ID: nht68-3.48

DATE: 08/05/68

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

TO: Luis M. Neco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 25, 1968, concerning the motor vehicle safety requirement for head restraints and your proposed specification for the installation of transparent partitions separating the front and rear compartments of taxicabs.

A head restraint will be required on all passenger cars manufactured after December 31, 1968. Our findings based on passenger vehicle collision research clearly indicate the use of head restraints to be one of the most effective safety measures that can be provided for the driver and front seat passenger. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a news release on this subject and a report entitled "Backrest and Head Support Design for Rear-End Collision Protection" published by the SAE, January 10, 1968.

I appreciate the problem of driver assault. However, we do not believe the deletion of a proven safety device is an appropriate way to resolve the problem. A positive approach, and one that is practical, would be to develop a suitable partition, and we know of no reason why this can not be accomplished practically, with head restraints and shoulder belts installed. The partition design should provide the current level of safety for(Illegible Word) occupants. I refer here to the use of laminated safety glass with energy absorbing characteristics of today's windshields in a frame that would retain the glass during a collison and that is not hazardous to head impact.

Giving consideration to all the factors involved, we are convinced that head restraints offer significant benefits in reduced "whiplash" injuries, and are certain that you can resolve the partition problem to accomplish both your objective of protecting the driver from others, and of reducing his chances of injury in a crash.

ID: nht73-4.43

DATE: 08/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: DPD Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1973, in which you asked our opinion as to the effect of Standard 208 upon your vehicle air conditioner installations.

Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, for the next few years allows manufacturers the option of providing either seat belts or passive protection systems, of which the air cushion is presently the most widely considered, in various combinations. The decision as to when passive protection would become mandatory has not yet been made.

The passive protection requirements of Standard 208 are measured with instrumented dummies, and the standard does not specifically regulate the method by which manufacturers provide the protection in the various crash tests. The way a manufacturer chooses to meet the standard, including the arrangement of the components of the vehicle interior, is thus left to his own discretion and the NHTSA does not offer opinions as to particular vehicle designs.

The "vacuum advance system" you refer to evidently refers to the air pollution control programs of the Environmental Protection Agency. That agency's address is Washington, D.C. 20460.

Yours Truly,

dpd mfg. co., inc.

July 31, 1973

The Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We manufacture air conditioners for small cars imported into the United States Accordingly, we are interested in providing units which will not interfer with vehicle safety devices.

Our 1973 air conditioners are usually installed under the dash or in center console. See attached photos of our air conditioners installed and the vehicle without air conditioning.

We have heard that a vacuum advance system may be under consideration and the air-bag protection system would definitely bear on our future design of air conditioners. Also, we need your opinion as to the effect of Law 208 upon our air conditioners.

The above information is most urgently requested since we are proceeding rapidly with the 1974 air conditioners.

Thanking you in advance for an early reply.

O. D. Hunter Director of Training and Publications

Enclosures

ID: nht89-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/89

FROM: JOHN WOODDELL

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF STANDARD 208 AS APPLIED TO 1978 DODGE RAMCHARGER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/21/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN WOODDELL; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108 [A][1][A]; STANDARD 108 [A][2][A]; STANDARD 108 [B][1]; STANDARD 208

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I was referred to your office for a written interpretation of Standard 208 by Mr. Guy Hunter, in the Crashworthiness Division. Mr. Hunter was kind enough to go over the Standard with me by telephone and reported his opinion concerning the application of the Standard to the vehicle with which I am concerned.

The question for consideration is:

What type of seat belt assembly should have been installed in a 1978 model Dodge Ramcharger?

The subject vehicle was manufactured in November 1977. It is a four wheel drive vehicle, with a gross vehicle weight of approximately 6,000 lbs. It is a two door vehicle with a hard top and enclosed sides. In general appearance, it would be comparable to the Chevrolet Blazer or the Ford Bronco. We understand that it fits within the designation "multi purpose passenger vehicle" for purposes of Standard 208.

Based on my conversation with Mr. Hunter, I arrived at the following interpretation of the standard:

Section S4.2.2 is controlling, and that said section requires that the vehicle comply with one of the three options set out in Section S4.1.2. The "first option" and "second option" refer to passive type restraint systems; those would be sufficient f or this vehicle, but were, as a matter of custom and practice not used in the time periods involved here. The "third option" requires either (1) a lap and shoulder belt assembly, or

(2) a lap belt system designed to withstand a special test requirement relative to crash protection and injury force criteria, set out in Section S5.1. Of these two alternatives, the lap belt and special test criteria option was seldom or never used i n the time period involved here. Accordingly, as a practical matter, the subject vehicle would be expected to have a lap and shoulder belt assembly.

If the interpretation arrived at from my discussion with Mr. Hunter is accurate, I would appreciate receiving a letter from your office confirming that interpretation.

If further information is needed or I can be of assistance in expediting this request, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for your assistance.

Very truly yours,

ID: 1985-03.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Leo Kagan -- AMCO Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1985, asking if a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The answer is no. Compliance with standard No. 108 is determined independent of whether the luggage rack is loaded. However, if the rack is installed before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, or if it is installed after sale by a person other than the vehicle owner, care must be taken to insure that the photometric and visibility requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps continue to be met with the unloaded rack in place. The lamp is intended to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions. Loading the rack in a manner that obscures the light will reduce the safety benefits that the lamp provides both the driver of the car, and of any vehicle that follows, and is a practice that should be discouraged. If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

July 19, 1985

Taylor Vinson-NHTSA

Kevin Cavey suggested I write for a legal clarification relating to #571.108. Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, & associated equipment high mounted stoplamp.

Since all passenger cars are to have a "brake" light (or high-mounted stoplamps) as of September 1985, would anyone having a luggage rack on the trunk lid (rear deck) and carry luggage that blocks out the brake light mounted either inside the car on the rear seat ledge or in an exterior location, be in any violation?

Thanks for your help if there is any question to what I've asked please call me on 800/423-2353.

AMCO MANUFACTURING CORP.

Leo Kagan, Director of Marketing, Automotive Division

ID: nht67-1.2

DATE: 06/19/67

FROM: WILLIAM HADDON, JR. -- M.D. FOR LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, NHTSA

TO: E. W. Kintner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Re: Your Request for Interpretation -- Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105

This is in response to your letter of May 29 on behalf of Minnesota Automotive, Inc., requesting an interpretation of Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105 such as would allow the installation of a one-way check valve hydraulic parking brake system as a supplement to the friction type system required by that Standard.

Standard No. 105, by its own terms, applies to passenger cars and not to any other category of motor vehicle. As to passenger care either of the statements set forth in your letter in correct and you may so inform your client. This Standard does not proclude or prohibit the installation of one-way check valve hydraulic brake systems on passenger care which, of course, must be also equipped with parking brakes meeting the requirement.[Illegible Word] $ 4.3 of that Standard.

Since this interpretation is fairly obvious it is not suitable for publication in the Federal Register.

Thank you for the support expressed in your letter.

Sincerely,

May 29, 1967

Lowell K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Request for Interpretation -- Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105

Dear Mr. Bridwell:

Minnesota Automotive, Inc., which I serve as counsel, has authorized me to submit a Request for Interpretation of Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105 to your office for clarification of the permissible use of brake lock safety devices as a parking brake system, in addition to the safety equipment required by that standard.

Minnesota Automotive, located in Mankato, Minnesota, manufactures a line of hydraulic brake products, including a one-way check valve hydraulic parking brake which connects into the primary braking system hydraulic unit and shoes. This device, without interfering with normal brake service, will fit any vehicle on the road having a hydraulic braking system, and when actuated will effectively convert the system into a powerful, reliable parking brake lock. Where a dual service brake is employed, two of these devices can be used, one geared to each hydraulic system. These devices serve as important supplements to the standard parking brake system of the vehicle.

The hydraulic brake lock is designed to meet the needs of heavy duty and high frequency parking brake usage. I might mention parenthetically that the brake locking devices manufactured by Minnesota Automotive are no longer under patent; other automotive equipment manufacturers have marketed and are marketing safety brake lock products using the one way check valve principle.

Problems have arisen in the marketing of these safety products, particularly with respect to vehicles currently subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, because of that agency's safety regulation on parking brakes. Specifically, Section 193.41 of the ICC Motor Carrier Safety Regulations provides that the "parking brake or brakes, shall . . . remain in the applied condition . . . despite . . . leakage of any kind. . . ." Since the brake locking device in connected into the service brake hydraulic system and consequently will not function if there is leakage in the latter, many potential users of the device have construed the ICC regulation as prohibiting the use of such a device, even when installed in addition to a parking brake system meeting the requirements of the regulation.

A potential difficulty is again presented by Paragraph S4.3 of Initial Standard No. 105, as well as related standards which may be developed by the Bureau in the future. Standard No. 105 requires a "parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means . . . "Although we would agree that neither this language nor the above noted standard necessarily implies that safety locks are not permitted, the marketing resistance based on the existing ICC regulation indicates the need for clarification in this area.

In view of this experience, we respectfully request an interpretation as to whether Initial Standard can be construed as follows:

1. Paragraph S1 of Initial Standard No. 105, which sets out the purpose and scope of the standard, is not to be construed as prohibiting the use of hydraulic holding devices, such as one way check valves, in hydraulic brake systems, in addition toparking brakes which meet the requirements of Paragraph S4.3: or alternatively,

2. The requirement of Paragraph S4.3 that a parking system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means be provided does not preclude the installation of hydraulic holding devices, such as one way check valves, in addition to the mechanical parking brakes.

Because of the desirability for all manufacturers producing these safety devices of an official position establishing the propriety of using such one way check valve brake locks, we further request that any interpretation to this effect be published in the Federal Register.

On behalf of Minnesota Automotive, I want to take this opportunity to assure you of our complete support of your efforts in attempting to meet the challenging goal of developing meaningful vehicle safety standards. We congratulate you on the significant progress made thusfar.

Should you require any additional information with respect to our Request for Interpretation, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Earl W. Kintner -- ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN

ID: nht81-3.18

DATE: 09/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. V. J. Adduci Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Suite 300 1909 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Adduci:

On June 5, representatives of MVMA met with representatives of this agency to discuss various issues concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115. At that meeting, the MVMA representatives requested clarification of the agency's policy on correction of errors made by vehicle manufacturers in their vehicle identification numbers (VIN's). This letter responds to that request.

The agency shares your concern about the potential difficulties associated with correcting erroneous VIN's and will attempt to minimize the burdens involved with any required corrective action. Nevertheless, the agency must consider the safety benefits of an accurate, national VIN system, as well as the anti-theft and other benefits of such a system.

This letter focuses on some of the most likely VIN errors and discusses whether those errors in vehicles sold to consumers would be inconsequential as the errors relate to safety, and, if not, what type of remedy would have to be provided to vehicle owners. Corrective action involving the replacing of an erroneous VIN plate or label or the restamping of the VIN on part of the vehicle is the most desirable remedy. However, there may be less burdensome remedies that would be effective and satisfy the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

One type of error which could be easily corrected is an error in a single VIN character other than the check digit or a character monitored by VIN users. The agency would likely regard such an error as inconsequential if the vehicle manufacturer submitted the necessary corrected decoding information to the agency. The agency would place this information in a public file, thereby making it available to other VIN users. With this corrected decoding information available, the agency's safety research activities would not be impaired and manufacturers would still be able to conduct recall campaigns where necessary.

A second type of error involves an erroneous check digit or other character monitored by vehicle records systems of States or other VIN users. Erroneous check digits could adversely affect our ability to conduct research and to monitor recalls, since the error rate of VIN transcription would presumably be higher in the absence of a properly functioning check digit. Further, without some form of corrective action by the manufacturer (such as restamping or the use of a correction label), vehicle purchasers could face rejections by State, insurance, and other data-processing systems using the check digit to verify transcription accuracy. However, the agency is also concerned that the use of labels could create opportunities for auto theft operations to generate bogus VIN's. Therefore, the agency is presently inclined to treat erroneous check digits as inconsequential noncompliance if the manufacturer reports the errors to the agency. However, as discussed below, the agency is planning to invite public comment on this question before establishing a final position on the matter.

A third type of error involves the physical aspects of the VIN itself. For example, a manufacturer might use a type face other than the sans type face required by the standard. Although errors of this type would have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, they would likely be deemed inconsequential because they would present no problems to the agency, other VIN users, or vehicle owners.

The most difficult type of errors would involve a major error in numbering which would impair the safety and other uses of the VIN. An extreme example of such an error would be a situation where a manufacturer numbered many of its vehicles identically, or where the VIN's were totally illegible. An error of that magnitude could impair the manufacturers' ability to conduct recall campaigns and the ability of the agency to monitor them. It would also cause serious problems for all VIN users. In this type of situation (which should arise rarely, if ever), some form of corrective action would be necessary. The use of a correction label which meets all requirements of FMVSS 115 including indelibility would be one possible approach.

One final matter discussed at the June 5 meeting relates to the correction of VIN errors on vehicles already produced but still in the possession of the manufacturer. We would treat these vehicles the same as the vehicles already sold, i.e., if the noncompliance were inconsequential for the vehicles already sold, it would also be inconsequential for the vehicles produced but still in the manufacturer's possession. However, the agency would expect that once the error is detected, similar vehicles produced thereafter would fully comply with the standard. There is precedent for this approach, since the agency has previously treated as inconsequential noncompliance erroneous identification numbers on tires still in the manufacturer's possession, where an inconsequentiality petition has been granted with respect to tires already sold.

The agency will issue in the near future a notice inviting comment on MVMA's petition to change Standard 115 to a general regulation. In this notice, we will seek comment on the types on corrective action discussed above. If you have any thoughts on other means of making these types of corrections, we would of course be pleased to receive your views.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0939

Dear Mr. Tydings:#This is in response to your recent inquiries t Berkley Sweet concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 101 and 108.#You ask whether S4.2.2 of Standard No. 101 applies to push-pull switches. This paragraph requires identification for the extreme positions of any heating and air conditioning system control that regulates a function over a quantitative range, and you state that you currently do not indicate the quantitative range for the heater switches.#S4.2.2 does apply to push-pull switches, and I enclose a notice that the agency published on December 3, 1971, clarifying our intent. A legend such as 'push off' and 'pull high' would be sufficient to meet the requirements of Standard No. 101. You would not have to redesign your switch cabinet to provide a slide or lever-type switch.#You also asked whether the school bus lighting description on your attached pages numbered 34 and 35 is 'legal'. The system as described conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the items listed.#Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: nht68-2.28

DATE: 09/19/68

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

TO: Auto Sport Importers

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of August 22 you have asked the following questions:

"If an automobile which is constructed by a small manufacturer, who does not produce his own chasis, but only the coachwork thereon is introduced into the U.S.A. by a U.S. distributor and in marketed under the name of the coachbuilder, who would be responsible for certification:

a) The manufacturer of the chassis who has already certified this chassis?

b) The coachbuilder or final assembler, under whose name the car is sold?

c) The U.S. distributor who is engaged in selling the vehicle.

It is my understanding from the facts you presented at the meeting of August 19 that you plan to purchase Triump chasses for direct shipment from England to Italy where a coachbuilder will mount bodies, the assembled vehicle then being shipped to the United States for sale. My answers to your questions will be framed accordingly.

(a) chassis manufacturer. Since the Triumph chassis is that of a vehicle currently imported into the United States for sale, it is probable that the chassis conforms to Federal motor vehicle safety standards involving components of the chassis. Put the chassis manufacturer has no formal certification responsbility under section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 when the manufacturer and sale of the chassis occur outside the United States. Any "certification" he provides is strictly a matter of contract between the parties.

(b) coachbuilder or final assembler. Section 114 of the Act requires every "manufacturer or distributor" of a motor vehicle to furaish certification of the vehicle's conformance at the time of delivery of the vehicle to a distributor of dealer. This certification is to be permanently affixed to the vehicle and must be precent for the vehicle to be admitted into the United States. Accordingly the final assembler is the proper party to certify compliance.

(c) U.S. importer-distributor. No further certification by the importer or distributor is necessary for a motor vehicle imported into the United States which bears the certification of its manufacturer.

"2. If a chassis and engine is once certified by the original manufacturer, and providing the secondary manufacturer or coachbuilder does not modify this chassis, must the secondary manufacturer or the U.S. distributor recertify this chassis and engine or only the coachwork thereon?

(a) By whom must the mark or plague signifying certification be affixed?

It is the responsibility of the vehicle assembler to affix an appropriate certification of compliance of the completed motor vehicle with all applicable standards, no matter what "certification" or other assurances of compliance it may obtain from the chassis manufacturer.

August 22, 1968

Taylor Vinson, Attorney National Bureau of Highway Safety

We enjoyed meeting with you in Washington on Monday, August 19th and appreciated the courtesy shown to us by Frank Armstrong, Director of the Office of Program analysis; Eugene Laskin, Acting Director of the Office of Standards of Preparation; Joseph O'Gorman, chief of the Compliance Division and you as Attorney for the Department.

It is now apparent how necessary it is to have your first hand interpretation of all the new Federal legislation since our project is unique.

We will utilize chassis and engines from one manufacturere and especially designed bodies from another manufacturer. Naturally, the producers of the chassis and engines are concerned about their liability under present U.S. laws and regulations. These manufactures have therefore insisted upon a clear, written interpretation from your department before signing any contracts with us, or before proceeding any further with this project.

Pursuant to your suggestion at our meeting of August 19, 1958, we now suboit a request for a written answer to the following questions:

1. If an automobile which is constructed by a small manufacturer, who does not produce his own chassis, but only the coachwork thereon is introduced into the U.S.A. by a U.S. distributor and is marketed under the name of the coachbuilder, who, would be responsible for certification:

a) The manufacturer of the chassis who has already certified this chassis?

b) The coachbuilder or final assembler, under whose name the car is sold?

c) The U.S. distributor who is engaged in selling the vehicle.

liable for complience with the U.S. Safety Regulations?

liable for compliance with the U.S. Safety Regulations?

2. If a chassis and engine is once certified by the original manufacturer, and providing the secondary manufacturer or coachbuilder does not modify this chassis, must the secondary manufacturer or the U.S. distributor recertify this chassis and engine or only the coachwork thereon?

(a) By whom must the mark or plague signifying certification be affixed?

As you know, these questions have already been answered by you at our personal meeting, but we must have these statements in waiting for European chassis manufacturers. They are concerned as to their position legally and their responsibility in the U.S. so far as your office is concerned.

Again, may I thank you for your promot and sincere attention to this matter and to others which we discussed at our meeting in Washington.

Michael Wolf

ID: nht73-4.36

DATE: 07/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Tire Retreading Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 12, 1973, to Dr. Ed Wallace, concerning Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires. In your letter you suggest the following: that the standard be amended to prohibit the retreading of casings having "damaged bead wire", that labels be allowed to be placed on any portion of the completed tire, and that the required labeling, "bias/belted", be changed to allow the labeling of the word "belted".

With respect to your request to prohibit the retreading of casings having damaged bead wire, you state that the standard contains a "loophole" because it prohibits the retreading of casings having "exposed" bead, but does not prohibit the retreading of casings having "damaged" bead. We do not agree that this is a loophole, even though the standard has no explicit prohibition along those lines. The retreading of a casing that is damaged in any significant way would constitute the manufacturing of a defective tire, and the manufacturing retreader would be subject to the defect notification provisions (Section 113; 15 U.S.C. @ 1402) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. It is true that the explicit prohibitions of the standard offer clearer guidance than the defect provisions. The problem is that "damage" is too vague a concept to define a tire condition -- in fact, it really is little more than a synonym for defective. We would give serious consideration, however, to a petition listing specific bead conditions which you believe should be the subject of new requirements in the standard. You should also note that damages caused by a defective tire, although it conformed to Standard No. 117, could still subject its manufacturer to civil liability in a private action (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)).

You further request that we allow the label (presumably the label containing the items of consumer information required pursuant to S6.3.1) to be placed on the tread area of the tire. The NHTSA responded to this request in the notice responding to petitions for reconsideration published July 15, 1972. In that issuance we stated our position that affixing the label to the sidewall would more likely ensure that the label would be retained on the tire until its installation on a vehicle. We also indicated that the standard did not prohibit the placing of an additional label on the tread, which location, it was argued, facilitated storage.

Your final request is that the requirement that the words "bias/belted" be labeled onto that type of tires be amended to require only the word "belted". You indicate that most new tire manufacturers use the word "belted". The NHTSA does not believe the word "belted" to be sufficiently explicit, as radial tires are also "belted" and the possibility of confusion is quite obvious. However, we are aware that Standard No. 109 does not require the labeling of the words "bias/belted", and we plan to take steps with respect to Standard No. 117 so that no additional labeling will be required for a retreaded tire that retains its original casing labeling.

Sincerely,

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

June 12, 1973

Ed Wallace National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

While we recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 117 has only been in effect a few days, we have already come across a few problems as presented to us by our members. One of the problems does have a safety related consideration and we believe it should be acted upon immediately. Two other suggestions are more in the way of an administrative change to 117 and while they should be accomplished as soon as possible, they are not quite as urgent as the safety related item.

The safety related item would be an addition to paragraph S5.2.1. A new sub-paragraph (b) should be added, with these words: "On which a bead wire is damaged." The reason for this suggestion is that we have found some retreaders who are looking a little too closely at the actual wording of the regulation and not following commonly accepted practices of good inspection. A few retreaders are accepting for retreading casings having a damaged bead, yet the bead is not exposed. The suggested change will close that loophole.

The second change we recommend is that the wording with regard to the placement of the label be modified to permit the placing of the label on any outside portion of the completed tire. The reason for this request is that no matter where the label is placed, it disappears soon after the tire is mounted on a vehicle. Standard practice finds any affixed label serves its intended uses best when placed on the tread area.

A third suggestion is one we have noted before. This concerns differences in the labelling requirements in Standard 109 as compared to Standard 117. I refer specifically to the words "bias belted" which appear in 117 and do not appear in 109. We believe one standard or the other should be changed to correspond with what we actually find on a tire. As you know, many manufacturers of bias belted tires indicate that fact by using the word "belted" even thought it is not required by Standard 109.

We believe the above changes could be accomplished administratively without the necessity of going through the normal procedure for changes to the regulations.

Philip H. Taft Director

ID: nht90-3.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Emory J. Lariscy -- Lariscy Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-28-89 from E.L. Lariscy to G. Shifflett (OCC 3910) with Patent Application for Vehicle Safety Light Assembly (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Mundy to E. Lariscy; Also attached to le tter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from L. Baer to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

We understand that you have waived the request for confidentiality in your letter of August 28, 1989, to George Shifflett, and now wish us to proceed with our legal opinion with respect to your "safety light assembly." In connection with this opinion, o ne of my staff attorneys viewed the videotape that you enclosed (which we return to you with this letter).

Your concept is to provide a warning to following drivers when the driver of the vehicle immediately ahead has released his or her foot from tbe accelerator, and the vehicle has begun to decelerate. On trucks, the device would be mounted singly or in pa irs (as it was in the videotape) "on the safety bumper bracket. In this configuration, it is a rectangular amber lamp 8 inches in height and 3 inches in width with the word "caution" on the lens. Passenger cars would be equipped with either a single sma ller lamp above the center highmounted stop lamp, or to one side, or with two smaller lamps flanking the center lamp. The system works as follows: it is "connected to a switch disposed on the vehicle carburetor and receives current from the vehicle fuse block such that the throttle valve arm on the switch is 'on' and the accelerator pedal is not depressed. When the accelerator pedal is depressed, tbe throttle valve arm moves out of contact with the switch to permit spring actuated opening thereof." Th is means that the system remains activated when the brakes are applied. You believe that the system is simple enough to be installed "by the novice mechanic or vehicle owner."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which this agency administers and which is the relevant Federal statute with respect to your invention, imposes somewhat different requirements for new and used vehicles. If you wish to sell this device to motor vehicle manufacturers or dealers for installation on vehicles before or at the time of their delivery to their first owner, the manufacturer or dealer must ensure that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when the vehicle is delivered.

There are three Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are relevant to this interpretation: Standard No. 108, pertaining to lighting,

Standard No. 124 on accelerator control systems, and Standard No. 301 relating to fuel system integrity in crash situations. Judging from your letter, Mr. Shifflett has previously advised you that supplementary lighting equipment such as your system is permissible as original equipment on new motor vehicles as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The "impairment" that is of most concern to us is in the effectiveness of the stop lamp to si gnal that the vehicle is braking. From this standpoint, it would be preferable for the amber lamps to be extinguished when the stop lamps go on. However, this is not the way your system operates. Intuitively, the closer your lamps are to the required s top lamps in both location and intensity, the more likely they are to impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps. We are providing you with these views, as the determination of impairment is made in the first instance by the vehicle manufacturer or deal er who installs it.

Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, specifies that the throttle must return to the idle position within 2 seconds after pressure is released from the accelerator pedal on a vehicle whose GVWR is more than 10,000 pounds, and within 1 second if the GVWR is less. Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, establishes a maximum permissible limit to fuel spillage during and after 30 mph front and rear moving barrier impacts, and at 20 mph for a side impact. Because your modifications are related t o the accelerator and fuel systems, you should ensure that they do not affect the ability of the vehicle on which they are installed to comply with these standards.

If you wish to sell the system in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles already in use, similar considerations apply. The Act specifically prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We have interpreted this to mean that modifications that result in a noncompliance with a safety standard are prohibited. Thus, the modifier should ensure that there is no impairment of the rear lamps, or of the ability of the throttle to return to idle within the specified time, or of the ability of the fuel system to meet the impact test requirements.

However, there is no Federal prohibition against modifications by the owner, even if a noncompliance results. Nevertheless, the acceptability of any modifications, whoever performs them, remains subject to the laws of any State in which a vehicle is reg istered or operated. We are unable to advise you whetber your system is legal under the laws of Virginia or any other state, but suggest that you write for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlin gton, Virginia 22203.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety and wish you well.