ID: 86-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dean Hansell, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dean Hansell, Esq. Messrs. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 555 South Flower Street Los Angeles. California 90071

Dear Mr. Hansell:

This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1986, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits headlamps to be nonrectangular.

Standard No. 108 prescribes dimensions only for sealed beam headlamps, in accordance with the terms of the standard and the materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers incorporated by reference. Under these requirements, sealed beam headlamps must be either circular or rectangular according to either the diameters or length/width dimensions specified.

In 1983 Standard No. 108 was amended to allow additional headlighting systems (see paragraph 54.1.1.36) incorporating a replaceable light source with an "0" ring seal. Dimensions are prescribed for this light source. With this type of system, the emphasis on standardization of lighting equipment shifts from size and shape of the unit to the light source itself. This allows the headlamp designer freedom to choose the headlamp size and shape most acceptable to his client within the constraints of the standardized replaceable light source and the photometric requirements of the standard which are essentially the same for all headlamps. Further, such headlamps must be capable of mechanical aim just like sealed beam units.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 14, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 4000 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: FMVSS 108 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Ms. Jones:

We seek the Agency's interpretation concerning FMVSS 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). Our question is whether headlamps can be nonrectangular.

We find nothing in FMVSS 108 mandating a specific shape for a headlamp. However, the illustrations in FMVSS 108 (for example, figures 11 and 12) all show rectangular headlamps. Although this is presumably due to the fact that only rectangular headlamps were available at the time the regulations were initially written, it did raise a question whether some intention to limit the shape of headlamps was being indicated. In any case, it is now our understanding that in connection with the rewriting of FMVSS 108, the size and shape of headlamps has been "deregulated".

We do understand that, if an alternate shaped headlamp is used, the beam pattern and photometric output specifications of FMVSS 108 must be followed and the headlamp must be capable of being used with a standardized universal adapter (or have an "O" ring).

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

Yours truly,

Dean Hansell

DH:l

cc: Jere Medlin Crash Avoidance Division

ID: 86-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Yoshikazu Ito

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yoshikazu Ito Manager, Operations Sect. Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. Oguchi-cho Aichi Pref. 480-01 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Ito:

This is in reply to your letter of November 29. 1985, to Jeffrey R. Miller, former chief counsel of this agency, with reference to the acceptability of a headlamp switch under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. According to you, "upper and lower lamps light at the same time when a driver puts on the switch for headlamp horn in a daytime with light switch OFF...."

You have asked whether the circuit complies with Standard No. 108 and any SAE standards referenced in Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 does not specify circuit design. The "optical horn" is neither required nor prohibited by Standard No. 108 and is viewed as permissible for its use for momentary signalling purposes. This would include simultaneous activation of both upper and lower beam filaments as in your design.

I believe that this uppers your other questions as well.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 29, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Re: Head Lamp Switch Circuit

Dear Sir:

We are automotive switch manufacturer in Japan and are making prototype of a head lamp switch for our customer's new car model for U.S.A. which has a circuit by which upper and lower lamps light at the same time when a driver puts on the switch for head lamp horn in a daytime with light switch OFF (please see an attached sheet). To our experience, the circuit has never been designed for cars which are to be marketed in U.S.A.

Would you like to answer the following questions?

1. Does the above-mentioned circuit comply with requirements of FMVSS and the concerned standards (SAE?) referred in FMVSSS:

2. What provision(s) of FMVSS and the standards involve this matter?

3. What are interpretation of the FMVSS and the standards provision(s)?

We really appreciate it if you could kindly send us your answers by December 27, 1985. Your kind assistances have been useful for us all the time.

Thank you for your assistance in advance.

Faithfully yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Sect. Overseas Operations Dept.

ID: 86-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Hayashibara

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Hayashibara Managing Director Certification Business Division Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

Dear Mr. Hayashibara:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of certain terms used in Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims -passenger cars (49 CFR S571.110). Specifically. you asked about the definitions of the terms "curb weight", "accessory weight", and "production options weight". These terms are defined in Standard No. 110 as follows.

The "curb weight" of a vehicle is calculated by adding the weight of the vehicle with all of its standard equipment, including its maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant to the weights of two optional items of equipment, if the vehicle is equipped with these optional items. The items whose weight is included in calculating the curb height, if present on the vehicle, are air conditioning and the additional weight of an optional engine. No other optional items are included in calculating a vehicle's curb weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.

The "accessory weight" of a vehicle means the combined weight (in excess of the weight of the standard equipment items that may be replaced) of automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, power windows, power seats, radio, and heater to the extent that these items are available as factory-installed options on that vehicle, regardless of whether these options are actually present on the vehicle in question. No other items of optional equipment are included in calculating the accessory weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.

The "production options weight" means the combined weight of all items of optional equipment that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The weight of the item of optional equipment is more than five pounds greater than the weight of the item of standard equipment that it replaces:

(2) The optional equipment is present on the vehicle in question: and

(3) The weight of the optional equipment has not previously been considered in either the curb weight or the accessory weight.

Section 53 of Standard No. 110 lists the following examples of items of optional equipment whose weight might be considered when calculating the production options weight: heavy duty brakes, ride levelers, roof rack, heavy duty battery, and special trim, However, any item of optional equipment that meets the three criteria listed above would be included in calculating the production options weight, even if that item were not listed in the examples. Therefore, Mazda's understanding is correct that the weight of four-wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs ace included when calculating the production options weight.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 21, 1985

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire Selection and Rims

Dear Ms. Jones,

Mazda requests clarification and verification of selected terms that appear in FMVSS 110. Tire Selection and Rims. These relate to the definition of the various weight classifications and the inclusion of the items that compose and differentiate them.

In FMVSS 110.3, the terms "accessory weight", "curb weight", "vehicle capacity weight" and "production options weight are defined and used to classify various vehicle configuration weights. These vehicle configuration weights, the "vehicle maximum load on the tire" and the "vehicle normal load on the tire" are then applied to the load capacities of the tire selected for that vehicle to insure adequate performance of the tire under foreseeable vehicle operating conditions. The principle areas of difference between the two are: specified cargo weight, luggage weight, difference in occupant weight dependent on the difference in the total number of designated seating positions and the number of seating positions cited in Table I, and production options weight.

Mazda's central area of interest in these definitions lies in the components that must be included in the "curb weight", "accessory weight" and the "production options weight". It is Mazda's understanding that the components listed in the definition of "curb weight" and "accessory weight" are limited to only those components actually specified,,such as standard equipment, heavier optional engines, automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, etc.; and no additional components. Conversely. the "production options weight" definition is understood to contain only a partial listing of the many different components, excluding only those specifically referenced in the "curb weight" and "accessory weight", that may be installed on a vehicle. Some examples of components not referenced that may, by means of Mazda's current understanding of the definitions, be included in the "production options weight" are: four wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs.

Please review our understanding of these terms and verify that they are accurate. Also, please comment on any factors that have not been discussed that may influence the determinations of the Agency and the application by manufacturers of these definitions.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

M. Hayashibara Managing Director Certification Business Division

ID: 86-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent Ms. Kimberly Hallenbeck of Fairbanks Alaska concerning our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. since we are responsible for Federal regulations on school bus safety.

Your constituent asked whether our requirements for safety belts apply to the used school buses purchased by her company. As explained below. the answer is no.

We contacted Ms. Hallenbeck's company. Wilbur & Son. on February 13 to obtain more information about her inquiry. Wilbur & Son explained that it purchased two used 1984 large school buses for its shuttle service which had been certified by their manufacturer as meeting our school bus safety standards. The company has been requested to install safety belts in those vehicles. but believes this is unnecessary. The company requested us to clarify our requirements for safety belts on large school buses (i.e.. school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds). We appreciate this opportunity to do so.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles, including school buses. NHTSA does not require safety belts in large new school buses because we issued a safety standard in 1977 (Standard No. 222. School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection) to require those buses to provide improved crash protection to passengers through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that school children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs. additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.

Although we have determined that a safety standard requiring safety belts in those buses is not warranted at this time. NHTSA has tentatively determined that an amendment to Standard No. 222 might be necessary to set performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on large new school buses. We recently issued such a proposal. If it is adopted. we would require manufacturers to ensure that safety belts voluntarily installed on new school buses meet performance criteria established by our safety standards. We emphasize that such a requirement would apply to the manufacture of new school buses only, and would not apply to persons retrofitting safety belts on large school buses already in use. A copy of our rulemaking notice is enclosed.

We are enclosing a copy of a report issued by NHTSA entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses" (June 1985). Which might be of interest to your constituents. In addition, we are providing your constituents with a copy of Safety Standard No. 222, and information sheets which describe our motor vehicle safety standards generally and how to obtain copies of individual safety standards or regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact my office if he can be of further assistance.

Sincerely.

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 21, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear David:

I've been contacted by Ms. Kimberly Hallenbeck of Fairbanks, Alaska regarding federal regulations for seat belts on school buses.

Ms. Hallenbeck works for Wilbur & Son, the company which runs a bus shuttle service at Fort Wainwright for military personnel and civilians. The buses used are school buses which have been repainted for use by Wilbur & Son.

Ms. Hallenbeck would like to know what type of federal regulations on seat belts would apply to these buses. I'd appreciate your supplying this information.

Thanks for your help.

With best wishes, Cordially,

TED STEVENS

ID: 86-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent Mrs. Teresa Kalfsbeek of Kasilof, Alaska, regarding our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Mrs. Ralfsbeek asks whether we have proposed to make safety belts mandatory on school buses. As explained below, our regulations already require safety belts on smaller school buses. i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR's) of 10,000 pounds or less. While we have not proposed to require safety belts on large school buses over 10,000 pounds, we issued a proposal in October 1985 to ensure that if safety belts are voluntarily installed on a large new school bus, they meet appropriate performance requirements.

I appreciate this opportunity to explain our requirements for safety belts on school buses. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. We do not require safety belts in large school buses because those buses have been required since 1977 to provide improved crash protection to passengers through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs. additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.

Although this agency has determined that a safety standard requiring safety belts in those buses is not warranted at this time. State and local governments are nevertheless free to order safety belts on their new school buses if they wish to do so. Most school bus manufacturers are capable of installing them in those vehicles.

As mentioned earlier, we have proposed to set performance standards for safety belts voluntarily installed on large new school buses. If the proposal is adopted, we would require manufacturers to ensure that the voluntarily-installed safety belts meet performance criteria established by our safety standards. A copy of our rulemaking notice is enclosed for your information.

In addition, we are providing you with a copy of a report issued by NHTSA entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses" (June 1985), which might be of interest to your constituents.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 21, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

I've been contacted by Mrs. Teresa Kalfsbeek of Kasilof, Alaska regarding requirements for seat belts on school buses. Mrs. Kalfsbeek would like to know if there are any proposals to make seat belts mandatory on these buses.

I'd appreciate your responding to Mrs. Kalfsbeek's inquiry and filling me in on existing federal regulations on seat belt use on school buses.

Thanks for your help.

With best wishes,

Cordially, TED STEVENS

ID: 86-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: H. Hakaya -- Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in response to your letter of June 21, 1985 requesting, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512, confidential treatment for your letter of that date and of the two attachments thereto.

Your request has been granted. NHTSA will treat your June 21, 1985 letter and the attachments confidentially. Pursuant to a January 22, 1986 telephone conversation between and Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, our letter to you regarding this matter will be made publicly available to the extent indicated on the copy which is enclosed. Also enclosed is a copy of this confidentiality determination, which indicates the extent to which it will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Kathleen DeMeter Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law

Dear

This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that a proposed mini-van, which would use a front-wheel-drive passenger car platform as its base, would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). The vehicle would have an airduct lying on top of the floor and running longitudinally rearward from the dash area between the two front seats and then turning outboard to enter the bottom of the 'B' pillar. While the top of the airduct would be above the level floor plane in the area between the front seats and immediately behind the front seats, it would not extend under the second or third seats, which would be removable. The floor would otherwise be flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classification of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed mini-van would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).

Section 523.5 provides in relevant part:

(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions:

(1) Transport more than 10 persons:

(2) Provide temporary living quarters:

(3) Transport property on an open bed:

(4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume: or

(5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

With respect to the location of the airduct, it is necessary in order to come within section 523.5(a)(5) that the removal of seats creates a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. Since the airduct would not extend under the removable second or third seats, and since the floor is otherwise flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior, it is the agency's opinion that the vehicle would qualify as a light truck under section 523.5(a)(5).

This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed mini-van for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CPR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523. We have enclosed a copy of a letter dated December 1, 1983, which addresses some of the issues involved in making such classification.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (sec, e.g., 49 CFR Part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (in the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meet the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MVP is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into a MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan difference mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Originally Signed By

Frank Herndt Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/86 EST

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR NHTSA

TO: RICHARD P. HAHN -- HALFPENNY, HAHN & ROCHE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/25/86 EST, TO GEORGE W KEELEY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29(3), VSA 102 (3); LETTER DATED 03/04/86 TO DIANE K STEED, FROM GEORGE W KEELEY

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hahn:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole on behalf of the Construction Industry Manufacturers Association concerning a recent interpretation letter issued by this agency to Mr. P.J. Pennells. The letter, which you saw reported by the Bureau of National Affairs, concerned the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to construction equipment. I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify the agency's position.

The agency's letter to Mr. Pennells offered some brief general guidelines about the applicability of our safety standards and offered to provide a specific interpretation once we received more detailed information about the design characteristics and use of the particular vehicle Mr. Pennells was concerned about. The letter should not be interpreted as a departure from our long-standing policy on the application of our standards to construction equipment.

It is the agency's position that the statutory definition of motor vehicle contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which uses the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, we believe that such vehicles are motor vehicles in the statutory sense, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." We believe this position is fully consistent with the court's decision in Koehring Co. v. Adams (452 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Wis. 1978), aff'd, 605 F.2d 280 (7th Cir. 1979)).

I am providing a copy of your letter and my response to Mr. Pennells and the Bureau of National Affairs. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Kevin Rossman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kevin Rossman Vice president - Sales & Marketing The Highland Group 9300 Midwest Avenue Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125

Dear Mr. Rossman:

This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1986, to the former chief counsel of this agency, Jeffrey R. Miller, in which you ask whether a deck-mounted luggage rack loaded with luggage is a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The answer is no. Compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined independent of whether the luggage rack is loaded. However, if the rack is installed before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, or if it is installed after sale by a person other than the vehicle owner, care must be taken to insure that the photometric and visibility requirements of the standard for center high-mounted stop lamps continue to be met with the unloaded rack in place.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 13, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel US Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Highland Group is a US Manufacturer of Passenger Car Rear Deck Luggage Racks.

It has been rumored in the field that a deck - mounted luggage rack loaded with luggage may cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number #108.

To alleviate potential problem in the field, any input you could provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

THE HIGHLAND GROUP, INC.

Kevin Rossman Vice President - Sales & Marketing

KR/nc

ID: 86-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Michael Love

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Love:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

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

Dear Mr. Vinson,

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

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

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

Also,

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

Specifically,

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,

Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager

cc: Kurt Meier

ML/ma

ID: 86-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Bentsen -- U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Senator Bentsen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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

Dear Ms. Steed:

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

Your kind assistance is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Bentsen

Enclosure

PLEASE REPLY TO:

1100 Commerce, Room 7C14, Dallas, Texas 75242

October 4, 1985

TO: Automotive Chemicals Division Scientific Committee

FROM: Stephen S. Kellner Vice President Legal Affairs

RE: Notice of Meetings

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

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

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

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

October 29, 1985

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

Dear Lloyd,

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

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

Your useful help will be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Joe M. Rutland

JMR:lc enc