ID: aiam2179

Dear Mr. Robbins: This is in response to your November 7, 1975, request for a interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*, as applied to the tire that you have described as a 'Radial, Bias Ply Tire'.; On that date, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Al Duduk, and th following NHTSA personnel in attendance: Dr. E.H. Wallace, A.Y. Casanova, and Mark Schwimmer. At the meeting, out letter to you, dated November 3, 1975, was discussed and alternative forms of labeling for this tire were explored. you presented, in substance, the following four examples of sidewall labeling and inquired about their compliance with Standard No. 109:; >>>1. 'POLYANGLE' accompanied by '3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER 1 ARAMID' 2. 'POLYANGLE' accompanied by 'NOT A CONVENTIONAL RADIAL PLY TIRE' an '3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY'; 3. 'RADIAL/BIAS' accompanied by 'NOT A CONVENTIONAL RADIAL PLY TIRE and '3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY'; 4. 'RADIAL/BIAS' accompanied by 'NOT TO BE USED WITH CONVENTIONA RADIAL BELTED TIRES' and '3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY'<<<; Tires labeled according to your firs example would be in complianc with the requirements of S4.3(g) of Standard no. 109. A strict interpretation of S4.3(g) would rule out the remaining examples because the word 'radial' appears in all of them. However, the NHTSA recognizes that, with the development of new tire construction types, this section of the standard may not be adequate to serve its original purpose, to reduce the hazards associated with the mismatching of tires on a single vehicle. Accordingly, we are preparing to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard. For this reason and because the second, third, and fourth examples are in conformity with the spirit of S4.3(g), the NHTSA will, on an interim basis, consider tires so labeled to be in compliance. You may wish the consult with the Federal Trade Commission concerning the advertising of these tires.; I would like to point out that S4.3(d) requires Kevlar, if used as cord material in a tire, to be identified by its generic name on the tire's sidewall. The generic name of kevlar, as established by the FTC pursuant to the Textile Fiber Product Identification Act (15 USC 70), is Aramid.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 27, 1995

FROM: Bill Lieb -- Regional Sales Mgr., Restech

TO: Philip Recht, Office Of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHIL RECHT TO BILL LIEB (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

I am a sales manager for Fel-Pro Chemical Products in Denver, CO. My company formulates epoxy adhesives for many different applications including the automotive industry.

We have formulated an adhesive that has been tested by a manufacturer of sealed beam automotive head lamps. The manufacturer was told by the current supplier of the adhesive that D.O.T. 'approval' is required prior to changing the adhesive used on the h ead lamps.

We have been referred to 'Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. '108' for the appropriate test requirements on the adhesive. However this standard does not say anything about adhesives.

I then contacted Mr. Laubis in the Office of Vehicle Safety & Compliance, Enforcement Section. Mr. Laubis told me that D.O.T. does not test, approve, or specify any adhesives, but just verifies that the completed unit meets the prescribed standards, and passes the appropriate tests. Is this correct?

If this information is correct, would it be possible for you to provide me with something in writing to confirm this information? As of today, it is my word against the word of the other adhesive vendor, who say's that D.O.T. 'approval' is required. I need something to give to the manufacturer to confirm the information that I have, and to let them know that they are not locked into an old material if they want to change.

Thank you very much for your help.

ID: aiam1126

Dear Mr. Ford: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1973, requesting ou opinion as to the conformity with 49 CFR Part 577, 'Defect Notification', of a defect notification letter to be mailed by your client, V/M Custom Boat Trailers. The notification fails to conform with Part 577 in the following ways:; >>>1. In the second paragraph, the phrase 'trailer vehicle safety' mus be changed to 'motor vehicle safety'. A trailer is a motor vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; 2. The letter is silent as to precautions the owner should take t reduce the chance that the malfunction will occur before the vehicle is repaired (S 577.4(c)(4)). One obvious precaution where vehicle lighting is defective is to refrain from night operation.; 3. The letter is silent as to an evaluation of the risk to traffi safety reasonably related to the defect (S 577.4(d)).; 4. We would consider the last paragraph on page 1 of your letter reading, 'The defect on those trailers . . .does not affect the mechanical operation of said trailer except insofar as the lighting is inefficient as installed according to the U.S. Department of Transportation,' to be a disclaimer and prohibited by section 577.6.; 5. The letter does not specify the manufacturer's estimate of the dat by which his dealers or his other service facilities will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect (S 577.4(e)(1)(ii)).; 6. We consider the last paragraph of your letter, beginning, 'If th owner chooses . . .' to be optional, and therefore permissible, as you have apparently decided to conform to section 577.4(e)(1), under which the manufacturer offers to repair the defect through his dealers or his other service facilities without charge. We wish to point out, for your information, that this paragraph, together with the other information contained in your letter, would not meet the requirements of section 577.4(e)(3) (under which the manufacturer does not bear the cost of repair) were that the applicable provision.<<<; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4819

Dear Mr. Barben: This replies to your letter of October 8, l990, wit respect to a lighted side rail for pickup trucks that you wish to sell in the aftermarket. The rail would be offered in colors of amber, hot pink, and hot yellow. Your literature shows the rails as mounted immediately above the right and left longitudinal sides of the pickup bed. You would like to know our position on compliance of this product. Aftermarket lighting equipment is permissible under the statutes and regulations of our agency as long as its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any element of design or device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You have informed us that your literature warns against installation of the device in any manner that would orient it towards the front or rear of the vehicle, rather than along its sides. Also, you would provide instructions 'for separate fusing of the electrical supply lines.' Under these circumstances, we believe that there would not be any rendering inoperative of the lighting equipment required by Motor Vehicle Standard No. 108. Further, the lighted side rails would appear to enhance the conspicuity of the vehicle from the side, even though the colors you intend to offer are not the red of the vehicle's rear side marker lamp and reflector. We are not in a position to advise whether the lighted side rails would comply with the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered or operated. We recommend that you ask the opinion of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 on this issue. You have commented that 'This is a proprietary product and would appreciate your treatment as such.' However, based upon a telephone conversation between you and Bill Fox of my staff, I understand that you do not expect confidential treatment of any of the information in your letter. Therefore, both your letter and our reply will be made available for inspection by the public in accordance with our policy on interpretations. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0676

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1972, in which you as whether, under the procedures of paragraph S5.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' you may interpret the reference to materials having a 'thickness' exceeding 1/2 inch to mean the 'design thickness.' You request this interpretation because it appears that some materials having a design thickness of 1/2 inch or less may increase in thickness due to vibration or moisture absorbtion. In cutting these materials down to the 1/2-inch thickness for testing purposes, you say a fluffy surface is created which burns at a much higher rate than the material's original surface.; For purposes of testing for compliance with the standard, manufacturer are free to deviate from the procedures specified in the standard as long as the results they obtain can be correlated to results obtained using the test procedures of the standard. The test procedures specified in S5.2.1 are not, however, intended to result in a changing of the texture of a material's surface when the material is cut to the specified size. Consequently, while we cannot approve of the interpretation you request, we would consider a slight deviation in the thickness of tested materials from the 1/2-inch specification, in order to preserve the original surface of the material, to be consistent with the standard's test procedure. I point out further that the NHTSA is aware of the problems you have encountered, and is presently considering amendments to the standard which would alter this result.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2502

Dear Mr. Holtan: This responds to your February 3, 1977, letter asking whether the ne school bus definition (effective April 1, 1977) precludes the use of vans which seat less than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school.; The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L 93-492) authorized the NHTSA to redefine the term 'school bus' to include all motor vehicles which seat 10 or more passengers and which transport children to and from school. The NHTSA redefined the term in accordance with the wishes of Congress for the purpose of prescribing safety requirements for buses that fall within the definition. The definition does not preclude the use of vans or any other type of motor vehicle which seat fewer than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school. Such vehicles may transport children without complying with the school bus safety requirements.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1695

Dear Mr. Relihan: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1974, requesting ou comments on a memorandum from Mr. Kevin Tighe stating that a disclosure form developed by him had been approved by the Department of Transportation for use in satisfying the requirements of the odometer disclosure regulation (49 CFR Part 580).; No formal approval of the disclosure form contained in the Tigh memorandum was ever given by the Department of Transportation. Mr. Tighe arrived at the format and discussed its contents at one point with this agency, but specific authorization for its use was never given. The disclosure form suggested by Mr. Tighe was not previously considered as constituting a violation of the odometer disclosure regulations. Over the past year it has become apparent that disclosure forms not printed in the manner prescribed in the regulation have been responsible for misleading buyers who are confused by their ambiguous format. These forms have also been abused by certain sellers who rely on their ambiguity in misrepresenting the accuracy of a vehicle's odometer. Due to this situation, the NHTSA has concluded that a stricter interpretation of the odometer regulation is necessary in order to fulfill the Act's intended purpose.; Our recent correspondence with you indicating the noncompliance of th disclosure form you enclosed should not be interpreted as citing a violation of the Act. Our determination of a noncompliance is not retroactive, since we previously gave a broader interpretation to the disclosure form requirements. The format used on the disclosure document submitted by you for our review will in the future be considered as not satisfying the requirements of the disclosure regulation. Past use of these forms, however, is not considered violative of the Act.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam0195

Dear Mr. Robinson: #Thank you for your letter of November 24, 1969, t the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning our proposed retreaded tire standard. #I appreciate you sending your thoughts on tire safety to our attention since we make a point of being as familiar as possible with the present state-of-the-art of all aspects to tire safety. #The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply to tires manufactured exclusively for off-road competitive use or to tires retreaded exclusively for off-road competitive use. You are cautioned however, that if the tires are sold for 'street use', then these racing tires will be covered by the proposed standards and would be subject to the requirements. #Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam0055

Dear Mr. Romney: Thank you for your letter of March 6, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield concerning the additional clearance lamps and reflectors that you have been requested to install on vehicles shipped to Hawaii.; Referring to the drawing attached to your letter, the use of clearanc lamps as shown does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, provided (1) the two lamps on front of the body are *amber* in color, and (2) the lamp on the rear of the body is red in color. Also, use of the amber reflex reflector on front of the body would not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. Paragraph S3.1.2 of the Standard states: 'No additional lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment shall be installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment.' This requirement applies to all applicable vehicles, including those owned by a State.; On your drawing, it appears that you have inadvertently indicated a re color for the clearance lamps on the front of the body. Use of red lamps at the locations shown would impair the effectiveness of the required equipment, since red lamps are used, in accordance with the standard, to designate the rear of the vehicle.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the Standard.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance;

ID: 7689

Mr. Leonard Marks
211 East Grand Avenue
Old Orchard Beach, ME 04064

Dear Mr. Marks:

This responds to your letter asking how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you intend to market. According to your letter, this device is "a new adjustable attachment to seat belts which allows the user to lower the level so that it will no longer cut them in the neck and yet give them the safety of the belt." I am pleased to provide the following information.

It is not entirely clear how your proposed device would work. However, we have explained how our regulations apply to several different types of belt positioning devices. One such device is a "comfort clip," which is attached to the safety belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken in by the belt's retractor. We have explained how our regulations apply to comfort clips in a February 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Lewis Quetel (copy enclosed). Another device is one that clips the shoulder belt to the lap belt nearer the middle of the wearer's abdomen. We have explained how our regulations apply to these belt positioning devices in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin (copy enclosed). Yet another device is a covered foam pad that is fastened around the belt. We have explained how our regulations apply to these devices in a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven (copy enclosed). Since your device would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. This information sheet also explains how to get copies of our regulations.

As you will see from reviewing the enclosed letters, aftermarket sales and installation by individual vehicle owners of devices to reposition belts are not prohibited by any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the use of such devices could raise serious safety concerns if the devices inadvertently reduce the safety protection afforded by the original equipment safety belts.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208 d:9/15/92