ID: nht81-3.2

DATE: 07/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). Specifically you asked if the requirements of section S6.5(f), requiring the tire label to show the actual number of plies, and the composition of the ply cord material would be satisfied by the Marking: "Tread - 2 plies Polyester + 2 Aramid Woven Belts Sidewall - 2 plies Polyester."

It has been a longstanding policy of this agency not to issue advance approval of labeling information. However, we will state that marking appears to satisfy the requirements of section S6.5(f) if it is slightly modified. Specifically, the reference to "belts" should be deleted, and the word "plies" should be substituted.

The purpose of the marking requirements in Standard No. 119 is to ensure that the user of the tire is provided with technical information in a straightforward manner. This information is necessary for the safe use of the tire. Section S6.5(f) of the Standard requires that the marking include only the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material. To satisfy this requirement, the information for the tread should appear as: "Tread - 2 plies Polyester + 2 plies Woven Aramid."

Your desire to represent the ply cords as belts probably represents a marketing effort by Armstrong to convince purchasers to buy this particular tire. This agency has no reason to believe that these tires are not outstanding performance tires or to reduce your marketing efforts. However, it is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required markings on the sidewall of the tires.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 8, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration -- U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of identification for material placed in a tire as specified in Part 571.119, S5.6(f).

The Armstrong Rubber Company is planning to produce radial ply tires with an Aramid Woven Belt. Our preference would be to mark the sidewall of the tire as follows:

Tread - 2 plies Polyester + 2 Aramid Woven Belts

Sidewall - 2 plies Polyester

This woven belt is a new design for tread reinforcing material that has been tested by The Armstrong Rubber Company and found to be very satisfactory for use in radial ply tires.

I trust this information will permit you to respond.

Sincerely, THE ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY; R. W. Cheetham -- Director of Quality Assurance

cc: Francis Armstrong

ID: nht81-3.21

DATE: 09/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flag-It Signaling Device Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The National Transportation Safety Board had forward for reply your letter of June 10, 1981, asking whether the "Flag-It Automobile Signaling Device" would be legal to use according to your new regulations . . . ."

Requirements for equipment use are not established by the Federal government but by the individual State in which a vehicle is registered.

Our agency within the Department of Transportation establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to vehicle and equipment manufacturers. Your device consists of reflectors which hang beneath the front and rear bumper. They are not covered by our standard on reflectors (Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) nor would their installation appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, which could raise a question as to their legality.

SINCERELY,

FLAG-IT SIGNALING DEVICE CO.

JUNE 10, 1981

James King National Transporation Safety Board

Dear Mr. King:

I was interested in knowing if the Flag-it Automobile Signaling Device would be legal to use according to your new regulations that is perhaps now headed by the Regan Administration.

I have here in enclosed a copy of the letter I received sometime ago from the National Transporation Safety Board where as it was stated that the Flag-it device could be voluntarily installed on the rear of motor vehicles as are reflecting devices to promote visual awarness.

I have here in enclosed a sample Flag-it Safety Device, a copy of the United States Patent, also other material pertaining to this development.

Charles Schamblin

January 6, 1978

Charles Schamblin Flag-It Fluorescent Signaling Device Co.

Dear Mr. Schamblin:

Thank you for your recent letter which provided us the opportunity to examine your patented flourescent signaling device.

While the staff of the National Transportation Safety Board will certainly endorse any means which may prevent accidents by increasing the conspicuity of moving vehicles, we are not in the position to evaluate the potential benefits of any particular device. As you probably know, our primary function is accident investigation. We have no regulatory authority or research capability.

As indicated by others in previous correspondence, we find no reason why your Flag-It signal could not be voluntarily installed on the rear end of motor vehicles as are other reflecting devices to promote visual awareness. We believe, however, that present regulations regarding such installations are adequate.

Your device appears to be developed to the extent that it can be marketed in automotive accessory shops, but beyond that we can offer no further suggestions.

We are returning your sample and once again we wish to thank you for the interest which you have shown in the promotion of motor vehicle safety.

William G. Laynor, Jr. Chief, Vehicle Factors Division -- NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

STOPPING DISTANCE: From eye to brain to foot to wheel to road

BRAKING DISTANCE

(ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED)

Following the vehicle ahead too closely and making unsafe lane changes -- two of the leading contributing causes of accidents on freeways -- also were two of the most common violations for which freeway motorists were cited in 1971, according to the California Highway Patrol.

The Patrol reports it issued 100,016 citations for following too closely (tailgating) and 66,617 for unsafe lane changes.

Following too closely is covered by Section 21703 of the California Vehicle Code. It states: "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway."

According to the National Safety council, 3,282,800 accidents, or 13.2 percent of all urban accidents in the United States in 1971, were reported to have been caused by following too closely behind another vehicle.

A general rule-of-thumb is to keep at least one vehicle length (about 20 feet) behind the vehicle ahead for each 10 miles per hour you are traveling. Thus, if you are moving at 60 mph, you should stay at least six vehicle lengths (about 120 feet) behind the other vehicle. You should stay even farther behind, of course, when highways are wet or icy. In this way, if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly, you will have a much better chance of avoiding a rear-end collision.

Unsafe lane changes can get you in trouble, too. Offenses in this category include straddling the line be-two lanes and moving from one lane to another when it is unsafe to do so. Such maneuvers can cause sideswiping accidents, and cause other motorists to take evasive action which may result in collisions.

These violations are covered by Section 21658 of the Vehicle Code, which provides that: "(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety." This applies where the road has two or more marked lanes for traffic in one direction.

If you have any comments on the Flag-It Safety Device I would appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely, Charles Schamblin

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Date June 23, 1981

Dear Mr. Schamblin:

We have received your correspondence concerning the Flag-It Signaling Device dated June 10, 1981, and June 17, 1981.

The National Transportation Safety Board, however, does not have jurisdiction over or information about this matter. Your correspondence has therefore been referred to the agency shown below for such action as may be necessary:

Mr. George Parker Nat'l Hwy. Traffic Sfty. Admin. 400-7th St., S.W. Wash., D.C. 20590

National Transportation Safety Board

Mr. George Parker National Hwy Traffic Sfty. Admin.

Dear Mr. Parker:

I have here in enclosed a sample of the Flag-It Signaling Device from this model it can be seen from both sides adding additional safety for vehicles. SINCERELY,

Charles Schamblin

FLAG-IT SIGNALING DEVICE CO.

JUNE 17, 1981

James King National Transportation Safety Board

Dear Mr. King:

I forward to you about a week ago a sample of the Flag-it Safety Device. Since that time I was also interested in knowing of approval can be obtained for the manufactures Flag-it Safety I have here in enclosed the sample for approval.

It is my understanding that white reflectors meets specifications for bicycles that is approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

If it were possible to have the approval of the National Transportation Safety Board for the Flag-it Safety Device I have here in enclosed I personally believe it would be very effective in the prevention of automobiles.

Thanks for your interest in automobile safety.

Charles Schamblin

[45] Feb. 12, 1974

[54] SIGNALING DEVICE

[76] Inventor: Charles H. Schamblin, 1714 South M St. Bakersfield, Calif. 93302

x[22] Filed: Feb. 26, 1973

[21] Appl. No.: 335,658

[52] U.S. Cl. 116/28 R. 40/129 C. 280/154.5 R

Patent Omitted.

ID: nht81-3.22

DATE: 10/06/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 27, 1981, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80. Your letter asked whether an enclosed sample of a heater control identification plate met the requirements of section S5.2.2 of the standard. Your letter was primarily concerned about whether the color used for the hot extreme would be considered "red" within the meaning of that section.

The sample heater control identification plate enclosed with your letter identifies the hot and cold extremes of the temperature control by both words and color. At the left of the identification plate is the word "cold" on a blue background. At the right of the identification plate is the word "hot" on a background that appears by visual inspection to be orange.

Section S5.2.2 of Standard No. 101-80 states:

Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed system control and any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue . . . . [Emphasis added.]

The agency interprets section S5.2.2 to require that the colors red and blue be used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control only when color is the sole means by which the extreme positions are identified. If the words "hot" and "cold" are used to identify the extreme positions, color coding is a voluntary addition and the red and blue color requirements of section S5.2.2 do not apply.

Therefore, since the sample of the heater control identification plate enclosed with your letter identifies the extreme positions of the temperature control with the words "hot" and "cold," it meets the requirements of section S5.2.2 concerning that requirement regardless of whether the color used for the hot extreme would be considered "red" within the meaning of that section.

As to your question whether the color used for the hot extreme on the sample of the heater control identification plate is red, our visual inspection indicates that the color is orange rather than red. For guidance on the meaning of the color "red," we suggest that you refer to 49 CFR @ 172.407(d). That section, which is part of the Department of Transportation's regulations concerning hazardous materials, establishes color tolerances for various colors, including red. The section indicates how to obtain copies of the Department's color tolerance charts or where they may be inspected. While the charts are not referenced by Standard No. 101-80, they do provide guidance on the tolerances of various colors.

SINCERELY,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

July 27, 1981

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation regarding the red color to be used on the heater temperature control identification plate.

In FMVSS 101-80, section S5.2.2 requires in part that the hot extreme of the heater temperature control shall be identified by the color red; if color coding is used.

I am enclosing a sample of the heater control identification plate which we intend to use on 1982 model year Honda automobiles for your inspection. Please confirm that the color used for the hot extreme meets your requirements.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-3.23

DATE: 10/09/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jellybean Express

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 9, 1981, concerning the Federal flammability requirements applicable to seat covers for child restraints. As explained below, if the seat cover is sold as an item of original equipment on a child restraint system, it must meet the flammability requirements of Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. If the seat cover is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment, it is not covered by the standard. However, we would urge you to consider voluntarily complying with the standard.

Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), sets performance requirements for child restraints as pieces of motor vehicle equipment. Section 5.7 of the standard provides that, "Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of Safety Standard No. 302 (S571.302)." Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, provides that when tested under specified conditions, material may not have a burn rate of more than 4 inches per minute (copy enclosed). Thus, if your seat cover is sold as a component on a new child restraint, that child restraint must comply with the requirements of S5.7 of Standard No. 213. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392 et seq., copy enclosed), manufacturers have the responsibility of certifying that they comply with all applicable standards. The agency does not grant prior approval or conduct tests to support a manufacturer's certification. Therefore, I am returning the sample of your seat cover.

Although Standard No. 213 only covers the manufacture of items of original equipment in child restraints, sale of your seat cover as an item of aftermarket equipment is indirectly affected by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section provides:

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. . . .

Thus, none of the persons mentioned could not knowingly install your seat cover on a used child restraint if it renders inoperative the restraint system's compliance with Standard No. 213. However, the prohibitions of the Act and the standard do not cover sale of your cover as an aftermarket device nor its installation solely by the vehicle or equipment owner.

Regardless of whether your seat cover must comply with Standard No. 213, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you have defect responsibilities under sections 151 et seq. of the Act. Those sections provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of safety-related defects in their products and remedy those defects free of charge. If your covers are highly flammable, this could be regarded as a safety-related defect.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ENCLS.

(Illegible Word) EXPRESS

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

Sept. 9, 1981

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writting per instructions of the Department of Transportation in San Francisco, CA, Mr. Joe Zemaitis.

We are a business in Sacramento California manufacturing childrens wear and accessories. One of the items we manufacture is a seat cover for childrens car seats. The Department of Consumer Affairs and Department of Transportation have determined that we do not need a special license to manufacture this item but we do need a determination as to the fire proofing requirements.

Mr. Zemaitis suggested that we write to you to request this determination. I have enclosed a sample of our product. Please tell us as soon as possible if we have to meet any fireproofing requirements and if we have to have it noted anywhere that this product meets Federal Fireproof standards.

Your expedious reply would be greatly appreciated as we have orders for our product and would not like to break any laws by putting something out on the market that is unsafe.

Fran Anderson Business Manager

ATTACHS.

ID: nht81-3.24

DATE: 10/09/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: A. Lakins & Sons, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation of an informal opinion you were given in a telephone conversation with Mr. Steve Kratzke of this office. You were concerned about the requirements of Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR @ 571.117) and 49 CFR Part 574 (copies enclosed) regarding the information which must appear on the sidewall of retreaded passenger car tires. Your company would like to use a bead-to-bead retreading process which will remove all of the safety information and the DOT certification and identification number molded on the sidewall of the tire by the original manufacturer.

A retreader of passenger car tires is permitted to remove these markings, provided the retreader molds into or onto the sidewall of the retreaded tires the information and certification markings required by Standard 117 and Part 574. Section 6.3 of Standard 117 specifies the safety information which must appear on the sidewall of retreaded passenger car tires. This section explicitly gives the retreader a choice of retaining the information molded on the sidewalls by the original manufacturer or of molding the information into or onto the sidewalls during the retreading process. Since the retreading process you intend to use will remove the original labeling, you will have no choice but to mold the required information on the sidewalls during your retreading process.

With respect to the DOT certification label and the original manufacturer's identification mark, section 5.2.3 of Standard 117 provides that any passenger car tire casing that is to be retreaded must bear the DOT symbol of the original manufacturer as a certification that, at the time of manufacture, the tire met all the requirements of Standard 109. Ordinarily, in cases other than retreading, the removal of this DOT symbol from the passenger car tire by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business is prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section reads in part: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Since the DOT symbol is an element of design on a tire installed in compliance with Standard 109, any knowing removal by the parties listed in this section would be a violation of the section.

The prohibition in Section 108(a)(2)(A) which acts to prevent removal of the new tire certification symbol ceases to have effect when the tire is converted into a retreaded tire. This result is consistent with previous agency interpretations indicating that when a motor vehicle is converted from one type to another, section 108(a)(2)(A) ceases to require the vehicle's continued compliance with standards applicable to the vehicle as originally manufactured but not as converted.

Although both Standard 109 and Standard 117 require that tires be marked with a DOT symbol to certify compliance, the symbol affixed by the manufacturer of the new tire cannot serve also as the symbol to be affixed by the retreader. The retreader is required by section 6.1 of Standard 117 to affix its own DOT symbol to certify that the tire, as retreaded, fully complies with all the requirements of Standard 117. Chapter 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 574.5 specifies the location for the DOT symbol on the sidewall, as well as a manufacturer's code and other information which must be molded onto or into the sidewall immediately following the DOT symbol. The retreader's certification and identification mark serve the same purpose for the retreaded tire that the new tire manufacturer's certification and identification mark serve for the new tire. Thus, the retreader may remove the original DOT symbol and identification from passenger car tire casings during the retreading process.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff (202-426-2992).

ENCLS.

A. LAKIN & SONS, INC.

July 7, 1981

Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Steve:

This is a confirmation of our phone call of July 7, regarding sidewall information requirements for bead to bead retreaded tires we are planning to manufacture.

Please send us a letter setting forth these requirements with particular reference to the DOT identifications.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Frank J. Goossens

cc: LEWIS LAKIN; RONALD LAKIN

ID: nht81-3.25

DATE: 10/09/81 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TO: J. KAWANO -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE - TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

TITLE: NOA-30 NONE

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BURKARD, EBNER, AND TEVES, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 LETTER FROM KAWANO TO BERNDT, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, MAY 24, 1974 LETTER FROM TEVES TO GREGORY, AND MAY 27, 1988 LETTER FROM TEVES TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 3, 1981, asking two questions about Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. The questions were asked in regard to a type of brake reservoir you are considering producing which would service both the braking system and the clutch.

The first question is whether an interpretation you have made of section S5.4.2 of the standard is correct. The essential issue to that question is whether hydraulic fluid which is available to the clutch, either for normal use of in the event of clutch failure, can be counted as part of the minimum capacity required by section S5.4.2 for the braking system. The agency interprets the standard to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements for brake reservoirs be met by fluid which is not available to the clutch, either during normal use or in the event of clutch failure. Thus, as will be explained below, your interpretation is incorrect.

Safety Standard No. 105 establishes requirements for a vehicle's braking system, including minimum capacity requirements for the reservoirs. Neither this standard nor any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard includes requirements for the reservoirs of a vehicle's clutch. While nothing prohibits a manufacturer from producing a master cylinder which services both the vehicle's braking system and clutch, the minimum fluid capacity requirements for reservoirs must be met separated for a vehicle's braking system.

The first sentence of section S5.4.2 states:

Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs

move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard.

This section specifies the total minimum fluid capacity that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs must have. That amount is determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system, i.e., by the fluid displacement which results when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position.

The purpose of this requirement is to assure that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes.

The agency interprets section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements for brake reservoirs be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. If fluid is available to both the brakes and the clutch, some of that fluid will be used by the clutch in normal service and thus be unavailable to the brakes. In the event of clutch failure, all of the common fluid may be used by the clutch. Therefore, while Standard No. 105 does not prohibit manufacturers from producing master cylinders with reservoirs that have some fluid available to both the braking system and clutch, none of that common fluid may be counted toward meeting the minimum fluid capacity requirements of section S5.4.2.

Your interpretation of section S5.4.2 is incorrect because it counts common fluid toward meeting these requirements. In reference to Figure 1 that you attached with your letter, no fluid above the top of the wall dividing X and Y from Z should be counted toward meeting section S5.4.2's requirements.

We are aware that this interpretation conflicts with our July 10, 1974, interpretation that you attached with your letter and regret any inconvenience. That interpretation indicated that all five designs included in your letter of May 24, 1974, appeared to conform to section S5.4.1, providing that the reservoir capacity requirements of section S5.4.2 were met. That interpretation did not properly consider the requirements of section S5.4.2, as discussed above. It should have indicated that designs (3) and (4) do not comply with Standard No. 105 because they cannot meet section S5.4.2's minimum capacity requirements without counting fluid that is common to the braking system and clutch.

Your letter also asked about which fluid should be counted in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b). That section refers to a drop in the level of brake fluid in any master cylinder reservoir compartment to less than the recommended safe level specified by the manufacturer or to one-fourth of the fluid capacity of that reservoir compartment, whichever is greater.

The minimum warning level is thus determined by the fluid capacity of each compartment rather than by the total capacity of the reservoir, unless the manufacturer recommendes a higher safe level. In reference to Figure 1 that you attached with your letter, the compartments in question are X and Y. Thus, the warning level for compartment X must not be less than 1/4 of the capacity of X. Similarly, the warning level for compartment Y must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of Y. Since there may be safety advantages to higher warning levels, particularly where the capacity of individual compartments is small in relation to the capacity of the reservoir, you may wish to specify a higher warning level such as that indicated in Figure 1, i.e., at a level above the wall separating X from Y.

ID: nht81-3.26

DATE: 10/13/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paccar Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 16, 1981, in which you requested our views on whether Paccar may use its name on the certification label of vehicles manufactured by its Mexican affiliate.

This agency's regulations provide that each vehicle's certification label must contain "the full corporate or individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle." See 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1). The only relevant exception to that requirement is set forth in section 567.4(g) (1) (i), which states that if "a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used." Thus, the answer to your question depends upon whether Paccar "controls" Kenworth Mexican, the Mexican affiliate.

Your letter states that Paccar effectively owns a 49 percent interest in Kenworth Mexicana, the maximum permitted under Mexican law. Based on your telephone conversations with Roger Fairchild of this office, we understand that the vehicles to be produced in Mexico are of Paccar design, with Paccar control over all matters relating to compliance with safety standards. In fact, any design changes in the vehicle must apparently be approved by Paccar under your agreement with the Mexican company.

In these circumstances, we conclude that Paccar may use its corporate name on the Mexican vehicles' certification labels notwithstanding the less than majority equity interest in the Mexican company. The "controlling corporation" exception to the general requirement that the vehicle assembler's name must appear on the certification label was enacted in recognition of the fact that "particularly in some foreign countries, assembly of a vehicle may be performed by a subsidiary corporation controlled by a parent that is the generally known 'nameplate company.'" The agency determined that in such a sitaution, "no important purpose is served by requiring the name of a lesser-known subsidiary corporation on the label." See 34 FR 11360, July 9, 1969. Further, the agency has previously stated in one of its interpretations that the "purpose of the manufacturer's designation in the certification regulations is to identify the company that has primary technical responsibility for conformity of the design and quality control of the assembly." Particularly with respect to the design aspects, Paccar meets this test.

If you have further questions in this area, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht81-3.27

DATE: 10/15/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Colt Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether any Federal regulations apply to propane fuel systems designed for use in motor vehicles.

I am enclosing an information sheet which sets forth the implications under federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other types of gas, as well as a general discussion of auxiliary fuel tanks. From that discussion, you will see that there are no safety standards directly applicable to propane fuel systems on motor vehicles, if propane is the only fuel involved. There are, however, specifications under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations relating to propane fuel systems on commercial vehicles or to tanks used for shipment of propane gas in interstate commerce. If your tanks will be used on vehicles other than private vehicles, these regulations may be of interest to you. For further information, you may contact Mr. W. R. Piste of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (202-426-0033).

ENC.

Colt Industries Inc

August 17, 1981

Frank Bernt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Bernt:

A division of Colt Industries is interested in developing and marketing a liquified propane gas fuel system for motor vehicles.

It is naturally of vital importance that we be familiar with any federal design, performance or private laboratory (United Laboratories) approval regulations that might exist. On this matter, our contact with NHTSA officials has uncovered no such regulations. Your comments would be most appreciated.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions.

SINCERELY,

DON W. UPSON

cc: W. POTOROKA

ID: nht81-3.28

DATE: 10/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Johnson, Campbell & Moesta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards or regulations concerning the use of brake hose as a fuel line in commercial vehicles. Mr. Vernon Bloom of the NHTSA apparently told you that the agency has no standards regarding vehicle fuel lines.

Mr. Bloom is correct in his statement that no Federal safety standards or regulations preclude the use of brake hose as a vehicle fuel line, and that there are no standards directly relating to fuel lines. However, the agency does have a safety standard which indirectly involves fuel lines. Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), specifies performance requirements governing fuel systems on new motor vehicles. The standard specifies the maximum amount of fuel leakage that may occur following a barrier crash test of a new vehicle. Although the individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, do not have to meet specific requirements, each component obviously must be durable in order for the entire system to meet the general performance requirement of Safety Standard No. 301. Therefore, you should ascertain whether the brake hose you intend to use as a fuel line would compromise a vehicle's ability to comply with that standard.

I would also point out that, although there are no safety standards directly relating to fuel lines, manufacturers are responsible for any safety-related defects which may occur in their vehicles or equipment. Section 151, et seq., of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. Under these provisions, you would be responsible if it were determined that your fuel lines constituted safety-related defects.

SINCERELY,

JOHNSON, CAMPBELL & MOESTA, P.C.

September 8, 1981

Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

On September 1, 1981 I spoke with Mr. Vernon Bloom, Engineer for NHSTA in Washington, D.C., as to whether or not NHSTA had any standards as to the use of Synflex brake hose as a fuel line in commercial vehicles. Mr. Bloom has informed me that NHSTA has no standards regarding fuel lines.

I am writing this letter requesting a formal written statement that NHSTA has no standards as to fuel lines.

Your anticipated cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

Daniel M. Jaworski Legal Assistant

ID: nht81-3.29

DATE: 10/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hogan & Hartson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1980, in which you petitioned the agency to withdraw its recommended definition of "moped" and to define the vehicle commonly referred to as a "moped" uniformly throughout the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first petition requests the withdrawal of the recommended definition of "moped", which the agency made available as part of its series of recommendations relating to this category of vehicles.

The principal issue relates to the agency's definition of moped as a category of vehicles with pedals. In your view, the pedal requirement arbitrarily discriminates against vehicles which lack pedals but are otherwise identical to the vehicles defined in the current recommendations. To evaluate your position, the agency carried out a comparison of moped performance parameters to ascertain whether quantifiable safety differences exist between vehicles with and without pedals. The results of this analysis indicated that there are no significant differences, and the agency has therefore determined that it is appropriate to amend the definition of moped in the recommendation by removing the reference to pedals. In addition, the agency notes that the Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) regulations do not require mopeds to have pedals. Thus, to adopt your proposed definition will also aid international harmonization.

Consequently, the agency will shortly issue an advisory notice to the public of the amended definition, as it appears below, and seek additional public views for a period of thirty days.

"Moped" means a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less, which is equipped with a motor that produces 2 brake horsepower or less. If an internal combustion engine is used, the piston displacement shall not exceed 50 cc and the power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears.

Your second petition relates to making uniform the various definitions of low-horsepower motorcycles found in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571).

We agree that the time is now ripe to make consistent the various definitions which apply to mopeds, and will issue shortly a notice of proposed rulemaking to add to 49 CFR 571.3(b) the definition of "moped" stated above. Likewise, we propose to substitute the term "moped" for the various phrases which define this class of vehicles in 49 CFR 571.108, 49 CFR 115, and 49 CRF 571.122. In the case of 49 CFR 567.4(g), the presence of the term "moped" in 49 CFR 571.3(b) offers sufficient authority to identify a moped on the certification label when appropriate. Since the agency has indicated that it will soon propose rescinding Standard 127, it is unnecessary at this time to propose revisions to that standard.

Along with your petitions, you have asked a number of questions relating to current NHTSA regulations. The first four questions and their answers appear below. The remaining two questions, relating to the effects on State law of FMVSS 108 and 127, are being considered separately and will be answered upon our completion of an overall review of the issue of preemption under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

ENC.

Question 1: The present definition of "motor-driven cycle" is a "motorcycle" with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less. 49 CFR @ 571.3 (1979). Does this mean that a "motor-driven cycle" must comply with all the regulations that affect motorcycles, unless it is specifically excepted?

Answer: Motor-driven cycles must comply with all regulations that apply to motorcycles unless specifically exempted. If a particular subcategory of motor-driven cycles is exempted, that subcategory of motor-driven cycles need not comply.

Question 2: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 123, 49 CFR 571.123 (1979), requires that motorcycles be equipped with footrests at each seating position. If mopeds are subject to this standard, do the pedals on mopeds that are equipped with pedals satisfy the footrest requirement for the operator's seating position?

Answer: Yes. The pedals on the moped serve as footrests even when the moped is being propelled by the engine.

Question 3: FMVSS 123 also requires that motorcycle brake systems be operable either by a right foot control or by handlebar controls. If mopeds are subject to this standard, are mopeds with propulsion pedal operated brake systems in compliance?

Answer: Yes. Since such brakes are operable by the feet, they would comply with the requirement.

Question 4: FMVSS 127, 49 CFR @ 571.127 at S.3 (1979) excludes motor-driven cycles from its requirement that each motor vehicle should have a speedometer. FMVSS 123 sets marking and illumination requirements for motorcycle speedometers, 49 CFR @ 571.123 at S.1, but does not exclude motordriven cycles. If the manufacturer of a cycle that is excluded by FMVSS 127 decides voluntarily to equip its product with a speedometer, must that speedometer conform with the requirements of FMVSS 123? Must it conform with the requirements of FMVSS 127?

Answer: FMVSS 123 requires that if a motorcycle uses a speedometer, that speedometer must meet all requirements of that standard. The fact FMVSS 127 requires certain vehicles to have speedometers does not affect the uniformity requirements of FMVSS 123. Therefore, the manufacturer of motor driven cycles whose maximum attainable speed in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less need not equip such cycles with a speedometer, but if it wishes to do so, the speedometer must comply with FMVSS 123.