ID: nht92-1.40

DATE: 12/07/92

FROM: WILLIAM R. WILLEN -- MANAGING COUNSEL, PRODUCT LEGAL GROUP, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-24-93 FROM JOHN WOMACV TO WILLIAM R. WILLEN (A40; PART 571.3)

TEXT: This is to request your confirmation of our interpretation regarding the definition of "designated seating position" in 49 CFR Section 571.3 as it applies to a proposed Honda design. The Honda design is similar to one for which NHTSA provided an interpretation to Jguar Rover Triumph in July, 1980. The hip room is 44.2 inches over the length of our seat, and the seat width is only 39 inches. The seat is flat and does not have stiff inboard seat belt receptacles. (Please see the attached sketches).

We believe that, under the above mentioned definition, two designated seating positions would be required for this design and we would like to receive your confirmation. We also reguest your answers to the following questions regarding the determination of designated seating positions.

1. With regard to this proposed design, is the seat width dimension the key factor in determining the number of designated seating positions? If the seat width was 40 or 42 or 44 inches instead of 39 inches would your interpretation be different?

2. Please explain how you would measure hip room in the examples shown below where the seat is installed in a wider vehicle.

(a) The seat is located close to one side with space for passenger access on the other side.

(GRAPHICS OMITTED)

(b) The seat is located in the middle of the vehicle with space on each side.

(GRAPHICS OMITTED)

(c) Note that the seat does not have armrests in the sketches. Would the answer be different if armrests were provided? Would it also make a difference if the armrests were fixed or if they were able to swing up beside the seatback to provide easy access?

ID: nht92-1.41

DATE: December 7, 1992

FROM: W. C. Burke -- Captain, Commander, Commercial and Technical Services Section

TO: Paul Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: File No.: 62.A8383.A9181.5242C

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-31-93 from John Womack to W. C. Burke (A41; Std. 205)

TEXT: Recently, Mr. Greg Bragg from our California Highway Patrol (CHP) Commercial and Technical Services section spoke with Mr. Marvin Shore and Mr. Clark Harper of your administration regarding the marking requirements of safety glazing installed in motor vehicles.

The specific issue they talked about was whether or not a glass installer replacing glass in a motor vehicle according to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 205 is required to mark the glazing. FMVSS 205, S6.4 states "Each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which this standard applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, shall mark that material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26." According to the definitions contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, an installer replacing glass in a motor vehicle would be a dealer and would, therefore, be exempt from the marking requirements.

We are inquiring about this matter because California has adopted FMVSS 205 and some of our CHP personnel have found school buses with replacement glass that is not marked. We have subsequently taken law enforcement action against these school districts. It has been our longtime understanding that all glass installed in a motor vehicle must be marked. However, after careful examination of the wording contained in both the FMVSS 205 and the Safety Act of 1966, it appears that the installer of replacement glass does not have to mark the glazing material and that our past interpretation of this Federal Standard may be in need of further review.

We, therefore, request a written interpretation from you on whether or not FMVSS 205 requires an installer (or dealer) who cuts sections of glass from a larger, marked section to mark each individual smaller section (if not already marked) prior to installing them as replacement windows.

Your immediate response to this question is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact either Mr. Greg Bragg or Mr. Kyle Larsen of our Commercial and Technical Services Section at (916) 445-1865.

ID: nht92-1.42

DATE: 12/04/92

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TO: GEORGE D. JAMES, JR. -- SAFETY CHAIRMAN, UNIT 169 WBCCI

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-24-92 FROM GEORGE D. JAMES, JR. TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7931)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 24, 1992, with respect to the Tekonsha electronic brake control. You believe that this agency has "approved" this brake control. Based on your experience towing a travel trailer, you expressed concern about the safety of these particular electronic brake controllers when in service on the public roads, because the stop lamps on the towed vehicle are not activated when the electronic brake control is used to apply the trailer's service brakes. You asked us to review our thinking and "rewrite the specs on this matter."

Let me begin by emphasizing that this agency has no authority to "approve," endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any items of motor vehicle equipment. All that our letters of interpretation purport to do is to answer questions from manufacturers and other members of the public as to whether the manufacture, sale, and/or installation of equipment is permissible under applicable Federal laws and regulations. Our letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, Tekonsha's manufacturer, which you quote at one point, was a letter of interpretation, which concluded that "it now appears that the sale of the [Tekonsha] Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act." This letter and conclusion can in no way be read as "approving," endorsing, or recommending the use of the Tekonsha system.

At this time, we do not have, nor are we aware of, any data indicating that there is a real-world safety problem created by use of the Tekonsha brake control. Hence, we have no reason to change the conclusion announced in the April 3 letter to Echlin about the legality of the Tekonsha control. We would be willing to review this matter again if data become available indicating a potential problem. Thus, if you or any member of your organization learns of any specific safety problems that have arisen for vehicles equipped with the Tekonsha control, please let us know.

I appreciate your interest in highway safety. It is only through the concern and support of citizens like yourself that this agency can achieve its goal of minimizing deaths and injuries on this nation's highways. Thank you for taking the time to let us know your thoughts on this matter.

ID: nht92-1.43

DATE: 12/04/92

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TO: JORDAN J. POKRINCHAK -- PRESIDENT, JORDAN RESEARCH CORP.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-7-92 FROM JORDAN J. POKRINCHAK TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7987); ALSO ATTACHED TO NHTSA LETTER OF 3-26-92 TO CHARLES W. O'CONNOR

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 7, 1992, with respect to the Tekonsha electronic brake control. You apparently wrote in reference to my letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, Inc., the manufacturer of the Tekonsha brake control, in which I discussed that section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) that prohibits certain named commercial entities from "rendering inoperative" safety equipment on motor vehicles. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). You believe that this agency has "approved" this brake control. Based on your belief that the Tekonsha brake control poses a safety hazard on the public roads, you asked us to reconsider our decision to "approve" this brake control.

Let me begin by emphasizing that this agency has no authority to "approve," endorse or offer assurances of compliance to any items of motor vehicle equipment. All that our letters of interpretation purport to do is to answer questions from manufacturers and other members of the public as to whether the manufacture, sale, and/or installation of equipment is permissible under applicable Federal laws and regulations. Our letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, was a letter of interpretation, which concluded that "it now appears that the sale of the [Tekonsha] Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act." This letter and conclusion can in no way be read as "approving," endorsing, or recommending the use of the Tekonsha system.

You believe that 49 CFR 393.25(f) "is quite specific when dealing with the actuation of the trailer stop lamps, either manually or automatically," and has nothing to do with the "render inoperative" prohibition of section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. The regulation you have identified (49 CFR 393.25(f)) is administered by another Federal agency, the Federal Highway Administration, acting under statutory authority other than the Safety Act. Obviously, only that agency can give an official interpretation of its regulations. However, based on my understanding of the Tekonsha system, it does not appear that the use of the Tekonsha system would be affected by the regulations in Part 393. Part 393, including 393.25, applies only to commercial motor vehicles. I understand that the Tekonsha control is used on smaller, personal vehicles, like pickups and vans, to tow trailers such as campers, travel trailers, and so forth. If my understanding is correct, the Federal Highway Administration's regulations would not apply. If you wish to receive an official interpretation of this matter, you may contact: Mr. James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590.

With respect to your request that we reconsider our previous conclusion that the sale of the Tekonsha control would not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act, we do not now have, nor are we aware of, any data indicating that there is a real-world safety problem created by use of the Tekonsha brake control. Hence, we have no reason to change the conclusion announced in the April 3 letter to Echlin about the legality of the Tekonsha control. We would be willing to review this matter again if data become available indicating a potential problem. Thus, if you learn of any specific safety problems that have arisen for vehicles equipped with the Tekonsha control, please let us know.

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns. I hope that this further explanation of our April 3 letter is helpful.

ID: nht92-1.44

DATE: 12/04/92

FROM: RON MARION -- SALES ENGINEER, THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC

TO: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOC. ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-3-93 FROM BARRY FELRICE TO RON MARION (A40; STD. 131)

TEXT: This letter is being written regarding the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard - 131 school bus pedestrian safety devices.

As a manufacturer of school bus bodies, we are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service.

A number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. These athletic use buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload. They do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic.

The purchasers of this type of "school bus" have a problem with paying for stop arms and in some cases warning lamps which are never used.

My question is, has there been any consideration given to an exemption for this non-route type "school bus"?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht92-1.45

DATE: 12/02/92

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, TIRE DIVISION, RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO FRANK E. TIMMONS (A40; STD. 109; STD. 119; PART 574); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER (DATE ILLEGIBLE) FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.

TEXT: Your November 13, 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce Kuwait has just been brought to my attention (see attached). There are two statements in your letter that are incorrect. If the Kuwait government does not realize this, it is possible that US tire manufacturers could be adversely affected.

In your third paragraph, starting on line 3, you state" . . .all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119)." This is not true. Only those tires designed and offered for sale for use on highway vehicles, other than passenger cars, must be certified as being in compliance with FMVSS 119.

The other misstatement in your letter is in your response to their question No. 1. "Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the 'DOT' mark?". Your answer - "Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles." is not correct. Only those tires intended for use on highway vehicles must be labeled with the DOT mark. NHTSA has stated in the past on more than one occasion that the DOT may not be labeled on tires that do not have an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

It is requested that NHTSA send a follow-up letter to Kuwait clarifying that your response applied only to motor vehicles and their tires that are designed primarily for use on the highway.

As mentioned to Walter Myers of your staff yesterday, I will ask Mr. Ed Wunder to discuss this with his contacts in Kuwait. Mr. Wunder is stationed in Saudi Arabia and is supported jointly by industry and the Department of Commerce (NIST) to help US manufacturers sell their products in the Gulf countries.

ID: nht92-1.46

DATE: 12/01/92 EST

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KIM WELSH -- EMMETT KOELSCH COACHES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-5-92 FROM KIM WELSH TO PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT, DOT (OCC 7981)

TEXT: Your letter of November 5, 1992 addressed to the Department of Transportation Publications Department was forwarded to this office for response. In your letter you requested a copy of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards pertaining to school buses "and other Transit type vehicles."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), apply to all classes and categories of motor vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, buses of all types including school buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and the like. Excluded from the definition of motor vehicles are such vehicles as farm tractors, earth-moving equipment, and other off-road vehicles. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Also enclosed are copies of two fact sheets issued by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

You did not elaborate on what was meant by "Transit type vehicles." If you were referring to intercity buses, you should contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Room 3404, this address for information on their pertinent standards and regulations. For information on intracity buses, you should contact the Federal Transit Administration, Room 9328, this address. Finally, for information regarding implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you should contact the Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

I hope this information is helpful. If after examining this material you have more specific questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-1.47

DATE: 12/01/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHESTER I. NIELSEN, III -- VICE PRESIDENT SALES, WESBAR CORPORATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-21-92 FROM CHESTER I. NIELSEN, III TO WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR. (OCC 7912)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 21, 1992, to Walter B. McCormick, Jr. (the General Counsel of this Department). You have written for "further explanation of S5.3.1.1.1 in FMVSS 108."

You have heard that there is an additional interpretation with respect to the location of clearance lamps on boat trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which would allow mounting of these lamps in accordance with a sketch that you enclosed, and you ask for confirmation of this interpretation.

We are unaware of any interpretation of this nature. The requirements for the provision and location of clearance lamps on wide boat trailers remain those set forth in Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, with the exceptions set forth in paragraphs S5.1.1.9, S5.3.1.1.1, and S5.3.1.4.

ID: nht92-1.48

DATE: 12/01/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. KOUCHI -- DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT, DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-8-92 FROM T. KOUCHI TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7857)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 8, 1992, with respect to photometric test methods for a center high-mounted stop lamp using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

Your letter presents certain procedures and asks for associated revisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. After review, we have come to the conclusion that your method of proposed testing is allowable under Standard No. 108, but more stringent than what the standard requires.

In the section of your letter called "BACKGROUND", you state that you usually follow the technical guidance of SAE J1889 as a standard practice for LED lighting devices. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 or in any of the SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 that requires you to follow the test methodology of J1889. Thus, when you say that you "must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense", you are placing a burden upon yourself that does exist under J1889, but one which is not necessary for designing for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You have proposed a solution for the problem you have created by following J1889, and you provide three specific reasons in support. The third reason is based upon your interpretation of SAE J575's warpage test, under which you test operating cycles of 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off. However, you reference a version of J575 which does not apply to center high-mounted stop lamps. Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that J575e, August 1970, applies to high-mounted stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J186a. SAE J575, August 1970, simply specifies that the device is to be operated in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service, far different than the cycle method you employ.

Thus, you have requested that we revise Standard No. 108 by adding a new provision that center high-mounted stop lamps shall be energized for a minimum of 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minima. We note that nothing prohibits you from testing in such a manner, but we believe that an amendment of this nature is not required because the present allowable method of testing does not call for it.

You have asked for our comments on four steps of photometric measurement, and our permission to follow them. There is no reason you may not follow them, if you wish, but they are unnecessary to design for compliance under Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.

ID: nht92-1.49

DATE: 12/01/92 EST

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WAYNE MALBON -- NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS AND RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

COPYEE: JEFF LAXAGUE -- U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 6-18-81 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO ROY LITTLEFIELD

TEXT: This responds to your November 17, 1992 telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office regarding a shipment of truck tire casings being imported into the United States but held up in customs because the casings do not have the DOT symbols molded onto the sidewalls. You asked for a letter from this office setting forth the requirements for the importation of truck tire casings which do not display the DOT symbol, saying that you would use such a letter to show the U.S. Customs Service (USCS) in order to secure the release of the casings.

You will find enclosed a letter from this agency to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA, dated June 18, 1981, in which we explained at length the requirements for importation of truck tire casings and the rationale behind those requirements. The information contained in that letter is still fully applicable, except that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety referred to on page 2 is now the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration. Also, the reference on page 3 to Mr. Harrison Feese of the USCS is no longer valid. Point of contact in USCS is now Mr. Gary Manes, same address, (202) 927-1133; or Mr. Jeff Laxague, same address, (202) 927-0402.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.