of a vehicle to indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking."

Indeed, previous interpretations of NHTSA have restricted stop lamp activation to vehicle functions which involve deceleration of the vehicle. See, e.g., the agency's two interpretations to the undersigned on behalf of Jacobs Manufacturing Company, by letters dated August 31, 1978 (Attachment C-1), and May 2, 1984 (Attachment C-2).

Subparagraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS 108 provides, in part, that "no additional ... motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." In a November 30, 1981, letter of interpretation issued by NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Mr. Kenneth Moyer, the agency emphasized that a motor vehicle device which activated the stop lamps "under a condition indicating an intent other than (to stop or diminish speed by braking) ... could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps." The 1981 interpretation letter went on to state that NHTSA considered "any use of required lighting equipment for a purpose other than as defined, as an 'impairment'" precluded by what is presently subparagraph S5.1.3 of Standard 108 in the case of original equipment, and as a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as a device which would "render ineffective in whole or in part" required lighting equipment, in the case of an aftermarket device.

In strong language which we believe is directly applicable to CHP's attempted stop lamp indication requirement here, NHTSA, in its November 1981 interpretation letter, underscored its position that a stop lamp, under FMVSS 108, must operate in such a way as to indicate the intention of the vehicle operator to stop or diminish speed by braking.

"We are especially concerned that a high rate of 'false alarms' may lead to a decrease in the overall warning value of the stop lamp signal itself, i.e., the 'cry wolf' phenomenon. This could lead to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any proposed system."

The November 30, 1981, interpretation letter is included in our submission as Attachment D.

Subparagraph 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code provides that "stoplamps shall be activated on application of the service (foot) brake and the hand control head for air, vacuum, or electric brakes." The

ambiguous drafting and resulting difficulties of interpreting a conjunctive provision such as the foregoing notwithstanding, CHP has taken the position that the cited clause mandates application of the stop lamps when the Commander Electronic Brake Control manual emergency override is used, even though the service brakes are not applied at the time. Besides the potential safety hazards presented by stop lamp circuit connection with the override as outlined above, this condition, which is typically intended to control trailer sway and not "to stop or diminish speed by braking," presents a false braking signal to following vehicles. By logical extension, the CHP position could require stop lamp indication for any of a myriad of vehicle activities and functions, none of which is related to vehicular braking or deceleration.

Tekonsha submits that the CHP position frustrates and is totally at odds with the plain wording and underlying intent of subparagraph S5.5.4. In the situation under review, the service brakes are not in the applied position and the vehicle is not in a stopping mode because it is not subject to any decelerating mechanism of the braking system. Under these circumstances, Tekonsha believes that the CHP position with respect to California vehicle Code subsection 24603(f) results in the California standard's being substantively dissimilar to FMVSS 108 on the same aspect of motor vehicle equipment performance and as such, preempted by the application of Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1392(d).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons as set forth, Tekonsha respectfully requests an interpretation confirming its view that subparagraph 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code is preempted by S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 to the extent that the former mandates stop lamp activation for a vehicular function such as the Commander Electronic Brake Control manual emergency override, which is unrelated to stopping activity and intended to assist in controlling a swaying trailer under emergency conditions without application of the service brakes.

We appreciate your consideration of our request for interpretation, and encourage you to contact the undersigned, should questions remain.

FMVSS 108 S S5.5.4

The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The highmounted stop lamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes.

California Vehicle Code S 24603(f)

Stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the service (foot) brake and the hand control head for air, vacuum, or electric brakes....

ID: nht81-1.20

DATE: 02/27/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagon of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 27 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren, Michigan 48092

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your January 12, 1981, letter requesting an interpretation concerning the recent amendment of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which added specifications for seat belt comfort and convenience. Specifically, you asked whether the requirement for seat belt guides contained in paragraph S7.4.6.1 of the amended standard exempts both seats which "fold and then tumble" and seats which "tumble and then fold."

The answer to your question is yes. All rear seats that "tumble" are exempted from the seat belt guide requirements of the standard. The agency did not use the phrase "fold and tumble" in order to clarify that tumbling is the characteristic that gives rise to the exemption. Some future designs may include seats that merely tumble over into the floor, and that do not fold to create the flat cargo surface that is desired in these vehicles. Such a design would be exempted from the seat belt guide requirement. However, seats that only fold (i.e., that do not also tumble) would not be exempted from the requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

12 January 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to request an official interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. Specifically, our question is in reference to the recently published rule on seat belt comfort and convenience.

Paragraph 7.4.6.1 specifies certain requirements for seat belts and seat belt guides except that the requirements do not apply to "rear seats that tumble". The "tumble" function is not expressly defined, however, a reading of the preamble implies that it relates to the type of rear seat used in various Volkswagen products. Our question is then, does this exemption apply to both of the Volkswagen rear seat configurations which are mentioned in the preamble, i.e., both to seats which fold and then tumble, and also to seats which tumble and then fold, as illustrated in the enclosures.

It is our belief that this exemption does apply to both types of seats. Mr. Robert Nelson, the contact person for this rulemaking, concurred with this opinion in a conversation with Mr. Smreker of my staff on 9 January, 1981. However, he suggested that we request written confirmation of this from your office.

So that we may make an informed decision regarding a petition for reconsideration on this matter, we would appreciate receiving a response to the expiration of the 30 day reconsideration period.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations

JPS/ubf

Encl.

ID: 000804cmc_a_harness_label

Mabel Moist, Transportation Supervisor
Transportation Service Center
Centennial School District No. 28 Jt.
3424 S.E. 174th
Portland, OR 97236-1235

Dear Ms. Moist:

This is in response responds to your January 30, 2003, letter and to your phone conversation with Chris Calamita of my staff, concerning the use of a safety vest (harness[1]) on a school bus. You stated

that your school district is considering the use of harnesses that attach to school bus seat backs. You ask if school bus occupants must be restrained by a harness if they are seated directly behind a harness-restrained passenger.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued guidelines for the safe transport of children in school buses, it is the State that determines how school buses are to be used. We do require labels for seat-mounted harnesses sold for use on school buses to warn against unrestrained occupants sitting directly behind passengers restrained with this type of harness. As explained below, the term restrained refers to the use of any type of occupant restraint, not just a harness system.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Generally, child restraint systems are prohibited by S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 213 from having any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat back. However, to facilitate the safe transportation of pre-school and special needs children, the agency issued an interim final rule excluding from this prohibition harnesses that are manufactured for use exclusively on school buses.[2] See 67 Federal Register 64818; October 22, 2002 (copy enclosed). We were concerned in this rulemaking, however, that a school bus seat back could be overloaded during a frontal crash by unrestrained passengers sitting in the seat immediately behind harness-restrained passengers. This overloading could result in injury to a harness-restrained passenger. To address this potential, the interim final rule amended FMVSS No. 213 to require harnesses designed for attachment to a vehicle seat back to be labeled with the following statement:

WARNING! This restraint must only be used on school bus seats. Entire seat directly behind must be unoccupied or have restrained occupants. (S5.6.1.11; emphasis added. There is also a required pictogram.)

The warning informs users that the occupants seated directly behind a harness-restrained occupant must be restrained to prevent overloading the seat back. The means of restraining the rearward occupant could include Type 1 and Type 2 seat belt assemblies and child restraint systems; it is not limited to harness systems. Any properly used occupant restraint will help prevent a passenger seated directly behind a harness-restrained child from overloading the seat back in a frontal crash and help reduce the likelihood of the associated injury.

I hope you find this information helpful. For your further information, I have also included a copy of two NHTSA publications: Guideline for the Safe Transport of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses and Choosing the Correct School Bus for Transporting Pre-school Age Children. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:213
d.3/13/03

ID: aiam2404

Dear Mr. Gill: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1976, asking for a interpretation of the spacing requirements for motorcycle turn signal lamps specified in Table IV of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Standard No. 108 requires that motorcycle turn signal lamps be locate so that their edges are at least 4 inches from the edge of the headlamps (on the front) and tail or stop lamps (on the rear). You have asked for confirmation 'that the minimum separation distance is measured between the edges of the illuminated lenses of the respective lamps on a line passing through each lamp . . . rather than being measured on a horizontal line between two planes touching the edges of the illuminated lenses'.; This will confirm your interpretation that the minimum separatio distance is to be measured at the point where the edges of the two lamps are closest to each other.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/23/82

FROM: MIKE SMITH -- PRESIDENT, FLEET TIRE SERVICE

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-30-82, NOA-30, TO MIKE SMITH, FROM FRANK BERNDT - NHTSA

TEXT: We are a tire retreader located in southwest Arkancas and are in the process of importing 220 tires from Brussels for the explicite purpose of retreading. Our paper work on the acquisition of these casings lists them as rubber tires in error.

We will list all the serial numbers on the tires at time of receipt and keep a permanent shop record of such, which is our normal procedure. At this point the tires will be buffed and we will have a local police authority examine each tire and ascertain each tire has been buffed for retreading.

We have visited with Mr. Buckley of the Department of Transportation and he was unable to give us a definite ruling on this procedure for meeting proof of conformity.

Will you please advise if this method will be acceptable to you. If not, please furnish us with an alternative method for proof of conformity.

These tires have already arrived in New Orleans and we are proceeding with our plans for receiving and retreading.

ID: aiam0430

Dear Mr. Burke: This is in reply to your letter to Dave Schmeltzer of this office date August 11, 1971.; In your letter you ask to be advised if it would be permissible unde the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574 (sic) to use your own form, instead of the form supplied by the tire manufacturer, to report the required information to the tire manufacturer.; The regulation does not expressly provide that you must use the for supplied by the tire manufacturer to record the required information. However, from the manufacturer's point of view using a form other than the one he supplied would cause double work and extra expense. As the regulation is presently written this would be a matter between you and the manufacturer.; The problem you describe has been brought to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration'(sic) attention and methods of giving dealers who handle many different tire manufacturer's lines some relief are presently being considered.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel