ID: 1984-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Postal Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 3, 1984

Mr. Joel S. Premack Research and Development Laboratories U.S. Postal Service Rockville, MD 20852-8101

Dear Mr. Premack:

This responds to your March 7, 1984 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111, Rearview Mirrors. In particular, you asked whether the covering of the rear and rear-side windows on Postal Service Vehicles would be consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 111.

FMVSS 111 (copy enclosed) establishes requirements regarding rearview mirror systems on new motor vehicles. New Postal Service vehicles would be required to employ one of three optional mirror systems. The first system is a system permitted for use on passenger cars, and includes an inside review mirror with a specified field of view and a plane, driver's side exterior mirror also having a specified field of view. The second permissible system is also a passenger car system and is identical to the first system, except that the inside mirror need not provide the specified field of view and an additional passenger side plane or convex rearview mirror must be provided to compensate for the more restricted field of view of the inside mirror. The third system has two plane mirrors of 19.5 square inches reflective surface area each, one mounted on each side of the vehicle.

Based on the materials you provided with your letter, it appears that Postal Service DJ-5G Models employ the second system described above. In that case, further reduction of the field of view of the inside rearview mirror would not affect compliance with our standard, since an additional passenger side mirror is provided.

If the proposed covering of the rear windows is to be accomplished as a modification to vehicles already delivered to the Postal Service, these modifications may not be subject to FMVSS 111 at all. Modifications to vehicles must be consistent with safety standards only to the extent those modifications are performed by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or private motor vehicle repair business which knowingly renders inoperative safety equipment installed on the vehicle. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). Thus, if the window covering is done by the Postal Service itself, FMVSS requirements are not applicable.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 7, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

The Engineering Support Center of the U.S. Postal Service has been requested to consider covering over windows identified as items 1, 2, and 3 in the enclosed figure. A set of mirrors would be installed to minimize the impact on rear and side viewing. He are interested in knowing whether such a retrofit is consistent with the existing vehicle certification.

We would appreciate your review of the proposed change in window area as it pertains to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 and related effectiveness of the rear viewing mirrors. Please contact Mr. Joel Premack on 443-3257 with your assessment of this issue.

Joel S. Premack Mechanical Engineer, Program Engineer Mechanical Design/Development Branch Engineering Support Center 11711 Parklawn Drive Rockville, MD 20852-8101

Enclosure

********INSERT GRAPHIC********

AM General Corporation MODEL KJ-5G

ID: 1984-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development Inc. --Takeshi Tanuma, Chief Operating Officer

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takeshi Tanuma Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

This responds to your April 4, 19B4 letter regarding the use of two certification labels on motor vehicles, with each label containing a portion of the information specified in 49 CFR Part 567 and the two labels together providing all the specified information.

While the certification regulations specify that "a label" shall be used, the agency has permitted the use of a label in two parts in circumstances which will not lead to confusion and which will satisfy the basic intent of Part 567. In particular, the two portions of the label must be placed in close proximity to each other, to permit individuals to readily find all the specified information and to leave no doubt as to the significance of either portion of the label. Further, the two portions must be oriented in such a manner that the information specified in section 567.4(g) of the certification regulations appears in the required order. As a practical matter, these considerations require that the two portions be affixed to the same vehicle part. While we cannot specify a particular distance as a maximum permissible separation of the two portions of the label, the two portions must be located so as to leave the unmistakable impression that they provide related information.

You also raised the possibility of adding language to one portion of the label to indicate the existence of the other portion and to specify the location of the second portion. While such language is not required, it might be a desirable means of promoting compliance with the considerations discussed above.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC. 3995 Research Park Drive P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Telephone (313) 665-2044

April 4, 1984 Ref: W-055-S

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Research & Development, Inc., herewith submits a request for interpretation concerning certain aspects of the certification label requirement as stipulated in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 567 -"Certification."

1. If installation of one single label is not practicable due to spacing constraints, can a manufacturer affix two labels instead which, in combination, contain the required information on conformity to federal standards? (Please refer to Diagram 1, attached, for illustration.)

2. If a manufacturer may use two labels, what restrictions would govern the placement of those labels? For example, could one lable be affixed to the door-latch post, and the other to the door edge that meets the door-latch post? Or instead would both labels be required to appear on the same vehicle part? Are there any recommended guidelines for spacing, such as that the labels must appear not less than a specified number of inches apart, if both labels are affixed to the same part? (See Diagram 2.)

3. Contingent on the Agency's approval of the use of two labels, would it be necessary for label #1 to indicate, "Please see label #2 at location ," or something similar?

Thank you for your assistance in helping to evaluate these regulatory guidelines. Any expediency with which you treat this request would be greatly appreciated. If you or your staff require further information, please contact Mr. Shizuo Suzuki in the Washington, D.C. office of Nissan Research & Development, Inc., at (202) 466-5284.

Sincerely,

Takeshi Tanuma Chief Operating Officer

TT:SS:maz Attachment cc: Mr. Roger Fairchild Room 5219, NHTSA

ID: 1984-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Manning; Fulton; and Skinner -- John B. McMillan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/18/77 letter from Frank Berndt to Video Research Corp.

TEXT: Mr. John B. McMillan Manning, Fulton, and Skinner Raleigh, North Carolina

This is in response to your March 5, 1984 letter regarding the extent to which an automotive remote starting device which one of your clients wishes to market is compatible with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 114, Theft Protection. This device would permit a vehicle to be started from a remote location using a signal transmitter, provided the vehicle's gear shift is in the park position, the emergency brake is set, the hood is closed, and all the vehicle doors are closed. Further, should any of these failsafe systems became deactivated (e.g., gear shift lever moved out of the park position), the engine would automatically shut off.

FMVSS 114 reguires that passenger cars as well as trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less must have a key locking system that, when the key is removed, will prevent normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility. We presume that the steering/transmission lock feature is unaffected by your client's device. Therefore, the question presented by your client's system is whether that device, which permits activation of the engine when the ignition key is removed, permits "normal activation" of the vehicle.

In a previous agency interpretation (copy enclosed), the agency described certain characteristics of a remote starting system similar to your client's which we concluded were outside the concept of "normal activation." These characteristics are automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine when a vehicle door is opened, maintenance of the steering column or gear shift locking feature until the ignition key is inserted in the vehicle, and automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine after 15 minutes (unless the key is inserted in the ignition).

Your client's device apparently has some of these same characteristics as this previously considered device, as well as other automatic engine deactivation features which are comparable in nature. Therefore, we conclude your client's device does not conflict with the requirements of FMVSS 114, since it does not permit normal activation of the engine without the ignition key.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt

Enclosure - See 5/18/77 Letter from Frank Berndt to Video Research Corp.

March 5 1984

Re: Hawban, Inc. - G-11934

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with Roger Fairchild regarding a patented device which my client Hawban, Inc. is attempting to market with major automobile manufacturers. A description of this product is attached for your review. In one of our meetings, John Mapleback of Ford suggested that we contact your office to review the concept with you. Specifically, before going any further, we wanted to be sure that your office would agree that this system is compatible with the existing standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and particularly Standard No. 114.

My client's device provides for the remote starting of an automobile and the signaling back as to whether the starting has been accomplished. There are significant safety features built into the device so, for example, the device will not operate unless the gear shift is in the park position, the emergency brake is set, the hood is closed and the doors are all closed. In the event any of these circuits are broken, as for example the hood is open, the engine will cut off. We do not feel that the device conflicts with Standard No. 114 because the use of it would not be "normal activation" of the vehicle. The device is not intended as a substitute for a key because the automobile could not be operated without a key. If the car door were to be opened the engine would shut off. If the gear shift were taken out of the park position, the engine would shut off. In fact, because it would encourage the owner to leave the vehicle in the "park" position and with the emergency brake engaged, we hope you will agree that it is a positive device.

We would appreciate your looking into this matter and confirming our interpretation of the relationship between this device and your standards.

Very truly yours,

MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER

John B. McMillan

JBM/gbj Enclosure omitted.

ID: 1984-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter inquiring about the test specifications of Safety Standards 203 and 204 and the New Car Assessment Program. You specifically asked about the positioning of a tilting steering wheel for each of those tests. The answers to your questions are as follows.

Standard No. 203 incorporates by reference Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J944, December 1965. SAE J944 provides that a steering wheel is to be mounted at the angle specified by the manufacturer's "package drawing." Therefore, a tilting steering wheel would be placed at the nominal design position set by the manufacturer.

Standard No. 204 does not specify the positioning of a tilt wheel. In Standard No. 204 compliance testing, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance positions adjustable steering columns and wheels at the midpoint of the tilt and telescope adjustments. In the case of your particular tilting steering wheel, there is no midpoint. Thus, we would test the vehicle with the steering wheel in the position which is closest to the geometric center of the steering column. Based on the sketch enclosed in your letter, it appears that tilt positions 2 and 3 of your wheel are at an equal distance from the geometric center of the steering column. Therefore, your tilt tilt steering wheel should be capable of complying when tested in either of those positions.

The New Car Assessment Program does not use the Standard No. 208 test procedures, but instead uses its own set of test procedures. Those procedures specify that an adjustable steering wheel is to be positioned at the midpoint of its tilt adjustment. Since there is no midpoint for your wheel, the wheel would be set at the position closest to the gometric center of the steering column. As discussed above, the agency would use either position 2 or 3 for your tilt wheel.

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

SINCERELY,

MMC SERVICES INC.

February 10, 1984

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: Test Conditions of FMVSS 203, 204 and NCAP Dear Sir:

This is to inquire about the test specifications of FMVSS 203, 204 and NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) regarding tilt steering.

1. Our interpretations are as follows:

(1) FMVSS 203 (SAE J944)

The height of the steering wheel shall be adjusted to the manufacturer's design reference point.

(2) FMVSS 204

No description of the adjusting method for the tilt steering.

(3) NCAP

The NCAP's test is conducted according to FMVSS 208; S8.1.4 which states "Adjustable steering controls are adjusted so that the steering wheel hub is at the geometric center of the locus it describes when it is moved through its full range of driving positions.

2. Tilt Steering Mechanism

Our tilt steering for the future model is only adjusted at four (4) positions by the gear, and therefore, the steering wheel hub is not set at the geometric center of the locus as required in FMVSS 208. (See the figure on the following page)

(Graphics omitted)

3. Questions

(1) Are our interpretations as mentioned above correct? If not, please let us know of your interpretations.

(2) When performing the 35 mph frontal collision test, at which gear position do we set the steering wheel hub?

(3) At which gear position shall we set the steering wheel hub for the following respective tests?

(a) FMVSS 203

(b) FMVSS 204

Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President

MMC SERVICES, INC.

ID: 1984-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John Lindig -- President, Lindig Manufacturing Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John Lindig President Lindig Manufacturing Corporation 1875 W County Rd C St. Paul, Minnesota 55113

This is in response to your December 5, 1983 letter regarding the applicability of Federal vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements to brush chipper trailers manufactured by your company.

With very limited exceptions, all trailers are subject to VIN requirements and to certain other requirements under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Trailers which are manufactured exclusively for off-road purposes or those whose on-road use is limited to travel between work sites, with extended stays at individual work sites, are excluded. Trailers whose on-road use is restricted to travel between work sites, but whose stay at any particular site would not typically be an extended one, have been considered subject to our requirements. In particular, the agency has in the past issued interpretation letters stating that brush chipper trailers are subject to our requirements, including VIN requirements. Therefore, it is our view that your trailers are covered by those requirements.

Enclosed is information on how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

December 5, 1983

Dear Sir:

Recently, an equipment dealer that sells our products in California, advised us that his customer had been notified by the State of California, that a federal Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) was required for Lindig products which may be towed behind a car or truck.

A copy of the form letter of the State of California is enclosed. Palomar Tractor Co. is our dealer.

The machine in question is a Lindig Model XR16 brush chipper.

The Lindig XR16, plus similar machines such as our XK9 and XW12 chippers are landscape/construction machines. They are used to process tree branches into small woodchips. They are equipped normally with a gasoline or diesel engine...but are not self propelled. They must be towed from one job site to another, normally by a pickup truck or similar type of vehicle. They are not used to transport other machines or products, but are road towable only so that the machine itself may be moved to a new work location. Similar types of road towable units would be cement mixers, air compressors etc.

The State of California indicates that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 requires the VIN to be assigned, and it appears California feels that our brush chippers are covered by Standard 115.

From our limited understanding of this matter, we believe that products such as ours, are not in fact covered.

We ask for an opinion in this regard.

Sincerely, Original signed by John Lindig, President Lindig Manufacturing Corporation 1875 W County Road C St. Paul, Minnesota 55113

ID: 1984-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of State Police; Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

MAY 14 1984

B. R. Belsches, Captain Safety Officer Department of State Police Commonwealth of Virginia P.O. Box 27472 Richmond, Virginia 23261-7472

Dear Captain Belsches:

This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1984, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and "a history relative to the inclusion of such function of headlamps and marker lamps."

Paragraph S4.6(b) allows means to be provided for the automatic flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes, as an exception to the general rule that vehicle lamps (other than turn and hazard warning signals, and school bus warning lamps) be steady-burning in use. This confirms your understanding of the wording of the standard and its effect. It does not allow, however,modulating headlamps which do not flash on and off, but deviate between a higher intensity end a lower one.

Originally, paragraph S3.5 of the standard (see e.g . 49 CFR 371.21, Standard No. 108 rev. as of January 1, 1970) stated that "normally steady-burning lamps may be capable of being flashed for signaling purposes." On January 3, 1970, the agency proposed paragraph S4.6 (35 F.R. 106) as it exists today. It was adopted on October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 16840). The agency observed that some commenters requested that additional lamps be permitted to flash and some requested that flashing headlamps be prohibited. It also noted that, with the exceptions set forth in S4.6(a), flashing lamps should be reserved for emergency and road maintenance-type vehicles, and that flashing lamps are otherwise prohibited in the Uniform Vehicle Code. The agency further noted that lamps could be flashed by the driver merely by turning the switch on and off, and that itcould not prohibit that type of operation, but that the definition of "Flash," also adopted in the amendments, made clear that automatic flashers for use with steady-burning lamps other than headlamps and side marker lamps were prohibited.

This is the rulemaking history of paragraph S4.6. I hope that this will answer your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE P.O.Box 2472, Richmond, Virginia 23261-7472

April 20, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel, NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

In Virginia we prohibit flashing or modulating headlamps used for the purpose of emergency warning; however, there appears to be some conflict to this Virginia mandate in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I refer to 49CFR (FMVSS), Part 571.108, Paragraph S4.6, Subparagraph b. From the wording in this paragraph, it appears that manufacturers are permitted to provide a means to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes.

Would you provide us an interpretation of this paragraph and, if possible, a history relative to the inclusion and benefit of such function of headlamps and marker lamps.

Sincerely,

B. R. Belsches, Captain Safety Officer (AC-804-323-2017)

BRB/kf

ID: 1984-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William H. Harper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William H. Harper 21109-21st Avenue West Lyonwood, Washington 98306

This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1984, making our opinion with respect to your plan to ship the frame of a 1959 Lotus 11 to England where a new body will be installed on it. The body is a duplicate of the original. You have asked for the status of the assemblage upon its re-entry into the United States, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The jurisdiction of the Act covers "motor vehicles" which are defined in pertinent part as those "manufactured primarily for use on the public roads." The photos you enclosed appear to show the Lotus 11 as a racing machine of single seat configuration. We do not consider single seat machines manufactured for competition purposes, and which are not licensed for use on the public roads, to be "motor vehicles." We also regulate "motor vehicle equipment." It follows that individual equipment items intended for use on a competition vehicle are not considered "motor vehicle equipment" subject to our jurisdiction and regulation. Therefore, if your Lotus 11 has not been licensed for use on the public roads, in our opinion you are not subject to the requirements of this agency including posting a compliance bond upon re-entry of the assemblage.

Even if the Lotus 11 has been licensed for use on the roads and is a "motor vehicle," your responsibilities, if any, would appear to be minimal. Although a "motor vehicle" manufactured before January 1, 1968, is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, those standards do cover certain items of replacement equipment which must themselves conform upon entry into the U.S. You have told us that all equipment items will be detached from the frame before its shipment to England, and that upon its return, the assemblage will consist only of the old frame and the new body, minus its windshield, mirrors, and gas tank, as well as brakes, wheels, lighting equipment, door handles, etc. There are no Federal safety standards for frames or bodies of the nature you describe, and therefore this assemblage of "motor vehicle equipment" may also enter free of a compliance bond. However, if you subsequently decide to import brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, brake fluid, glazing materials, or seat belt assemblies, these items would have to be certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported.

We hope that this has been helpful to you. If you have any further questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 426-9511.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

January 10, 1984 William H. Harper 12209-21st Avenue W Lynwood, Washington 98036

Chief Counsel's Office of NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs,

I am the owner of a 1959 Lotus 11, serial #231, which I am restoring to original condition. As part of this process I am shipping the bare frame of the car back to England where the firm of Williams & Pritchard, who made the original body in 1959, will make a new body for the car. This new body will be an exact duplicate of the original made in 1959. When the body is finished, it will be attached to the frame and shipped back to myself in Seattle, Washington.

In talking to Don Davidson of U.S. Customs in Seattle (206-442-5370) I was advised that I would have to post a compliance bond upon re-entry of the frame/body into the U.S., unless I could get favorable written clarification from the NHTSA on its status. This is in question as to whether or not the car would now have to meet 1984 regulations, whether or not it is now classed as a 1959 or 1984 car, or whether it is a car at all or an "item of motor vehicle equipment".

It is my belief that this new body should be classed as an "item of motor vehicle equipment" and not as a car just because the frame has made a round trip to England to assist in the manufacture of the new body. It is also my belief that since it is being used in the restoration of a car and in absolutely no way associated with a "replica" car that this new body should not have to meet any 1984 standards such as bumpers or door intrusion. What I need from your office is a written ruling/opinion on these matters which will clarify them for U.S. Customs.

The addendum contains information that may assist you in making a decision. If you have further questions I may be reached at 206-775-5728 (home) or 206-655-7814 (work). Collect calls can be accepted at the first number prior to 9:30 EST. Your prompt and speedy reply would be greatly appreciated as the frame was originally scheduled to be shipped to England on January 30 prior to this problem developing. I want to clarify this matter before I ship anything out of the U.S.

Sincerely, Original signed by William H. Harper

Addendum

Only the original bare frame is being sent to England. By bare frame I mean that there is no suspension, axles, brakes, wheels, engine, transmission, or anything else attached to the frame. These parts are all staying in the U.S., will be rebuilt, and will be reinstalled onto the original frame upon its return to the U.S. The original frame will not be modified in any way while in England and is only being sent there so that the new body may be built around and attached to the frame, as the original was. The new body is being made because the original is badly damaged, torn, and corroded. The new body will be made entirely of aluminum and will have no windshield, headlights, taillights, door handles, etc. attached. These parts from the original body will be reattached to the new body in the U.S. All that is coming back to the U.S. is the original frame with a new hare, unpainted aluminum body attached to it.

Enclosed are two photographs. One shows the complete body attached to the frame and the other is with the upper half of the body removed, showing the lower half of the body and part of the frame. The light grey or rusty steel tubing is the frame and anything made of aluminum is what I call the body. These pictures are of the current "old" body and were taken during disassembly of the car prior to begining its restoration. The windshield, mirrors, and gas tank that are shown in the pictures will not be shipped to England nor will duplicates of these parts be made there. When the frame/body combination returns from England it will look like these pictures; except minus windshield, mirrors, and gas tank of course.

Insert picture here

ID: 1984-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. J. DiMaggio Manager, Gov. and Customer Relations The Firestone Tire a Rubber Co. 1200 Firestone Parkway Akron Ohio 44317

Dear Mr. DiMaggio:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1983, to the Administrator, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The noncompliance consists of omission of the "DOT" certification symbol. You have represented that tires so affected nevertheless meet Standard No. 117 in all other respects.

It has been the policy of this agency since 1977 to treat omissions of the DOT symbol ss failures to certify pursuant to Sections 114 and 108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act rather than as failures to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires or allows that method of certification. The symbol is not considered to establish a minimum standard of motor vehicle performance. This means that manufacturers who fail to provide the symbol are not required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, and that accordingly the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not required to publish notices of petitions requesting inconsequentiality determinations.

Your petition is therefore moot. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 8, 1983

Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FOR INCONSEQUENTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 117

Dear Ms. Steed:

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company hereby petitions, in accordance witn the provisions of 49CFR 556, for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a noncompliance with the requirements of FMVSS 117 (49CFR 571.117). The basis for this petition is that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it pertains to motor safety.

Section S5.2.3 (a) of FMVSS 117 requires that the symbol DOT be permanently molded onto the sidewall of each retreaded tire. Section S6.1 states that this symbol certifies that the retreaded tire on which it appears meets tne requirements of FMVSS 117. One mold, number 49, put into production at our retread plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, was found to have all the required stamping except the DOT symbol. The tire identification number area in this mold reads -R-DBL 49 XXX instead of DOT-R-DBL 49 XXX. All other molds in this size, L, LR7815 Town & Country were found to be correctly stamped.

The fact that the aforementioned symbol was missing was detected when a tire from the subject mold was submitted to our testing facility as part of our compliance surveillance program. The tire met all other requirements of FMVSS 117, indicating that the plant was eligible for continued certification of compliance insofar as the quality of the product was concerned.

Inventories in the plant of tires from the subject mold were impounded and branded correctly. It is estimated that in the period during which this mold could have been in use, a maximum of 1,340 retreaded tires could have been produced. During this period, weeks 320 to 373, the plant was producing product which was in compliance with the quality of product test requirements of FMVSS 117. Further, all casings used bore the DOT symbols indicating compliance of the original tire with the requirements of FMVSS 109. Only passenger casings with this DOT stamping are used by us for retreading.

The bases upon which this petition is being submitted are as follows:

1. The quality of the subject tires met the requirements of Firestone and NHTSA. Retreaded casings cured in the subject mold all were certified by the original tire manufacturer as being in compliance with FMVSS 109. The plant follows Firestone Retread Shop practices intended to produce high quality, safe retreads. These practices include submitting tires for compliance surveillance testing. 2. The symbol -R- is stamped in the mold in the vicinity of the serial, leaving no doubt that the tire can be identified as a retread. 3. The absence of the symbol DOT does not adversely affect the quality or safety capabilities of the tires cure in the subject mold.

In view of the above, we conclude that the stamping noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and respectfully request exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act.

Thank you for your consideration of this petition.

Very truly yours,

A. J. DiMaggio MANAGER, GOV. AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS

AJD:g

ID: 1984-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Dick Cheney -- House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Cheney:

This responds to your recent letter to this agency, seeking comments on a constituent's letter concerning seating on school buses and the use of activity buses. Essentially, Mr. Krisko, your constituent, stated that the seating on school buses presents comfort problems on long distance trips, particularly for high school buses athletes, and asked why schools are not permitted to own "Trailways" type buses for use on these long distance trips. Mr. Krisko noted that Federal Law now permits the use of such buses only if they are leased by the schools or if the bus was manufactured before the comprehensive school bus safety standards became effective in 1977. As is more fully explained below, the answer is that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), together with the safety standards for school buses (which the Act required this agency to issue) require that buses which are significantly used to transport school children to and from school-related events must be certified as meeting those safety standards. "Trailways" type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing such, and therefore cannot be so used.

In 1974, Congress passed the School Bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments (Pub. L. 93-492; hereinafter referred to as "the Amendments"). The Amendments added to the Act the following definition of a school bus: "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers is addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools;...(15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). (Emphasis added). Those Amendments also provided that, not later than 15 months after they were enacted, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to promulgate minimum performance standards for specified aspects of safety performance. The Amendments specified further that these standards "shall apply to each school bus and item of school bus equipment which is manufactured in or imported into the United States on or after April 1, 1977." (15 U.S.C. 1392(i)(1)(8))

Prior to this legislative action, many school districts had used so-called "activity buses" to transport students to and from extracurricular activities. The floor debates on the Amendments show that Congress was aware of this practice, yet chose to specify a broad definition of school bus, so as to require vehicles used solely for extracurricular activities to meet the same safety standards as those used to transport the children to and from school. This decision was partially based on the fact that 150 children were killed in 1971 in school bus accidents (see 120 Cong. Rec. HB120, daily ed., August 12, 1974). The statistics since the Amendments were passed indicate that Congress' goal of greatly reducing these fatalities has been accomplished by the school bus safety standards promulgated by this agency. In 1981, the last year for which complete statistics are available, there were 10 fatalities in school bus accidents.

The October 26, 1983 resolution passed by the Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals (WASSP), which was enclosed with MR. Krisko's letter, contains a statement which suggests that the group may not be accurately informed about the origin of the current requirements for school buses.

The WASSP resolved that present administrative definitions be changed to allow schools to own commercial-type buses to transport school children to extracurricular activities. The language in our administratively-adopted for that purpose follows the statutory definition of that term. Without a change by Congress in the statutory definition, the administrative definition must remain as it is.

With respect to the issue of seat spacing, last year this agency amended Standard No. 222 to permit maximum seat spacing of 24 inches instead of teh 21 inches previously specified (48 FR 12384, March 24, 1983). This step could be taken to improve the comfort of those buses without compromising the level of safety afforded the occupants. During that rulemaking action, this agency considered allowing reclining seats similar to those used in commercial-type vehicles, but concluded that reclining seats could not provide the same level of safety protection as is provided by upright seats spaced 24 inches apart. Accordingly, this type of seating was not permitted. I understand Mr. Krisko's concern that such seating would be more comfortable on long trips. I hope that he understands that the agency carefully looked at the available date. In the agency's judgment, the date indicated that these seats would not be as safe if the bus were involved in an accident.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure Ms. Carole Walls Congressional Relations Officer National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation Room 10406 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Walls:

I have received the enclosed information from the President of the Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals.

Mr. Krisko expresses his concern about regulations pertaining to the use of activity buses. He explains the special problems created by the regulations in a state as large as Wyoming, where some of the school trips are as long as 350 miles one way.

Any information you might be able to provide on this matter would be most appreciated.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Best regards, Dick Cheney Member of Congress Enclosure

The Honorable Richard Cheney Room 4003 Federal Building Casper, WY 82601

Dear Representative Cheney:

The Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals recently passed a resolution regarding the use of activity buses in our state. Other western states have also come up against similar problems, which can be summarized as follows:

Federal laws specify types of seating which may be used on buses used to transport students, regardless of the activity. The seats must be fixed (non-reclining) and may have a maximum 24" between seats. For normal school bus runs (to and from school) there is little problems; on long distance but also a safety problem. It is our opinion that regular" school buses are not designed for long distance travel, particularly with large high school athletes. Some of our trips are 350 miles, one way. There are two ways around the Bus Standards: "Trailways" type buses may be leased from another owner, or may be purchased by a school district if manufactured prior to 1977, when the standards became effective. The latter option leads to the purchase of older vehicles, possible unsafe. Some school districts lease a bus from a local recreation district, essentially owning the bus since recreation districts often are set up under statute by school boards. This however, is not possible in many communities. Some districts have taken a chance and purchased commercial-type buses, but are open to lawsuits in the event of an accident.

We are in communication with Mr. Ivan Gluckman, Legal Counsel for the National Association of Secondary School Principals, regarding this matter. Accompanying this letter are:

a) A copy of a resolution passed by WASSP, October 26,1983 b) Copies of correspondence with Ivan Gluckman c) Copies of some Federal Memoranda regarding school buses

We would appreciate your help in this matter. Other State Associations are being contacted.

Sincerely, Robert M. Krisko, President Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals Thermopolis Middle School

Resolution from WASSP Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals regarding Activity Buses.

Whereas: Students in Western States must travel long distances to participate in school related activities.

and Whereas: Regular school buses are not appropriate for long distance travel in terms of comfort storage of luggage and equipment, or safety

and Whereas: Under the Federal regulations school districts may lease commercial-type buses for activities but not own them

and Whereas: Availability of such leasing is unavailable in many locations

BE IT RESOLVED that the WASSP recommends that present administrative definitions be changed to allow ownership of such vehicles for use on activity trips.

Passed October 26, 1983. Robert M. Krisko, President WASSP

ID: 1984-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Michael J. Schmitt, Counsel Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA 6555 Katella Avenue Cypress, CA 90630

Dear Mr, Schmitt:

This is in response to your letter asking for an interpretation, of the permissibility of using two type 2A1 headlamps mounted symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.

Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment states in S4.1.1.34 that a motorcycle may be equipped with one of the following headlamp systems, one of which is the "A" type neadlamp system described as follows:

Type 1A1 or Type 1A . . . . 1 lamp and either Type 1A1 or Type 2A . . . . 1 lamp

The standard is specified this way because the 2A1 lamp is a lower beam lamp and the 1A1 is an upper beam lamp. While the 2A1 lamp does have an "upper beam", photometrically it provides only "fill-in" light. The 1A1 lamp provides the high output upper beam. It is not possible to achieve safe upper beam light using only the 2A1 lamp, regardless of how many are used. Therefore, your proposed headlighting application would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108.

Sincerely, Barry Felrice Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

November 21, 1983

Mr. Charles Kaehn Head, Lighting and Visibility Group National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Kaehn,

Yamaha would like to incorporate a headlamp system featuring two type 2A1 headlamps. The lamps will be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline of the motorcycle. Is such a system permissible? We appreciate your assistance and response in this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Schmitt Counsel

MJS/ts

cc: Shin Kubono