ID: nht78-4.14

DATE: 11/28/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Alloy Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 24, 1978, questions about the effect of the PACCAR v. NHTSA decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.

Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision. Only the "road testing" requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.

One question raised is whether the court invalidated these "road testing" requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation "at the time [the standard] was put into effect" (573 F2d. at 640).

Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks "no lockup" performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.

A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have already been antilock equipped, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that --

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

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the first retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.

The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different in the case of a manufacturer of agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under @ 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken. "Adequate repair" is defined in @ 159(4) not to include "any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment." The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safety-related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.

A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export) trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain "road testing" portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, "no lockup", timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.

Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes an importation in violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.

You also asked whether the 12-foot-lane requirement of S5.3.2 for trailers remains in effect. The answer to your question is yes. Because trailers are not required to stop within a specified distance, we concluded that there would be no difficulty in coming to a controlled stop within the 12-foot-lane without "no lockup" performance, as long as the 90-psi application requirement was also considered invalidated by the Ninth Circuit. If you have information that indicates this not to be the case, we would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible as the basis for reconsideration of our interpretation.

You undoubtedly noted that our October 19th Federal Register notice of interpretation of the PACCAR decision stated that requirements such as reservoir capacity were not invalidated by the Ninth Circuit, despite their indirect relationship to the "no lockup" requirement. As for rulemaking to make such a change, I have enclosed a copy of our recent proposal on trailer parking and emergency brake requirements. You will find a discussion of the reservoir issue on page 41058 and a request for information from manufacturers. I encourage you to submit available information to the NHTSA, at the address noted in the proposal.

ID: nht78-4.15

DATE: 01/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 17, 1977, request for confirmation that the brake system of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus to be imported by AM General conforms to S5.1.4, S5.3.3, S5.3.4, S5.4, and S5.6.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. An October 17, 1977, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to Mr. Shillinger of AM General has already answered your question concerning S5.1.2.3 of the standard.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) requires, among other things, that no person manufacture or sell any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard. As the manufacturer of AM General Transit buses, I am sure you are aware that this provision makes it impossible for the NHTSA to "approve" the compliance of a brake system in advance of manufacturer of the vehicle because there can be no certainty that the vehicle as manufactured will actually comply.

In response to your statement that the bus must be tested to S5.4, @ 108(b)(2) of the Act provides that @ 108(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to any person who establishes that he did not have reason to know, in the exercise of due care, that a vehicle is not in conformity with an applicable standard. The NHTSA has always interpreted "due care" to mean that a manufacturer is free to use whatever method is reasonably calculated to assure itself that its products, if tested, would conform to the standard's requirements. Thus, dynamo-meter testing of the brakes on each bus would not be necessary if the manufacturer can, in the exercise of due care, assure itself on a reasonable basis, such as engineering calculations, that its products are capable of complying with the standard.

The NHTSA can confirm that S5.3.1 specifies that the tested vehicle be capable of stopping at least once in six stops in the specified stopping distance, within the 12-foot wide roadway, and without lockup of any wheel above 10 mph other than "controlled lockup." Section S5.3.1 specifies "no lockup" performance and can be met by any design, including one which incorporates "load sensing devices" that provide the specified performance.

Section S5.1.4 specifies "[a] pressure gauge in each service brake system . . . that indicates the service reservoir system air pressure." In the case of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus, each of the three service brake circuits must be monitored by a gauge readily visible to the driver. The agency takes no position on the wisdom of deleting pressure gauges that monitor brake chamber air pressure.

Section S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 specify minimum actuation and release times for the service brakes, measuring the time to achieve 60 p.s.i. during actuation and the time to drop from 95 p.s.i. to 5 p.s.i. during release. While these 60- and 95-p.s.i. benchmarks appear in the standard, an interpretation of them has been issued because at least one manufacturer is using a maximum air pressure that is less than the benchmarks. I enclose a copy of the clarification to answer your question.

Your question about S5.6.4 is unclear, but the NHTSA can confirm that the control lever that you showed to the NHTSA appeares to be identified in manner that specifies the method of control operation. As we understand it, the arrow suggesting clockwise rotation of the handle, in conjuction with the word "park", are intended to identify how to apply the parking brake. This interpretation only addresses an arrangement in which parking brake release is the opposite of parking brake application.

SINCERELY,

October 17, 1977 NHTSA Handling & Stability Division

Dear Mr. Perrin:

I am expressing my gratitude for your cooperation and assistance during our meeting on September 8, 1977 with Mr. Scott Shadle, M.A.N. Representatives and Westinghouse Representatives.

The following is a list by paragraph of items of FMVSS #121 discussed: S5.1.2.3 Check Valves - The use of a four-circuit protection valve in lieu of check valves as interpreted, meets the intent of the law. However, the location must be approved by NHTSA. S5.14 Gages - As interpreted, the three individual systems must have an air gage in driver's compartment.

Gages which show actual chamber pressure not required. As agreed, each of the three systems will incorporate a gage in driver's compartment and gages showing actual chamber pressure will be deleted. S5.3.3 Brake Actuation Time - As discussed, the require- ment of 0 to 60 psi in 0.45 seconds has been changed to 0 to 70% of maximum attained pressure (psi) in 0.45 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to actuation time. S5.3.4 Brake Release Time - As discussed, the release time 95-5 psig in 0.55 seconds has been changed

to maximum attainable pressure to 5 psi in 0.55 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to release time. S5.4 Service Brake System - Dynamometer Test Required to be conducted. S5.6.4 Parking Brake Control - This is related to con- figuration which will be used by Seattle-approved.

Discussion on anti-skid versus non-anti-skid:

It was pointed out that the interpretation by NHTSA that driver modulation is permissible, only one of six attempts must meet distance, 12 ft. lane and no-wheel lock up. Further, it was interpreted that load sensing brake system will meet intent of law.

I am anxiously awaiting your Department's letter indicating that the brake and air system on the Articulated Bus as discussed, to the best of your knowledge, meets the intent of FMVSS #121. However, we will ensure that certification testing is in conformance.

AM GENERAL CORPORATION

R. E. Billman Project Engineer

Attachments - 81.52100.8211 Sheet 1 81.52100.8193 Sheet 1 81.51400.8144 Sheet 3 81.99231.8779

ID: nht78-4.16

DATE: 02/24/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Emil M. Mrak

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1978, to Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the seat belts in your Cougar automobile.

Your original letter of December 12, 1977, to Secretary Brock Adams, complaining about the seat belts in your automobile has been answered. A copy of our reply is enclosed to this letter and is still relevant to your problem.

As long as the lap-shoulder belt intersection is not less than 6 inches from the vertical centerline of the driver, any other location that is confortable and easy to use is allowable. We suggest that you again contact your dealer to determine if the belt arrangement can be modified to be better suited to your condition and yet have the belt configuration remain within the NHTSA requirements.

SINCERELY,

January 30, 1978

Honorable Joan Claybrook Department of Transportation

Dear Miss Claybrook:

I have been in correspondence with the Ford Motor Company concerning the inadequacies of the seat belts in their new cars, and especially the Cougar.

I am enclosing copies of correspondence that I have had with the Ford Motor Company and the Department of Transportation, and this latter has not been answered.

The present seat belt arrangement is almost impossible for a person of my age to use. If the attachment on the right side of the driver were six inches longer it would be easy to use. As it is, when I drive around town I am not using a seat belt, although I would prefer to use one. When I take longer trips, I use it and, if my wife is along, I have her assistance in attaching it. If she is not along, I struggle and struggle until finally I get it attached.

It is of interest to me that the Ford Motor Company blames the Department of Transportation for this inadequacy. I just can't believe it. If it is the fault of the Department of Transportation I hope the Department will correct it.

If the Department of Transportation can't help in this matter, then I plan to take it up with some member of Congress.

As you well know, we got rid of the interlock system. I think this can be corrected too.

VERY TRULY YOURS, Emil M. Mrak

602 CORDOVA PLACE DAVIS, CA 95616

December 12, 1977

The Honorable Brockman Adam The Secretary of Transportation

Dear Mr. Adams:

Sometime ago I wrote the Ford Company complaining about the inaccessibility of the short portion of the seat belt to a person who is up in years. I pointed out that because of the extreme difficulty of hitching these up, more and more people are failing to use seat belts. Furthermore, the twisting and squirning required could very well result in backbone injuries to elderly people.

I was astounded to receive a letter from the Ford Company indicating that the Federal Standards required such a belt. This is hard for me to believe. In any event, I would appreciate knowing if what they told me is the truth, and if it is, then, the truth, I would strongly recommend that this requirement be revised. If it is not a requirement, then I think the Ford Company should be told to take the blame off the Department of Transportation.

If Congressional help is needed to make such a change, I would be glad to pursue it.

I am enclosing copies of my letter to Mr. Wilson of the Ford Company and also his reply, which as (Illegible Words) astonished me.

VERY TRULY YOURS, Emil M. Mrak

ID: nht78-4.17

DATE: 01/09/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - Wisconsin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 20, 1977, letter asserting that the Wisconsin requirement for minimum seat spacing does not conflict with the Federal requirement for maximum seat spacing found in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) specifies that no State shall have in effect a safety standard concerning an aspect of performance regulated by a Federal safety standard, unless the State standard is identical. The Act provides a limited exception to the above where a State or local municipality has a requirement which applies only to vehicles purchased for their own use and which imposes a higher standard of performance. Both Standard No. 222, which regulates maximum seat spacing, and the Wisconsin standard, which regulates minimum seat spacing, regulate the same aspect of performance. This position is supported by our statements in Notice 5 of Standard No. 222 (41 FR 4016) which expressed the opinion that seat spacing is the regulated aspect of performance (copy enclosed). Since your State standard is not identical to the Federal standard, it is the opinion of the NHTSA that it is preempted.

You should note that although you are not permitted to impose this State standard on all vehicles used in your State, the Federal government does not preclude you from purchasing any buses for your own use from among the several designs now in production. You could, therefore, purchase only those vehicles that afford you the minimum knee space you desire. You should note further that purchase for your own use has been interpreted to mean purchased by a contractor under contract to provide transportation for school children.

SINCERELY,

State of Wisconsin / DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

September 20, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator NHTSA Office of the Administrator

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Re: Letter to you from Mr. Robert Kurre, Wayne Corporation Date September 2, 1977

The State of Wisconsin stoutly defends it's position that there is no point of conflict between the FMVSS 222 relating to seat spacing and the Wisconsin Administrative Code, MVD 17.

FMVSS dictates a maximum space permitted (for compartmentalization) for persons riding in school buses. The Wisconsin rule states a minimum distance that is permissible.

The engineering staff at Wayne Corporation was aware of these two non-conflicting standards as of February 23, 1977. It appears to us that this should have been adequate lead time to design and test seats that can meet both the federal and state standard.

To emphasize this point, we have been advised by one manufacturer of school bus bodies that they are meeting both federal and Wisconsin standards on buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. It is the State of Wisconsin contention that it is merely a matter of proper design by the manufacturer to meet both requirements.

The Wisconsin standard was developed because of the concern for adequate knee room in the seats. The federal standard has no minimum knee room, therefore, if a manufacturer wished to have, for instance only 20 inches of knee room, he could so produce a bus and not be in conflict with the federal standard. This is what we have prevented by the implementation of our minimum spacing measurement. We have observed buses built to less than the 24 inch minimum spacing and they are unacceptable for the cross section of pupil transportation in Wisconsin.

To carry this a bit further, the State of Wisconsin subscribes to the proposal that the federal government interpret the 20 inch measurement from the seating reference point be made at the closest point between the seat back rather than have this at the widest point.

We believe Mr. Kurre is in error by stating that the State of Wisconsin has a standard in conflict with a federal standard. We further believe that our 24 inch measurement is the extreme minimum that is necessary for transportation of any school children in Wisconsin

If I can supply you with additional information in this matter, please advise.

JAMES O. PETERSON Administrator

cc: Col. LEW V. VERSNIK; CARL H. ZUTZ

ID: nht78-4.18

DATE: 03/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles

COPYEE: R. TILTON; ARMSTRONG; HITCHCOCK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 16, 1978, letter asking several questions about the applicability of the school bus regulations to school buses manufactured after April 1, 1977, transporting 10 or more students to or from school or related events.

You first ask whether these buses must be painted yellow and have school bus lighting and markings. The answer to your question is yes. Any vehicle that transports 10 or more students to or from school or related events is a school bus and must have the painting, marking, and lighting of a school bus.

Your second question is whether smaller school buses (vans) are permitted to have van-type seats or must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. A vehicle that transports 10 or more students must comply with all of the Federal school bus regulations, including the seating standard.

ID: nht78-4.19

DATE: 01/25/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of December 19, 1977, you have requested "a testing exemption" for one diesel car to be operated by your technical service department for 1 year, "to determine the marketing potential of a vehicle of this kind."

No exemption is necessary. Pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(2)(vii) simply check Box 7 of the HS-7 Form that must be executed upon the vehicle's entry, and attach to the form a sheet explaining the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the length of time it will be used on the public roads, and its intended disposal after that time.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

December 19, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: Request for Testing Exemption for One 307 Van

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

We would like to request a testing exemption for:

One Mercedes-Benz 307 Van, 3.5 tons (7,716 lbs.), Wheelbase 3,350 mm (131.9 in.), equipped with OM 616 - diesel engine (4 cyl., 146 cu. in.).

This vehicle will be operated by our Technical Service Department in Montvale, N. J. We propose to determine the marketing potential of a vehicle of this kind.

We are planning to have the vehicle in service for 1 year starting in February 1978. After this time, the vehicle will be shipped back to Germany.

Please feel free to contact us if any further information is needed.

Sincerely yours, K. H. Faber

ID: nht78-4.2

DATE: 01/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: State Farm Insurance Companies

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to confirm your telephone conversation of December 1, 1977, with Kathy DeMeter of my staff. The question you raised was whether odometer disclosure statements have to be executed under section 580.4 and retained under section 580.7 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations when the vehicle involved is a salvage vehicle.

If the vehicle is repairable and will subsequently be used as a motor vehicle, disclosure would have to be made. Likewise, the disclosure statements would have to be maintained if section 580.7 is adopted as a final rule. However, if the vehicle is so badly damaged that it cannot be returned to the road, it will have ceased to be a motor vehicle for purposes of the regulations. Disclosure would therefore not be required.

ID: nht78-4.20

DATE: 05/01/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 23, 1978, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation concerning the registration of passenger car tires can be applied to the registration of truck tires. In that interpretation, the NHTSA stated that it was permissible for a tire dealer to allow the tire purchaser to fill out the tire registration form and hand it back to the dealer.

The NHTSA's interpretation is applicable to both truck and passenger car tires. A truck tire dealer may permit a purchaser to fill out the required information rather than completing the registration form himself. However, this all must occur at the point of sale of the tire. The registration forms for both passenger car tires and truck tires are not permitted to be taken home or shipped with the tires to be completed by the purchaser and subsequently returned or mailed to the dealer. This would impair the benefit of mandatory tire registration and make it a voluntary program. This is not the intent of the regulation, and the NHTSA would not consider such a registration program to be in compliance with the tire registration regulation.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS & RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

February 23, 1978

Roger Tilton National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

As you know, NHTSA has issued a interpretation of the regulations regarding tire identification and record keeping, which permits the tire dealer to hand to the consumer of passenger tires a form which the consumer may fill out at the dealers place of business.

Since a similar type of problem now exists in the sale of truck tires the question has been raised on registration there also.

It it permissible for a tire dealer, selling to a trucker, to give the trucker a form to fill out and return to the individual dealer? In some cases truck tires are shipped directly from the manufacturer to the trucker and the dealer may not have even a direct contact on every shipment.

Letting the cards accompany the tires or providing the registration cards to the trucker might be helpful. We would appreciate some guidance on this so we may advise our membership.

Philip P. Friedlander, Jr. Executive Vice President

ID: nht78-4.21

DATE: 08/08/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Euro-Tire, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 1, 1978, letter asking whether it is acceptable for you as a tire distributor to use your own tire registration form as long as it complies with the requirements of Part 574, Tire Identification and Record-keeping.

Part 574.7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provides that a dealer of tires may supply his own form on which to record information specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3), as long as the form contains the required information, conforms in size and is similar in format to the "Universal Format" form set forth in Figure 3 of that part. The form designed by Euro-Tire appears to meet the requirements of Part 574. Accordingly, it is acceptable for use in fulfilling the tire recordkeeping requirements.

SINCERELY,

June 1, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation N.H.T.S.A.

Gentlemen:

Euro-Tire, Inc. is a retailer of several brands of passenger car tires.

Because of the nature of our operation, the registration of D.O.T. tire identification numbers as required by law has become very time consuming and costly to us.

Since our operation is fully automated, it would be advantageous to us to record the required information for the various brands of tires we sell on one universal form rather than on the several different forms provided by our supplier-manufacturers or their agents.

Attached is a photocopy of the form we designed for this purpose. The sample typewritten information, namely, customer name and address, date of sale and brand name, will be computer printed.

We believe that our form meets all the informational and dimensional requirements of NHTSA's "universal format" and that it complies substantially with the layout of the "universal format".

We would appreciate your reviewing our form and advising us promptly as to whether or not is is an acceptable substitute for the several different forms provided by our suppliers for registration purposes.

EURO-TIRE, INC.

Martin P. Ronsen President

IMPORTANT: Federal law requires registration of all tires purchased for highway use.

SOLD TO

JOHN Q CUSTOMER 1234 MAIN ST APT 34 ANY CITY NJ 07000

SOLD BY

euro-tire

EURO-TIRE, Inc. 1275 Bloomfield Ave. Fairfield, NJ 07006

DATE OF SALE 6/01/78

TIRE BRAND SUPERSLICK QTY D.O.T.TIRE IDENTIFICATION CODE 3 A 7 G X K L M N 3 5 7 1 A 7 G X K L M N 3 9 7

June 29, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation N.H.T.S.A.

Att.: Nancy Eager, Esquire

Gentlemen:

We are enclosing a copy of our letter dated June 1, 1978 together with a copy of the proposed format we designed for the registration of D.O.T. tire identification numbers.

Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

EURO-TIRE, INC.

Martin P. Ronsen

ID: nht78-4.22

DATE: 08/11/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

August 11, 1978

Mr. Glenn Abbott Cars & Concepts, Inc. 12500 E. Grand River Brighton, Michigan 48116

Dear Mr. Abbott:

This is in response to your letter dated June 27, 1978, asking whether fog lamps mounted to the surface of a vehicle bumper are removed prior to testing for compliance with Part 581, Bumper Standard.

Vehicles subject to the requirements of Part 581 must comply with the protective criteria of section 581.5(c) (49 CFR 581.5(c)) when tested under the conditions stated in section 581.6 (49 CFR 581.6). The test conditions make no provision for removal of fog lamps prior to testing. As was the case under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 215, Exterior Protection, the Part 581 test procedures provide for removal only of trailer hitches before testing. With the added exception of license plate brackets, excluded from the requirements of Part 581 by interpretation (42 FR 24056; May 12, 1977), other equipment (including fog lamps) attached to the bumper system prior to sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser must meet the damage limitations of the standard.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

June 27, 1978

Mr. Joseph Levin Office of the Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

Cars & Concepts, Inc. is preparing a prototype Dodge Omni "Rally" for a 1980 model year production program. It is proposed that Chrysler Corporation ship completed vehicles to one of our facilities where we would attach certain pieces of equipment comprising the "Rally" package. The vehicles would then be shipped back to Chrysler for distribution through their normal channels. Included in the "Rally" package is a pair of Cibie C-95 white fog lamps. These would be made inoperable for highway use by means of an easily removable fuse mounted to the instrument panel. The lamps would be mounted to the top surface of the bumper (to comply with certain state regulations) and closely enough to the vehicle centerline to avoid the normal beam path of the headlights. To avoid contact with the grille when the bumper is fully compressed, it will be necessary to mount the lamps close to the bumper face placing them in potential danger of being damaged in a 5 mph pendulum test. It is our understanding that under the provisions of FMVSS #215 such items were routinely removed before testing. We are concerned that the status of accessory lighting would change under FMVSS part 581 and would like a clarification of this.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Glenn Abbott Design

GA/dma

cc: D. Chrysler E. Hopp D. Draper M. Pare