ID: aiam0087

Dear Mr. Boyer: This is in response to your letter of June 24 to the Department o Transportation asking if manufacturers of motor homes are 'required to equip the seats in such units with seat belts.'; The self- propelled motor home is classified as a 'multipurpos passenger vehicle' for purpose of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Currently seat belt installations and seat belt assembly anchorages are not required for multipurpose passenger vehicles, but if a seat belt assembly is provided by the vehicle manufacturer it must meet the requirements of Federal standard No. 209.; On October 14, 1967 the Federal Highway Administrator establishe dockets to receive comments on possible requirements for seat belt installations and seat belt assembly anchorages in multipurpose passenger vehicles. These comments are now under evaluation.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: GF000843.2

Mr. Robert S. Livingston
Stewart & Stevenson Tactical Vehicle Systems
PO Box 330
Sealy, TX 77474




Dear Mr. Livingston:

This responds to your January 27, 2005, e-mail regarding lamp, reflex reflector, and conspicuity system requirements for trailers. First, you ask whether the rear side marker lamp, the rear clearance lamp, and the reflex reflector can be combined into a single lighting device so long as it is "visible from both vehicle axes. " Second, you ask whether the retroreflective sheeting located at the rear of the trailer can be combined with the retroreflective sheeting located on the underride guard. You provided a photograph of the prototype vehicle and indicated that its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is over 10,000 pounds. Our answers follow.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment on trailers and other motor vehicles is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. S5.4 of FMVSS No. 108 permits combining certain items of lighting equipment if the requirements for each item are met. Based on the language of this section, you ask two questions regarding combining lamps, reflex reflectors, and retroreflective sheeting on trailers.

Combining Lighting Devices

Tables I & II specify that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things:

1. 2 red clearance lamps located at the rear outboard edges of the trailer as near the top as practicable.
2. 2 red side marker lamps, located on the sides of the trailer, as far to the rear as practicable.
3. 4 red reflex reflectors. 2 located at the rear outboard edges of the trailer as far apart as practicable. 2 located on the sides of the trailer, as far to the rear as practicable.

You ask if these requirements can be met by single lighting devices at each rear corner of the trailer. The photograph accompanying your e-mail shows a lamp and a reflex reflector tilted at a (approximately) 45-degree angle on each rear corner of the trailer.

With respect to reflex reflectors, S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that your trailer be equipped with a conspicuity system. Further, S5.1.1.29 specifies that a trailer equipped with a conspicuity system in conformance with S5.7 need not be equipped with the reflex reflectors required by Table I, if the conspicuity material is placed at the locations required for the Table I reflectors. Thus, if your trailer is equipped with conspicuity material at the appropriate locations specified above, you may omit installing reflex reflectors on this trailer.

With respect to side marker and clearance lamps, S5.4 discussed above allows these lamps to be combined, if the photometric requirements for each lamp are met, as installed on the vehicle. SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps," July 1972, specifies that both side marker and clearance lamps meet the minimum photometric requirements (expressed in candela) at test points located 45 degrees to the left and right of each lamp. We are familiar with combination lamps that emit a photometric output over 180-degrees wide in order to simultaneously satisfy the photometric requirements for side marker and rear clearance lamps. This is because the angle between the furthest forward test point of the side marker lamp and the furthest inboard test point of the rear clearance lamp is 180-degrees.

We examined the photograph of the prototype trailer and question whether your lamp could simultaneously meet the applicable photometric requirements of J592e for both a clearance and side marker lamp because it does not appear to be a combination lamp capable of emitting light over a 180-degree angle. We suggest you contact the lamp manufacturer to determine whether the proposed combination lamp would be capable of complying with all the applicable requirements as installed on your trailer.

Combining Retroreflective Sheeting

Table I specifies that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things, a conspicuity system meeting the requirements of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108. In particular, S5.7.1.4.1 requires 3 elements of retroreflective sheeting at the rear of each trailer. Element 1 must be located at the bottom, horizontally across the full width of the trailer. Element 2, consisting of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, must be located horizontally and vertically at the upper contours of the body. Element 3 must be located horizontally across the full width of the rear underride guard. You ask if Element 1 and Element 3 retroreflective sheeting could be combined into one retroreflective sheet located on the underride guard.

Our answer is no. S5.4 does not apply to your second question because trailers equipped with underride guards must have separate retroreflective sheeting on the underride guard, and on the rear at the bottom of the trailer. Thus, the retroreflective sheet

located on the underride guard cannot satisfy the location requirements for Element 1 retroreflective sheeting, which must be located on the trailer, above the underride guard. Accordingly, your trailer must have Elements 1 and 3 retroreflective sheeting to comply with the requirements of S5.7.1.4.1. We are enclosing Figures 30-1, and 30-2 to clarify this issue.

We note that the picture of your prototype trailer appears to be missing Element 2 retroreflective sheeting. Your trailer must also, be equipped with Element 2 retroreflective sheeting.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.5/3/05

ID: 0572

Mr. Kenneth Sghia-Hughes
Research Engineer
Solectria Corporation
68 Industrial Way
Wilmington, MA 01887

Dear Sir:

We have received your letter of December 8, 1994, with respect to the applicability of two Federal motor vehicle safety standards to electric vehicles.

With respect to Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity, you believe that the language of S3 implies that "it applies to all passenger vehicles, but to only those trucks with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F." You conclude, however, that "this standard appears not to apply to electric vehicles with no liquid fuel."

Under S3 of Standard No. 301, the standard applies to certain specified vehicles that "use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F". The use of the fuel is not stated. Obviously, electric vehicles do not use liquid fuel for propulsion, but some of them do use a small amount of liquid fuel in their heating systems. Standard No. 301 would apply to an electric vehicle with a fuel-fired heating system.

With respect to Standard No. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, you ask for "a clarification of this standard with regard to single speed transmissions" and, if it is applicable, ask that S3.1.3 "be rewritten or interpreted to include the initial activation of EV motor controllers as well as engine starters."

NHTSA has previously concluded that electric vehicles with single speed transmissions are excluded from Standard No. 102 (58 FR at 4646). I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice reflecting this conclusion.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:102#301 d:2/2/95

ID: nht95-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth Sghia-Hughes -- Research Engineer, Solectria Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 12/8/94 letter from Kenneth Sghia-Hughes to Chief Counsel (OCC 10572)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We have received your letter of December 8, 1994, with respect to the applicability of two Federal motor vehicle safety standards to electric vehicles.

With respect to Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity, you believe that the language of S3 implies that "it applies to all passenger vehicles, but to only those trucks with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 de grees F." You conclude, however, that "this standard appears not to apply to electric vehicles with no liquid fuel."

Under S3 of Standard No. 301, the standard applies to certain specified vehicles that "use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F". The use of the fuel is not stated. Obviously, electric vehicles do not use liquid fuel for propulsion, but some of them do use a small amount of liquid fuel in their heating systems. Standard No. 301 would apply to an electric vehicle with a fuel-fired heating system.

With respect to Standard No. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, you ask for "a clarification of this standard with regard to single speed transmissions" and, if it is applicable, ask that S3.1.3 "be rewritten or interpreted to include the initial activation of EV motor controllers as well as engine starters."

NHTSA has previously concluded that electric vehicles with single speed transmissions are excluded from Standard No. 102 (58 FR at 4646). I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice reflecting this conclusion.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: aiam5564

"Dear Mr. Farmand: This responds to your letter of April 27, 1995. You letter concerns a law suit in which you represent plaintiffs injured in an automobile accident. In this law suit, the counsel for the defendant has moved to amend his answer to assert that 49 CFR 571.208, paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) requires each state to allow for mitigation of damages in any seat belt use law and that paragraph preempts the Florida mandatory seat belt law. According to your letter, the Florida law 'does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt.' As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees with you that the Florida safety belt use law is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by Federal law. Purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) Before discussing the issue of preemption, I want to discuss the background and purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2). That paragraph was added to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) as part of a final rule issued July 17, 1984 concerning automatic restraints (49 FR 28962). That final rule required all new cars to have automatic protection (air bags or automatic belts) starting in the 1990 model year. The final rule included a provision that the automatic restraint requirement would be rescinded if the Secretary of Transportation determined, not later than April 1, 1989, that a sufficient number of States had enacted belt use laws meeting certain minimum criteria to cover at least two-thirds of the U.S. population (paragraph S4.1.5). Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so, in part because not enough States adopted mandatory seat belt use laws of any sort prior to April 1, 1989. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars. The minimum criteria were set forth in S4.1.5.2 of Standard No. 208. One of the criteria was 'a provision specifying that the violation of the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate damages...' (S4.1.5.2(c)(2)). However, S4.1.5 neither purported to require nor was intended to require States to enact safety belt use laws. In addition, S4.1.5 did not require that any State safety belt use laws had to incorporate the minimum criteria of S4.1.5.2. Paragraph S4.1.5 merely provided that the Secretary would rescind the automatic restraint requirement if he or she determined that a sufficient number of States enacted laws which met the criteria of S4.1.5.2 by April 1, 1989. Preemption The Florida safety belt use law is not and never has been either expressly or impliedly preempted by Federal law. Standard No. 208 was issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which expressly preempts state laws only to the extent provided by section 30103. That section provides for the express preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards that are not identical to Federal standards. However, the Florida seat belt law is not a motor vehicle safety standard within the meaning of Chapter 301, since it does not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. Accordingly, the Florida law is not expressly preempted. The Florida law is not impliedly preempted because (1) Congress has not occupied the field of regulation of the behavior of motor vehicle occupants, and (2) the Florida seat belt law does not conflict with any Federal law or interfere with the objectives of Federal law. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5540

"Dear Mr. Farmand: This responds to your letter of April 27, 1995. You letter concerns a law suit in which you represent plaintiffs injured in an automobile accident. In this law suit, the counsel for the defendant has moved to amend his answer to assert that 49 CFR 571.208, paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) requires each state to allow for mitigation of damages in any seat belt use law and that paragraph preempts the Florida mandatory seat belt law. According to your letter, the Florida law 'does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt.' As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees with you that the Florida safety belt use law is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by Federal law. Purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) Before discussing the issue of preemption, I want to discuss the background and purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2). That paragraph was added to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) as part of a final rule issued July 17, 1984 concerning automatic restraints (49 FR 28962). That final rule required all new cars to have automatic protection (air bags or automatic belts) starting in the 1990 model year. The final rule included a provision that the automatic restraint requirement would be rescinded if the Secretary of Transportation determined, not later than April 1, 1989, that a sufficient number of States had enacted belt use laws meeting certain minimum criteria to cover at least two-thirds of the U.S. population (paragraph S4.1.5). Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so, in part because not enough States adopted mandatory seat belt use laws of any sort prior to April 1, 1989. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars. The minimum criteria were set forth in S4.1.5.2 of Standard No. 208. One of the criteria was 'a provision specifying that the violation of the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate damages...' (S4.1.5.2(c)(2)). However, S4.1.5 neither purported to require nor was intended to require States to enact safety belt use laws. In addition, S4.1.5 did not require that any State safety belt use laws had to incorporate the minimum criteria of S4.1.5.2. Paragraph S4.1.5 merely provided that the Secretary would rescind the automatic restraint requirement if he or she determined that a sufficient number of States enacted laws which met the criteria of S4.1.5.2 by April 1, 1989. Preemption The Florida safety belt use law is not and never has been either expressly or impliedly preempted by Federal law. Standard No. 208 was issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which expressly preempts state laws only to the extent provided by section 30103. That section provides for the express preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards that are not identical to Federal standards. However, the Florida seat belt law is not a motor vehicle safety standard within the meaning of Chapter 301, since it does not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. Accordingly, the Florida law is not expressly preempted. The Florida law is not impliedly preempted because (1) Congress has not occupied the field of regulation of the behavior of motor vehicle occupants, and (2) the Florida seat belt law does not conflict with any Federal law or interfere with the objectives of Federal law. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht79-3.11

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Education, State of Mississippi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 7, 1979, letter asking whether any Federal law (statutes, standards, regulations or guidelines) prohibits a school district in the State of Mississippi from converting the gasoline fuel system in school buses which it owns to a butane or propane powered system. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system and older school bus chassis not equipped with such a system. As explained below, none of the laws we administer would prohibit converting any school bus, regardless of when it was manufactured.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 ("the Act"), 15 U.S.C. et seq., the agency has issued Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75). This standard specifies performance requirements for the fuel system of certain new motor vehicles. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000, pounds or less or (3) school buses with a (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.

New vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold and delivered to a purchaser for purposes other than resale) manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 may be converted to propane or butane systems. Upon the conversion of the vehicles to types of fuel systems not covered by the standard, the vehicles would cease to be subject to the standard.

Similarly, used vehicles manufactured in accordance with the standard as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of the standard may be converted. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) limits tampering with the fuel systems of vehicles manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75. It does not apply at all to vehicles manufactured before the standard's effective date. The section, in essence, prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. There is no prohibition against vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(A) provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with FMVSS 301-75 if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a gasoline powered school bus (a vehicle type covered by the standard) to a propane or butane-powered school bus (a vehicle type not covered by the standard), the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to FMVSS 301-75 since this standard does not apply to butane or propane powered school buses. FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F, and propane and butane reach their boiling points at a lower temperature.

This means that a school district in your state would not be prohibited from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacturer, to propane or butane-powered school buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a motor vehicle repair business or some other person or entity listed in Section 108(a)(2)(A), that person or entity would not be prohibited from performing the work.

Please note, however, that if a propane or butane fuel system is installed in a new vehicle, the installer would be responsible for any safety defects in the manner in which the system is installed. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act provide that if vehicles are found to contain a safety defect, notification of the defect must be given and the defect must be remedied. Defects in the systems themselves would be the responsibility of the manufacturer of the systems, regardless of whether they are installed in new or used vehicles.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and you have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

State of Mississippi DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

May 7, 1979

Roger Tilton -- U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Reference is made to your conversation with Mr. Walter Corban, Supervisor of Pupil Transportation, Mississippi State Department of Education, last week regarding the use of butane and propane gas in the operation of school buses in this state. Would you please provide me with answers to the following questions?

1. Are there any laws, standards, regulations, or guidelines at the federal level which would prohibit a school district in this state from converting a new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system from gasoline to butane or propane?

2. Are there any laws, standards, regulations, or guidelines at the federal level which would prohibit a school district in this state from converting an older school bus chassis which is not equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system from gasoline to butane and propane?

Your prompt reply to these questions will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Leonard Cain, Director -- School Building and Transportation

ID: aiam4550

"Dear Mr. Carr: This letter responds to your inquiry of April 29, 1988 asking this agency for an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems, as it applies to the components of a diesel truck engine and accelerator control components described in your letter. I apologize for the delay in this response. With your letter, you provided diagrams of three different accelerator control systems and fuel metering devices for a diesel engine. The first system (Type I in your letter) was a purely mechanical system. In this system, the linkage from the accelerator pedal connects to a mechanical governor. This governor is a device that responds to pedal displacement, and causes a rack to move, thereby controlling the flow of fuel from fuel injector pumps into the engine cylinders. The second and third systems described in your letter operate through an electrical-mechanical sequence. In the second system (Type II in your letter), mechanical linkage from the accelerator pedal connects to an electronic pedal position sensor. When the vehicle operator puts pressure on the accelerator pedal, this sensor converts that movement into an electrical signal. The electrical impulse travels through a wire to an engine control module (ECM). The ECM interprets pedal position and engine speed from the sensor impulse, and determines how much fuel must go to the engine cylinders either to maintain or reduce speed in consequence of pedal movement. In turn, the ECM sends a signal to a motor which moves a fuel rack to control the flow of fuel from the injector pumps into the engine cylinders. In the system you call Type III, the ECM sends a signal directly to individual fuel injector pumps without the intervention of a rack. Otherwise, Type II and III are the same. On October 28, 1988, at the agency's invitation, you met with us to further explain the background information for this request and why Caterpillar believes that particular components were included in either the accelerator control system or the fuel metering device. During the course of that meeting, you agreed with us that Caterpillar's principal concern was not whether any particular component was part of the accelerator control system or the fuel metering device. Instead, you were concerned with the requirement that the throttle 'shall return to idle' under specified conditions. You explained that your ECM is designed to shut off the engine, rather than return the throttle to idle, during many failure modes. We conclude that the requirement that the throttle 'return to idle' is satisfied by a system that shuts off the engine in the specified circumstances. As S2 of Standard 124 makes clear, the purpose of the standard is to prevent runaway vehicles when certain malfunctions occur in the accelerator control system. If such malfunctions do occur, the standard ensures that the engine will not continue at a high speed, but will return to idle, so that the driver can safely brake the vehicle and get it off the road. In both the Type II and III systems referred to in your letter, the agency understands that a failure in the ECM circuitry, or a failure of the components that respond to the ECM, will either return the throttle to idle or shut down the engine. Either of these results would serve the purpose of Standard 124. Therefore, we interpret the phrase 'return to idle' to be satisfied by returning to idle or going beyond that throttle position to shut off the engine. Accordingly, based on the information you have provided, it appears that your Type II and III systems would comply with Standard 124 regardless of whether the ECM and other components are considered part of the acclerator control system or the fuel metering device. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 22512.rbm

Mr. Todd Mitchell
Business Unit Manager - Automotive
ITW Meyercord CTG
365 E. North Avenue
Carol Stream, IL 60188





Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you have asked whether the required labels, illustrated in figures 6a, 6b, 6c and figure 8 (for vehicles with advanced air bags) of the standard, must be framed by a black border. You have also sought clarification of the requirement that these labels be permanently affixed to the vehicle sun visor.

S4.5.1(b)(2) of the regulatory text states that, except as provided, each vehicle manufactured on or after February 25, 1997, "shall have a label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint. The label shall conform in content to the label shown in either Figure 6a or 6b of this standard, as appropriate, and shall comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(2)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(2)(v)." These labels are referred to as "air bag warning" labels. The figure 6(c) label must be affixed to the sun visor only if the label specified by S4.5.1(b)(2) is not visible when the sun visor is in the stowed position. (See S4.5.1(2)(c).) This label is referred to as the "air bag alert" label. Vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements of our

May 12, 2000, final rule (65 FR 30680) must have labels that meet the requirements of figure 8.

Figures 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), and 8 specify both label content and format. Figures 6(a), 6(b), and 8 each specify that the label has a black outline, consisting of horizontal and vertical lines. Figure 6(c) does not specify that the label have any outline, although the label depicted in the figure is outlined in black. Accordingly, FMVSS No. 208 requires the air bag warning labels be framed by black vertical and horizontal lines, while the air bag alert label need not be so framed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has never defined "permanently affixed" as part of a regulation, and has specifically refused to set forth parameters that would so define the term in FMVSS No. 208. ⁽¹⁾

Rather, we have dealt with questions on whether a label is permanently affixed through legal interpretations like this one. ⁽²⁾

Specifically, NHTSA has said that a label is permanent if it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it and that the label should remain legible for the expected life of the product under normal conditions. Depending on where the label is affixed, various methods of attachment, such as sewing or heat transfer graphics, may meet these criteria.

ID: aiam1083

Dear Mr. Jones: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1973, requesting ou view of your booklet on Standard No. 117. We have the following comments.; On page 2, under the heading, 'Does a Retread Have to Pass All Thes Tests', you refer to a lack of availability of test wheels. On page 3, under the heading, 'How Expensive Could Testing Get?', you quote figures of $250.00 to $400.00. As you know, the standard no longer includes the high speed and endurance Tests, and while there are other laboratory test involved in testing strength and bead unseating, neither includes the use of the laboratory test wheel. Consequently, insofar as your statements may take into account laboratory wheel tests, they should be modified.; On page 3, under the heading, 'What if One Certified Doesn't Comply?' you state, 'If the tire was not produced with due care then you will have both a recall and the probability of a penalty being assessed.' Notification of defects to first purchasers, however, is not contingent upon a showing of due care, and must be made even if a manufacturer used due care. Whether a manufacturer exercises due care is relevant only to whether he is in violation of the ACT, and to civil penalties, but not to defect notification (recall). The reason is that a retreader's exercise of due care doesn't change the fact that potentially unsafe tires will be used unless their owners are notified.; On page 4, under the Heading, 'Must You Submit Information On Defect and Failures?': Under section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended in 1970), each retreader must furnish NHTSA with a true and representative copy of all notices, bulletins, or other communications sent either to dealers or purchasers with regard to any defect in his tires. This requirements applies to all defects, and you should review it. It is incorrect to say that retreaders are not required to submit information regarding defects to NHTSA.; On page 4, under 'What Casing Controls are Required?', you indicat that no tire may be retreaded which has exposed ply cord. However, the standard allows ply cord to be exposed at a splice (S5.2.1(b)). While you make this point later, on page 5, the way in which you do so seems more to contradict than clarify your earlier statement. We suggest you indicate that ply cord may be exposed at a splice in the earlier paragraph as well. The same thing can be said for the next section on page 4, 'May Tires With Exposed Ply Cord be Retreaded?' This section is also completely silent on the exception for ply cord at a splice, and should also be modified.; On page 4, under the heading, 'What are Restrictions on Good Casings?' you omit certain requirements. Casings without a symbol DOT that are to be retreaded must only be of those size designations specified in the table at the end of the standard. These casings must also have permanently labeled on them the size, and number of plies or ply rating. Both of these information items and the symbol 'DOT' must also be permanently labeled on each DOT casing that is to be retreaded.; On page 5, under the heading, 'Should We Use Affixed Labels o Permanent Molding On Tire?', the minimum size for permanent labeling under S6.3.2 has been changed to 0.0078 inches. This change does not, however, affect affixed labels.; On page 6, under the heading, 'Is Any Provision Made For Sizin Difference in Retreads?', you state a retread may be 10% over new tire physical and dimension requirements. The 10% allowance for section width is to be calculated on the section width specified in the Tables of Standard No. 109, for the tire size designation. New tires are allowed to exceed this figure by 7%. Consequently, retreads can exceed the new tire requirements by only 3% (10% of the table figure). To say they can exceed the new tire requirement by 10% may mislead some persons into thinking they can exceed the value in the table by 17% which, of course, is not correct.; Apart from these points, your booklet appears to us to be essentiall correct. It should prove helpful to retreaders.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel