ID: 77-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Lucas Industries' November 1, 1977, request that the upcoming passive restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, be amended to provide alternative compliance by means of installation of active lap and shoulder belts equipped with an ignition interlock system.

Section 125 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) provides in relevant part that "No Federal motor vehicle safety standard may . . . provide that a manufacturer is permitted to comply with such standard by means of . . . any safety belt interlock system." (15 U.S.C. 1410b(b)(1)). It is the agency's opinion that this provision operates as a strict prohibition on amendments of Standard No. 208 that would have the effect of permitting compliance by provision of an ignition interlock system. This opinion is confirmed by Conference Report language on @ 125 which states:

No matter what procedure is followed, the conference substitute prohibits the re-establishment of the safety belt interlock system or continuous buzzer as a mandatory or optional motor vehicle safety standard. H.R. Rep. 93-1452, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess at 45 (1974).

In view of this statutory prohibition, Lucas Industries' request for amendment of the upcoming requirements of Standard No. 208 cannot be considered by the agency.

SINCERELY,

Lucas Industries Inc

NOVEMBER 1, 1977

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject Petition - Passenger Car Occupant Restraint

The Lucas Electrical Company Limited of Great Britain is, like ourselves, a subsidiary of Lucas Industries Limited.

Lucas Electrical, supported by us, feel that there should be an option to the passive restraint systems mandated in the early 1980's. We believe that, for some people, lap and shoulder belts with ignition interlock would provide a more acceptable alternative to the passive restraint systems presently being planned, and we ask that this option be considered.

A copy of the Lucas Electrical statement is attached.

A J Burgess Vice President (Technical)

cc: JAMES J. BLANCHARD -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 22, 1977

Passive Restraint Systems - USA

Now that a regulation has been published requiring progressive introduction of passive restraint systems on new vehicles, it seems to us that the seat belt - ignition interlock system should be reconsidered.

This system had the blessing of NHTSA in terms of safety, who were unsuccessful in their attempts to prevent its withdrawal as a legal requirement in the USA. However, now that passive restraints can be anticipated the reasons for withdrawal of the interlock vanish, based as they were on avoiding the imposition of a requirement which was unpopular in some quarters. Should such a system be re-introduced, there would be no question of imposing it, and free choice could be exercised by any prospective buyer.

Thus, bearing in mind the undoubted safety potential of such a system, we propose that it be re-introduced based on the original technical requirements of NHTSA.

ID: nht75-5.48

DATE: 07/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Sheller-Globe's June 16, 1975, request for a statement of the requirements for 1976-model multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) specified by Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

Section S4.3 of the standard sets out the requirements for MPV's with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or more than 10,000 pounds. These requirements are the same in the future as at present.

Section S4.2 sets out the requirements for MPV's with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.2.1 for vehicles until August 15, 1975, and S4.2.2 for vehicles on or after August 15, 1975 until August 15, 1977). As the standard is presently effective, S4.2.2 will require that most MPV's of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with the same seat belts and warning systems as presently installed in passenger cars. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements as they were revised October 29, 1974 (40 FR 38380, October 31, 1974). Also enclosed is a Federal Register notice of December 6, 1974, that sets out the associated warning system requirements (40 FR 42692, December 6, 1974). The only MPV's excepted from these requirements are forward control vehicles, convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, motor homes, and vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers. They will continue to be required to meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 as presently in effect.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently proposed that a manufacturer have the option of meeting the requirements of S4.2.1 or S4.2.2 until January 1, 1976. I enclose a copy of that proposal, which includes a preamble discussion of the reasons for this proposal. A final determination will appear in the Federal Register.

Sincerely,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

June 16, 1975

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Occupant Crash Protection

There have been so many changes in the referenced safety standard that it is quite possible for an individual to misinterpret its requirements applicable to a motor vehicle.

As you know, Sheller-Globe Corporation manufacturers School Buses, Motor Homes (Recreational Vehicles) and Professional Vehicles (Funeral Coaches and Ambulances). All of these motor vehicles, except School Buses, fall under the definition of Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

The manufacturing divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation have requested of me direction pertinent to how they are required to comply to safety standard 208 for 1976 model year Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (M.P.V.'s).

The requirement for certain types of M.P.V.'s after December 31, 1975 was what was specified for passenger cars from September 1, 1973 to August 14, 1975 (Paragraph S4.1.2). However, the requirements of that paragraph have been revised or are proposed for revision.

Could you please direct myself and Sheller-Globe Corporation pertinent to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Occupant Crash Protection as it will apply to Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles for model year 1976?

Your direction in this matter would be deeply appreciated.

George R. Semark - Manager Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht75-1.40

DATE: 03/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Central Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 21, 1975 to Mr. Howard Dugoff of this agency, requesting a manufacturer's designation number for the brake hose assemblies which you manufacture.

S5.2.4(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, was amended on January 29, 1974 (39 F.R. 3680; Docket No. 1-5; Notice 9), and again on February 26, 1974 (39 F.R. 7425; Docket No. 1-5; Notice 10).

In place of an assembler's code number, assigned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, S5.2.4(b) of the standard now requires:

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Standards Enforcement, "Brake Hose Identification," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The marking may consist of a designation other than block capital letters required by S5.2.4.

The designation need not include your company's address, or even its complete name, as long as it identifies the company and is filed with the NHTSA as described above. Furthermore, you do not need a separate designation for each of your two stores.

You have also described a Dymo label maker and requested approval of its use as a means of complying with the banding requirement of S5.2.4. The NHTSA interprets a band

as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. Furthermore, all of the label information must remain visible after the band has been affixed. From this discussion, you should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of the specific design.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CENTRAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

January 21, 1975

National Highway Traffic Administration -- Department of Transportation

Attention: Howard Dungoff

Dear Sir:

We are an Aeroquip Distributor and we are contemplating making replacement hose on a very small scale for a few of the trucking companies in our area, and we want to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards, which go into effect March 1, 1975, requiring that all hose be banded when all new material is used.

We have 2 stores, one is Central Electric Company, Portsmouth, Ohio and Central Electric Company, Chillicothe, Ohio.

Will we be assigned one number for both stores or will we have a number for each outlet? If we have to have a number for each store, please assign us one for each store. Also is it necessary to emboss a company name and complete address, plus the number assigned to us by DOT?

We would like to know if it is permissable to use a Dymo tape label maker, which uses 1/2" wide aluminum metal tape, which has a self adhesive material on one side and can be wrapped around the hose, which will adhere itself to the hose?

Your quick reply to this will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

K. L. Hinze, President

ID: nht75-2.11

DATE: 11/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 1, 1975, to Mr. A. Y. Casanova, Office of Crash Avoidance, concerning the rapid loss of air test specified in S4.4.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

The test procedure specified in the above cited section of Standard No. 110 requires operating the test vehicle, equipped with the tire and rim combination to be tested, at 60 mph and rapidly deflating the tire. Rapid deflation can be achieved by any method that brings the deflated tire to a full "flat" state while the vehicle is still traveling at 60 mph. Among these methods are:

(1) running the test tire over a V-shaped knife edge,

(2) exploding a small detonation cap to puncture the tire,

(3) evacuating the tire by means of an instrumented vacuum system, and

(4) pulling out the value stem.

Once the tire is deflated, the vehicle is brought to a controlled stop. The tire must remain on the rim.

You specifically asked the position of the beads after the conclusion of the test procedure. The standard requires that the rim retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped. "Retain the deflated tire" means that the tire beads must be within the rim. The beads need not remain on the bead seat during this test, e.g., one bead may drop into the wall of the rim. However, at no time shall a tire bead be outside of the rim so that the rim is operating on the inside of the deflated tire.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 17, 1975

U. S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motor Vehicle Programs, Office of Standards Enforcement

Gentlemen:

Please send me one copy of the following publications and if there is a charge please bill us.

1. "Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing & Data Reporting" latest issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109/117

2. "Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing & Data Reporting" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 119

I will look forward to your early consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

T. Umeda, Technical Representative -- The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

August 1, 1975

A. Y. Casanova -- Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Safety Bureau, Office of Operations Systems

Dear Mr. Casanova:

Re: FMUSS #110

As I discussed on the phone, I am very interested in the test procedure concerning the "Rapid Air Loss Test". Please give me more information about this matter.

I would like to especially know the bead position after the test is finished.

Attached please find the letter which I sent to your office on June 17, 1975.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours,

T. Umeda -- Technical Representative, The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

ID: nht75-2.46

DATE: 06/09/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a described lamp design.

In pertinent part, S4.4.1 states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp." The lamp design that interests you has separate compartments for the taillamp and for the clearance lamp. You are concerned that at a distance it will be difficult to distinguish the two lamps, and you feel that this violates the spirit of S4.4.1.

We have no objection to the design of this lamp. Since the clearance lamp and taillamp are in separate compartments and not optically combined, and since Standard No. 108 does not specify a minimum separation distance between the two lamps, the lamp design does not violate S4.4.1.

SINCERELY,

(Graphics omitted) See illustration on original

May 13, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Active Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Wesbar Corporation is a manufacturer of lights, primarily used on boat trallers and utility trallers. We have received from a number of our customers an inquiry as to the possibility of making a tall light similar to the attached sketch, which would serve then as a tall light, stop light, turn signal, reflex reflector, and clearance light.

We have taken the position that a light of this type would not meet the spirit of DOT 108, paragraph S 4.4.1, which states, "Two or more lamps, reflective devices, or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are met, except that no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tall lamp or identification lamp."

A light of the design we indicate on the enclosed drawing would include a separate compartment for the tall, stop and turn light and a separate compartment for the clearance lamp. However, at a distance of 30 or 40 feet to the rear of the vehicle, it would be very difficult to make a distinction between the tall light and the clearance lamp, except possibly by doing some design work on having a different configuration to the lens on the clearance lamp.

We do not wish to be in the position of second guessing your department's interpretation of S 4.4.1 and would therefore appreciate your comments and interpretation of that section. On receipt of same, we will send a copy of this interpretation to the manufacturers who have made these inquires of us.

Your early attention in this matter will be very much appreciated.

WESBAR CORPORATION

Bernard R. Weber Executive Vice President

SINGLE HOUSING WITH SEPARATE COMPARTMENTS FOR EACH LIGHT

TAIL, STOP & TURN SIGNAL LIGHT

CLEARANCE LIGHT

CLASS "A" REFLEX REFLECTOR

1/8" APPROX. BETWEEN ALL LENSES

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-5.52

DATE: 01/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: West & Wilkinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requesting information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks or modifying existing gasoline tanks.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $ 1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. The installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.

There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-on gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and Standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(c)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.

The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicles exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7) If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel tank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.

YOURS TRULY,

WEST & WILKINSON January 2, 1974

Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation

According to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Act, 15 USC Sections 1391 et seq., and particularly Section 1392, your office was empowered and directed to adopt minimum safety standards for motor vehicles. We do not have ready access to whatever standards have been promulgated but have received inquiry from a client concerning the existence of a specific provision in such standards. Specifically, my client, an automobile dealership, inquires if there is any prohibition(Illegible Word) civil or criminal sanctions on adding gasoline tanks to private passenger motor vehicles, including campers, or modifying existing gasoline tanks on such vehicles.

Your assistance will be appreciated.

Richard Wright West

ID: nht75-3.34

DATE: 09/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 23, 1975, request for confirmation that a manufacturer of air-braked buses that conform to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, may direct owners of these vehicles to disconnect the antilock system used to meet the standard, for the period necessary to correct a safety-related defect in the system that may make its operation hazardous. Your concern is with S 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a) (2) (A)) that states:

S 1397 * * *

(2) (A) No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard * * *

Section 108(a) (2) (A) prohibits, with one exception, the knowing disconnection of the antilock system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. This prohibition does not prevent an owner of air-braked buses from disconnection of the antilock system. The NHTSA has determined that a manufacturer of air-braked buses that conform to Standard No. 121 may instruct the owners of its products to disconnect the antilock system used to meet the standard, for the period necessary to correct a safety-related defect in the system that may make its operation hazardous.

A manufacturer that has determined the existence of a safety-related defect in his vehicle must, of course, comply with the Defect Report requirements of 49 CFR Part 573 and the Defect Notification requirements of 49 CFR Part 577.

SINCERELY,

ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN

September 23, 1975

Richard B. Dyson Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admininstration

Pursuant to our telephone conversation of today, we are requesting your advice relative to a matter under the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Our client, Rohr Industries, Flexible Division, manufactures buses on which are installed air brake systems which comply with 49 C.F.R. S 571.121 (Standard No. 121), skid control systems. Recently four Standard No. 121 systems which are manufactured by Rockwell International Corporation, have malperformed during the operation of a bus by a municipal customer of Rohr Industries. As the possible failure of the Standard No. 121 system presents a potential danger to the public, our client would like to take corrective action at the earliest possible time.

Rockwell International has indicated that a corrective device to prevent malfunctions in its Standard No. 121 system may be available for installation in November of 1975. It is our understanding that a manufacturer can, within the requirements of the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act, direct its customers to disconnect the defective system until a correction to the system is available. It is requested that you confirm that our client, Rohr Industries, can in this situation, within the provisions of the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act, direct its customers to disconnect the Standard No. 121 system until such time as Rockwell International has made available corrective equipment.

In order to implement this action which will remove a potentially unsafe situation, your confirmation is requested as soon as practicable. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Joseph E. Casson

CC: FRANK FERRONE

ID: nht68-1.20

DATE: 06/10/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telegram of May 23, 1968, which sought the views of the Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, NHSB, on four questions of interpreting Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114. Our response to these questions is as follows:

1. We agree that paragraph S4.1(b) of the standard requires that removal of the key from the locking system must prevent steering or self-mobility of the car only under normal conditions. A steering or mobility lock which can be circumvented abnormally, as by disassembly of the locking mechanism or the application of excessive force, would not thereby violate the standard.

2. Paragraph S4.2, which provides that the "prime means" for deactivating the car's engine shall not activate either the steering or self-mobility lock, permits the use of the key to activate the lock and to deactivate the engine. The quoted words refer to the action necessary to perform either task, not to the mechanism which accomplishes it.

3. We agree that the warning device required by paragraph S4.4 is unnecessary when the locking system is in either the "on" or "start" positions. We are presently preparing an amendment to the standard which will clarify paragraph S4.4 by providing that the warning need not be activated when the key locking system is in either of those positions.

4. Your final question seeks an interpretation of the words "key left in the locking position." Since those words do not appear in paragraph S4.4, or elsewhere in the standard, we see no reason to provide an interpretation of them.

Sincerely,

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAM

MAY 23, 1968

G C NIELD, ACTING DIR MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PERFORMANCE SERVICE NATIONAL WHY SAFETY BUREAU FEDERAL WHY ADMIN DONOHOE BLDG 400 SIXTH ST SW WASHDC

OUR REVIEW OF STANDARD 114, THEFT PROTECTION, INDICATES THAT CONFIRMATION OF SEVERAL INTERPRETATIONS LISTED BELOW IS NECESSARY TO APPLY THE STANDARD WITH CERTAINTY. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONFIRMATION OF THE FOLLOWING INTERPRETATIONS

1. S4.1(B) CONSISTENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS AND SECTION

S4.1 (33 F.R. 6472) THAT REMOVAL OF THE KEY IS REQUIRED TO PREVENT ONLY "NORMAL" ACTIVATION OF THE CARE ENGINE, OUR INTERPRETATION OF SECTION S4.1(B) IS THAT A KEY LOCKING SYSTEM WHICH PREVENTS STEERING UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS AND/OR PREVENTS NORMAL FORWARD SELF-MOBILITY WHEN THE KEY IS REMOVED, CONSITUTES CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.

2. S4.2 WE INTERPRET SECTION S4.2 TO ALLOW USE OF THE KEY TO ACTIVATE THE THEFT DETERRENT DEVICE PROVIDED THERE IS AN INTERMEDIATE POSITION OR MEANS TO DEACTIVATE THE ENGINE WITHOUT ACTIVATING THE DETERRENT,

3. S4.4 SINCE THE RUNNING ENGINE FURNISHES A CONTINUOUS WARNING WE INTERPRET SECTION S4.4 TO MEAN THAT THE WARNING DEVICE NEED NOT BE OPERATBLE WHEN THE DRIVERS DOOR IS OPEN AND THE KEY IS IN THE IGNITION-ON POSITION.

4. S4.4 WE INTERPRET "KEY LEFT IN LOCKING POSITION" TO MEAN THAT THE KEY IS INSERTED FULLY IN THE LOCKING SYSTEM TO THE POSITION PERMITTING OPERATION OF THE LOCKING DEVICE.

R O SORNSON FEDERAL SAFETY COORDINATOR CHRYSLER CORP.

ID: nht69-1.48

DATE: 01/16/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: State of Iowa

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1968, concerning the requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With respect to the number and color of lamps in your six-lamp system, I would agree that, when viewed singly from the front or rear, your system would have the same general appearance as a four-or eight-lamp system of other states. However, as mentioned in the third paragraph of your letter, Standard No. 108 also specifies a standard method of energizing the lamps in a four-and eight-lamp system, including the front-and rear-mounted lamps. Therefore, a motorist, who is familiar with the four-or eight-lamp system in other states, could be easily confused when viewing alternately the front and rear of a six-lamp system, since on a system basis it would not conform to either the four-or eight-lamp system.

As stated in my recent letters to your Congressional Delegation, any person adversely affected by the safety standards may, under the procedural rules of the Federal Highway Administration, petition the Administrator under Part 206, Subchapter B, Section 216.31 or Section 216.35, published in the Federal Register on November 17, 1967, a copy of which is again enclosed for your convenience. Your attention is particularly invited to paragraph (d) of Section 216.35 which reads, "Unless the Administrator otherwise provides, the filing of a petition does not stay the effectiveness of the rule."

With respect to the questions raised in Mr. Arthur Roberts' letter of February 22, 1968, to Mr. David A. Fay of this Bureau, and also relating to your preparation of proposals for new school buses, I would call your attention to Section 103 (d) of Public Law 89-563, a copy of which is enclosed.

In part, this section reads, "Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title 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." It would appear therefore that preparation of your proposals for new school buses could be initiated on the basis of Standard No. 103 requirements and prior to the next meeting of your legislature in January, 1969.

Again, as indicated in my recent letters to your Congressional Delegation, it is the position of this Bureau that the provision of Standard No. 103 permitting optional use of either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system is reasonable, practicable and in the interest of highway safety. A consideration of the information presented in your letter has not altered this position. Therefore, we still do not believe that a change in the provision of Standard No. 108 to permit optional use of a third or six-lamp system is justified.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht69-2.18

DATE: 12/01/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Executive Motors, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 28, 1969, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning our Federal Motor Vehicle safety standards.

The Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New(Illegible Word) Tires - Passenger Cars" was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 1967. This standard specifies tire(Illegible Word) and laboratory test requirements for head unseating resistance, strength, endurance, and high speed performance; defines tire load ratings; and specifies labelling requirements. The standard also requested "Persons desiring an amendment to Standard No. 109 adding tires not presently listed, should submit sufficient pertinent information relative to these tires in 10 copies to the Secretary of Transportation---."

The(Illegible Word) S.p.A. of Milan, Italy requested the addition of the 165-400 tire size designation to Standard No. 109 as well as the adoption of the letter symbols(Illegible Words) for tires. The(Illegible Words) petition was approved and published in the Federal Register on April 18, 1969. The(Illegible Word) tire size designation has been listed within Table I-D of Standard No. 109 since that time.

The labelling requirements of Standard No. 109 apply to all new(Illegible Word) tires - both domestic and foreign - manufactured after January 1,(Illegible Word). There are no "special markings" required on the tires coming into this country other than those detailed in Standard No. 109. For your information, I have enclosed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments.

The 165-400 tire size designation is currently listed within our Standard No. 109 and the labelling requirements are considered to be reasonable and in the interest of safety. The National Highway Safety Bureau does not prohibit any tire manufacturer from fabricating motor vehicle tires. The availability of tires from a specific tire manufacturer is a matter of that company's policy for marketing and has no direct relation to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

As required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which deals with lighting requirements, was based on existing standards. Accordingly, the initial standard reflected existing requirements contained in Federal and State regulations and the Society of Automotive Engineers Standards on lighting equipment. Since publication of the initial standard on February 3, 1967, this Bureau has sponsored a continuing research program leading to the development of more effective and extensive requirements for vehicular lighting. In fact, during the past two years, eight research contracts have been awarded in the areas of improved forward and rear lighting systems. Under these contracts, in-depth studies, tests and evaluations will be conducted to determine the most effective color, size, intensity, location, and method of controlling the operation of the lamps which are required on the front and rear of motor vehicles. Further follow-on studies and evaluations are envisioned to determine the most-effectiveness and practicability of the proposed improved lighting systems. Results of this research will assist us in evaluating your suggestion and other similar suggestions relating to improved rear lighting systems.