ID: aiam5259

Dear Mr. Moore: We have received your letter of August 12, 1993 'requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted.' It is clear from your letter that it is the lateral spacing of clearance lamps that concerns you as you believe that it is not uncommon to see them mounted as much as 6 to 8 inches ''inside' the side extremities of huge vehicles.' With respect to lateral spacing, Table II of Standard No. 108 requires clearance lamps to be mounted 'to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . .' The standard does not require the lamps to be mounted at the widest point of the vehicle, nor does it require them to be mounted as far apart as practicable. We believe that manufacturers generally try to mount clearance lamps to 'indicate' the overall width of the vehicle, but we recognize that there may be certain circumstances and/or configurations that require mounting of the lamps at something less than the widest point. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1785

Dear Mr. Taft: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1974, to Edwar Wallace, asking that we republish Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 as one complete document. You point out that there have been several amendments to Standard No. 117, which makes a comprehensive reading of the standard difficult. You ask also that we incorporate directly in any republication the provisions of Standard No. 109 that are presently incorporated by reference, and you point out some errors in the text of the standard.; The complete standard should be republished as a single unit in th forthcoming edition of the *Code of Federal Regulations*, Title 49, Parts 200-999. We expect republication of this volume in the very near future. The errors you mention, i.e., that paragraphs S6.2 and S6.3.1(f) have been superseded and are therefore superfluous, are inconsequential in our view. However, we will defer any decision regarding your request until republication of the complete standard in the *Code of Federal Regulations*. If that version of the standard is not substantially correct in all respects, we will take steps to republish a corrected version.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: Turner.1

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Vice Chairman
School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
6298 Rock Hill Road
The Plains, VA 20198-1916

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your February 17, 2004, letter in which you discuss what you believe to be errors in certain school bus-related provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Specifically, you stated that as currently printed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), paragraphs S9.2(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the standard, pertaining to field of view requirements for the outside rearview mirrors on school buses, are inconsistent with amendments published in a 1995 final rule. Your letter seeks correction of the identified errors. After reviewing the relevant provisions, we agree that the current language in the CFR is inaccurate and in need of revision.

As you pointed out, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration previously modified FMVSS No. 111, including the above-referenced provisions, in a Federal Register notice published on March 27, 1995 (60 FR 15600). Paragraph S9.2(b) of that final rule, changes which were properly reflected in the CFR as late as 1997, provided as follows:

(b) Includes one or more mirrors which together provide, at the drivers eye location, a view of:

(1)For the mirror system on the right side of the bus, the entire top surface of cylinder N in Figure 2, and that area of the ground which extends rearward from cylinder N to a point not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet) from the mirror surface.

(2) For the mirror system on the left side of the bus, the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, and that area of the of the ground which extends rearward from cylinder M to a point not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet) from the mirror surface.

We believe that we now understand the source of the problem.In 1998, FMVSS No. 111 (and several other standards) were amended as part of the agencys metric conversion efforts (see 63 FR 28922 (May 27, 1998); 63 FR 50995 (September 24, 1998)). In converting the above requirements to metric measurements (i.e., 61 m), the May 27, 1998, Federal Register notice mistakenly inserted language referencing "area of the ground," rather than maintaining proper focus on the test cylinder (see 63 FR 28922, 28929). Subsequently, in attempting to correct an error brought to the agencys attention in a petition for reconsideration, the September 24, 1998, Federal Register notice mistakenly inserted a correction intended for S9.3(b)(2) at S9.2(b)(2) (see 63 FR 50995, 51000). Thus, the changes you have pointed out resulted from simple error, rather than any intentional regulatory action.

We appreciate your bringing this error to our attention, and we wanted to make you aware that we have drafted the attached correcting amendment to the standard to resolve the issue that you have raised. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.4/8/04

ID: aiam3429

Dear Mr. Chicoine: Thank you for your letter of March 3, 1981, providing additiona information about the 'Downshift Warning System Kit.'; After reviewing this information and the points you make concernin Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, we wish to point out that the pertinent provisions of this standard are S4.1.3 and S4.5.4. For your information, a copy of Standard 108 is enclosed.; You will note that S4.1.3 provides that: 'No additional lamp reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard.' Further, you will note that S4.5.4 provides that: 'The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes.' This means that your system must not impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps that are original equipment on the vehicle, and that any application of the service brakes that does not activate the stop lamps would be inconsistent with Federal requirements. As we have made no formal study of your system, you will have to determine whether a vehicle on which it is installed would meet Standard No. 108.; Also enclosed for your information is a copy of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) is interpreted to mean that the installation of your system on a used vehicle by a person other than its owner must not render inoperative in whole or in part, the stop lamp system. However, the prohibitions of the Act and the standard do not cover sale of your system as an aftermarket device nor its installation solely by the vehicle owner. Use of it is subject to State regulation.; We would also like to call your attention to the agency's study: 'Fiel Test Evaluation of Rear Lighting Deceleration Signals - Analytical and Experimental Studies (1979)' (DOT HS 805 061). We urge that you obtain a copy of this report and consider it carefully with regard to your system. You may obtain a copy by writing to the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.; The agency has tentatively decided that a single high-mounted auxiliar stop lamp is the most effective way of preventing rear end collisions and has proposed that such be made available both as original equipment and in the aftermarket. I enclose a copy of the proposal for your consideration.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4452

Dear Ms. Black: This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and Octobe l7, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the l989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulations. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the 'zero' position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the 'zero' position when the engine is turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that 'no aspect of FMVSS 108 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation.' The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires (S4.l.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our understanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the 'zero' position from either of the two adjustment positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load. We hope the information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: nht74-3.48

DATE: 05/31/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mitsubishi Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your verbal request to Mr. Herlihy of this office for a determination that a 3-point, continuous loop, Type II seat belt assembly would meet the requirements of @ 4.1.2.3.1(a) of Standard No. 208 if its emergency-locking retractor were mounted at the outboard floor anchorage instead of at the roof rail. The belt is routed from the fixed upper torso end, through a slip-fitting latch and pelvic section, to the retractor.

Assuming the belt assembly meets any other adjustment requirement of @ 4.1.2.3.1, it would conform to @7.1 or standard No. 208 and @4.1(g) of Standard No. 209 with the emergency-looking retractor mounted at the outboard floor anchorage. The upper torso restraint would "adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor" within the meaning of @7.1 as long as the continuous loop permitted slack from the floor-mounted emergencylocking retractor to reach the upper torso portion of the assembly.

ID: aiam2840

Dear Mr. Cohen: This is (sic) responds to your May 26, 1978, letter asking severa questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, to your client, a fabric manufacturer.; In your first question, you ask whether the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration (NHTSA) alone regulates the flammability of seat covers or whether other agencies are involved. We know of no other agency involved in the regulation of motor vehicle seat covers.; Your second question asks whether the manufacturer of the fabric or th manufacturer of the vehicle or seat cover would be responsible for compliance with the standard. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle would be responsible for ensuring compliance with it, not the manufacturer of the fabric. For replacement seat covers, the installer of those covers, if it is a repair business, manufacturer, or dealer, would be required to ensure that it was not rendering inoperative compliance of the original seat covers with Standard No. 302 and would be responsible for installing only complying seat covers.; Your final question asks who is responsible for recalls and othe agency requirements, the vehicle manufacturer or the fabric manufacturer. Once again, since this is a vehicle standard, the vehicle manufacturer must comply with our requirements, not the fabric manufacturer. In conclusion, your client as a manufacturer of fabric is not responsible for compliance with the agency's flammability standard or the recall and remedy regulations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2981

Dear Mr. Grayson: This is in response to your letter of March 2, 1979, in which yo request clarification of several points relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), and the record retention requirements applicable to tire retreaders.; You inquire first as to the obligations of tire dealers under the UTQ regulation. As explained more fully in our recent letter to Mr. Tony Hylton of your organization, the UTQG regulation places the responsibility for supplying tire grading information on vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners. These parties must make their own arrangements with tire distributors and dealers to assure that the required tire grading information reaches tire purchasers.; You ask whether bias-ply tires manufactured abroad prior to April 1 1979, but imported into the United States after April 1, must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of the UTQG regulation (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). Paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B), which becomes effective on April 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires, applies to bias- ply tires manufactured after that date. The date of manufacture rather than the date of importation is controlling in determining whether tires fall within the tread labeling requirements of the UTQG regulation.; You also ask whether tires to which the UTQG labeling requirement apply can be imported into the United States without the required tread labels, provided adequate labels are attached at the tires' point of sale. The purpose of the UTQG labeling requirements is to provide information to assist consumers in tire purchasing decisions. Therefore, the tread labeling requirements of the regulation would be satisfied if labels are attached at the dealership prior to the time the tires are offered for sale. However, manufacturers and brand name owners should be cautioned that they will be held responsible should the dealer incorrectly label the tires or neglect to attach the required labels.; Finally, you inquire whether manufacturers of retreaded tires mus retain tire registration records compiled pursuant to Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping* (49 CFR Part 574), in view of the recent exemption of retreaders from the registration requirements of that part. While the registration requirements of Part 574 no longer apply to the sale of retreaded tires, section 574.7(d) (49 CFR 574.7(d)) nonetheless requires that previously compiled records on retreaded tires be maintained for a period of not less than three years from the date the information was recorded by the tire manufacturer or his designee.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2980

Dear Mr. Grayson: This is in response to your letter of March 2, 1979, in which yo request clarification of several points relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), and the record retention requirements applicable to tire retreaders.; You inquire first as to the obligations of tire dealers under the UTQ regulation. As explained more fully in our recent letter to Mr. Tony Hylton of your organization, the UTQG regulation places the responsibility for supplying tire grading information on vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners. These parties must make their own arrangements with tire distributors and dealers to assure that the required tire grading information reaches tire purchasers.; You ask whether bias-ply tires manufactured abroad prior to April 1 1979, but imported into the United States after April 1, must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of the UTQG regulation (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). Paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B), which becomes effective on April 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires, applies to bias- ply tires manufactured after that date. The date of manufacture rather than the date of importation is controlling in determining whether tires fall within the tread labeling requirements of the UTQG regulation.; You also ask whether tires to which the UTQG labeling requirement apply can be imported into the United States without the required tread labels, provided adequate labels are attached at the tires' point of sale. The purpose of the UTQG labeling requirements is to provide information to assist consumers in tire purchasing decisions. Therefore, the tread labeling requirements of the regulation would be satisfied if labels are attached at the dealership prior to the time the tires are offered for sale. However, manufacturers and brand name owners should be cautioned that they will be held responsible should the dealer incorrectly label the tires or neglect to attach the required labels.; Finally, you inquire whether manufacturers of retreaded tires mus retain tire registration records compiled pursuant to Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping* (49 CFR Part 574), in view of the recent exemption of retreaders from the registration requirements of that part. While the registration requirements of Part 574 no longer apply to the sale of retreaded tires, section 574.7(d) (49 CFR 574.7(d)) nonetheless requires that previously compiled records on retreaded tires be maintained for a period of not less than three years from the date the information was recorded by the tire manufacturer or his designee.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-2.5

DATE: 04/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Studio Aguila

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 12, 1979, letter asking whether a sports car designed for use without doors must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). The vehicle design discussed in your letter would apparently only have attachable doors for use in bad weather.

Since the test procedures in Safety Standard No. 214 require a loading device to be placed against the vehicle door, a passenger car having no doors could not practicably be tested. Therefore, a vehicle having doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from the vehicle are not required to comply with Safety Standard No. 214, if the vehicle is designed to be operated without the doors.

SINCERELY,

MARCH 12, 1979

Joseph J Levin Jr Chief Counsel Deartment of Transportation NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINSTRATION

Dear Mr. Levin,

Our office would like clarification from your Department on a point of ruling refering to USFMVSS 214.

We have a client, for whom we are developing a vehicle design aimed at introduction into the US market. This vehicle, being principally recreational in nature (In the sense of a sports car rather than a camper) is designed for use without doors.

Whilst this clearly is covered in clause S4 of VS206 we are concerned about VS214.

On the face of it one might say this vehicle need not comply with the standard VS214 as doors are not fitted except as draft excluders for use in any inclement weather. (Ref: VS206).

However, as we see it, although the rule VS214 states its purpose is to test door strength, the intent and partialy stated objective is to prevent injury to the occupants in a side collision situation. We feel therefore morally obliged to meet this aspect of the rules intent.

We would like your confirmation of the following points in this regard.

1/ Does the fact that the vehicle complies with VS206 Clause S4 (ie is Designed for use without doors) mean that we are not required to demonstrate compliance with VS-216?

2/ If the answer to the above is affirmative and we do have to show compliance with VS214 how should we locate the test device when we have no door?

3/ May we demonstrate compliance by placing the loading device at a height above the ground line with the vehicle loaded to its GVW which corresponds to the typical height at which the load device would be placed for the majority of the US vehicle population?

Our vehicle has extremely deep sills which are effectively very deep but rigidly integrated into the chassis structure, doors.

May we therefore locate the test device with reference to this sill provided that the height covered (See first para of Q3) indicates the strength at the point at which a side intrusion at an intersection collision is most likely to occur?

If we can have your confirmation of approval of proceedures outlined in 3, we will test to VS214 on those lines.

Otherwise we shall require a clear answer to Q1/.

We are looking forward to your reply at your earliest opportunity.

Dave Williams DIRECTOR -- DESIGN OFC.