ID: 86-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Michael Love

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager Porsche Cars North America. Inc. 200 South Virginia Street Reno, NV 89501

Dear Mr. Love:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, with respect to an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp kit that Porsche wishes to offer through its dealer network.

You initially reference the preamble of August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34488) in which NHTSA stated that it would study the request of General Motors to supply an aftermarket kit "and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use". You ask the following questions:

"1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?"

NHTSA has not proceeded to the study referenced because it subsequently decided such a study was unnecessary for the reasons set forth in our answer to your second question.

"2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?"

NHTSA does not consider that any Federal impediments exist to the sale, installation, and use of such aftermarket devices, and further is not aware at this time of any State impediments to such sale, installation and use. However, we strongly recommend that these devices be designed to comply as closely as possible with those meeting Federal requirements. For example, a State may have a law prohibiting interior-mounted lamps that cause reflections on the rear window; Standard No. 108 requires original equipment center high-mounted stop lamps to be provided with means to minimize such reflections, and aftermarket lamps should also be so designed to minimize reflections in order to comply with the State requirement.

"3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?"

NHTSA believes that retrofitting passenger cars with a center high-mounted stop lamp meeting original equipment specifications will prove to be as beneficial in reducing the incidence of low speed rear end collisions as in the population of passenger cars on which it has been installed as original equipment, and NHTSA encourages such retrofit. However, NHTSA's research study did not include other types of motor vehicles such as buses, trucks, and trailers though intuitively the concept would appear to have some merit.

(4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any States passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights?"

No.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

Z. Taylor Vinson Office of Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

Due to customer demand, Porsche AG is considering offering through Porsche Cars North America, Inc., a Center High Mounted Stop Light (CHMSL) aftermarket kit for sale and installation by its Dealer network.

This kit would be intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985 and not originally equipped with a CHMSL. Porsche has several questions regarding the language in the supplementary information for the August 31, 1984 final rule on FMVSS 108, 49 FR 34488. It states:

"GM further commented that the proposal did not address the after market package which General Motors had intended to make available through our dealers, since it only speaks of passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1989 and September 1, 1985".

Also,

"The agency was not aware that GM had intended to offer an aftermarket package until receiving its comment. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of the proposal, and accordingly, was not considered. Under paragraph S4.7.1, the standard covers the aftermarket only to the extent that GM (or any manufacturer) offers a lamp intended as replacement for an original equipment center high-mounted stop lamp. However, to encourage retrofit in the aftermarket, NHTSA will study GM's request and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use".

Specifically,

1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?

2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?

3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?

4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any states passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights:

Respectfully,

Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager

cc: Kurt Meier

ML/ma

ID: 86-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Bentsen -- U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Senator Bentsen:

Thank You for Your recent letters to Administrator Steed on behalf of your constituent Mr. Joe M. Rutland. I apologize for the delay in our response. Mr. Rutland asked why this agency requires safety warnings be lithographically marked on brake fluid containers. He believes that this requirement causes undue hardship on small businesses that package brake fluid. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Mr. Rutland's concerns and to clarify our requirements for brake fluid container labeling.

Some background information on NHTSA's authority to regulate in this area might be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Vehicle Safety Act") authorizes us to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake fluid. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid (49 CFR 571.116), has been in effect as a motor vehicle safety standard since the passage of the Vehicle Safety Act. In 1971, Standard No. 116 was amended to establish requirements for the labeling of brake fluid containers. The rule required certain safety information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container.

Brake fluid containers must be labeled with specific safety warnings, in addition to other general information. The warnings serve as a safeguard against failures in hydraulic braking systems that might result from the use of improper or contaminated fluids. The warnings also help to prevent improper storage of the brake fluid which could contaminate the fluid or cause it to absorb moisture. Avoiding the absorption of moisture is extremely important since moisture in a brake system degrades braking performance and safety by lowering the brake fluid's boiling point, and increases possibilities of vapor lock and brake system component corrosion.

Thus, packagers of brake fluid have been required since 1971 to furnish the safety information clearly and indelibly on each brake fluid container. In response to a request for an interpretation of Standard No. 116 in 1984, NHTSA ruled that the use of labels affixed to brake fluid containers would not comply with the labeling requirements of the standard. However, Standard No. 116 does not mandate that lithography be used to mark the containers, as Mr. Rutland seems to believe. Any technology, whether lithography or otherwise, may be used if the resultant marking on a brake fluid container is clear and indelible and directly on the container itself.

The agency has recently been made aware of the concern that the 1984 interpretation of Standard No. 116's labeling requirements may be causing undue hardship for packagers of brake fluid. In response to those concerns, we have been examining Standard No. 116 to assess its current labeling requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Dianne Steed, Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

I recently received the enclosed constituent inquiry, and I would very much appreciate your providing me with any pertinent information you might have regarding the matter.

Your kind assistance is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Bentsen

Enclosure

PLEASE REPLY TO:

1100 Commerce, Room 7C14, Dallas, Texas 75242

October 4, 1985

TO: Automotive Chemicals Division Scientific Committee

FROM: Stephen S. Kellner Vice President Legal Affairs

RE: Notice of Meetings

Previously, we notified your office that two meetings are scheduled concerning ethylene glycol antifreeze and brake fluid. The purpose of this correspondence is to reiterate and confirm the substance of our phone conversation.

Both meetings will be held on October 11, 1985 at CSMA headquarters in Washington, D.C. The morning meeting will commence at 10:00 a.m. and will adjourn at noon. The subject matter of this meeting involves Union Carbide's intentions to revise its ethylene glycol antifreeze labels to reflect what it terms as new data which shows ethylene glycol to be an animal teratogen when ingested orally. This meeting is being organized by CSMA at the request of Union Carbide and is meant to serve as a forum for the exchange of information on the matter.

The afternoon meeting is scheduled to start at 1:30 p.m. and is expected to end at approximately 3:30 p.m. CSMA is calling this meeting to bring to the membership's attention recent advisory opinions issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (an arm of the U.S. Department of Transportation) advising industry that labels permanently glued to brake fluid containers do not meet the "clearly and indelibly marked" requirement of 49 CFR S571.116, SS5.2.2.2.

It is NHTSA'S opinion that relevent information must be directly marked on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label, whether paper or of some other material, that is affixed to the container. Obviously, such an interpretation will cause great economic hardship to those companies which package brake fluid under various private labels and, therefore, depend on the use of paper or other labels. At this meeting, we need to address the issue of brake fluid labeling and NHTSA's advisory opinions. In addition, CSMA has tentatively arranged a meeting on October 18, 1985 with NHTSA's legal and technical staff to share our concerns with their interpretation of the brake fluid labeling regulation.

October 29, 1985

Senator Lloyd Bentson 703 Hart Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Lloyd,

Since we consider you a friend of the small business man, I'm enclosing a legal opinion from an attorney of the CSMA in reference t labeling of brake fluid containers. Their interpretation of this law will require that brake fluid containers to be lithographed will have to be purchased in large quantities which cause undue hardship as well as cost on the small business man.

I would like to suggest that your office contact the NHTSA and find out why brake fluid is being singled out for this interpretation, while apparently no such interpretation exists for insecticide, which I would think would be more dangerous than brake fluid.

Your useful help will be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Joe M. Rutland

JMR:lc enc

ID: 86-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carol Lembke -- CL's Crafts and Florals

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Carol Lembke CL's Crafts & Florals 905 Cedar Street Charles City, Iowa 50616

This is in response to your letter of October 30, 1985, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have asked about the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of "animals with lights in their eyes that work with the turn signals and brake lights to go in the backs of cars. The eyes are in red or amber".

We assume that you wish to sell these as accessories available in the aftermarket and not as original vehicle equipment. As these are not items of replacement lighting equipment but intended to supplement a vehicle's existing turn signal or stop lamp system, they are not covered by Standard No. 108 and their legality would be determined under the laws of a State where they would be in use. For example, you have told us that Iowa would allow these supplemental lamps. We recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators once more, inform them that there is no Federal prohibition on this use, and ask their advice.

You have mentioned the center high-mounted stop lamp and whether your lights might be acceptable on cars of a certain age, and not on others. Standard No. 108 requires that each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, be equipped with a third stop lamp mounted on the rear centerline not lower than three inches below the rear window (six inches on convertibles). In the initial year of use, the most frequently used area for mounting the lamp is the interior parcel shelf, where we presume that your supplemental lamp would be installed. Because your light would not meet the requirements for the center mounted lamp, it would be a violation of Federal law for a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business to remove the center mounted stop lamp and install your device. However, if the center mounted lamp is located in a place other than the parcel shelf, there would be no legal prohibition under Standard No. 108 forbidding the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CL's Crafts & Florals 905 Cedar St. Charles City, Iowa 50616 October 30, 1985 Taylor Vinson NHTSA - Legal Counsel 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St., SW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sir: I am writing to ask assistance on the legality of a craft item I am making. I have a craft shop and attend craft shows. Recently I started making animals with lights in their eyes that work with the turn signals and brake lights to go in the back of the cars. The eyes are in red or amber. I checked with the Iowa State DOT and was told they would be ok since they were an ornament as long as they did not block view and had red or amber eyes. I've spoken to a Small Business Representative whom suggested I go mail order or sell to stores. I've also had interest from Florida and a Rod and Custom Club since they represent the fads of the 50's and 60's. I then became concerned about going into other states, their state laws and Federal laws that might not permit this item to be sold. I don't want to invest money and lots of time into this craft item only to find out that it is illegal and could come back on me. I've been told that a possible conflict could be a code number FMVSS 108. Something having to do with the new laws on the standard center mount lighting. I'm also wondering if this lighted animal might be ok for certain age cars and not others? I've made calls to DC to: American Assoc. of Motor Vehicles, NHTSA, and Federal Motor Vehicle Dept. of Trans. - only to get passed from one department to another till finally I was told to contact your office for assistance. I'm beginning to feel that this is one of those times that I should have taken my chances instead of trying to check things out to be legal. The interest is mounting in our Auto Animals for Christmas gifts and I have another show Nov. 9th. I would appreciate your response as soon as possible so that I will know if I can go ahead or not. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol Lembke 905 Cedar St. Charles City, IA 50616 Phone: 515-228-6913

ID: 86-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: D. Moens -- Sales Engineer, Van Hool N.V. (Belgium)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. D. Moens Sales Engineer Van Hool N.V. Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58 B-2578 Lier Koningshooikt, Belgium

This responds to your October 10, 1985 letter to this agency requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. You asked whether FMVSS No. 217 allows the use of sliding roof emergency exits. The answer to your question depends on the location of the release mechanism and the direction in which the mechanism operates relative to the surface of the closed exit. As explained below, if the release mechanism falls in the area of high force application, i.e., the area of the bus in which high operating forces may be used, then the answer to your question is no.

According to your letter, you provide two roof hatches on your buses, in the front and rear of the vehicles, although the front roof hatch is not needed to meet the unobstructed openings requirement of Standard No. 217. The roof hatches would slide open rather than push out, and would be opened by a handle which is located in the region of high force application as shown in Figure 3B of the standard.

Standard No. 217 requires buses to be equipped with emergency exits and specifies requirements that all emergency exits must meet. Paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that a roof exit may be installed on buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit. The roof exit must meet the requirements of paragraphs S5.3 through S5.5. Under S5.3.2, the direction of required force application in the high force access region is straight and perpendicular to the exit surface. Since your exit is designed so that the force is applied parallel to the exit surface, it does not comply with S5.3.2.

Of course, your roof emergency exit must meet all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 217. You should note that under S5.3.1, a roof exit must provide for a release mechanism, located within the regions depicted in Figure 3B of the standard. The release mechanism must be operated by one or two force applications which comply with S5.3.2. Further, S5.5 sets certain identification requirements for roof emergency exits.

You stated that the roof exit installed in the forward half of the bus does not need to be counted to satisfy the unobstructed openings requirement of Standard No. 217. Exits that are not labeled or intended as emergency exits need not meet the emergency exit requirements of FMVSS No. 217.

You asked what consequences would follow if we determine that your sliding roof exit does not comply with FMVSS No. 217. That standard was issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act requires manufacturers to comply with all applicable safety standards. It also requires them to notify purchasers of their motor vehicles of safety-related defects and failures to comply with the safety standards, and to remedy such defects and noncompliances without charge. Violations of the Act's requirements are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum $800,000 for a related series of violations. Under the regulations set forth in Part 556 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed), manufacturers may petition NHTSA for an exemption from the Act's notice and remedy requirements if they believe that the defect or noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. However, if the agency denies such a petition, all duties relating to notice and remedy of the defect or noncompliance contained in the Vehicle Safety Act are continued in force against the manufacturer.

Mr. Sebastian Messina of the New Jersey Department of Transportation has contacted us concerning the sliding emergency exits on your buses. We are sending him a copy of this letter for his information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

NHTSA Chief Council Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller 400 7th Street SW Washington DC 20590 USA

VIA AIR MAIL

AFDELING: Eng. Dept. BIN TELEF: 419 ONZE REF: DM/cb/13.979 B-2578 LIER - KONINGSHOOIKT: 10.10.85

Dear Sirs,

Re.: Emergency roof hatch Ref: Standard no. 217, Bus window retention and release

Van Hool are Belgian bus and trailer manufacturers, with a production capacity of 1500 buses and 4000 trailers and semi-trailers a year. For your information you will find enclosed a general presentation leaflet.

After the information we got by phone from the New Jersey D.O.T. with the statement that they will not accept our sliding type emergency roof hatches anymore, we would like to make clear to you the functioning of our type of roof hatches, Please find enclosed some copies explaining the system. We do not intend to tell what is right or wrong or express our displeasure, nor do we have doubts about the objectivity of the New Jersey D.O.T. However an investigation from your side of our system and a judgement would be appreciated as we have to deal with other States which rely on the Federal decisions and Standards.

Two completely finished buses and one almost finished bus are ready to be shipped to the USA; they are still equipped with the sliding type emergency roof hatches. So if your judgement should be negative we would like to get a derogation for those 3 buses because in the meantime they will already be shipped to the U.S.A.

Please also note that, in case of a negative judgement, we have yet studied other types of American made roof hatches, for future deliveries.

We thank you for an early reply and remain,

Yours sincerely,

N.V. VAN HOOL

D. MOENS Sales Engineer Enclosures - explanation of functioning

Explanation of functioning

1. The 2 roof hatches are situated in the centre of the roof, one in the first half of the bus and one in the rear half, in the access region for high forces (magnitude of not more than 60 pounds).

In fact we only need the rear one to replace the rear exit.

But as we use them also for ventilation we are mounting 2.

2. The roof hatch can be opened manual by s single occupant and one motion, sliding backwards, parallel to the exit surface.

3. Magnitude: 56 pounds.

4. The free unobstructed opening is: 31 inches x 21 inches.

ID: 86-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/86

FROM: J.L HENDRICKS -- PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER, CUMMINGS ENGINE COMPANY INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/04/86, TO J.L. HENDRICKS FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29; PART 573.7

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Cummins Engine Company, Inc. manufactures both on and off-highway heavy-duty diesel engines and related engine products. Cummins is a non-integrated engine manufacturer and, therefore, has no control over which chassis or engine combination the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) will select as the final vehicle configuration.

The problem I wish to address, and solicit assistance from your office, deals with the difficulty of non-integrated engine manufacturers identifying ultimater purchasers as required by 49 CFR, Part 573, 573.7 "Purchaser and Owner List," during safety defect campaign.

Cummins Engine Company recently experienced a voluntary safety recall campaign (NTSA 85E-016) regarding a potential defective assembly of a fuel pump throttle lever. During Cummins' attempts to survey state registration records we have discovered that the State of Connecticut requires a formal declaration of vehicle identification numbers (VIN'S) and justification regarding the reason for conducting a search of justification regarding the reason for conducting a search of their vehicle registration files. Additionally, this process requires the services of a third party agent who, by some contractual agreement, obtains the registration information, and after approval of the specific authority, develops appropriate information and analysis computer tapes for re-sale.

Cummins primary concern does not deal with the reasons each state may have in designing security measures for vehicle registration; on the contrary, we respect the right of individual privacy and the measures each state may use to safeguard their private citizens. However, we are concerned about the additional length of time required to notify each owner under Connecticut's present system.

Unlike light-duty passenger car owners, which tend to be stationary, heavy-duty truck owner/operators can be very mobile in their operations and registration practices. Often times the owner/operator has either moved their operations to take advantage of various freight markets, or has transferred ownership for many diverse reasons. In many instances we cannot provide the respective state bureau of motor vehicles with a current owner name at the time we are soliciting information due to lead time constraints and the mobility of owner/operators.

In an attempt to improve our ability to notify consumers during safety recall campaigns, Cummins is requesting that your office forward a letter to the state of Connecticut Bureau of Motor Vehicles and solicit their assistance in negotiating with Cummins, a program that could mutually protect their citizenry and enable us to maintain an on-going system to obtain vehicle registration on a timely basis.

Cummins would also appreciate a review of all states' policies regarding the accessibility of vehicle registrations. Preferably Cummins would encourage each state Department of Motor Vehicles to allow direct negotiations between them and manufacturers, without the delay of third party agents. However, that is a level of detail for negotiation with each of the respective states.

The following Connecticut contact person and address is being provided for your disposition:

Letter to: Honorable Benjamin A. Muzio

Commissioner Department of Motor Vehicles 60 State Street Wethersfield, CT 06109

Copy to: Honorable Peter Russo Assistant Commissioner

Because of the potential safety exposure to our trucking patrons during safety recall campaigns, we request your response to this issue as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/13/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert R. Gregg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 13, 1986 Mr. Robert R. Gregg Metzeler Motorcycle Tire Agent Gregg, Inc. 144 Railroad Avenue Suite 215 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Gregg: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR Part 571.119). Specifically, you asked if a motorcycle could have its maximum load capacity labeled on the sidewall as follows: At 60 MPH Max load lbs. at psi cold. Such labeling would violate Standard No. 119, as explained below. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewall of all tires to which the standard applies. Section S6.5(d) requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on all motorcycle tires as follows: Max load lbs at psi cold. No speed rating or restriction may be given in conjunction with the maximum load rating on the sidewall of the tire. That rating, as its name implies, is intended to alert consumers to the tire's maximum capabilities. A manufacturer may label a speed restriction on its tires to alert consumers to the tire's maximum speed if that maximum is 55 miles per hour (mph) or less. Section S6.5(e) permits speed restrictions of 55 mph or less to be labeled on the sidewall of the tire as follows: Max speed mph. However, this provision of Standard No. 119 would not allow you to assign a speed restriction of 60 mph to these motorcycle tires. First, no speed restriction in excess of 55mph may be assigned to any tires; see Table III in Standard No. 119. Second, all motorcycle tires are subject to the high speed test, regardless of any speed restrictions; see S6.3 of Standard No. 119. During the high speed test, the tire is subjected to speeds up to and including 85 mph. Parenthetically, I should add that even if speed restrictions of more than 55 mph were allowed, this particular tire would not be a candidate for a speed restriction of 60 mph. You stated in your letter that these tires actually are assigned an H speed rating. Under the speed rating system used in Europe, an H speed rating on a motorcycle tire means the tire is capable of being used at speeds up to 130 mph. Assuming you have used the speed rating accurately, there is no basis for implying that these tires are not capable of speeds greater than 60 mph.

As stated above, the purpose of the maximum load ratings is to alert consumers to the tire's maximum capabilities. The agency knows that the maximum load that can safely be carried by a tire varies with the speed at which the tire is driven. Allowing tire manufacturers to specify a maximum load based on an artificial speed restriction of 60 mph would result in the tires being overloaded if the consumer were to exceed 60 mph. Overloaded tires are substantially more likely to experience a tire failure than properly loaded tires. Since the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 119 is to provide consumers with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the tires, the standard does not permit tire manufacturers to provide information that will result in the tires being overloaded whenever an artificial speed restriction is exceeded. If you have any further questions or need more information in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Finbarr J. O'Neill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 21, 1986 Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq. General Counsel Hydundia Motor America 7373 Hunt Avenue P.O. Box 2669 Garden Grove, CA 92642-2669 Dear Mr. O'Neill: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, concerning the color of the highbeam telltale. You stated that while Table 2 of the standard indicates that a manufacturer has the option of choosing a green or blue telltale, your review of competitive vehicles shows that virtually all have chosen blue telltales. You asked whether NHTSA has taken any position as to whether one color is preferable to the other. You also asked for comment on whether NHTSA has taken any position as to whether one color is preferable to the other. You also asked for comment on whether NHTSA has any reasonable anticipation of changing this requirement. I would note that in the past NHTSA required the highbeam telltale to be blue. That color was selected primarily to promote international harmonization of standards regulating vehicle controls and displays. Blue is the color requirement of the International Standards Organization, the Economic Commission for Europe, and the European Economic Community. On January 21, 1982, NHTSA amended Standard No. 101 to permit green as an alternative to blue (47 FR 2996). The purpose of the change was to allow the use of light emitting diode technology, which at that time could not produce the color blue. While we do not have a preference as such as to how manufacturers choose to meet our standards, we would note that use of the color blue tends to promote international harmonization. On September 12, 1985, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (50 FR 37240) a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 101. Among other things, the proposal concerns color requirements for electronic displays. See 50 FR 37244. We have enclosed a copy of the notice for your convenience. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steward Stanley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Steward Stanley Junge Baking Company 3102 Ohio Place Joplin, MO 64801

Dear Mr. Stanley:

This responds to your letter dated November 8, 1985, inquiring whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulation apply to electric vehicles. They do so apply.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Under the Act. NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations for motor vehicles and their equipment. Under section 102(3) of the Act, a motor vehicle means "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. Therefore, since electric vehicles are "drawn by mechanical power," they must comply with Federal requirements.

Enclosed are an information sheet for new manufacturers, a form for ordering copies of safety standards and regulations, and a copy of 49 Part 555. Under Part 555, manufacturers of motor vehicles may apply for a temporary exemption from these safety standards, for a period up to three years, if the exemption would facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle and would not unreasonably degrade the safety of such vehicle. A copy of a report prepared by this agency. "Applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards to Electric and Hybrid Vehicles," is also enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

Administrator Nat'l. Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C.

I am told that your office has no rules or regulations (other than bodies be equipped with seat belts) as pertains to Electric Vehicles.

If it is true I would appreciate you confirming that otherwise I would like to have a copy of that provision that deals with such vehicles.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Stewart Stanley 3102 Ohio Place Joplin, Mo. 64801

SMS:vb

ID: 86-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION -NHTSA

DATE: 04/01/86

FROM: WILLA BLACK KENNEDY, -- STAFF JOINT INTERIM COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARKANSAS BUREAU OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/25/86, TO WILLA BLACK KENNEDY, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29, HSPS 17

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The Joint Interim Committee on Public Transportation of the Arkansas General Assembly has established a special subcommittee to conduct a study of the need for laws regulating maintenance and licensing drivers of used buses being purchased by nonprofit organizations and churches for transportation of their members. For the purpose of this study, the term "old buses" or "used buses" shall mean buses of the type used by public and private schools for the transportation of children, and buses owned and used by bus companies and municipal and interurban transit authorities for the transportation of persons for hire, which have been acquired by private individuals, firms or group and which are operated for the transportation of persons, other than the members of their own families, upon the public highways and streets of this State.

Section one of this study is stated as follows:

"Whereas, it is unclear whether current regulations of the Department of Transportation apply to buses being utilized for non-commercial purposes to transport the members of nonprofit organizations and churches; and ..."

Would you please provide a written interpretation regarding this section so that it may be presented to the committee. Specifically, do current Department of Transportation regulations dealing with school buses or transit buses apply to the used buses in these modes (school/transit) that are sold and are being utilized for non-commercial purposes to transport the members of nonprofit organizations and churches?

I would appreciate your expeditious response to this request so that I may proceed with the committee study. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Burdick:

Thank You for Your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Lorraine Holgerson concerning requirements for identifying school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Ms. Holgerson is concerned that yellow school buses in North Dakota lack identifying features which notify following motorists that the bus is a school bus. Your constituent suggests Federal law address this problem by setting school bus identification requirements for features such as "School Bus" signs, or distinctive lights.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Ms. Holgerson's concern. would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA has two sets of regulations for school buses that contain special requirements facilitating the recognition of those vehicles by motorists. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes the motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, are the highway safety program standards applicable to Federal funding of states' highway safety programs.

One of the motor vehicle safety standards applying to school buses issued under the Vehicle Safety Act is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This standard requires school bus warning lamps on the rear of all new school buses. The presence of the lighting system alerts other motorists that the vehicle is a school bus, and activation of the lights warns motorists around the vehicle that school children are boarding or leaving the bus. Each school bus manufactured in or imported to this country must be equipped with the distinctive warning lamp system.

The additional identifying features that your constituent recommends for school buses have been included in the highway safety program standard we issued for pupil transportation safety (Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17). I have enclosed a copy of this standard for your information.

Standard No. 17 recommends that states require additional features for school buses such as prominent "School Bus" signs and the familiar yellow paint and black trim for the bus body, to distinguish them from other types of vehicles. Requirements for school bus identification are regularly included in states' highway safety programs to facilitate safe transportation of school children, and some or all of the recommendations of Standard No. 17 have been adopted by most of the states.

While we urge states to adopt a strong pupil transportation program consistent with Standard No. 17's guidelines, the effect of the standard on school buses operating in North Dakota is a matter for the State to decide. State officials are given discretion in adopting Standard No. 17 and may specify requirements for school bus operation that are appropriate for their particular highway safety needs. Ms. Holgerson might want to express her concerns and suggestions to North Dakota state officials, since they have the authority to set requirements for "School Bus" signs and other identifying features of school buses.

We appreciate Ms. Holgerson's concern for school bus safety. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Burdick:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Lorraine Holgerson..

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

David P. Sloane Director, Office of Congressional Affairs February 27, 1986

Mr. David Sloane Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

Enclosed is a letter I have recently received from Lorraine Holgerson regarding her concern about the lack of appropriate reflectors on the back of North Dakota school buses.

I would appreciate your Looking into the matter Ms. Holgerson has described and responding to my office with your findings. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

Quentin N. Burdick QNB:mvj Honorable Senator Burdick:

Dear Mr. Burdick,

Could it be possible that a bill be passed to make North Dakota school buses more visible from the back?

School buses now have two directional lights back there, and a row of small lights across the top. This is really not very much on that large background of yellow.

Even the words "School bus" in black or reflective letterings should help.

Some truckers that drive the big rigs have lights all around the top of their cabs, and even a row of lights around the trailer.

Anything that could be done to make the school buses safer would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Lorraine Holgerson