ID: aiam4269

Dear Mr. Torrey: Thank you for your letters of August 13, and 26, 1986, concerning ho the requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, apply to glazing materials installed in the side windows of some New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) buses. As explained below, the information you provided in your letters and in your phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff and the information provided by NYCTA in a June 19, 1986 letter to the agency indicates the glazing materials installed in the NYCTA buses do not comply with the marking requirements of the standard.; You explained in your letter that the glazing material used in the sid and standee windows in the buses is Lexan sheet, which is a plastic material manufactured by General Electric. According to your letter the Lexan glazing material used in these windows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for 'AS-5' glazing materials. However, the material apparently was not marked as 'AS-5' material, but may have instead been marked 'AS-4/6.' (Information provided to the agency by the NYCTA in June 1986 indicates that the windows did not contain any 'AS' number. At the time of your phone conversation with Mr. Oesch, you had not been able to confirm what markings, if any, had been placed on the glazing material by General Electric).; Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirement fo glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as 'items' in the standard). Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexan, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set AS-5 glazing materials, it can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost windows if used for driving visibility.; In addition to setting performance requirements for different items o glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of S6 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked with the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that 'item' of glazing material), a model number and the manufacturer's logo. The information the agency has received about the markings on the glazing installed in the NYCTA buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.; Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to th applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, General Electric is required by Part 575 of our regulations to file a report with the agency providing additional details about the noncompliance and General Electric's plans to remedy the noncompliance. As you requested Mr. Oesch, I am also enclosing a copy of the agency's regulation concerning the filing of a petition for a determination that a noncompliance is inconsequential.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0250

Dear Mr. Kintigh: On August 13, 1970, you petitioned, on behalf of General Motor Corporation, for reconsideration of the amendment of 49 CFR 571.3, published on July 14, 1970 (35 F.R. 11242), which established a definition of 'fixed collision barrier'. The views presented in your petition have been carefully considered. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.; You argued that the phrase 'absorb no significant portion of th vehicle's kinetic energy' was subjective, and therefore not in accord with the statutory requirement that standards be stated in objective terms. This argument is without merit. It appears to be based on the misconception that the purpose of the definition is to describe, or prescribe standards for, a manufacturer's test barrier, as evidenced by your statement that it 'gives manufacturer no guidelines for determining whether or not he has built a barrier which complies with the definition.' The Bureau does not intend that manufacturers should build barriers to 'comply with the definition.' As stated in the notice,; >>>'this is not intended to be a description of an actual test barrier It is a device used in various standards to establish required quantitative performance levels of a vehicle in a crash situation, and means simply that the vehicle must meet the requirement no matter how small an amount of energy is absorbed by the barrier.'; <<>>there is no known method of measuring the amount of energy absorbe by a barrier. Therefore, there is no way that the manufacturer could even attempt to determine whether or not his barrier complied with the definition, and, more importantly, whether or not his vehicle when tested complied with the performance requirements of the standards.'<<<; The energy absorption of a barrier is a direct function of the movemen of the barrier during the impact. To be sure, there are other properties, such as its effective mass and elasticity, that also are factors in energy absorption. But it is clear that as the barrier movement approaches zero, the energy absorption also approaches zero, and the barrier movement can be measured, as you indicated by your recommendation that a specified amount of movement be allowed. In all cases where the vehicle has a tangible margin of safety performance over the required minimum, therefore, a manufacturer will have no difficulty in determining that his vehicle complies.; If our standards 'allowed' barrier movement, it would be far mor difficult to establish conclusively that a given vehicle did *not* meet the standard, since it would always be open to the manufacturer to argue that the Bureau's barrier did not move as far, and consequently did not absorb as much energy, as the standard allowed. To the extent that there may be a small degree of uncertainty as to the variance in the vehicle test performance caused by the variance of a barrier from zero absorption, that uncertainty must rest with the manufacturer, who is free to design into his vehicles whatever margin of performance he desires.; This matter was thoroughly considered by the Bureau, and the opinion of knowledgeable members of the public were sought and carefully evaluated. For these reasons, your petition for reconsideration must be denied.; We appreciate your cooperation in the field of motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Director

ID: aiam3535

Dear Mr. Gebhardt: This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1981, in which yo raised several questions concerning the application of the exemption for dealer-to-dealer transfers of new cars. We are sorry for the delay in responding. Specifically you wanted to know if a dealer transferring a new vehicle with fifty miles registered on the odometer to another dealer was required to issue an odometer disclosure statement. You also requested that the agency provide you with cases subsequent to *Lair v. Lewis Service Center*, 428 F. Supp. 778 (D.Neb. 1977) which address the enforceability of the exemptions to Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ('Act') (15 U.S.C. 1981 *et seq.*); Purchasers of motor vehicles rely heavily on the odometer reading as a index of the condition and value of the vehicle. The purpose of the Federal odometer laws is to establish certain safeguards against odometer tampering and to provide purchasers of motor vehicles an accurate statement of the mileage traveled by a motor vehicle. Section 408 of the Act requires that each transferor of a motor vehicle furnish to the transferee a written statement certifying the accuracy of the mileage. 15 U.S.C. 1988. The Odometer Disclosure Requirements specifically detail the information that must be disclosed. 49 CFR 580.4. However, the agency has determined that the exemption of certain transactions and vehicles is consistent with the purposes and scope of the Act. 49 CFR 580.5.; 49 CFR 580.5(b) exempts all transfers of a new vehicle prior to th first transfer to a customer who actually plans to use the vehicle from the Odometer Disclosure Requirements. The exemption applies to the dealer-to-dealer transfer of new vehicles regardless of the odometer reading. However, the exemption does not preclude a dealer from requiring the transferring dealer to certify the accuracy of the mileage.; The exemption is consistent with the purpose and scope of the Federa odometer laws. It is customary for dealers to transfer new vehicles to other dealers who plan to immediately resell the vehicle to a customer. Generally, the frequency of odometer fraud in these transactions is minimal. Indeed, prior to the transfer of a vehicle to a consumer, the odometer reading should only reflect the mileage accumulated while the vehicle is being demonstrated to a potential buyer or driven a short distance, which might be occasioned by a typical dealer-to-dealer transfer. We are unable to establish by issuing an opinion letter what the limit of such mileage incidental to the sale of a new car should be. If a dealer doubts the accuracy of the odometer reading, he can readily inspect the car for evidence of odometer tampering. In the absence of such evidence, the first dealer to sell the vehicle to a non-resale purchaser should be free to certify the mileage as accurate. The agency therefore views the issuance of odometer disclosure statements in such dealer-to-dealer transactions as unnecessarily burdensome on dealers.; In addition to *Lair v. Lewis Service Center*, the agency has knowledg of one other case *Romeri Trucking, Inc. v. Boise Kenworth Sale*, No. 80-1252 (D. Iowa, February 11, 1981), that addresses the issue of the enforceability of 49 CFR 580.5(a)(1). To date the agency has not issued a formal opinion on either case.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2324

Dear Mr. Roadman: This is in response to your letters of February 26 and March 8, 1976 concerning the certification of a truck that you wish to build with a chassis that you have purchased from International Harvester. You have indicated that the chassis did not include an engine, transmission, or radiator. You installed a diesel engine, transmission, and a new driveshaft, and made various modifications to the chassis. You have had difficulties in persuading a body manufacturer to install a truck body.; The source of your difficulties appears to be a misunderstanding of th requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) and the accompanying certification regulations. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards apply to completed motor vehicles and to certain items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses, tires). The manufacturer of a motor vehicle or an item of equipment to which a standard applies is required by Section 114 of the Act to certify that his product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; 'Incomplete vehicle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, as:; >>>an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassi structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.<<<; An incomplete vehicle is, strictly speaking, an item of motor vehicl equipment. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply directly to these particular equipment items, and thus there is presently no certification requirement for incomplete vehicles. The manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle is required by Part 568, however, to furnish an 'incomplete vehicle document'. This document, which is described in S 568.4, must indicate the conformity status of the incomplete vehicle with respect to each standard that applies to the vehicles into which it may be completed.; The chassis that you bought from International Harvester (IH) was a item of motor vehicle equipment to which no standards apply. Therefore, IH was not required to furnish you with a certification of compliance. Further, the chassis was not an incomplete vehicle because it lacked an engine and transmission. Therefore, IH was not required to furnish an incomplete vehicle document. Becuase (sic) of your operations on the chassis, you are the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle. You, therefore, are the person required to furnish an incomplete vehicle document.; Your letter also indicated a concern thay (sic) you were not given 'certificate of origin' by International Harvester when you purchased the chassis. Federal law does not require the issuance of a certificate of origin. Unless you intended to refer to the Section 114 'certification' discussed above, I assume that you have in mind a document that would be the subject of Pennsylvania state law.; Copies of the Act and the certification regulations are enclosed fo your convenience.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5619

Dear Mr. Stupak: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondenc from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA regulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses. Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jobs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with 'mini-school buses,' which he believes is economically unfeasible. I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law. NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a 'school bus' is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards. While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation. The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definition to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013. NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of 'school buses' when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school bus and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, 'Pupil Transportation Safety,' copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high-backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Carol Stroebel Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Enclosure;

ID: aiam2975

Dear Mr. Knight:#This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, an January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:#1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls-Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.#The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce (sic) in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.#2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirements for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.#(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.#3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibility requirements of 101-80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a 'few' inches, we mean up to approximately three inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the agency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.#4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMVSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4203

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of several o our standards. First, I would like to apologize for the delay in this response to your letter. I have set forth the responses in the order you asked the questions in your letter.; 1. Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. Paragraph S5.2.1 of this standard provides that the parking brak system on a passenger car and some school buses shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary *(to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade. You stated that your understanding of this provision was as follows. During the tests to determine compliance with this provision, the axles of the subject vehicle must be locked by the parking brake. Your understanding is that the vehicle is permitted to slide down the 30 percent grade, and would be considered as complying with this provision of Standard No. 105 no matter how it slides as long as the vehicle's axles do not turn. This understanding is correct.; The parenthetical note in section S5.2.1 was included in the standar to address the situation where a particular 30 percent grade might have a low traction coefficient. In this situation, a vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system had held the vehicle axles locked for the required amount of time. NHTSA did not intend vehicle sliding because of a loss of traction by the tires to be considered a failure of the parking brake system. To make this item clear, section S5.2.1 specifies that the parking brake system must hold the vehicle stationary only 'to the limit of traction on the braked wheels.' This language allows the standard not to specify the traction coefficient for the 30 percent grade. Since no particular traction coefficient is specified, compliance testing may be conducted on *any* 30 percent grade that satisfies the requirement of S6.9. That section requires that the parking brake test surface be clean, dry, smooth Portland cement concrete.; 2. Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims.* Paragraph S4.3 of this standard specifies that a placard containin certain safety performance indication shall be permanently affixed to 'the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location.' You asked if the door latch post, the inner surface of the glove compartment box, and the inward-facing surface of the driver's side door would be considered 'equally accessible locations.' Each of these locations could be equally accessible locations.; In several past interpretations, we have explained that locations fo the placard would be considered equally accessible if two conditions were met. These were:; >>>1. The alternative location must result in the placard bein positioned so that the vehicle operator can readily refer to it, and; 2. The alternative location must keep the placard relatively free fro exposure to substances that could destroy the placard or render it illegible.<<<; If you position the placard on any of your three alternative location so that the vehicle operator can readily refer to it and where the placard would be protected from substances that could destroy it, we would consider each of those alternative locations as 'equally accessible locations' for the purposes of Standard No. 110.; 3. Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302 sets forth a listing of th components of vehicle occupant compartments that must be certified as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. You listed nine components not specifically listed in paragraph S4.1 and asked whether those components were required to be certified as meeting the flammability resistance requirements. The answer to your question depend on whether the components are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.; paragraph S4.1. represents a complete listing of all components in ne vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requirements. Any component not identified in paragraph S4.1 is not subject to the flammability resistance requirements. The only item on that listing that might be applicable to the nine components about which you asked is 'any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' Thus, you must determine which of the nine components you asked about are so designed. We would assume that knee bolsters are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. These and any other of the nine components so designed must be certified as complying with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. Any of the nine components not designed to absorb energy are to required to comply with the flammability requirements.; 4. Part 575.101, *Consumer Information Regulations, Vehicle Stoppin Distance.*; You noted that S575.101 requires vehicle manufacturers to disseminat information about the minimum stopping distance for groups of passenger cars. Section 575.101(c) requires that each passenger car in the group to which the stopping distance information applies shall be capable of performing at least as well as the information indicates, *under the test conditions and procedures specified in S6 an S7 of Standard No. 105* (emphases added). You noted that those sections of Standard No. 105 specify both pre-burnish and post-burnish tests, and that the braking performance varies considerable for the two tests. You asked whether the consumer information on stopping distance must reflect the pre-burnish stopping distance. It need not reflect pre-burnish stopping distance.; As you noted, S575.101(c) specifies that the stopping distanc information should be measured under the test conditions and procedures specified in sections S6 and S7 of Standard No. 105. This specification was added in an amendment published on January 6, 1976 (41 FR 1066). Before that amendment, S575.101 had specified separate test conditions and procedures for the stopping distance information. Those conditions specified that the vehicle's brakes were to be burnished and then the stopping distance was to be measured. In place of those conditions, S575.101(c) now specifies that the stopping distance information should express the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by each vehicle in the group to which the information applies, using the test conditions and procedures of Standard No. 105. Since stopping distances decrease after burnish, the post- burnish results represent the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by the vehicles. Therefore, the pre-burnish stopping distances need not be reflected in the stopping distance information manufacturers make available to consumers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-1.37

DATE: 06/15/71

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Hill; Lewis; Adams; Goodrich & Tait

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 10 to Francis Armstrong, Director of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of Vehicle Industries, Inc. Your client wishes to import dune buggy chasses, either in kit or assembled form, for sale to a distributor-dealer organization and subsequent resale by them to retail customers who will complete the final manufacture of the incomplete vehicle as a dune buggy. You have asked questions concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("safety standards") and other regulations.

Your letter indicates that you are familiar with our two Mini-Bike Interpretations and the criteria we use in determining whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act"). There have been no further additions to these Interpretations. We view a dune buggy as a "motor vehicle" primarily because it is licensable for use on the public roads. Conversely all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and some categories of mini-bikes are not considered "motor vehicles" because of State statutory prohibitions forbidding their registration for on-road use. Because a dune buggy is constructed with "special features for occasional off-road use" it is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" ("MPV") under the safety standards, and must, at the time of its manufacture, comply with all safety standards applicable to MPVs. Equipping a vehicle with speed restrictive components would not affect this opinion unless the equipment rendered the completed vehicle unlicensable for on-road use.

Until January 1, 1972, the product Vehicle Industries wishes to import, either in kit form or as an assemolage, is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Act. It is not a chassis-cab, as you suggested, because it has no cab. Since section 102(5) of the Act includes an importer in the definition of "manufacturer." Vehicle Industries is considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle equipment it imports, and responsible for compliance of that equipment with applicable safety standards.

Regulated equipment items for MPVs and corresponding safety standards are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), brake fluid (No. 116), glazing (No. 205), seat belt assemblies (No. 209), and wheel covers (No. 211). If the kit or assemblage contains any of these items, the item must comply upon inportation, and Vehicle Industries must provide certification to the distributor-dealer that the equipment item meets the appropriate safety standard. The certification obligation is imposed by section 114 of the Act as amplified by a notice published on November 4, 1967, copy enclosed. There are no other labeling or informational obligations. The requirements of this paragraph remain in effect after January 1, 1972, to any dune buggy chassis imported in kit form.

If the chassis is imported in assembled form, on and after January 1, 1972, Vehicle Industries as importer - manufacturer of an assemblage will be considered an "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" and the assemblage an "incomplete vehicle" as those terms are defined in 49 CFR Part 568, the regulations governing vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I enclose a copy of Part 568 for your guidance and call your attention to @ 568.4, requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Section 568.4(a)(7) will require Vehicle Industries to provide with the incomplete vehicle a list of those standards applicable to MPVs, together with one of three appropriate statements for each such standard. If Vehicle Industries has provided certification prior to January 1, 1972, covering an equipment item in the assemblage, for instance brake hoses, the appropriate statement on and after January 1, 1972 would appear to be set out in @ 568.4(a)(7)(i), that the vehicle when completed will comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hose and Brake Hose Assemblies, if the final assembler makes no change in the brake hoses or brake hose assemblies. You ask if these regulations may be followed as a "guideline" before January 1, 1972. Because the @ 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement is a representation of compliance, it is a de facto certification of compliance and, in my opinion, Vehicle Industries may provide such a @ 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement in advance of January 1, 1972, that includes a regulated equipment item, to satisfy the existing equipment certification requirement.

You have also asked if it is possible to "retail the unit in its present form with an item of equipment on it" that doesn't comply with the safety standards. The answer is no, if that item is directly regulated by a safety standard. However, if a safety standard applies to vehicle categories only - and most of them do - then an item encompassed in that safety standard need not comply until time of final assembly. For example, Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, applies to MPVs and passenger cars, and not to the equipment items specified therein. Consequently, the horn ring and steering wheel assembly hub of the assemblage need not have a finish in accordance with Standard No. 107, but these items must comply with reflectance requirements when the assemblage is completed as a dune buggy.

In closing, I want to call your attention to section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR @ 551.45, which require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment who offer their products for importation into the United States appoint a resident agent for service of process. I enclose a copy of @ 551.45 with the informational requirements underlined and request that you ask the Spanish manufacturer of the dune buggy chassis to file a designation of agent with us.

If you have any further questions I shall be happy to answer them for you.

Enclosures

ID: nht72-6.42

DATE: 08/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your petition for rulemaking, submitted July 30, 1971, to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping Regulations (49 CFR Part 574). Your petition requests that Standard No. 109 be amended to provide for a special tire category for folding sidewall-reduced tread tires, of which the "Space Saver Spare" tire you manufacture is an example. You request specifically that requirements for these tires differ from conventional tires as follows: lower minimum breaking-energy values in the strength test (S4.2.2.4, Table II); modified minimum size factors for certain tire size designations which you list; elimination of the condition that the tire be mounted without lubricant for the bead unseating test (S4.2.2.3); and allowing the tire identification number to be placed on the lower sidewall (49 CFR 574.5). For the reasons stated below, your petition is hereby denied insofar as it requests modifications to the strength and bead unseating requirements of Standard No. 109, and the requirements of Part 574. We make certain recommendations herein regarding your request for modification of the minimum size factors of Standard No. 109.

The basis for your request for lower breaking-energy values in the strength test is that the values you request represent a level of performance equal to that of a conventional tire having the same amount of tread remaining as a new folding sidewall-reduced tread tire. The NHTSA cannot accept this argument as a valid basis for specifying lower breaking-energy value requirements for folding sidewall-reduced tread tires The requirements specified for the strength test are considered to be necessary minimum requirements for all new passenger car tires. Consequently, persons who purchase new tires, regardless of their construction, are entitled to at least this level of performance, and not the level of performance represented by a used tire.

The NHTSA does not believe, similarly, that you have presented a sufficient basis for elimination of the condition, in the bead unseating test procedure, that the tire be mounted for the test without the use of lubricant. While the NHTSA concurs in the benefits of run-flat performance, which the "Space Saver Spare" appears to provide, we do not believe that this advantage outweighs the necessity that the tire conform to the bead unseating requirements when mounted without lubrication. The NHTSA believes the possibility that tires will be mounted without lubrication in the field is sufficiently great to warrant the retention of this condition in the standard's test procedure.

We also do not consider sufficient the justification you provide for your request that the identification number required pursuant to Part 574 be allowed to be placed on the lower sidewall of the tire. Your statement to the effect that no problems are presented if the number "wears off" ignores the fact that the number must be retained on the tire for purposes of identification should a defect notification or recall campaign be instituted.

With reference to your request for modification of the (Illegible Word) size factor for the tire size designations which you list, believe B. F. Goodrich should petition, in accordance with guidelines published October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), to amend the Appendices of Standards Nos. 109 and 110 to provide that folding sidewall-reduced tread tires be added as a separate tire type, including new size designations and corresponding values for section width and minimum size factor that you consider appropriate.

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

ID: nht89-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/89

FROM: T. CHIKADA -- MGR., AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING, ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: INSTALLATION OF DECORATIVE EXTRA LIGHTING DEVICES ON MOTORCYCLES, WHICH ARE NOT SPECIFIED IN FMVSS NO. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-20-90 TO T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; STD. 108]

TEXT: We have an idea of producing two decorative extra lighting devices which are not specified in FMVSS No. 108.

As shown in the attached sheet, these decorative devices will be installed on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively. The distance between center of light source of device A and B is 290 mm.

The light source of device B is incandescent bulb, and that of device A is LED. Color of emitted light of both devices (A and B) is red. Both devices (A and B) are energized when tail lamp is on. And they (A and B) are so designed as to have the maximu m intensity less than that minimum intensity of tail lamp C. (It is a matter of course that the minimum and maximum intensities of tail lamp C satisfy the requirement of FMVSS No. 108.)

Please let us have your answers for the following questions.

Q.1 Is it permitted to equip a motorcycle with the above mentioned accessory lamps?

Q.2 If the answer to the above question is "YES",

1) is it acknowledged to use LED as the light source of device B?

2) should maximum intensity of each lamp (A or B) separately be less than the minimum intensity of tail lamp C? or should combined maximum intensity of both lamps (A and B) be less than the minimum intensity of tail lamp C?

We are looking forward to your advice.

(Graphics omitted)