ID: nht73-5.35

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, requesting that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release," be amended to include buses of the same design as school buses within the exemption from the emergency exit requirements specified for "school buses" in S5.2.3 of the standard.

The NHTSA takes the position that buses of the same design as buses specifically designed as school buses, regardless of their intended use, are school buses for purposes of Standard No. 217. They are, therefore, exempt from the emergency exit requirements of the standard as specified in S5.2.3. No amendment of the standard is necessary.

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION

October 11, 1973

Mr. Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard - 217 - Bus Window Retention & Release

Sheller-Globe Corporation Divisions in Lima, Ohio and Kosciusko, Mississippi, manufacturers of school bus bodies, respectfully petitions the Department of Transportation for a revision in the wording of reference standard, specifically Paragraph S5.2.3 - School Buses.

We petition that the wording in this paragraph be modified to read as follows:

"The emergency exit requirements do not apply to school buses or buses of like design, such as Activity Buses, adapted for use for other than transportation of children to and from school, but if such buses do contain any push-out windows or other emergency exits, these exits shall conform to Paragraphs S5.3 through S.5.5".

This petition is based on the fact that as body manufacturers do offer our base body design for other uses, i.e., Activity Buses for Church Organizations, YMCA Groups, Boy Scout Troops, Community Charity Organizations, etc. The Activity Buses as referred to are constructed of the same base design as what is termed a school bus. The Activity Buses may vary as to color and may be without specific school bus safety warning systems.

Presently the referenced standard, as worded, is a double standard in that it states the standard applies not to school buses but to those same buses if used for reasons other than the transportation of children to and from school. It is of our strong opinion that the standard should apply to neither school buses or buses of like design used by other organizations or that the standard should apply to all buses to include school buses.

We respectfully request your expeditious ruling on this petition. If additional information is required in support of this petition, please advise.

Respectfully,

George R. Semark Safety Engineer - Vehicles Planning & Development Center

ID: nht73-5.36

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 5, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking whether you may furnish side turn signal lamp for inter-city buses at the rear wheels, and if so, the required color.

It is correct that there are no Federal safety requirements for side turn signal lamps. Therefore, there is no Federal prohibition against your providing such a lamp, and such restrictions as may exist would be those imposed by the States.

Rear mounted turn signal lamps under Federal Standard No. 108 may be either red or amber.

ID: nht73-5.37

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Moore; Weaver; Moore & Bradberry

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter to Secretary Brinegar of October 8, 1973, has been referred to me for reply.

A copy of Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, is enclosed. This disclosure regulation became effective March 1, 1973, and we assume that the August 1972 date in your letter actually refers to an August 1973 sale which would be subject to the regulation.

Title 15 U.S.C. @ 1989 provides a remedy for a violation of the Act made with intent to defraud. A discrepancy between the odometer reading and the disclosure statement could be the result of error, or misunderstanding of the requirement, and by itself, would not establish an intent to defraud.

We are unfamiliar with the facts in the case you mentioned, and the above statement should not be construed as an opinion or evaluation of the merits of that case.

ID: nht73-5.38

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bankers Trust Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1973, which asks whether a bank must make an odometer disclosure statement upon transfer to an auctioneer of a repossessed vehicle in which the bank has only a security interest.

To the extent that the bank is acting in the place of the repossessed owner, and in the absence of any other party available to make a statement, it is our opinion that the bank is acting as transferor and should make the disclosure specified in Part 580. Normally the bank does not know that the odometer is inaccurate and should only fill in the blank with the recorded mileage. The bank could authorize its collection agency to actually make the disclosure.

ID: nht71-5.2

DATE: 11/17/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. W. Carson for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1971, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this Office, concerning the maximum candlepower for taillamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 108 (35 FR, 16840, October 31, 1970) is quoted as follows:

"S5.1 SAE Standards and Recommended Practices subreferenced by the SAE Standards and Recommended Practices included in Tables I and III and paragraphs S4.1.4 and S4.5.1 are those published in the 1970 edition of the SAE Handbook."

Subreferenced SAE Standard J575, as published in the 1970 edition of the SAE Handbook, is the "d" revision (SAE J575d, August 1967). SAE Standard J575d specifies a maximum of 15 candlepower for a single compartment taillamp, 20 candlepower for a 2-compartment taillamp, and 25 candlepower for a 3-compartment taillamp. These maximum candlepower values are, therefore, applicable requirements under Standard No. 108 (35 FR, 16840, October 31, 1970).

ID: nht71-5.20

DATE: 12/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 22, 1971, I have enclosed a copy of our letter of May 21, 1971, to Mr. George Jones of the Louisiana Tire Dealer and Retreader Association. Department of Transportation regulations require that we charge a duplicating fee of $ .50 per page for this service. Please, therefore, remit the sum of $ 1.50 to the undersigned, payable to the Treasurer of the United States.

In your letter you also enclosed a copy of an article that appeared in the September 1971 edition of the Modern Tire Dealer Magazine concerning the letter to Mr. Jones, and ask whether the article's conclusion that wheel testing is not a must," is accurate. This conclusion is correct. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.), manufacturers are not required to test the compliance of their products to applicable standards in any particular manner. The test procedures specified in any particular standard indicate only the manner by which the agency will test for compliance, and manufacturers are free to utilize any test procedure they wish as long as they can show that they exercised "due care to comply with the standard. The use of wheel tests, however, as our letter to Mr. Jones indicates, may have an effect on a manufacturer's ability to show he used "due care" should he be called on to make that showing.

ENC.

ID: nht71-5.21

DATE: 12/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 5, 1971 regarding the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. 574). The questions raised in your letter are repeated below with our answers immediately following each question.

1. Section 574.9 of the above states that anyone who leases a vehicle equipped with new tires for more than 60 days is classified as a tire dealer, and shall meet the requirements specified in Section 574.8. Under the above, what would be the "tire dealer's" responsibility if the customer exchanged these tires, without the knowledge of the leasor, and what should the leasor do re: compliance if the vehicle is returned and he notices that a substitution had been made?

Under these circumstances the leasor would only be responsible for the new tires that were on the vehicle when leased to his customer. It would be the responsibility of the tire dealer selling the replacement tires to the leasee of your vehicle to record the pertinent tire information and forward it to the manufacturer of the tires.

2. A company buys a truck as a "demonstrator" for its own use, but prior to the actual "use" of the vehicle, it is sold under a new title. If the seller of the demonstrator advises the local truck dealer of this sale (to include the customer data), has he satisfied all of his responsibilities under Part 574?

Under these circumstances the person who buys a truck and does not use it, but instead sells it, is considered a vehicle dealer selling a new truck. It would be your responsibility to assure that the dealer who originally sold you the truck notifies the vehicle manufacturer that the vehicle changed hands.

3. A leasor takes a vehicle back after a 12-month lease. After reconditioning it, he leases it to a different customer. The tires were still in good condition and were not removed. Under these circumstances, does the leasor have any responsibility to notify the vehicle manufacturer that the vehicle is now in different hands?

Under these conditions the leasor would be in the same position as a vehicle dealer selling a used vehicle with used tires and the reporting requirements would not apply.

4. It is our interpretation that under the provision of Part 574, the only time that a final stage manufacturer would be required to maintain tire records would be if he becomes the vehicle manufacturer and places new tires onto a vehicle for the first time. (This would be in the case of adding a tandem axle requiring additional tires, or the actual manufacture of a trailer to which he installed the tires.) Is this correct?

Your understanding is not correct. The final stage manufacturer is required to maintain or have maintained for him a record of tires on or in each vehicle he ships to a motor vehicle distributor or dealer, and maintain or have maintained for him a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires.

For your information, attached is a letter sent to major chassis manufacturers dealing with this subject for cases where the final stage manufacturer does not deal with the purchaser of the completed vehicle. The replies received from the chassis manufacturers have been, for the most part, cooperative.

a. In the case of a manufactured vehicle, we interpret Section 574.9 to mean that the records kept for three years need not conform with any special format, so long as the customer name and address is evident, and the customer can be contacted by the manufacturer in the event that the tire manufacturer initiated a recall campaign which included the group of tires placed on that vehicle. Is this a correct assumption?

Your understanding is correct, however the requirements for vehicle manufacturers are found in 574.10, not 574.9.

Enclosure

ID: nht71-5.22

DATE: 12/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to a request made on behalf of Phillips Petroleum Company by Veigh J. Nielson for an assigned identification mark for two of Phillips' plants which manufacture tires for research purposes.

As I informed you in my letter of September 20, 1971, if Phillips purchases a new tire, removes the tread material and then applies its own experimental trend containing various rubber compounds, Phillips is considered to be a new tire manufacturer. If Phillips applies its experimental tread to a used tire, it is considered a retreader of tires.

As a new tire manufacturer you are required to certify the tire as conforming to the new passenger car tire standard (No. 109) and comply with Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR 574). Accordingly, you are assigned the identification mark of "J1" for tires made in your Bartlesville, Oklahoma plant and "K1" for tires manufactured in your Stow, Ohio plant.

If you act as a retreader then Part 574 would not be applicable for the tires you retread because they are retreaded for your own use. (Enclosed is a copy of Docket No. 70-12, Notice No. 8 which makes the regulation inapplicable to retreaders who retread for their own use). As explained in my letter of September 20, you are, of course, required to certify that your new tires and your retreaded tires comply with the respective standards for new and retreaded tires if they are to be used on the public highways, by placing the symbol DOT on the tires in the prescribed location.

ENC.

ID: nht71-5.23

DATE: 12/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 15, 1971, requesting our interpretation of certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations:

1. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Occupant Crash Protection," as amended at 36 F.R. 4600 (March 10, 1971). If trucks over 10,000 pounds(Illegible Word) are equipped with a seat belt system(Illegible Word) in paragraph S4.3.2, the vehicles need not meet the requirements of paragraphs S5 and S6, which apply only when the complete passive protection system option of paragraph S4.3.1 is adopted. Of course, the seat belt system must conform to the seat belt assembly requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies."

2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components." Your interpretation of the standard's coverage is correct: there are no requirements in the standard for the installation of the latches and hinges.

3. Part 573, "Defect Reports," 36 F.R. 3064 (February 17, 1971). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations do not require manufacturers to repair defective motor vehicles. Manufacturers are therefore free to make whatever arrangements for repair of defects they wish. Of course, we hope that in making such arrangements the manufacturers will assume the responsibility of assuring that the repairs are made properly.

ID: nht71-5.24

DATE: 12/15/71

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

TO: Mobilefreeze Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1971, to Mr. Stan Haransky, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., concerning the mounting height of lamps and reflectors on your motor-cycle trailers.

A copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment" is enclosed for your information. The minimum mounting height for lamps and reflectors listed in Table IV of this Standard is 15 inches. We do not have the authority to exempt any motor vehicles from meeting these requirements.

Enc.