ID: nht87-2.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Major Harry A. Crytzer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Major Harry A. Crytzer Bureau of Patrol Pennsylvania State Police l800 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110

Dear Mr. Crytzer: .

This responds to your letter to our office and a telephone call between Trooper Monko of your department and Deirdre Hom of my staff, concerning how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations affect a certain modificatio n of a school bus. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You explained in your letter and enclosures that the vehicle in question is a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds. The vehicle is being leased by the Governor Mifflin school district from a local dealer, Wo lfington Body Company, who bought the vehicle from the school bus manufacturer, Collins Industries. Your letter said that Collins delivered the vehicle to Wolfingiton with an extra side door "in place." The side door has provided for purposes of installi ng a wheelchair lift. You stated that Wolfington could have installed a wheelchair lift, if it had wished to do so; however, in the case at hand, Wolfington sealed the door and installed rear seats provided by Collins in the bus.

You first ask whether the school bus dealer (Wolfington) is prohibited by Federal law from sealing the side door and installing the rear seats. The answer is no. However, Federal law does impose limitations on the modifications that may be made. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) states:

No manufacturer, distributed, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an app licable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Section lO8(a)(2l(A) prohibits Wolfington from either removing, disconnecting or degrading the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with applicable Federal safety standards. Thus, the school bus dealer cannot seal the door i f the door had been installed on the vehicle to meet the requirements for emergency exits found in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In the case you describe, the school bus Has provided with a rear emergency door which presumably satis fies Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. If the school bus is able to meet the requirements of the standard notwithstanding the sealed side door, then there is no "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the school bus em ergency exit requirements.

Nevertheless, Wolfington must ensure that no other safety design or item of equipment installed pursuant to applicable Federal safety standards was rendered inoperative by its modifications. For instance, the performance of the fuel system must be mainta ined to the level required by Standard No. 301, Fuel System integrity. Similarly, Wolfington must ensure that the seats previously certified to Standard No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, maintained their levels of performance.

Trooper Monko requested information on the Federal requirements applying to Collins and Wolfington, if Collins had delivered the school bus with the door sealed to Wolfington, the purchaser, and Wolfington had installed the lift and removed the rearmost seats. Wolfington is subject to the "render inoperative" provisions of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act in this situation, just as it is in the situation discussed earlier. Thus, Wolfington must ensure that its modifications do not negatively affect the c ompliance of safety equipment and designs with Federal safety standards. Notably, the fuel system and seats on the school bus must continue to meet the applicable safety standards.

We note that a different set of our regulations would apply if wolfington had obtained a new school bus from Collins to resell it to a school district. These regulations apply to the alteration of new vehicles, and impose certification responsibilities o n dealers modifying new vehicles. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are interested in those regulations.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 29, 1986

Deidre Hom, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

It has been requested of cur office by Trooper Barry J. Jozwiak, Troop "L", Reading, to provide clarification for the Pennsylvania State Police school bus inspection on the subject of rendering inoperable an additional service door on a school bus. The v ehicle when manufactured offers a dual option to the vehicle owner for use as either a special education or normal school bus. The selected use of the school bus can be converted to the owner's transportation needs at anytime by adding or deleting certai n school bus body items.

Would any Federal Statute or Regulation prohibit the dealer or owner from rendering this extra service door inoperable?

This supplements the conversation on August 8, 1986, between you and Trooper Thomas J. Monko of my staff. As requested, the attachments are forwarded for your information.

Should you have additional questions or require further clarification, phone contact, Trooper Thomas J. Monko at (717) 783-5517.

Sincerely, Harry A Crytzer Major Bureau of Patrol

SUBJECT: Service door on school bus To: C. O. Troop "L", Reading, Pa. 4310 FROM: Tpr. Barry J. JOZWIAK, Troop "L", Reading 4310

This officer inspected a 1985 Ford School Bus, VIN#1FDJE34H5FHCl29969, Pa. Reg. SB17235, COLLINS Body; 21 Passenger (including driver) with mileage 15,742, While inspecting this vehicle it was determined that an additional service door had been installed on the right side of the vehicle at the rear. This door is usually used with buses that have lift gates in them for transporting students in wheel chairs, however, this bus does not have the lift gate. It does have seats throughout the bus. The door itself is not operable. This officer feels the doo r should be operable. GVW is 9300.

This bus is currently in use by Governor Mifflin School District, Shillington, Berks Co. Pa. The bus is on the buy-back program with WOLFINGTON Body Co., Eagle, Pa. A check with Mr. Ralph BROWN OF WOLFINGTON advised they when they order these type of veh icles they order them with the extra side door in order for the buses to be used for dual purposes. One for lift gate wheel chair use and the other for normal transportation with the door secured shut. BROWN advised there are approx 3 other buses being u sed for 1986 with the door secured shut. All others have lift gates in them.

The door is located on the right rear corner of the bus. The side rub rail is located on the right side and travels up to the rear door and stops. Another rub rail is then installed approx. 2/3 or the door and stops just past the door opening where it is secured through the pillar post with 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts. The door handle is on the outside of the door and is locked with a key. The inside or the door has a latch assembly that when the handle is turned to lock, The latch assy. travels up to th e roof or the bus and down to the floor of the bus. In this bus the latch assy. is in the open position. The key was inserted into the lock to unlock the latch, but the handle does not turn. There is a chair rail located on the inside the bus that the se ats are mounted onto on the right side of the seat. At the rear door the seats are bolted to the floor with 4 lag seats with 4 bolts in each leg. They are not attached to the chair angle rail. The chair angle rail is not attached to the door, however it is secured before the door and also with one of the carriage bolts that go through the pillar posts from the outside.

Mr. Ron PETERS, COLLINS INDUSTRIES, Hutchinson, Kansas, was contacted 1-800-835-5007 and he advised that they have made these types of vehicles for many years and that they are for dual purpose, He feels the bus is stronger with the door rather than the conventional side due to the additional structure installed for the door.

These buses are built to ordering specs and can be made with or without the side door. The bus in question is an original equipment installation. When the bus is delivered to the distributor the door is in place without the lift assy, and the rear seats are not belted to the floor. It is the dealers option to use the vehicle as he see the need, and either install the lift assy, or the seats, The only thing that actually holds the door shut is the 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts that go through the rub rail a nd the pillar post. The inside latch assy. should also hold the door shut.

This officer feels this door should function for the following reasons; 1- Pa Insp regulations 175.110, (a), (7), (vi) (c) indicate doors must function. 2- The door is equipped with an outside handle giving the appearance to the general public that this is a door. In the event of an accident a person might waste time trying to open a door that cannot be opened. 3- There are no labels placed on the door that advise door not operable. 4- The only things that actually keep the door secured is 1 rub rail th at only crosses approx. 2/3 of the bus door and 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts that go through the rub rail & into the pillar post.

Tpr. Tom MONTKO, Bureau of Patrol, discussed this with this officer and advised to inspect the vehicle for use at this time and to submit this letter along with photos of the vehicle in order to secure a legal opinion from Penn Dot and the Nat'l Safety T ransportation Board.

School Bus inspection regulations 171.50 indicate service doors and emergency doors. School Bus regulations 171.103 and 171.104 address special service entrance and special service entrance doors on vehicles with power lifts.

Photos of the bus attached.

Respectfully Submitted, Tpr. Barry J. JOZWIAK

ID: nht87-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/02/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Kenji Shimamura -- Exective Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenji Shimamura Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 58105

This responds to your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, for brake indicator lamps. The second sentence of section S5.3.2 of the standard provides that in vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, the activation of the indicator lamp(s) as a check of lamp function is not required when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. You asked if this provision can be interpreted to apply to vehicles equipped with a manual trans mission and fitted with a clutch pedal interlock switch, based on a purported equivalent function of the clutch pedal starter interlock switch to the automatic transmission starter interlock. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no. As requ ested by your letter, we will consider your request as a petition for rulemaking and process it accordingly.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.3.2 of the standard states:

All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" (run) position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" (run) and "s tart" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. However, in vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, the activation as a check of lamp function is not required when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

Standard No. 105. In adding the sentence, NHTSA stated the following:

Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., has requested confirmation that S5.3.2 of the standard requires a check of the brake system indicator lamp function only when the transmission shift lever is in the "P" (park) or "N" (neutral) position (in the case of vehicles w ith automatic transmission), The literal wording of S5.3.2 requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever, whenever the ignition switch is turned to the "on" position when the engine is not running, or wh en the ignition switch is in a position between "on" and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. In the case of vehicles with an automatic transmission, however, this wording does not reflect the NHTSA's intent with respect to check function. To properly reflect this intent, the language of S5.3.2 is hereby modified in accordance with Toyota's request. . . . 40 FR 42872, September 17, 1975.

Thus, except to the extent provided by the second sentence of section S5.3.2, that section requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever, whenever the ignition switch is turned to the "on" position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition switch is in a position between "on" and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. Since the second sentence of section S5.3.2 specifically applies only to "vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission," we conclude that the sentence cannot be applied to vehicles equipped with a manual transmission.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Re: Request for Interpretation/Petition for Rulemaking - 49 CPR Part 571.105. Hydraulic Brake Systems

Dear Ms. Jones:

Mazda (North America). Inc., on behalf of Mazda Motor Corporation located in Hiroshima. Japan, (Mazda) requests that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provide an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 571.105, 55.3. Brake System Indicator Lamp. Further, subject to the stipulations enumerated below. please consider this document a formal petition for rulemaking consistent with 49 CFR Part 552. Petitions for Rulemaking. Defect, and Noncompliance Orders.

49 CFR Part 571.105, 55.3. cites several performance requirements for brake system indicator lamps. Among these are the conditions, as a function of ignition switch position that the indicator lamp must be activated. 49 CPR Part 571.105. 55.3.2. specific ally requires the lamp to be activated whenever the ignition switch is turned to the "on" position or is turned to a position between the "on" and "start" position, dependent on the preference of the manufacturer. It also exempts certain requirements for vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission whenever the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

The obvious justification for the above partial exemption is that these vehicles must also comply with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.102, S5.3.2. This regulation prohibits engines of vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions from starting when ever the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. Operation of a vehicle with the transmission shift lever so positioned is therefore not possible. The warning function of the brake system indicator lamp accordingly serves no s afety function for an inoperative vehicle.

Mazda's question relates to the lack of such a safety function on the analogous situation of a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission. such vehicles are often equipped with a clutch pedal starter interlock switch which prevents the engine from start ing (by interruption of the starter motor circuit Page 2 of 3 unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed. This device Protects the vehicle and occupants from inadvertent engine activation when the vehicle transmission is in gear and possible unexpected m ovement of the vehicle The avoidance of such an occurrence is precisely the justification for the adoption of 49 CFR Part 571.102. 53.1.3. for vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions and obviously led to the subsequent partial exemption for vehicl es so equipped from the requirements of 49 CPR Part 571.105, 55.3.2.

Based on the equivalent function of the clutch pedal starter interlock switch to the automatic transmission starter interlock, Mazda has concluded that a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission and fitter with a clutch pedal interlock switch should a lso be exempted from certain brake system indicator lamp requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.105, S5.3.2.. However, a technical interpretation of this regulation clearly does not support Mazda's conclusion to the extent that all risk of a technical non-compl iance can be eliminated.

Therefore. Mazda requests that the Agency review this issue and comment on the appraisal provided above. Mazda is especially interested in the opinion of the NHTSA regarding the ability of a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission fitted with a clutc h pedal interlock switch to apply the brake system indicator lamp activation partial exemption as provided in 49 CFR Part 571.105. S5.3.2. and still comply with all applicable provisions.

Should the NHTSA conclude that the technical language of 49 CFR Part 571.105. S5.3.2. cannot incorporate, as written, manual transmissions fitted with a clutch pedal interlock switch, please consider this document a formal petition consistent with 49 CFR Part 552. Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders, and forward it to the Administrator for appropriate consideration.

Based on the discussion provided above. Mazda believes that there is ample cause for the NHTSA to afford manual transmissions equipped with clutch pedal starter interlock switches the same exemptions currently contained in 49 CFR Part 571.105, S5.3.2.. A s noted above. the manual transmission clutch pedal starter interlock switch is equivalent in function to the automatic transmission starter interlock switch currently partially exempted. No safety degradation is expected to occur if manual transmissions are also partially exempted by 49 CFR Part 571.105.5.3.2., providing the empirical and analytical justification for the NHTSA's current, limited exemption of automatic transmission starter interlocks is adequate.

Further, Mazda asserts that overall cost effectiveness and to a lesser degree, safety will actually be enhanced through fewer low speed collisions. The option for a manufacturer to employ a single wiring harness for the brake system indicator lamp circui t for vehicles equipped with both manual and automatic transmissions will be a powerful incentive for manufacturers to provide clutch pedal starter interlock switches for vehicles not currently so equipped. Unexpected motion of the vehicle during engine activation will be reduced as the clutch pedal will be depressed more often in a wider variety of vehicles prior to engine activation.

Currently, Mazda designs, produces and installs two separate brake system indicator lamp wiring harnesses for each model.,the only difference being the activation logic for the brake lamp. In both harnesses, Mazda has designed the brake system indicator lamp to activate between the "on" and "start" ignition switch position. By harmonizing the requirement between vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions and manual transmissions, this unnecessary duplication and its attendant costs will be avoided. The result will be simplification in design, production schedules, inventory controls and assembly procedures. These cost avoidances are substantial and will allow the consumer to obtain and maintain less expensive and possibly safer vehicles.

Therefore, Mazda recommends that 49 CFR Part 571.105. 55.3.2. be amended as follows:

"All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" (run) position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" (run) and " start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. However, if engine activation is prevented due to the function of any starter of engine inter-lock device, the activation as a check of lamp function is not required".

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Should you or your staff have any questions regarding either the request for interpretation or the conditional petition for rulemaking, please contact Mr. Sadato Kadoya (313-747- 8881) for assistance.

Sincerely,

Kenji Shimamura Executive Vice President and General Manager

ID: nht76-2.26

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1976, asking several questions concerning paragraph S4.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I am sorry that we were unable to respond by September 29 as you requested. Your questions and our answers are as follows:

"1. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the words 'combined optically' as they appear in paragraph S4.4.1 of DOT 108?"

In pertinent part, S4.4.1 states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp." The phrase "combined optically" as used here means that the luminous area of a lens used for a taillamp may not be also used as the luminous area of a lens for a clearance lamp. In other words lamps are "combined optically" when the same luminous area of a lens is lighted for more than a single function.

"2. Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?"

The answer is no because the same luminous area of the lens would be lighted when both lamps are in use, and the lamps would be "combined optically."

"3. Does the DOT have no objection to a flashing red signal issuing from the side (at right angles to the fore-aft center line of the trailer) of the clearance lamp?"

Generally S4.6(b) requires most vehicle lamps to be steady burning in normal operation. If the right angle lamp serves as the rear side marker lamp, however, S4.6(b) allows it to be flashed for signaling.

"4. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the term 'clearance lamp' as it is used in DOT 108?"

The term "clearance lamps" is defined by SAE Standard J592e, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and are "lamps which show to the front or rear of a vehicle . . . to indicate the overall width and height of the vehicle."

"5. Does the 'clearance lamp' as the words are used in DOT 108 indicate a lamp intended to serve as its major function, a back up lamp in the event of failure of the tail light filament in the combination tail, turn and stop light bulb."

There is no intent that a clearance lamp serve as a backup lamp in the event of a taillamp filament failure though obviously both lamps perform a marking function.

"6. If DOT approves the combination of a clearance lamp and tail lamp in the same compartment, would it also approve for a boat trailer, moving the tail light outboard to show the extreme width of an over 80" vehicle and eliminate the need for a clearance lamp under those circumstances."

The question is moot since a combination clearance lamp-taillamp is not permitted.

I understand that you discussed the photometric test procedure for optically combined lamps with Mr. Owen of this agency, by telephone on September 22, 1976. So that there may be no misunderstanding I would like to set forth the test procedure in this letter. If a single lamp bulb (or filament) is used in the combined lamp, the photometrics for all of the functions must be met simultaneously. If two or more lamp bulbs (or filaments) are used and each is to provide a separate function, only those which provide that function are to be energized during the photometric test. Therefore, in a multiple compartment side marker and clearance lamp (or a multiple compartment tail and clearance lamp that is not optically combined), the clearance lamp bulb is not energized during the photometric test for the other function, and vice versa.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

WESBAR CORPORATION

September 7, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: DOT 108, paragraph S4.4.1

On June 9, 1975 your predecessor in office answered an inquiry we made relative to a light design, and the last paragraph of his letter stated in part:

"Since the clearance lamp and tail lamp are in separate compartments and not optically combined -- the lamp design does not violate S4.4.1."

We have recently seen two lamps which bear the letters "DOT", in each of which the clearance, tail light and turn signal bulbs are all in the same compartment, i.e. the clearance lamp is not in a separate compartment.

It has always been the opinion of the writer and of boat trailer manufacturers, that in order to comply with S4.4.1, the clearance lamp would have to be in a compartment separated from the tail and stop lamp. However, while we were in Washington last week visiting your compliance office, we were advised that a Mr. Lou Owen had given a verbal interpretation of S4.4.1 in which he gave approval for the tail and clearance lamp to be in a single compartment, with no separating wall between them.

It would seem logical that tail lamp and clearance lamp should be separately compartmented. If the bulbs were in the same compartment with no shielding between them, the stop and turn light would illuminate that section of the compartment intended as a clearance lamp area, and at times the clearance lamp would appear to be flashing as well as varying in intensity. This would make for a confusing and hazardous situation for a driver traveling some distance behind a trailer equipped with such a combination lamp.

If this verbal interpretation which approves having the two lamp bulb mounted in the same compartment without a separating wall is valid, why should there be any need for a clearance lamp on a boat trailer since the tail lights could be mounted sufficiently outboard so they would indicate, when lighted, the overall width of the trailer?

We would appreciate receiving the DOT's specific interpretation of the words "combined optically". In its usual context, the words "combined optically" would mean a combination of light source and lens, and applied to S4.4.1 would seem to indicate that, in fact, the clearance lamp would have to be separately compartmented from the tail, stop, turn, and hazard lamp compartment.

When the clearance and tail lamp are housed in the same compartment there is a definite impairment of the combination turn, stop and hazard function of the lamp and an unsafe and confusing situation exists. We can report to you that while conducting an actual night test at a country road intersection, when a trailer was approaching the intersection with turn signal bulb flashing in the uncompartmented tail light, at 150 feet distance it was difficult to tell if the trailer ahead was on the same course as the following vehicle or crossing ahead of it at right angles.

While we were at the compliance section office, we were appalled to hear an interpretation of the term "clearance light" to the effect that the clearance lamp was not necessarily a separate lamp but was intended as a "back-up" light in the event the tail light filament should fail.

We have never ever heard or had it intimated to us that such was the purpose of a clearance lamp and we don't believe that it was ever intended to be so defined. When you consider the fact that the lamp on a semi trailer is at the uppermost corner of the trailer body (a long distance from the tail lamp!), and that travel trailers, buses and other vehicles also have the clearance lamp at the top extreme corners of the vehicles, it is difficult to conceive of their application as being a back up substitute for a defective tail lamp.

Carrying our argument further, on a trailer of less than 80" in width NO clearance lamp is required but the possibility of failure of the tail lamp filament is just as great. What then is supposed to serve as "back up" lamp for it? It is our observation that someone was just not thinking when he made the statement that a clearance lamp is really only there to serve as a "back up" lamp for the tail light.

In summary we ask for your specific answers to the following:

1. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the words "combined optically" as they appear in paragraph S4.4.1 of DOT 108?

2. Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?

3. Does the DOT have no objection to a flashing red signal issuing from the side (at right angles to the fore-aft center line of the trailer) of the clearance lamp?

4. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the term "clearance lamp" as it is used in DOT 108?

5. Does the "clearance lamp" as the words are used in DOT 108 indicate a lamp intended to serve as its major function, a back up lamp in the event of failure of the tail light filament in the combination tail, turn and stop light bulb.

6. If DOT approves the combination of a clearance lamp and tail lamp in the same compartment, would it also approve for a boat trailer, moving the tail light outboard to show the extreme width of an over 80" vehicle and eliminate the need for a clearance lamp under those circumstances.

On September 29, 1976 there will be a meeting of the Trailer Manufacturers Association. In attendance will be representatives of all major manufacturers of boat trailers. We would appreciate your expediting your replies to the six questions posed above in order that we may give a copy of them to the group attending that meeting.

Since your interpretation of the questions given in this letter are of such vital importance to the boat trailer manufacturer, dealer and consumer, we would be most grateful for your clear, concise answers.

For your ready reference we attach copies of our previous correspondence and the reply we received. We also submit for your study, photos of a typical lamp where tail lamp and clearance lamp are combined in one compartment.

Looking forward to receiving your prompt response, we remain.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

cc: SEN. WILLIAM PROXMIRE; SEN. GAYLORD NELSON; REP. WILLIAM A. STEIGER

ID: 1985-04.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Tony P. Hall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to Administrator Steed on behalf of your constituent, Mr. C. Daniel Raisch, Superintendent of the Oakwood City School District, regarding the school bus regulations issued by this agency. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Superintendent Raisch is concerned with the manner in which our regulations are applied to school vans that carry 10 or more passengers. He believes that only 10 persons are allowed to be transported in a van, and requests that this number be increased to 12. You inquired into a waiver from this agency that would permit the Oakwood City School District to transport more than 10 school children in a school van.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. To begin, I would like to emphasize that Federal law does not prohibit schools from carrying more than 10 passengers in a school van. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. Our regulations would permit the sale of new 12-passenger vans to the Oakwood City School District if the seller can ensure that the van meets all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, including the safety standards we issued in 1977 for school buses.

Some background information on this subject may be helpful. Our agency has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress expressly amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards on various aspects of school bus performance, such as seating systems, fuel systems, windows and windshields, and emergency exits. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date.

The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under our regulations, a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered to be a "bus," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. 49 C.F.R. 571.3(b). Thus, new 12-passenger vans sold to the Oakwood City School District are included in our definition of a "school bus," and may be sold to the school district if they meet our school bus safety standards. If any new vehicle does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties.

Superintendent Raisch suggested that NHTSA grant a waiver permitting manufacturers to sell 12-passenger vans as school buses when those vans do not comply with the school bus safety standards. While section 123 of the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue temporary exemptions of motor vehicles from our motor vehicle safety standards, our agency has no general waiver authority. Under @ 123, our authority to grant exemption is limited to certain very specific conditions involving a limited number of vehicles. Therefore, NHTSA has no authority to provide the type of relief your constituent requests.

Mr. Raisch may also be suggesting that we change our definition of a "school bus" to permit the sale of new 12-passenger vans as school buses when those vans do not meet our school bus safety standards. At this time, we have no reason to believe that such a change would be in the interest of school bus safety. Our safety standards for school buses were developed to specify comprehensive requirements for school buses that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Amending our definition of a "school bus" along the lines suggested by Mr. Raisch would restrict the applicability of our school bus safety standards to a smaller group of vehicles than buses presently subject to those standards. The safety record of school buses since the issuance of our school bus safety standards in April 1977 has been remarkable, and we believe that school vans carrying 10 or more passengers should continue to afford the high levels of passenger protection currently required for school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States house of Representatives

September 30, 1985

Honorable Diane Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed:

I am enclosing copies of correspondence I received from C. Daniel Raisch, Superintendent of School for Oakwood, Ohio. You will note that Mr. Raisch is seeking a waiver of the number of students which can be transported in school vans. He makes the point that today's vans are built to accommodate twelve individuals.

I would appreciate your review of this suggestion and your comments with respect to the possibility of waivers being permitted.

Tony P. Hall Member of Congress

ENCLS.

September 18, 1985

Rick Carne

Dear Mr. Rick Carne: Earlier this month I discussed with one of the representatives from your Dayton office the issue concerning the minimum number of student passengers permitted transportation in a van before the van must be equipped as a bus.

Currently, the number is ten persons allowed transportation in a van. I am requesting the number be elevated to twelve. This request is based primarily upon the fact that most vans built today are designed to accomodate twelve passengers.

Attached is a document which should aid in your review of the request.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

C. Daniel Raisch Superintendent

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Notice Expires September 1, 1977

SUBJECT: Guidelines for Implementing Highway Safety Program Standard 17, Pupil Transportation Safety

PURPOSE:

To provide new NHTSA information regarding:

a) definition of "school bus;"

b) interpretation of "to and from school;" and,

c) implementation/affect for NHTSA and the various State and local jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND:

1-Definition of "School Bus":

NHTSA regulates the manufacture of school buses under the National Traffic and Motor Vehilce Safety Act of 1966 and the operation of school buses under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Regulations under these Acts have provided somewhat differing, although not conflicting, definitions of school bus.

Congress, in passing the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Almendments of 1974, defined "school bus" in terms of function rather than design. In line with this undate, all vehicles manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, which are designed for carrying more than 10 persons and which are sold or introduced in (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, shall be considered school buses. In keeping with the (Illegible Word) of Congress as reflected in the legislative history of the 1974 amendments, these vehicles will be required to be equipped with a system of signal lamps conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Discussion related to the change may be found in the Federal Register for December 31, 1973, 40 FR 60033 (See Attachment "A") and August 26, 1976, 41 FR 36026 (See Attachment "B").

2 - Interpretation of "to and from school":

In an opinion dated May 5, 1977, the NHTSA's Chief Counsel has ruled that the phrase," to and from school in paragraph III of Highway Safety Program Standard 17, as interpreted in Notice 900, (dated April 11, 1974) is excessively narrow, and that the phrase should include any trip for a school-related event. However, buses in operation prior to April 1, 1977, for use soley in the transportation of students to and from school related events will not be required to meet the requirements of Standard 17. For ease of reference, see:

Attachment "C" Notice 900, Q and A #5, dated April 11, 1974 Attachment "D" Counsel Memo, May 5, 1977.

IMPLEMENTATION/EFFECT:

1 - Definition of "school bus" and identification and marking requirements:

Effective April 1, 1977, the definition of "school bus" in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR @ 571.3) reads as follows:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold or introduced in interstate (Illegible Word), for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

The definition for "bus" (49 CFR @ 571.3) will continue to read as follows:

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

Therefore, the impact on ESPS #17 is as follows:

In addition to all Type I vehicles, this new definition of "school bus" will include many of the van-type vehicles that are classified as Type II school vehicles under ESPS #17. If a Type II van is designed to carry more than 10 persons, and if it is sold for purposes that include "carrying students to and from school or related events," it will have to be sold with all the equipment specified for school buses by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It will, therefore, have to have school bus lights as specified by the Standard on lighting (49 CFR @ 371.108).

Since these vehicles will be equipped with the school bus lighting system, ESPS #17, Section IV.3.5, requires that they comply with two other requirements for identifying school buses; i.e., they must be painted, "National School Bus Glossy Fellow," and be identified format and rear with the words SCHOOL BUS. Of course, vehicles manufactured before April 1, 1977, will not be subject to this new requirement.

2 - Interpretation of "to and from school" Effective May 5, 1977, NHTSA's position is that "to and from school" includes any trip to and from school or school related events.

Previous interpretation/definitions in NHTSA Notices, correspondence, or program manuals/materials are hereby superseded.

Fred W. Vetter

ATTACHMENTS

ID: 86-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Michael A. Doherty; NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Doherty, Esq. -- Kassel, Neuwirth and Geiger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Michael A. Doherty, Esq. Kassel, Neuwirth & Geiger 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022

This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in which you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you stated that your firm is the registered agent for a foreign tire manufacturer and that you would like a clarification of what information the manufacturer is required to provide to this agency under the UTQGS.

Before responding specifically to the statements in your letter, I would like to point out that the requirements for tire manufacturers to furnish UTQGS information to this agency are set forth in three different regulatory provisions. The first of these is 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2), which provides: "Each brand name owner of tires and each manufacturer of tires for which there is no brand name owner shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to the ... tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before it is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section." This language makes clear that the only information the tire manufacturers must provide to this agency is information that will be provided for examination by prospective purchasers in accordance with 49 CFR S575.6(c).

The second regulatory provision addressing information to be provided by tire manufacturers is 49 CFR S575.6(c). That section provides that the tire manufacturer shall provide each of its dealers with a brochure setting forth the UTQGS information for each of its tires offered for sale by that dealer. The third regulatory provision is 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii), which requires that the information required by S575.6(c) shall list all possible grades for tires and restate verbatim the explanation for each performance area in which the tires are graded, as specified in Figure 2 of S575.104, although not necessarily in the same format as Figure 2. This section also requires that the information clearly and unambiguously indicate the grade in each performance area assigned to each of the manufacturer's tires sold by the dealer.

With this background, I will now address each of your statements, in the order they were presented in your letter. Each of my explanations will cite the applicable regulatory provision that is the authority for that explanation.

1. To register each new tire design, or each change in the applicable UTQG information with respect to an already registered tire design, the tire manufacturer must submit to DOT ten (10) copies of a brochure containing the tire design and UTQG information for the tire including the information set forth in the three paragraphs of 49 CFR 5575.104, Figure 2, Parts I and II of the Regulations.

Response: Tire manufacturers are not required to "register" tire designs with the agency. The manufacturers are only required to provide this agency with advance copies of the UTQGS information that will be furnished to their dealers. 49 CFR 5575.6(d)(2). If the tire manufacturer wishes to add a new tire design to the UTQGS information previously supplied to the agency, or to change some of the previously supplied information, the tire manufacturer must furnish this agency with 10 copies of a brochure showing all of the manufacturer's tire designs, including those designs for which the previously submitted information is unchanged, and the grades assigned to those tire designs. 49 CFR S575.6(c). This brochure must also include the explanations for the various possible grades set forth in Figure 2 of S575.104. 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a typical brochure furnished to this agency by a tire manufacturer.

2. Such brochures must be sent to all U.S. dealers of the manufacturer's tires and be delivered to purchasers when they examine and/or buy the manufacturer's tires. The brochures must be sent to the dealers with the first lot of each new design.

Response: The brochures must be sent to all dealers of the manufacturer's tires and furnished to all prospective and actual purchasers of those tires upon request. Brochures incorporating information on new tire designs must be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires not later than the first day on which the manufacturer authorizes the tires to be put on general public display and sold to consumers. 49 CFR S575.6(c).

3. The ten (10) copies of the UTQG brochure must be submitted to DOT at least 30 days before such brochure is first provided to tire purchasers for examination.

Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2).

4. Photographs of tires are not required to be submitted to DOT.

Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requirement that photographs of tires be provided to this agency.

5. UTQG labels are not required to be submitted to DOT.

Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requirement that UTQGS labels be provided to this agency.

6. If a tire manufacturer intends to market a tire that is already registered under a new or private brand name, all that is required is a letter to DOT setting forth the pattern code, tire size(s) and UTQG characteristics of the tire already registered and indicating that the tire will be sold under the additional brand name.

Response: This statement is inaccurate. If changed marketing practices by the tire manufacturer cause the UTQGS brochures submitted to its dealers and this agency to be either incomplete or incorrect, the tire manufacturer must revise its brochure. Ten copies of the revised brochure must be submitted to this agency 30 days before the marketing change takes effect, and revised brochures must be provided to each of the manufacturer's dealers not later than the day on which the marketing change takes effect. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2). The tire manufacturer may enclose a letter with its brochure explaining the change, but such a letter is not required.

7. If a private brand tire made by the tire manufacturer gets a new tire design, the manufacturer does not have to provide the updated UTQG information to DOT -- the brand name owner for the tire design would be required to provide the information.

Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2).

Should you have any further questions or need more information in this area, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 18, 1986

Steven Kratsky, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 900 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Registration with the Department of Transportation ("DOT:) of Uniform Tire Quality Grading ("UTQG")

Dear Mr. Kratsky:

We are the registered agent of Hankook Tire Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Korea ("Hankook") a manufacturer of tires imported into the United States.

Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation with Mr. Nelson Gordy and you, this will confirm that the procedures for providing UTQG information to the consumer and registering it with the DOT are as follows:

1. To register each new tire design (pattern code), or each change in the applicable UTQG information with respect to an already registered tire design, Hankook must submit to DOT ten (10) copies of a brochure containing the tire pattern code and UTQG information for the tire including the information set forth the three paragraphs of 49 C.F.R. 575.104, Figure 2, Parts I and II of the Regulations.

2. Such brochures must be sent to U.S. dealers of Hankook and be delivered to purchasers when they examine and/or buy Hankook tires. The brochures must be sent to the dealers with the first lot of each new design.

3. The ten (10) copies of the UTQG brochure must be submitted to DOT at least thirty (30) days before such brochure is first provided to tire purchasers for examination.

4. Photographs of tires are not required to be submitted to DOT.

5. UTQG labels are not required to be submitted to DOT.

Steven Kratsky, Esq. Page 2

6. If Hankook intends to market a tire that is already registered under a new or private brand name, all that is required is a letter to the DOT setting forth the pattern code, tire size(s) and UTQG characteristics of the tire already registered and indicating that the tire will be sold under the additional brand name.

7. If a private brand tire has a new tire pattern code, Hankook is not required to register the tire with DOT -- the U.S. distributor of the private brand tires is required to register.

If the foregoing does not accurately and completely state the procedures related to registration of UTQG information with DOT, please advise us in writing at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

Michael A. Doherty

ID: AIAM 003788 114

ID: nht81-2.48

DATE: 07/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: CSMPCO Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 3, 1981, providing additional information about the "Downshift Warning System Kit."

After reviewing this information and the points you make concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, we wish to point out that the pertinent provisions of this standard are S4.1.3 and S4.5.4. For your information, a copy of Standard 108 is enclosed.

You will note that S4.1.3 provides that: "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard." Further, you will note that S4.5.4 provides that: "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." This means that your system must not impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps that are original equipment on the vehicle, and that any application of the service brakes that does not activate the stop lamps would be inconsistent with Federal requirements. As we have made no formal study of your system, you will have to determine whether a vehicle on which it is installed would meet Standard No. 108.

Also enclosed for your information is a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) is interpreted to mean that the installation of your system on a used vehicle by a person other than its owner must not render inoperative in whole or in part, the stop lamp system. However, the prohibitions of the Act and the standard do not cover sale of your system as an aftermarket device nor its installation solely by the vehicle owner. Use of it is subject to State regulation.

We would also like to call your attention to the agency's study: "Field Test Evaluation of Rear Lighting Deceleration Signals - Analytical and Experimental Studies (1979)" (DOT HS 805 061). We urge that you obtain a copy of this report and consider it carefully with regard to your system. You may obtain a copy by writing to the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

The agency has tentatively decided that a single high-mounted auxiliary stop lamp is the most effective way of preventing rear end collisions and has proposed that such be made available both as original equipment and in the aftermarket. I enclose a copy of the proposal for your consideration.

ENCLS.

CSMPCO CORPORATION

March 3, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Compliance status of the "Chicoine Downshift Warning System Kit" with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 105, 108 and 121.

In your letter of November 14, 1980 you informed me:

* Your review of standard Nos. 105 and 121 show that installation of the kit on a vehicle would not render it noncompliant with them.

* I regard to the lighting standard No. 108, you have several questions for me to answer.

But first, I wish to inform you that I have added a "Conditioned Availability" ancillary system, to the basic kit (return samples). It is a permissive concept introduced to guard against the main system's abuser by its user(s), whether the attempt(s) is inadvertently or maliciously perpetrated.

If you will, please carry the evaluation of compliance to the lighting standard No. 108, using my up-graded system.

I have two versions to present of the ancillary system for the compliance evaluation:

First version: Vacuum Control/engine intake manifold's high vacuum condition triggers, a normally openned, permissive switch's closing. The switch is wired in series with the gear shift knob switch, the closing of both switches is required for the activation of the brake lights.

A vacuum delay valve and a vacuum control valve are added to the ancillary system, to give it a time delay effect that will reduce the system sensitivity to the intake manifold vacuum fast variances. This way an operator can upshift without incurring activation risks of his vehicle brakelights.

1) Delay Valve

A delay valve is fitted in the vacuum line between/near the permissive vacuum-operated switch and the present vacuum control valve. The delay valve is an air flow (vacuum) restrictor, it allows unrestricted flow of air one way and impeded flow the other way. It is necessitated for protection continuity in upshift operation.

2) Present vacuum control valve

The preset control valve is vacuum operated and is fitted in the vacuum line between/near the delay valve and the intake manifold. The preset vacuum control valve closes when the vacuum drops by 5" hg. below the triggering vacuum setting of the permissive vacuum-operated switch. It is necessitated for protection continuity in upshift operation.

Second version: Electronic control/the control device's logic reads the vehicle's deceleration rate and compares it to the manufacturer selected rates (i.e.: 1.5 mph/sec. is acceptable). And as long as the vehicle deceleration rate matches or exceeds the device's set rate, the control device enters and remains into an available operative mode. With the electronic control device in an available operative mode the vehicle's operator can then activate his vehicle's brakelights by using the gearshift switch.

Hall Effect Devices or Wire Coils are used with magnets to generate signals of vehicle velocity to the electronic control device. The takeoffs are from the vehicle's drive shaft or the vehicle speedomaster cable.

A power transistor that is built-in with the electronic control device, is used instead of the electrical-mechanical relay found in the basic kit.

To your first question: "We would like to know if your system prevents the turn signal lamps from flashing, in lamps combining stoplamp and turn signal lamps."

The answer is no. My system will not prevent the turn signal lamps from flashing in lamps combining stoplamps and turn signal lamps.

First reason) The brake switch is not a controlling component for the turn signal lamps flashing operation(s).

Second reason) The kit's relay contact are wired in parallel with the brake pedal stoplamps switch's tabs in other words, the existing switch is simply wirejumped and the kit's relay switch is substituted for the existing brake switch.

I have a '78 Fiesta-Sport Model and it has the lamps combining stoplamps and turn signal lamps that your question refers to. Closing of the brake pedal switch does not prevent the turn signal lamps from flashing, nor does the closing to the kit relays contact prevent the turn signal lamps from flashing. I carried the experience in my garage.

Reply to your second question and closing request: "We would like clarification whether the system activates the stop lamps by pushing the button alone or whether actual motion of the gear shift lever is also required. If the former, we would appreciate your views on possible abuses) of the system, . . . . "

Your second question and closing request convey a message of concern for abuse(s) of the system. That message has influenced my decision to supplement my basic kit with the conditioned availability ancillary system, both versions are automated, beyond operator's control, and work on a permissive concept basis to keep in check main system's abuses.

The content in your second question is a good example of conditioned availability -- the motion of the shift lever be reflected as a condition to fulfill for the system operativeness. But I have not selected as a requirement the motion of the shift lever for the system operativeness.

I have given consideration to the following points:

1) The gear selection(s) for an upshift or a downshift in vehicle(s) equipped with a manual transmission is left to the operator's discretion and vehicle's demand(s).

2) The traffic flow pattern(s) does very i.e.: A traffic flow pattern may dictate a downshift:

* for an acceleration of the vehicle

* for a deceleration of the vehicle

3) The cost of retrofitting of the vehicles already on the roads.

4) The selected permissive ancillary systems' operations:

* are to be fully automated

* are to be controlled by inputs that are relating to the vehicle modal status of acceleration and deceleration.

* in case of component(s) failure, the system is to become inoperative, the fail safe concept.

5) The activation of the downshift warning system kit is to remain a manual, conscious operation by the vehicle operator.

6) The language of the vehicles' stoplamps: To the non-lead driver, the following message have become universal standards, for the vehicles moving on relatively flat grade.

1. Stoplights OFF - Brakes OFF - STOP NOT IN Progress

2. Stoplights ON - Brakes ON - STOP IN Progress

*3. Stoplights OFF - Brakes ON - STOP IN Progress

**4. Stoplights OFF - Brakes OFF - STOP IN Progress

* The message applies in cases where the stoplamps system of the lead vehicle is defective (i.e.: burnt stoplamps).

** The message applies in cases where the lead vehicle operator uses the engine brake (downshifts) to come to a stop or a slowdown. I refer to this message as "The Burnt Stoplights Syndrome."

Note: Operating a vehicle that has its stoplamps system out of order (i.e.: burnt stoplamps) is inconsiderate of other people's safety and is incomsiderate of one's (operator) own safety as well. The same can be said for the operator(s) that downshift to a stop. I address this "The Burnt Stoplamps Syndrome." The use of the device can help keep in check "The Burnt Stoplamps Syndrome." The device restores safety to the operator(s) that uses the downshift method to stop/slowdown his vehicle. The following driver(s) will share same.

7) The device is not to impair the integrity and effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. The device is to enhance the integrity and effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires.

Downshifting makes use of engine braking energy instead of letting it be wasted. In a world that is energy short, let's make it safe to use that stopping method.

I trust that I have satisfactorily answered your questions. Enclosed is a flow-sheet layout copy of the kit's components and wiring, first version adaptation.

Gustave J. Chicoine, President CSMPCO Corporation ENC.

(Graphics omitted)

WIRING DIAGRAM

ID: nht80-1.45

DATE: 04/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dick Pilch

TITLE: FMVSS INTEPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 7, 1980 letter to the Department of Transportation, in which you complained about the failure of a tire on your truck. Specifically, you stated that the tires on the front axle of your truck were overloaded by 570 pounds each, and that no non-radial tire is currently manufactured which would not have been overloaded if used on this front axle.

If the tires which were overloaded came as original equipment on the truck, the manufacturer of the truck violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR 571.120). Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 requires the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to any axle to be at least equal to the gross axle weight rating of that particular axle. This requirement is applicable to all trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1976. If your truck was manufactured after that date, please send me the name of the manufacturer as well as the information provided by the manufacturer specifying the appropriate tire sizes to be used on the truck. The information concerning appropriate tire sizes will appear on a label on the door latch post on the driver's side of the truck. If the manufacturer has violated Standard No. 120, appropriate steps will be taken by the agency.

You also stated that certain radial tires would have met the load-carrying requirements for your truck, but that you would not use radial tires because of erratic wear patterns. For your information, I have enclosed a booklet published by the Rubber Manufacturers Association setting forth information on the care and service of radial and non-radial truck tires. On page 11 of this booklet there is a description of the irregular wear to which you refer, as well as instructions on how to prevent the irregular wear from lessening the overall mileage the tire will give you. Hence, if you wish to use radial tires on your truck, there is no reason to expect them to perform unsatisfactorily.

More significant, however, is the misunderstanding you have in suggesting that no bias ply tire is manufactured which would not have been overloaded on your truck. Such a tire is now manufactured and has been manufactured for at least the past 20 years. On page 30 of the enclosed booklet, you will find a table showing the load-carrying capacity of bias ply tire sizes mounted on 15 degrees drop center rims. The tire size mounted on your truck, the 11-22.5, does indeed have a maximum load of 5,430 pounds if it is a load range F tire. However, a load range G tire of that same size has a maximum load of 6,040 pounds, and would not be overloaded if used on your truck. This is the tire you should probably use on the front axle.

I am sorry to hear of your accident and hope that you have recovered from your injuries. Your complaint about the failure of the Uniroyal Delta tire has been recorded, and the agency will be alert to other indications of problems with this tire. To date, however, we do not have sufficient data indicating a safety problem to open a formal investigation.

I want to thank you for taking the time to express your concern about motor vehicle safety. It is only through the efforts of concerned citizens such as yourself that we can ensure maximum safety for all users of the highway. If you have any further questions or concerns about this matter or any other aspect of highway safety, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

February 7, 1980

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

It is unfortunate when corporations become so large that they influence our Courts and brainwash the general public through advertising and news media.

Case in Point:

An individual purchased two tires to replace those that were wearing out. He bought bias ply tires in preference to radial tires because eratic wear patterns are standard for radial tires on a free turning wheel on all makes and this hasn't been corrected to this date. The last set was on the vehicle for 85,000 miles and was in good enough condition to put on the rear of the truck. Some 30,000 miles later, after 1-1 1/2 hours driving time on a cool morning, the temperature being 60 degrees or less and raining lightly, the tire blew out with no warning, causing the vehicle to go off the road over an embankment. The vehicle came to rest turned almost over on its side and spilling the load off the vehicle. This destroyed the truck and trailer and injured the operator. The driver was unaware of the injury at the time of the accident. The symptons became apparent about three months later, which rendered him almost crippled for many months. To this day the driver is still in pain, sometimes quite severe.

Getting back to our "Great Society" (as the joke is sometimes put), we are supposed to look out for the people that use the products that these careless giants put on the market, which are a danger to life, limb and property. There is also the danger of one of these tires blowing out on a six-lane freeway, such as that in Los Angeles, where one driving during the traffic rush about 3 p.m., could kill several people. However, those companies can continue to manufacture defective equipment by the thousands and sell it to the people. It appears as though nothing better can be had.

Example: Our federal and state governments have passed laws that a large truck can gross 80,000 pounds if it is equipped with five axles and the proper length. Front axle 12,000 pounds Tandem driver axle 34,000 pounds Tandem trailer axle 34,000 pounds

Let's look closer at the manufacturer's specifications.

A single tire, 5,430 pounds at 85 pound psi X 2 = 10,860

From 12,000 pounds - 1,140 for both For a single tire = 570 pounds overload.

Does the manufacturer say anything? No. They appear to be unconcerned as long as they can sell tires.

Let's continue. Concerning the manufacturers and their specifications, they say on dual tires, one should run 75 pounds psi and be able to carry 5,060 pounds on each tire. Let's compare the weight difference.

State and Federal Manufacturer 85 psi 12,000 pounds - single steer axle 5,430 X 2 = 10,860 pounds 6, 050 X 8 = 48, 75 psi 34,000 " - dual tandem axle 400 " 34,000 "- dual 6,050 X 8 = 48,400 " 80,000 pounds 107,660 pounds

Let's take a closer look for safety's sake. Or does safety go out the window when you are talking about a multi-million dollar corporation? It seems to apply only to the poor, dumb truck driver, doesn't it?

Look at 34,000 pounds divided by 8 = 4,250 pounds maximum weight. The safety margin is good, to say the least.

12,000 pounds divided by 2 = 6,000 pounds. Woops! Where did the safety margin go? Now doesn't this make a lot of sense? Run dual wheels on driver axle or trailer axle and you have 1,750 pounds to play with. If one tire should let go, you could in no way lose control of the rig. However, on the steer axle, you have no safe margin, As a matter of fact, you are exceeding specifications all the time. Most trucks are carrying approximately 10,000 or 11,000 pounds on the front axle at all times. Also, there isn't a tire manufactured that has the specifications that it should have as far as safety goes. There is a radial tire that will carry the 6,000 pounds, so they say. However, the manufacturer will state that on two free rolling wheels, you will have eratic wear patterns. As yet there isn't a tire manufactured that doesn't have them.

There are two ways to remedy the problem. Let's either change the load limits to compare with what the manufacturer says, or make the manufacturer (which we know won't happen) make a tire that has the rating needed to put the same percent of safety on the steer axle that there is on the dual driver or trailer axles. The third way to remedy the problem and the one most likely of the three, is to place this letter in the round file, commonly known as the "trash can".

Yours truly,

Dick Pilch

P.S. Also, we could make the same true for tire manufacturers and make them totally responsible for their products, pull them out of production when found bad and let them suffer the loss of what the user does in terms of injury, income and life.

TO:

UNIROYAL - Detroit, Michigan KIRO TV - Seattle, Washington

KING TV - Seattle, Washington

KONG TV - Seattle, Washington

20/20 - Seattle, Washington

Senator Jackson - Washington, D.C.

Senator Magnuson - Washington, D. C.

U.S. Department of Transportation - Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Transportation - Seattle, Washington

Office of Chief Counsel - Washington, D.C. Federal Highway Administration

National Highway Safety Administration - Washington, D.C.

Center for Study

c/o Ralph Nader - Washington, D.C.

Judge William Goodloe (Superior Court) Seattle, Washington

Over Drive Magazine

Robert Peterson

c/o Mother Trucker Magazine - Los Angeles, California

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION VEHICLE OWNER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

Pleading Omitted. Vehicle code provisions omitted.

ID: nht75-1.17

DATE: 10/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Inspection

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 29, 1975, letter to Mr. Vincent Esposito of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you indicate your desire that a "second independent means of stopping be made mandatory" on newly-manufactured motor vehicles.

Federal motor vehicle safety Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) becomes effective January 1, 1976, for passenger cars, and it establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems of these vehicles (copy enclosed). The test procedures for parking brake testing specify that the service brake control be released in testing the parking brake system. This has the practical effect of requiring a separate parking brake similar to that specified by the Iowa law you cited in your letter.

Federal motor vehicle safety Standard No. 121, (49 CFR 571.121) became effective January 1, 1975, for air-braked trailers and March 1, 1975, for air-braked trucks and buses (copy enclosed). It establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems of these vehicles. Section S5.6.4 of the standard states that "The parking brake control shall be separate from the service brake control."

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

As noted, Standard No. 105-75 and Standard No. 121 include requirements for the parking brake control aspect of braking performance. The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to this aspect of performance in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. If States were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a Federal safety standard manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the basis of a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.

Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would be preempted by Standard No. 105-75 in the case of passenger cars, since the aspect of performance that would be affected is covered by the Federal standard. The same is true for motorcycles, covered by Standard No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems, and trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems, covered by Standard No. 121.

With regard to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles that are equipped with hydraulic brake systems, the NHTSA is in the process of developing a hydraulic brake standard. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance for consideration in developing the standard in this area.

SINCERELY,

May 29, 1975

Vincent J. Estosito, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Research and Development U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A letter from Mr. George W. Crise of Danville, Ohio that was sent to Mr. Robert F. Tyson, Director of Office of Planning and Programming, Des Moines, Iowa has been referred to this office.

It called our attention that the 1975 cars and trucks are being built without a second means of stopping feature as required by the laws of Ohio and other states.

I have enclosed a copy of the Iowa statutes pertaining to brake requirements and brake performance which clearly indicates that the Iowa law specifies two seperate means of applying the brakes. Each of which means shall be affective to apply the brakes to at least two wheels. If these two seperate means of applying the brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so constructed that failure of one part of the operating mechanism shall not leave the motor vehicle without brakes on at least two wheels.

I was not aware that the 1975 model cars and trucks were not equipped with the means to comply with the Iowa statute.

It is our desire that a second independent means of stopping be made mandatory on new motor vehicles.

Lowell E. Schellhase Supervisor Motor Vehicle Inspection

BRAKES

(Illegible Words) Brake requirements.

Every motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, when operated upon highway shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the (Illegible Words) of and to stop and hold such vehicle, including two separate (Illegible Word) the brakes, each of which means shall be effective (Illegible Word) the brakes to at least two wheels. If these two separate means applying the brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so (Illegible Word) that failure of any one part of the operating mechanism shall (Illegible Word) the motor vehicle without brakes on at least two wheels.

Every motorcycle, and bicycle with motor attached, when operated a highway shall be equipped with at least one brake, which may be (Illegible Word) by hand or foot.

Every trailer or semitrailer of a gross weight of three thousand (Illegible Word) or more, and every trailer coach or travel trailer of a gross (Illegible Word) of three thousand pounds or more intended for use for human (Illegible Word) shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the (Illegible Word) and to stop and hold such vehicle, and so designed as to be (Illegible Word) by the driver of the towing motor vehicle from its cab, or with (Illegible Word) brakes, and weight equalizing hitch with a sway control type approved by the commissioner of public safety. Every (Illegible (Illegible Words) travel trailer, or trailer coach of a gross weight of three thousands or more shall be equipped with a separate, auxiliary means (Illegible Word) the brakes on the semitrailer, travel trailer, or trailer from the cab of the towing vehicle. This Act shall apply to all and used travel trailers sold at July 1, 1971 and on all registered (Illegible Word) trailers after December 1, 1973. Trailers or semitrailers with (Illegible Word) or truck tractor need only comply with the brake requirements. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, every new motor (Illegible Word) trailer, or semitrailer hereafter sold in this state and operated the highways shall be equipped with service brakes upon all wheels every such vehicle with the following exceptions:

Any motorcycle. Any trailer or semitrailer of less than three thousand pounds gross (Illegible Word) need not be equipped with brakes.

Trucks and truck tractors having three or more axles need not brakes on the front wheels, except that such vehicles equipped two or more front axles shall be equipped with brakes on at least of such axles; provided that the service brakes of such vehicle (Illegible Word) with the performance requirements of section 321.431.

Only such brakes on the vehicle or vehicles being towed in a driveaway-towaway operation need be operative as may be necessary be necessary to insure compliance by the combination of vehicles with the performance requirements of section 321.431. The term "driveaway-towaway" operation as used in this subsection means any operation in which any motor vehicle or motor vehicles, new or used, constitute the commodity being transported, when one set or more of wheels of any such motor vehicle or motor vehicles are on the roadway during the course of transportation, whether or not any such motor vehicle furnishes the motive power.

Referred to in sections 321.181, 321.196, 321.210, 321.464, subsection 1

321.431 Performance ability

1. The service brakes upon any motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles, when upon dry asphalt or concrete pavement surface free from loose material where the grade does not exceed one percent, when traveling twenty miles an hour shall be adequate:

a. To stop such vehicle or vehicles having a gross weight of less than five thousand pounds within a distance of thirty feet.

b. To stop such vehicle or vehicles having a gross weight in excess of five thousand pounds within a distance of forty-five feet.

2. Under the above conditions the hand brake shall be adequate to hold such vehicle or vehicles stationary on any grade upon which operated.

3. Under the above conditions the service brakes upon a motor vehicle equipped with two-wheel brakes only, and when permitted hereunder shall be adequate to stop the vehicle within a distance of forty-five feet and the hand brake adequate to stop the vehicle within a distance of fifty-five feet.

4. All braking distances specified in this section shall apply to all vehicles mentioned, whether such vehicles are not loaded or are loaded to the maximum capacity permitted under this chapter.

5. All brakes shall be maintained in good working order and shall be so adjusted as to operate as equally as practicable with respect to the wheels on opposite sides of the vehicle.

(Illegible Words)

MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT

321.432 Horns and warning devices. Every motor vehicle when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with a horn in good working order and capable of emitting sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not less than two hundred feet, but no horn or other warning device shall emit an unreasonably loud or harsh sound or a whistle. The driver of a motor vehicle shall when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning with his horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.

ID: nht95-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1995

FROM: Kenneth N. Weinstein -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, NHTSA

TO: Lewis H. Goldfarb, Esq. -- Assistant General Counsel, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: Compliance of MY 1995 Cirrus/Stratus with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210

ATTACHMT: 12/12/95 letter from Lewis H. Goldfarb to Kenneth Weinstein

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1995, which transmitted a memorandum containing Chrysler Corporation's legal position on whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may rely on a July 11, 1995 compliance test to demons trate that model year 1995 Chrysler Cirrus and Dodge Stratus vehicles fail to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210.

In the July 10 test, NHTSA's contractor placed the pelvic body block several inches forward from the seat back. n1 In that test, and in subsequent tests conducted by Chrysler with the body block in that location, the rear seat anchorage in the Cirrus/Str atus failed before the 3000 pound test load set out in S5.2 of Standard No. 210 was reached. Chrysler has submitted a summary report describing a recent test in which the anchorage did not fail when the body block was positioned against the seat back, w hich is the position that Chrysler customarily uses when it tests its vehicles to ascertain whether they comply with Standard No. 210. It is Chrysler's position that since "neither the procedures specified in the standard nor the published laboratory te st protocol specify the location of the body block," its test with the body block against the seat should be accepted by NHTSA as demonstrating compliance with Standard No. 210.

n1 Your memorandum states on several occasions that the body block in the NHTSA test was placed four inches in front of the seat back. This distance represents the post-test location of the body block. In fact, the post-test photographs reveal that the floor structure had been distorted during the test procedure, thus indicating that the body block was less than four inches from the seat back prior to the test.

The agency agrees that neither the standard itself nor the laboratory test procedure developed by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies a precise distance that the body block is to be placed in front of the seat back. However, rather than support Chrysler's argument, this fact demonstrates that the failure of the Cirrus anchorages to withstand the test loads in NHTSA's test reflects a noncompliance with the standard. In the preamble issued by the agency in connection with its 1991 r econsideration of several amendments to Standard No. 210, NHTSA reiterated its longstanding view of a manufacturer's compliance responsibilities under these circumstances (56 FR 63676, 63677; December 5, 1991):

As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions o f unspecified test conditions may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions.

In the case of the strength requirements in Standard No. 210, nothing in the language of the standard suggests that the strength requirements were only to be measured with the safety belt or other vehicle features at certain adjustment positions. Ind eed, the purpose of the standard is to reduce the likelihood that an anchorage will fail in a crash. To serve this purpose, the anchorage must be capable of meeting the strength requirements with the safety belt and other vehicle features at any adjustm ent, since those features could be at any adjustment position during a crash.

The quoted statement, which was made in response to assertions by auto manufacturers that the test procedure was not sufficiently "objective" because certain test conditions were not sufficiently specified in the standard, demonstrates the fallacy of the contention in your memorandum (at pages 6-7) that the positioning of the body block in the July 10 test "introduc[es] a variable in the compliance test procedure that is not authorized by the NHTSA standard . . ." It also completely undermines Chrysler' s assertion (at page 7) that the agency is "retroactively interpret[ing]" the standard. The industry was certainly "fairly informed" that "the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions."

NHTSA also disputes Chrysler's assertion (at page 4) that "the most natural and representative location for the body block" is against the seat back. To the contrary, that location is not consistent with any possible occupant use. Conversely, the locati on of the body block in the July 10 test conducted for NHTSA reflects the approximate belt geometry that would exist if a 5th percentile female occupied the seat. n2

n2 Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages to be installed at each designated seating position, which is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) in part as a "location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female." This is yet another indication that all anchorages should be strong enough to withstand the required test loads when occupied by a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female.

As reflected in the preamble to the 1990 amendments to Standard No. 210 (55 FR 17970; April 30, 1990) and the discussion of the petitions for reconsideration of those amendments (56 FR 63676; December 5, 1991), the agency has endeavored to have the test procedure be as representative as possible of real world crash conditions. See, e.g., 55 FR at 17976-77 (simultaneous testing of anchorages); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 1 (limits on substitute materials to "ensure that the loading imposed during compliance te sting is a realistic simulation of actual anchorage loading"); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 3 (effort to assure that reduced body block width will not be "unrepresentative of persons likely to occupy the seating position . . ."); 56 FR at 63677, Col. 1 (use of o riginal attachment hardware "to ensure that the load application onto the anchorage is as realistic as possible"); and 56 FR 63677, Col. 3 (requiring that test setups using replacement webbing "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing at the initi ation of the test "to protect vehicle manufacturers from the agency identifying apparent noncompliances based upon test conditions with unrealistic loading"). n3 n3 NHTSA recognizes that in some respects the test procedure for Standard No. 210 does not simulate real-world conditions. See 55 FR at 17972-73 (explaining why the load onset and load holding times in the standard are "orders of magnitude greater th an the corresponding time periods observed in crashes").

Your memorandum contends that an interpretation of Standard No. 210 under which a vehicle could be found noncompliant on the basis of a test with the body block several inches in front of the seat back would render the standard not "objective," and thus inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. @ 30111(a), citing Chrysler Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 675-676 (6th Cir. 1972). However, that case merely prohibits NHTSA from establishing test procedures that are based on "subjective determi nations:"

Objective . . . means that tests to determine compliance must be capable of producing identical results when test conditions are exactly duplicated, that they be decisively demonstrable by performing a rational test procedure, and that compliance is base d upon the readings obtained from measuring instruments as opposed to the subjective opinions of human beings.

NHTSA's test procedure, as implemented by its contractor in the July 10 test, clearly satisfies each of these three criteria for objectivity. There can be no dispute that it produces "identical results," as demonstrated by the fact that the anchorages f ailed in tests performed by Chrysler using that procedure. The procedure is also "rational," in that it reflects a belt geometry that is found in the real world (as opposed to the belt geometry in the body block location favored by Chrysler). Finally, the anchorage failed in a test conducted in accordance with measurable readings, rather than any "subjective opinions of human beings."

Your memorandum states (at page 4) that Chrysler's review of prior NHTSA compliance tests suggests that "the agency has also customarily located the pelvic body block against the seat back during FMVSS 210 compliance tests." Our review of the tests condu cted by the agency indicates that this statement is not correct. As I advised you approximately ten days ago, the distance of the body block from the seat is not a data point that is memorialized in the test reports. Therefore, OVSC personnel reviewed the test photos and/or films of all Standard No. 210 tests conducted by NHTSA contractors of MY 1990 and later vehicles in an attempt to ascertain the body block position in those tests. Of the 21 tests in which the body block position could be definite ly ascertained, in all but one (a test of the front seat anchorage in a MY 1992 Geo Storm), the block was not flush against the seat back.

In accordance with its usual procedures, OVSC provided Chrysler with contemporaneous reports of the Standard No. 210 compliance tests that the agency performed on its vehicles. Photos of the two Standard Nos. 207/210 tests conducted on Chrysler vehicles during the past five years (on the 1994 Dodge Caravan and the 1994 Dodge Ram Van) reveal that the test body block was placed at some distance from the seat back. Thus, Chrysler cannot legitimately claim that it was surprised by the body block location used by the contractor in the July 10 test.

In sum, although Chrysler has submitted a test that indicates that the anchorages in the 1995 Cirrus did not fail when the body block was placed against the seat back, such a result is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 210 when t he anchorage fails in tests at other body block positions, and particularly where those positions are more reflective of real world belt geometry.

Under the circumstances, if Chrysler does not promptly notify the agency that it has decided that a noncompliance exists and conduct a notification and remedy campaign in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, the Associate Administrator for Safety Assur ance would be justified in issuing an initial decision pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(a) that such a noncompliance exists. Please advise me or Michael Brownlee of your intentions immediately.