ID: 16660-1.pja

Ms. Jeanne Isbill
TarasPort Trailers, Inc.
P.O. Box 327
Sweetwater, TN 37874

Dear Ms. Isbill:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether two trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. You enclosed photographs of two flatbed trailers with rear extenders that slide out as much as 36 inches from the rear of the chassis. In the case of one trailer, the extension is full width, meaning that the extension forms a continuous plane from one side of the trailer to the other. On the other trailer, the extensions are only on the sides, like the small shelves that slide out from office desks on either side of the chair. Although no dimensions are given, it appears from the photographs that the extenders are more than 560 mm above the ground, near the top of the trailer tires. You ask if these trailers are special purpose vehicles and, if so, whether their bumpers need to be labeled stating that they are excluded. As explained below, these trailers are not excluded special purpose vehicles, and a compliant underride guard would need to be provided.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded category that is relevant for the purposes of this letter is that of "special purpose vehicles."

A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ S5.1.2 states that "[t]he vertical distance between the bottom edge of the horizontal member of the guard and the ground shall not exceed 560 mm at any point across the full width of the member. . . ." We can see no part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, would reside in or pass through an area described in S5.1.2.

In addition, to be a special purpose vehicle the guard area would have to be occupied or passed through by work-performing equipment. NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. There is no work-performing equipment at the rear of your trailers. Therefore, these vehicle do not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. No other exclusion applies to them, so the vehicle would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting the requirements of 49 CFR 571.223 in order to be certified. The guard would have to be labeled as specified in S5.3 of Standard No. 223.

When deciding how to mount the guard, please keep in mind that a vehicle would have to meet the requirements of the rule in every configuration in which it can be operated on the road. Standard No. 224 does not specify the position the rear extenders would have to be in when the agency determines compliance. When a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we begin with a presumption that the requirements must be met in every test condition in which the vehicle can be operated. See, for example, NHTSA's October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda. Starting from this presumption, we look to the language of the standard and its purposes for guidance to decide whether some limitation on the test condition should be implied. We see no language that would imply a limitation. As to the purposes, with the trailer configured in the flatbed mode with its rear end at a height above 560 mm, a colliding vehicle would likely underride the trailer rear extenders. This safety concern is one that the agency considered extensively in the January 24, 1996 final rule (see 61 FR 2016-18), and it is this kind of situation the regulation was intended to prevent. Therefore, NHTSA could determine whether the vehicle complied with the rear extenders in any position they could be placed in transit.

S5.1.3 of Standard No. 224 states that the horizontal member of the guard must be as close as practicable to the rear extremity of the vehicle, but in no case farther than 305 mm from the rear extremity of the trailer. Your trailer's rear extremity with the extenders out would be the rearmost surface on the extenders themselves. To comply with S5.1.3, the rear face of the horizontal member of the guard would need to be no farther forward than 305 mm from the extenders, when the extenders are in any position in which they can be placed when in transit.

We cannot provide a specific opinions on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that the standard specifies only the guard's horizontal member position, and therefore there is a great deal of flexibility in how you attach the guard to the trailer, so long as the strength and energy absorption requirements are met. There is no requirement that the guard be suspended from the bed area. A guard attached to the extenders would move in and out with them, thus complying with the S5.1.3 no matter what position the extenders are in. However, we emphasize that it is you, as the vehicle manufacturer, who is responsible for the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If you expect to encounter unusual difficulty redesigning your trailers, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submission.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures: Parts 512, 555
ref:224
d.5/22/98

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 1982-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/82 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked several questions concerning informational readout displays. The answers to your questions are as follows.

1. If one type of information is displayed by an electro illuminating device such as a light-emitting diode, can I define this as an IRD?

The answer to this question is yes. Section S4 of Standard No. 101 defines informational readout display as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." [Emphasis added.] Thus, the type of system you describe comes within Standard No. 101's definition of informational readout display. In reference to the specific wording of your question, I would note that it is the definition in the standard, rather than a particular characterization by the manufacturer, that is determinative as to whether a display is an informational readout display.

2. Do you think that the description "other electro illuminating device" includes normal electric bulbs?

The answer to this question is no. The requirements applicable to informational readout displays are an exception to the usual requirements for displays, which ordinarily use normal electric bulbs. The preamble to the final rule establishing the requirements of the present Standard No. 101 explained that the reason for the exception was to "permit the continued development of informational readout displays." 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978. This was necessary since current technology does not enable manufacturers to produce informational readout displays which can exhibit symbols (as opposed to words) or certain colors. Thus, while section S5.2.3 of Standard No. 101 makes the use of certain symbols and colors mandatory for traditional displays, the use of symbols and colors is optional for informational readout displays.

If "other electro illuminating device" was interpreted to include normal electric bulbs, traditional displays would come within the definition of informational readout display. Such an interpretation would render meaningless Standard No. 101's requirements for the mandatory use of certain symbols and colors for displays. It is thus clear that the term "other electro illuminating device" does not include normal electric bulbs. Rather, the term was included within the definition of informational readout display, along with light-emitting diodes and liquid crystals, to avoid preventing the use of new electronic technology other than light-emitting diodes and liquid crystals.

Your third and fourth questions both contemplate that the answer to your second question is yes, rather than no. In reference to your question as to why the agency amended Standard No. 101 to permit the use of green as an alternative to blue or blue-green for the headlamp high beam telltale, the reason is that the agency does not interpret the standard's definition of informational readout display to include a mere colored light using light-emitting diode technology. To be an informational readout display, it must include information in the form of words or symbols. Since such a colored light is not an informational readout display, it must meet the color requirements of Standard No. 101. On February 1, 1982, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register (47 FR 4541) which proposed, among other things, an interpretive amendment to the definition of informational readout display to make that point clear. We have enclosed a copy of that notice for your convenience.

Your fourth question suggests that the definition of informational readout display should be interpreted to include only displays providing more than one type of information. As explained in the answer to your first question, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the wording of the standard's definition of informational readout display. The agency recognizes, however, that it is likely that most if not all informational readout displays will include more than one type of information, though it is possible that some manufacturers might use LED or similar technology for displays providing only one type. In any event, the agency is not aware of a need to revise the standard's requirements to exclude displays presenting only one type of information from the definition of informational readout display.

5. According to the current regulation, is it possible to integrate telltales with other instrument displays in an informational readout display?

The light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101 currently prevent informational readout displays from being used as telltales. Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires that informational readout displays must have at least two light intensity values, a relatively high one for daytime use and a relatively low one for nighttime use. The same section specifies that the light intensity of telltales shall not be variable. Since it is not possible for an informational readout display to simultaneously meet both requirements, such a display cannot be used as a telltale.

We would note, however, that the notice of proposed rulemaking referred to above proposes an amendment to Standard No. 101 that would permit informational readout displays to be used as telltales. The agency is in the process of analyzing the comments received in response to that notice.

Our answer to your fifth question also covers your sixth question. I hope this fully responds to your inquiry.

ENC.

QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING "INFORMATIONAL READOUT DISPLAY"

1. If one type of information is displayed by an electro-illuminating device such as a light-emitting diode, can I define this as an IRD?

2. Do you think that the description "other electro illuminating device" includes normal electric bulbs?

3. If yes, we don't know the reason why NHTSA amended the regulation to permit manufacturers to use the color green as an alternative to blue for the headlamp high beam indicator. -- According to S5.3.2, the color of each telltale is designated. However, as as the color for the IRD is at the manufacturer's option, I think the color green can be used as the headlamp high beam indicator by the original regulation. Therefore, I think it not necessary to change the rule.

4. And if yes, we think that we can select a symbol or word designated in Table 2 for the IRD which shows one type of information (ex., Fuel Level), although normal displays have to use symbols designated in Table 2 (S.5.2.3.). -- I think if the definition of IRD is interpreted as more than one, we wouldn't have such a problem.

5. According to the current regulation, is it possible to integrate telltales with other instrument displays in an Informational Readout Display?

6. In this case, is it sufficient that the light intensities for the informational readout systems shall have at least two values prescribed in S.5.3.3? -- According to S.5.3.3, the light intensity of such telltales shall not be variable.

ID: 1983-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. D. L. Boren, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 22, 1983 NOA-30

The Honorable David L. Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information on behalf of one of your constituents, Mr. John H. Kiser. Mr. Kiser is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing "privacy glass" or "one-way plastic films" on passenger car windows. He believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents law enforcement officers and other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Mr. Kiser thinks there should be Federal laws to prevent such installations in passenger cars.

A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances, precludes the practice referred to by Mr. Kiser. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such as the type referred to in Mr. Kiser's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The preceding discussion regarding tinting films would be equally applicable to "one-way privacy glass," if such glass did not have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. This means that such glass could not be installed by a dealer on new passenger cars prior to their first sale, nor by the persons mentioned in section 108(a)(2)(A), on used vehicles, to replace complying glazing.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mr. Kiser may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 205 for Mr. Kiger's information. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures Constituent's Letter Standard No. 205

United States Senate

February 28, 1983

Respectfully referred to:

Congressional Liaison Dept. of Transportation Washington, DC

PLEASE RESPOND TO ATTENTION OF: SS

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquires and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, along with return of the enclosure, will be appreciated by

-------------------- U.S.S. David L. Boren

We think this subject is a matter for State legislation not federal. Would appreciate your views since he will not give up.

February 18, 1983

216 Bluebird Drive Midwest City, OK 73110

Senator David L. Boren Russell Senate Office Bldg Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

In October 1981 I wrote to you regarding control of privacy glass or one way plastic film in or on windshields, drivers window and passenger window.

Your November 4, 1981 reply advised that I should discuss the problem with local representative or senator.

I have said nothing to them and have delayed writing to your office again as I thought legislation might originate from another source. It seems to me that federal instead of state legislation is called for. If Oklahoma had a law prohibiting such privacy glass a traveler would be just as dead if killed as a result of a driver in another state having such privacy glass. A uniform stand is necessary so that:

a. Law enforcement officers can see who is inside or what weapons they might be pointing it at the officer.

b. Other drivers can see if driver approaching intersection is looking at all cars or changing the tuning of his radio.

c. Condition of driver can be determined by others.

Sincerely

John H. Kiser

ID: 1985-01.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Dave Durenberger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Pius Lacher, the Superintendent of Schools in Mora, Minnesota. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

As I understand Mr. Lacher's letter, the Mora public schools would like to use 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport children to and from extra-curricular activities. Mr. Lacher believes that he is restricted by our Federal regulations to using only large, 72-passenger buses for this purpose. He urges a change in the regulations.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations. In this letter, I would like to explain how our regulations might affect Mora's choice of buses. Before I begin, let me explain that our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 or more passengers. Our regulations require manufacturers and dealers to certify that new buses comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, including our school bus safety standards, when these vehicles are sold to schools.

Our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect Mora's choice of buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, and windows and windshields. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date. If Mora plans to buy a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. New conventional 12 or 15 passenger vans that are not manufactured to comply with these standards could not be sold for use as school buses.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit Mora from using vehicles that carry more than 10 persons. There might, however, be impediments under Minnesota State law. We administer a set of guidelines for state highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program

Standards, cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport 16 or less students must either be identified with the words "School Bus" and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). Because it must have this equipment, a 12 or 15 passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a state that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS 17 will affect Mora only if Minnesota has adopted it and if Minnesota accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. If Minnesota chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

Having said this, however, I will conclude by restating the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. In the years since buses began to be manufactured to the school bus safety standards, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. Mora should consider these safety features when the school district decides to buy their school vehicles.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

ENC: Constituent's Correspondence

UNITED STATES SENATE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

January 15, 1985

Timothy Cole Office of Congressional Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

The attached communication is submitted for your consideration; and, I wish to ask that the request made therein be complied with, if possible.

I would appreciate your looking into this matter and sharing with me your findings. In responding to me, please return the attached correspondence along with your reply in duplicate to the attention of my assistant: Christopher Barton, (phone 224-9482), c/o United States Senate, SR 375, Washington, D.C. 20510.

With appreciation for your assistance and cooperation, I am, Dave Durenberger United States Senator

ENC.

MORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MORA, MINNESOTA 53051

January 7, 1985

The Honorable David Durenburger

United States Senator

Dear Senator:

School Administrators have been frustrated for several years with the Department of Transportation rule that prohibits the use by schools to transport students to any event unless that vehicle meets the definition of a school bus or carries ten passengers or less.

Several Day Care Centers, Senior Citizens Centers, residential facilities for the retarded, airport limousine services, etc., use twelve and fifteen-passenger vans, and if these vehicles are unsafe for school use, we wonder why they are safe for all other public agencies of the private sector.

For most of us, this means using a 72-passenger bus and paying a licensed bus driver for driving time and waiting time, while students participate in a tennis or swimming match. In the past, a team coach could drive a twelve or fifteen-passenger van, saving the school district precious dollars which are always in tight supply for these types of non-revenue activities.

We solicit your help in finding the source of this rule and its possible elimination.

Pius J. Lacher, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools

ID: 1985-01.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dennis Moore -- Sierra Product, Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Dennis Moore Sierra Product, Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore, CA 94550

This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1984, asking whether it is permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to combine a turn signal lamp with a center high mounted stop lamp that is intended for the aftermarket as a retrofit.

As you have noted, the recent amendments to Standard No. 108 cover the center high mounted stop lamp only as an item of original equipment and do not purport to regulate the item as an aftermarket device. This means that the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.1 against combining the center high mounted stop lamp with any other lamp does not apply. The legality of such a combination, indeed, the legality of the auxiliary stop lamp itself, is determinable under the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered and/or operated.

The sole federal restriction on use of aftermarket devices does not appear in Standard No. 108, but in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108 (a)(2)(A) in essence forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. The combination turn signal/center high mounted lamp would not appear to have this effect.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

SIERRA PRODUCTS inc.

In reference to selling a High Center Mount Brake Light Retro-Kit to owners of Pre 198F autos and trucks"our Company is faced with a logistics Problem that includes questions of law and the desire to put out an economical reliable product whereas millions of Americans can easily and economically retrofit their used Autos with a High Center Mount Brake Light and enjoy the safety benefits as will people buying new 1986 cars.

We feel several factors lead us to a conclusion that if a High Center Mount Brake Light were allowed to be combined with a High Turn Signal that millions more retrofits would occur because of the low retail price and greater simplicity and reliability of a typical installation

These factors are:

1. In order to avoid the Federal Requirement of S4.4.1 of Standard 108 on "Retrofit Kits" for Pre 1986 Autos in the U.S., all *"Combined Function" lighted cars must be wired in the front to the Brake Switch or use a 15 to 30 Electronic Component "Separating Circuit" to accomplish the same effect.

2. Most U.S. autos (over half of 130 million) use "combined function lights and the chance of the owners of combined function autos using a High Center Brake Light will be significantly reduced if $7 to $10 is added to the Retail Price of a Retrofit Kit which must be done presently.

3. If "combined function" light auto owners are asked to wire to the Brake Light Switch, this makes for a much more difficult installation then going just a couple of feet into the trunk area. Sales of such a Retrofit package and therefore use of High Center Mount Brake Lights will be significantly reduced.

4. For years, SAE 186 has allowed Combination of High Brake Light with a High Turn Signal and apparently has been used to some degree in the U.S. unchallenged. However, the changing of S4.4.1 now challenges the legality of SAE 186 even when applied to "add on" lighting.

5. Buyers representing auto supply distributors and mass merchandisers are very reluctant to carry different models of a High Center Mount Brake Light (one for separate function and one for combined function lights). They are apt to forget about the more expensive model which would include the electronic converter or not carry such a product at all. One universal, low priced model has a good chance of national distribution. There have been many a good product "die on the vine" in the U.S. because of lack of Distribution and this should not be one of them.

6. If a "Separating Circuit" were to be used on a large scale (as they are beginning to), they should have federal safety specifications to assure reliability to the public. Otherwise the public will be lead into a false feeling of buying something that the government has sanctioned and says helps safety only to find out they are possibly at the mercy of an "unreliable electronic black box" that breaks down because of the lack of a reliable safety specification.

Even though Federal law only requires this device in Post 1986 autos and has no law requiring retrofit lights on Pre 1986 cars, the public will indirectly hold the Federal government responsible for a failure such as this, whether they are directly responsible or not, causing hard feelings and a definite loss of credibility.

7. A High Turn Signal combined with a High Center Brake Light as permitted in SAE 186 is a desirable additional safety feature over the High Center Mount Brake Light and we feel it does not at all confuse the functions of the existing required lights (on Pre 1986 autos).

8. Even though Post 1986 autos will not have the High Center Mount Brake Light combined with any other light, we feel that our design of combining a High Center Mount Brake Light with a High Turn Signal feature must be deemed a modification that is unconsequential to Public Safety. As a matter of fact, we feel it is Consequential To Public Safety but only in a Positive way.

9. In all traffic, especially heavy traffic, it is desirable for the following traffic, both immediately behind and far behind to know when a vehicle is about to change lanes or turn off the highway. Furthermore, lanes of traffic to either side could use this information in a constructive way to avoid accidents. In essence, we subscribe to the proven fact that if a High Center Mount Brake Light is put "Where People Look" and it reduces rear end accidents by over 50%, then the other "intention light", that is the Turn Light, would have a similar savings in "lateral" accidents as they would be also "Where People Look". Even if they were not immediately construed as a Turn Signal from a far distance, it is still a signal to other vehicles that "something that could affect traffic conditions is about to happen" and is valuable information to surrounding autos.

We believe a Study in Lateral initiated accidents would show this; however, we haven't the funds or the resources for such a study.

IN CONCLUSION: We are Petitioning for a Clarification of this Point and as soon as possible as this situation may cost the American Public great sums of money unnecessarily and perhaps undermine the effectiveness of a needed product.

*"Combined Function" autos is an automobile whose Brake and Turn Light are represented by One Filament in one or more bulbs.

ID: 1985-02.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Ab Tunaverken

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AB Tunaverken Narjeholmevagen 18 S-633 46 Eskilstuna SWEDEN (Sverige)

Dear Sirs:

This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking information about this agency's requirements applicable to the importation of rims for use on trucks and buses. You were particularly interested in learning the requirements for you to use the DOT symbol on your rims, and asked what technical support the agency would need to make that determination.

All rims for use on trucks and buses which are imported into or sold in the United States customs territory must satisfy Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.120; copy enclosed). This standard specifies two requirements applicable to these rims. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims mounted on a new vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle. That is, the rim size must be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer. This requirement is the sole responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will be mounted on the rim.

The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim be marked by the rim manufacturer with five specified items of information. These are:

(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions;

(2) The rim's size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

(3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards;

(4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and

(5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

You stated that you were interested in knowing the requirements for you to mark your rims with the symbol "DOT." The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the rims to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual rim manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. In the case of rims for use on trucks and buses, Standard No. 120 contains all the applicable requirements. The certification need not be based on actual tests; the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care when making the certification. Obviously, in the case of rims for use on trucks and buses, no testing is necessary since the standard only sets marking requirements for those rims. Once the manufacturer determines that these rims satisfy those requirements, it marks the symbol "DOT" on the rims.

If either your company or this agency determines that your rims do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would be required to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B) specifies that, if the rims fail to comply with Standard No. 120 or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect or noncompliance and must either:

(1) repair the rim so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or

(2) replace the rim with an identical or reasonably equivalent rim which does not have a defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the rim manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the rim owner for the remedy if the rim was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

Additionally, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which apply to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This requires your company to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture (aluminum wheels for cars, trucks, and buses) to the agency within 30 days of the date your wheels are shipped into the United States.

The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. This regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The individual designated as the agent may be either a person or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on your company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of your company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of your wheels and rims which do not bear the name of your company;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by your company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by your company, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

This designation should be received by this agency before you ship your wheels and rims into the United States.

If you need further information, or a clarification of any of the information contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Chief council National Highway traffic Safety Administration 400 7th street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 USA

Attn: Steven Kratcke.

Dear Sir!

Tunaverken is a manufacturer of aluminium wheels for cars, trucks and buses.

Since half a year there have been requests from bus and truck manufacturers that they should be able to use our wheels on buses and trucks used in the USA.

We would like to know the requirements in order to use the "DOT" symbol. Are all requirements in the S 571.120 Standard No. 120 Tire selection and Rims for Motor vehicles other than Passenger Cars. What technical support do You need, test reports a.s.o. If the vehicle manufacturer sells the wheels with its own name on the wheel and not ours, should they apply for the "DOT" symbol?

We would appreciate very much if we could get an answer soon.

Yours Sincerely

AB TUNAVERKEN MK:bam

ID: nht87-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Andrew G. Baird -- Executive Director, North Platte Development Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 9/15/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to W. Alex Cantrell (Std. 114)

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew G. Baird, II Executive Director North Platte Development Corporation P.O. Box 968 North Platte, NE 69101

This responds to your letter concerning a design for a remote automatic starting system for motor vehicles. Enclosed is a copy of a September 15, 1986 letter, addressed to C&A Control Systems, Inc., which discusses the general issues raised by your l etter. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet which we prepared for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

While remote automatic starting systems can be designed so that they do not conflict with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, you should be aware that this agency strongly advises that cars should never be left unattended with the engine running. Remote automatic starting systems create that vehicle condition. I am enclosing a copy of a recent press release which cautions motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period of time could lead to a fire. The agency has previously w arned of the danger of inadvertent movement by unattended cars which are left running.

I urge you to consider these and other safety issues as you evaluate the safety of your device.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY NHTSA 07-87 March 13, 1987 Contact: Barry McCahill Tel.: (202) 366-955)

SAFETY AGENCY WARMS MOTORISTS TO AVOID LONG ENGINE WARM-UPS

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today cautioned motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period could lead to a fire.

The safety agency explained that when an engine is cold, most vehicles equipped with a carburetor will idle fast while the choke is on until the operator depresses the accelerator pedal to return the idle to normal. If the operator neglects to do this, o r is away from the vehicle, the engine may operate too long with the choke on, the catalytic converter could overheat and a fire could result. Due to vehicle differences, NHTSA suggests that drivers should consult their owner's manual to determine how lo ng the manufacturer advises that an engine can be idled safely.

"Fortunately, these fires are rare events," according to NHTSA Administrator Diane K. Steed. "But incidents have been reported to us, typically when a car is left idling and the operator goes back into the house while it warms up. Under no circumstances, even in warm weather, should a car be left unattended with the engine running."

Steed urged motorists to follow carefully the manufacturer's warm-up procedure. In addition, these safety precautions should be followed:

o The engine should not be running while someone is clearing the windshield or windows of frost, snow or dew.

o If, after a brief warm-up, the vehicle hesitates or stalls, have it serviced rather than opting for a longer warm-up period.

o Before leaving any vehicle, turn off the ignition and set the parking brake. If the vehicle is equipped with an automatic transmission also, make sure the gear selector is in the "park" position.

Motorists who experience a fire associated with engine warm-up, or any other safety-related motor vehicle problem, are urged to call NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline on (800) 424-9393.

December 15, 1968

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway & Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th, S.W. Washington' D.C. 20590 NOA-30

Dear Sirs:

Please find enclosed a diagram and explanation of a Remote Automatic Starting System for motor vehicles. Please review and notify me if there are any problems with this system under Federal Regulations or Statutes.

I have spoken to Mr. Kenneth Rutland of N.H.T.S.A. about this device and he referred me to your office. From our conversation I feel that he will probably do the review of the system.

If you have any questions, please contact either myself or the inventor, Mr. Dale Gleason at 308-532-8466.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

ANDREW G. BAIRD, II Executive Director North Platte Development Corporation

/mjh Encl. cc. Dale Gleason Rex Martin, NE Tech. Assistance Center

REMOTE FREQUENCY CENTER, Similar to a Garage Door Opener

The Signal receiver activates a number one relay, and as soon as that is activated it puts juice to the ignition side of the coil or the electronic module, in case of electronic ignition. . . . Also supplies power to an electric switch that is closed unt il the rpm reaches 500 rpm. The juice then goes to a timer, starts a timer sequence that activates the glow plugs for 30 sec., and after 30 sec. it activates a number 3 relay, which throws juice to the starter solonoid and also to a throttle solonoid. Th e throttle solonoid cracks the throttle open one-third throttle and lets the automatic choke close. . . . . Same time we're crankin' the engine. As soon as the engine starts, the rpm reaches 500 rpm the electric switch closes, shutin' off the power to th e timer, which sets off power to the starter solonoid and throttle lever. The throttle goes back into normal position of high-idle and choke that's already on the car. In case of a No-start the timer will activate starter for 15 seconds, then off for 30 seconds, and then the whole cycle will start over. . . . . glow plugs, starter & throttle lever.

We have a master toggle switch to are the number 1 relay, which is turned on after you park your car that arms the number 1 relay, and when you hit your remote button in the morning, you can start the machine from inside the house, or wherever you want t o be.

We are going to hook it up on the neutral side of the safety switch so the unit would have to be in Park or Neutral before it would activate the starter.

Until the key is in place and release the steering column the car cannot be placed in gear. The system does not bypass the locking mechanism.

What we're doin' is starting the car, defrosting the windows , warming the engine up, and stop some people from driving while looking through a little three inch hole cuz they're too lazy to scrape the windows! A safety precaution. Also precludes cold en gine stalls.

The car must be "in tune", because if you have a car that you have to go out there an pump the throttle, this is not going to work... and it will not work if the car is sittin' out in 20o below 0 weather either, unless the car is well "in-tune". But we a re not bypassing any neutral safety switches, and will absolutely NOT start the car, if the car is in gear! At this time it is for automatic transmissions only. . . .We have not figured out a way to put it on a standard transmission that could accidently be started in gear. All the automatics do have a neutral safety switch.

ID: 86-6.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robin Leeds

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Executive Director Connecticut Operators of School Transportation Association 133 Jerome Avenue Burlington, CT 06013

Dear Ms. Leeds:

This responds to your letter concerning the height of front bumpers on school buses. According to your letter, school bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require front bumpers on all school buses to be located 18 inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, your bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper. I regret the delay in answering your letter.

You are interested in a revision to Connecticut's requirements for school bus bumpers, which would require a bumper height that corresponds to the height used by chassis manufacturers: thereby avoiding the need to reposition or replace original bumpers. However: the state Department of Motor Vehicles believes that the 18 inch height: corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents override of an automobile. You asked three questions related to this issue, which I have addressed below.

I would like to begin with some background information on our bumper standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its Part 581 Bumper Standard pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Vehicle Safety Act). The standard establishes requirements for impact resistance in low-speed front and rear collisions and includes a bumper height requirement. The bumper height requirement prevents override in collisions with other vehicles subject to the standard.

The standard applies to "passenger motor vehicles other than muitipurpose passenger vehicles." The term "passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles" generally corresponds to passenger cars. Title I of the Cost Savings Act specifically excludes trucks and larger buses from any bumper standards and allows multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) to be exempted from the bumper standard. I believe you are interested in the large: standard school buses to which the standard does not apply.

You first asked whether it would be safer if school bus bumpers Here kept at the position originally utilized by the chassis manufacturer. We are not aware at this time of any indications that it is safer to retain the bumper in its original position. However: NHTSA does not have sufficient data at this time to evaluate the safety effects of lowering the bumper. Chassis manufacturers may have considered practical reasons for positioning their bumpers in the manner they have done: since trucks and buses sometimes require greater ground clearance than passenger cars to negotiate ramps and to clear obstacles associated with off-road operation.

Your second question asked whether repositioning or replacing the bumper would affect compliance of the school bus with our motor vehicle safety standards. As you might know: persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.

A dealer that modified the bumper of a school bus: prior to its first sale, would thus be required to certify that the school bus: as altered: complies with all applicable safety standards. A violation of the Vehicle Safety Act would occur if an alterer modified the school bus in such a way that the vehicle no longer complied with an applicable standard. Since the school bus's continued compliance with applicable safety standards depends on many factors, such as the design of the school bus and the nature of work performed on the vehicle: dealers modifying school bus bumpers might want to contact the vehicle manufacturer to learn if any standards might be affected by the lowering of the bumper and obtain any information needed to make the required certification.

Your third question asked "What, if any, liability is incurred by a dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?"

Violations of Vehicle Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1000 per violation, with a maximum fine of 5800:000 for a related series of violations. A dealer altering a school bus can protect Itself from such liability by ensuring that It complies with all relevant Federal requirements.

The issue of possible liability in tort is a matter of state law rather than Federal law. Therefore, we suggest that you consult a local attorney on this question.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions,

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Diedre Hom Chief Counsel's Office National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

Bob Williams referred me to you for a possible answer to my inquiry regarding dealer liability.

School bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require that front bumpers on all school buses be located at a height of eighteen inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, it means that our bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper.

We are currently revising the school bus regulations and have suggested standardizing the front bumper height. The state Department of Motor Vehicles, however, continues to believe that the eighteen inch height, corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents override of an automobile.

I have two questions which I hope you can answer:

1. Is there a legitimate justification for leaving the front bumper on school buses as it is placed by the chassis manufacturer?

What, if any, liability is incurred by a dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Robin Leeds Executive Director

P.S. A third question: Does the bus still meet federal standards after the bumper has been modified?

ID: 86-6.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Edward Brosler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Edward Brosler, Esq. Registered Patent Attorney 3100 Tice Creek Drive - #2 Walnut Creek, CA 94595

Dear Mr. Brosler

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, to the Department of Transportation. We are sorry that your letter of February 17, 1984, was not answered, but the Department is a large one and letters that are addressed to it, rather than to a specific agency or individual, sometimes do not reach the office appropriate for response.

We understand that your client has a patented device which activates the stop lamp when the accelerator is released and before the brake pedal is applied. It also "causes such lights to light up, in an emergency, even before the driver removes his foot from the gas pedal." You "seek approval of the U.S. Department of Transportation" for the device.

The Department, more specifically this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the authority provided us, we establish the federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer is not required to submit products for "approval" before sale, but instead is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle Safety standards, after satisfying itself that the product complies, Federal Safety standards are generally expressed in performance terms, so that the manufacturer may have freedom to design its product to meet the requirements in the way it deems most suitable. We do not specify the use of proprietary devices, and to the extent that proprietary elements may be involved in complying with a standard manufacturers are expected to make available on a royalty free basis the technology involved.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 C.F.R. 571.108) is the standard governing motor vehicle lighting requirements. A stop lamp is defined by the Standard J586c, August 1970 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 100, as a lamp that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to atop or diminish speed by braking." Incorporation of your client's device would send additional messages to a following driver: that the accelerator has been released but that there may be no intention to brake, or that the accelerator has not been released but will be because an emergency has arisen requiring eventual application of the brake pedal. That is to say, the message that the stop lamp is intended to convey should be altered by incorporation of your client's device. Because not all accelerator releases lead to braking, the stop lamp would send a misleading signal. We believe that the device is prohibited as an item of original equipment by paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, because it would impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps, and that its installation as an aftermarket device would render the stop lamp system partially inoperative within the prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)(Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). This prohibition forbids modifications affecting equipment installed in accordance with the safety standards when performed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses but not by vehicle owners. However, even if it is permissible under Federal law for a vehicle owner to install the device, any State in which it is sold or used may regulate it. We note your statement that California permits but you should be aware that other States may not.

In arriving at the conclusion that the center highmounted stop lamp was the most effective way to reduce the incidence and severity of rear end collisions, the agency considered deceleration warning systems involving activation of the stop lamps upon release of the accelerator pedal, and did not find that they offered a discernible advantage over standard stop lamps.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 4, 1936

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

I enclose a copy of my letter of February 17, 1984.

Please inform me when you expect to reach it for consideration, as I have not had a reply as yet.

Respectfully, EDWARD BROSLER

February 17, 1984

U. S. Dept. of Transportation Washington, D.C.

We have recently seen a writeup in which you recommend a brake light viewable through the rear window of a car, in expectation that a driver to the rear alerted sooner ad to an emergency and thereby reduce probability of a rear end collision and cut down on occupant deaths, injuries and vehicle damage.

If such a light, or even the conventional brake lights, could, in an emergency, be made to light up before application of the driver's foot to the brake pedal, how much greater assurance one would have to avoid serious rear end collisions and consequential deaths, injuries and car damage. Is this an impossibility? The answer is no.

A client of ours, an experienced race car driver and designer of his own power system improvements, has researched and developed a simple and effective system for not only lighting up the brake lights before the brake pedal is depressed, but causes such lights to light up, in an emergency, even before the driver removes his foot from the gas pedal. The U.S. Patent Office has issued to him, Patents No. 3639898 and 4219710, copies of which are enclosed and which completely disclose his system.

The system has been operated and its effectiveness demonstrated. As a result, the State of California has given its official approval, following which numerous other States have volunteered their official.

We now seek approval of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, but only upon being convinced of the ability of the system to perform its intended function.

If the foregoing information is not sufficient for your purpose, we submit herewith a commercial embodiment which may be installed in most cars by an automobile mechanic in about half an hour and tested by a driver within minutes, to convince him, the brake lights light up before the brake pedal is depressed.

Please note also, that the improvement is supplemental to the conventional brake system and should it, for some unexpected reason to fail to perform, the conventional brake system will continue to function in its normal manner.

We look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Respectfully,

EDWARD BROSLER EB:pb Encls.

ID: nht76-1.43

DATE: 06/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Little Dude Trailer Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 26, 1976, letter concerning the certification label requirements in S5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

You have pointed out that the example shown in S5.3 presents rim, inflation, and maximum speed information after the Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings (GVWRs) as well as after the Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWRs). You have suggested that the text of S5.3 merely requires such information to appear after the GAWRs and urged such an interpretation. It appears that you have misunderstood the text.

In its present form, S5.3 requires each listed GVWR and GAWR to be followed by the information specified in paragraphs S5.3(a) through (d). Paragraph (a) is divided into subparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) in order to specify different items to follow GVWR and GAWR, respectively. Paragraphs (b) through (d) (which specify rim, inflation, and maximum speed information) are not subdivided because the same items are intended to follow GVWR and GAWR.

Several petitions for reconsideration of the standard have requested an amendment of S5.3 to eliminate the requirement that tire and rim information appear after the GVWR. Your suggestions on this matter, as well as the other suggestions in your letter, are being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the preparation of its response to those petitions.

Please note that the effective dates of several of the standard's requirements, including that of S5.3, were delayed in a Federal Register notice published on May 6, 1976 (41 FR 18659; Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4). A copy of that notice is enclosed for your convenience.

YOURS TRULY,

little dude TRAILER COMPANY, INC.

March 26, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: Safety Standard 120

We have some questions and comments regarding the subject standard. On page 3480 (S5.3) you cover the requirements of the certification label. Part (a) (1) states, "After GVWR, the size designation of tires appropriate as a minimum for the GAWR's corresponding to that GVWR." Paragraph (a) (2) then goes into GAWR which is to be followed by (b), (c), and (d) as well as the appropriate tire size. On the surface, it appears that the GVWR is to be followed only by tire size; yet, your example shows it (GVWR) followed by everything, even though it is a duplication, that follows GAWR. Which is correct? If the example is correct, why should rim size, cold inflation, and maximum speed be repeated since they obviously must be the same?

Now, as to your discussion of the comments. On page 3478, 3rd column, 2nd paragraph, you state that the commentors pointing to the large number of possible combinations making the decal too large and confusing are not correct because they fail to fully understand the rule. We have no doubt that this is true on the comprehension part; but we cannot possibly see how rim designation, tire inflation, and maximum speed can be of any possible use to the consumer when the tires on the vehicle need not be listed. We hope that people do not apply this info in servicing, driving, or replacing a larger size tire than appears on the decal. The obvious question is, if these items don't have to apply to the tires on the vehicle, what good are they?

We feel that the comments about the size of and confusion on the decal definitely are pertinent to boat trailers even if not pertinent to cars and trucks. We are limited in size (3" to 5") for vertical decal expansion; consequently, we can only go horizontally to add the new information. Since some decals encompass as many as 4 GVWR's and GAWR's (8 on a tandem) we could very easily have one whole side of the trailer which would require no paint. What you failed to realize in your comment interpretation is that 99% of the changes in tires on boat trailers are made to change capacities; therefore, your answer that the law does not require the listing of more than one tire size is just not applicable to trailers. The changing of tires changes both the GVWR and the GAWR which adds all of your additional information in as much as fourfold for GVWR and up to eightfold on GAWR for a tandem. Some trailer manufacturers even go as far as 3 axles. The only alternative to this horrendous decal that no one could read or understand is a separate one for each capacity trailer. This alternative would be utter chaos for the Marine Industry and any other trailer shipped in a knocked down condition. When the same frame has up to 4 different running gear and load capacity combinations there is no assurance that our assembly people will be able to distinguish which decal goes with which running gear. Needless to say, the people putting trailers together for a dealer will never get them right or even care. The inventory duplication will be impossible for the manufacturer and his customers.

For once, why can't trailers be excepted from the laws governing cars and trucks? They are entirely different both in type and use. Between the lighting, decal, new warranty requirements, and cutting of tire capacities, we are fast protecting the consumer fully. Since all these costs must be passed on, the consumer will soon be unable to afford a trailer; hence, full protection because no one will have one.

No Marine Dealer or consumer that we have talked to knows or cares what GVWR and GAWR means. Furthermore, most trailer manufacturers buy their wheels and tires mounted. The rim information is to be on the wheel, capacity and inflation pressure are on the tires, and the over-the-road speed limit is 55 MPH. Aren't these items enough? They are certainly a safer guide than the decal information which you admit may or may not apply to the tires on the trailer. The only problem would be a disreputable tire or trailer manufacturer mounting a high capacity tire on a lower capacity rim. The trailer manufacturers that would do this aren't legal on lights and decal (some don't even have one) now; so, they won't be affected anyway, and the tire companies simply can't afford to run that kind of risk. This will be just another means of making reputable manufacturers less competitive with our already illegal "backyard" competitors. They never even paid their excise tax and certainly aren't worried about a decal.

Please advise:

1. Whether the example or the language is correct,

2. If we have misinterpreted anything,

3. If there is any way trailers, can be excluded from the new decal requirements.

Richard L. Rogers President

cc: CHUCK VERRILL; JEFF NAPIER