ID: aiam3428

Dear Mr. Jenkins: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117). Specifically, you asked if the addition of 'edger fabric strips', pursuant to a process covered by U.S. Patent 4,196,764, would violate the prohibition in section S5.2.2(b) of Standard No. 117 against adding belts to retreaded passenger car tires.; The described process is prohibited by section S5,2.2(b) (sic), becaus it is clearly adding a belt to the tire.; In the abstract of the subject patent, which you included in you request for an interpretation, is the following statement: 'The invention relates to the use of reinforcing cords associated with the pneumatic tire . . ., and the method of applying such reinforcing cords woven in a warp and weft relationship cut in a bias shape to form a belt....' Similarly, in the *Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments* section of the patent, Section 3 begins, 'The essence of my invention is achieved by providing an extra belt....' Hence, the patent itself states that this process involves the addition of a belt to retread tires. Such an addition is expressly forbidden by section S5.2.2(b) of Standard 117, 'No retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing on which a belt or ply, or part thereof, is added or replaced during processing.'; Your letter stated that this edger fabric should not be considered belt for purposes of the Standard, because the addition of the edger makes a retreaded tire safer and longer lasting. While you may be correct concerning the performance of 'edger fabric,' the Standard as currently written does not permit its use. If you wish, however, you may file a petition for rulemaking requesting this agency to amend Standard 117 to permit the addition of a belt such as edger fabric by following the requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). If you choose to do so, please include all data showing that the addition of this extra belt makes the retreaded tire safer, and that the edger fabric belt would be compatable (sic) with the existing cords of the casing that is used.; Finally, let me point out that Standard 117 applies only to retreade *passenger car* tires. There is no safety standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and the use of this patented process on those tires would not violate any requirements of this agency.; Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff sends his regards. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2272

Dear Mr. Mindheim: This responds to White Motor Corporation's March 26, 1976, request fo confirmation that the brake systems of incomplete and complete vehicles to which Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, applies, may be modified by White under provisions of paragraph 567.7 of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, or paragraph 568.5 of 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*.; Paragraph 567.7 provides that a person may alter a previously certifie vehicle prior to the first retail sale, and that the person must state that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with applicable standards if weight ratings or other than readily attachable components have been affected. The person may choose any point from the date of certification to the date alterations were completed as the date of the alterer's statement. The NHTSA would not consider White to be violating its certification responsibilities by alterations of the brake system that you describe, as long as White indicates the modifications under the provisions of paragraph 567.7.; Paragraph 568.5 of Part 568 provides that an intermediate manufacture may modify an incomplete vehicle. Under this paragraph, the intermediate manufacturer must furnish an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document reflecting any changes that should be made in the document because of modifications by the intermediate manufacturer that have affected validity of certain statements. White could utilize this provision to modify the vehicle so long as the addendum of changes is furnished along with the incomplete document.; As a practical result of the changes you describe, the final-stag manufacturer will not, as is normally the case, be able to utilize any date between the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle and the date of final completion as the basis of certification. Therefore, it may be advisable for White to issue a new incomplete vehicle document to assist the final-stage manufacturer in its certification responsibilities. Whenever this is not practical, a notation that the final-stage manufacturer's choice of dates has been limited by White's modification should be made in the addendum to the original document.; This discussion appears to conflict with the definition of intermediat manufacturer that appears in S 568.3. However, the definition is not intended to prevent the modifications you intend to undertake, and an interpretative amendment is being considered to clarify the breadth of the definition.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3868

Dear Mr. Chamberlain: This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) which concerned the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school bus safety. You asked whether a school bus contractor is automatically exempt from the Federal school bus safety standards if that contractor is a Public Utilities Commission (PUC) certificate carrier. The answer is no.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 196 (hereinafter 'the Vehicle Safety Act'), our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct NHTSA to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. A new 'bus' (i.e., a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 persons or more) which is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or school-related events is a 'school bus' under our regulatory definition. A manufacturer or dealer who sells a new bus who know that the vehicle will be significantly used as a school bus must ensure that the vehicle complies with the Federal school bus safety standards.; You stated in your letter that a school bus contractor has notifie your school district that 'under his PUC rights he is exempt from Federal Safety Regulations.' For the reasons discussed below, such a statement is inaccurate. Buses purchased by a PUC certificate carrier are not per se exempt from the Federal school bus safety standards.; It is correct that the regulatory definition of 'school bus' issued b this agency under the Vehicle Safety Act excludes a bus 'designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.' (49 CFR 571.3) However, the exclusion does not give persons who sell new buses to common carrier operators the license to disregard the school bus safety standards when they sell the buses. This is because the applicability of the standards to a bus is determined by its intended use, not by the fact that the purchaser has common carrier operations or holds a PUC certificate. Whether a particular bus must comply with the school bus safety standards depends on the intended use of that bus, as determined at the point of the vehicle's sale. If the seller of the school bus knows that the vehicle will be significantly used by the PUC carrier as a school bus, he must sell a bus that complies with the Federal school bus standards or be subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.; Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4427

"Dear Mr. Lawler: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Specifically, you noted that a final rule published July 6, 1988 (53 FR 25337) upgrades the safety belt requirements for heavy vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. One of the new requirements for those safety belts is that, if an automatic locking retractor (ALR) is used, that retractor 'shall not retract webbing to the next locking position until at least 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the retractor.' Standard No. 208 sets forth this requirement in section S4.3.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, and in section S4.4.2.2 for buses. You asked whether an ALR that depended on a mechanism external to the retractor itself to prevent it from retracting webbing to the next locking position would comply with S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2. The answer to your question is no. The agency explained in detail the reasons why the final rule did not adopt the proposed requirement for all heavy vehicle safety belts to be equipped with emergency locking retractors only, see 53 FR 25338-25340. The proposed prohibition of ALR's in heavy vehicles was based on the tendency of current designs of ALR's to become progressively tighter around an occupant as the vehicle travels over potholes or other jarring surfaces of the road. However, NHTSA acknowledged in the final rule that some newer designs of ALR's do not exhibit this tendency. In response to these newer designs of ALR's, the agency said: Therefore, this rule has been expanded from the proposal, in order to permit ALR's with anti-cinch capability to be installed in heavy vehicles. For the purposes of this rule, anti-cinch capability is determined by examining the working of the retractor after it has locked after the initial adjustment of the safety belt. 53 FR 25339. This language explicitly states that the 'working of the retractor' is what determines whether an ALR on a heavy vehicle belt complies with the requirements of Standard No. 208. Since the focus is exclusively on the 'working of the retractor,' an ALR must comply with these requirements without depending upon any external mechanisms to assist it. Any ALR that cannot satisfy these requirements without the assistance of external mechanisms would not comply with Standard No. 208's requirements for ALR's on heavy vehicles. This conclusion is reinforced by the agency's statement that: 'NHTSA believes it is appropriate to measure compliance with this new 3/4 inch minimum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 208 under the same conditions currently specified for determining compliance with the existing 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 209.' 53 FR 25340. The 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's is set forth in section S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 became effective in 1968, the agency has determined whether ALR's comply with this requirement by examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms. As explained in the final rule, the same procedure (examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms) will be used to measure compliance with the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208. In your letter, you requested that we issue an interpretation that any ALR that complies with Standard No. 209 can rely on the use of an external mechanism, such as your company's 'Komfort-Lok,' to comply with the minimum webbing travel requirements of Standard No. 208 for ALR's on safety belts in heavy vehicles. I cannot do so, for the reasons explained above. Any ALR used on a heavy vehicle safety belt must satisfy the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208 by the working of the retractor itself, without the use of any external mechanisms. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2173

Dear Mr. Heath: This is in response to your letter of December 8, 1975, asking fou questions, the answers to which would provide an interpretation of Standard No. 108 with respect to separation distance of a turn signal lamp from the nearest edge of a Type 2 headlamp.; SAE Standard J588d, *Turn Signal Lamps*, June 1966, incorporated b reference in Standard No. 108, requires in pertinent part that 'The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam . . . .' We agree with your opinion that the reference to filament center may have been added because of the difficulty of determining the location of the optical axis in certain instances. In the vast majority of cases, however the filament center is on the optical axis, and the addition of the provision assists in determining compliance with the requirement.; You have asked:>>> '1. Is the filament center always to be taken as the center of th optical axis?'<<<; The answer to this question is no. In some instances the filamen center will not be on the optical axis. When this is the case the standard is ambiguous as to whether distance is measured from the optical axis or the filament center. While we prefer the optical axis, under the present wording either must be viewed as legally supportable.>>>; '2. Is the center of the emitted light always to be taken as the cente of the optical axis?'<<<; The answer is yes.>>> '3. If the answers to the above two questions are no, does the vehicl manufacturer have the choice as to which method is most favorable to him?'<<<; Yes, because of the ambiguity the manufacturer may choose either th optical axis or filament center as the point of measurement.>>>; '4. What is the optical axis of a two- or three- compartment lamp?'<<< The optical axis of a multi-compartment lamp is the center of the ligh emitted by the array, treated as a single complex light source. The 'half-value' method you described in your letter is a valid method of finding the optical axis of a complex light source as well as that of a simple one.; Finally you have asked whether, if we agree with the need fo clarification, the letter can be considered a petition for rulemaking or whether a formal petition should be submitted.; We agree that clarification is needed and accordingly plan to issue notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1538

Dear Mr. Linch: This is in response to your letter of June 4, 1974, inquiring as to th validity of your odometer disclosure statement.; The odometer disclosure requirements prescribed at 49 CFR Part 58 specify that a seller must provide his purchaser with a written statement that declares the mileage indicated on the vehicle odometer at the time of the transfer. If that mileage is known by the transferor to differ from the number of miles actually traveled by the vehicle, this must also be included in the disclosure statement in the form specified in the regulations.; The statement suggested in your letter inserts the word 'may' into th aspect of the disclosure statement pertaining to mileage registration that is inaccurate for reasons other than calibration error. Although the statement as you have phrased it is not a direct violation of the Act, it is in conflict with the intended purpose of the disclosure statement to inform the purchaser of a vehicle as to the accuracy of the mileage registered on the odometer. In order to accomplish this purpose it has been determined that where the seller of a vehicle has good reason to believe that the mileage registered on the odometer differs from the vehicle's true mileage he must so inform the buyer in positive terms. This insures a conscious effort to determine the accuracy of the vehicle's odometer will bemade (sic) by the seller and prevents him from transferring ownership of a vehicle in a manner that could mislead the buyer.; In the situation where the transferor is uncertain whether the mileag is accurate, he must determine whether there is a credible basis for an assumption that the mileage is either correct or incorrect. If he has good reason to believe that the mileage is inaccurate, even though he is not positive, he should check the statement saying that the mileage indicated on the odometer is incorrect.; We urge you to phrase your odometer disclosure statement in the manne prescribed in the odometer regulation.; The full odometer statement enclosed in your letter appears correct However, I should point out that the transferor's signature and the date of the statement must appear on the form in order for it to be complete.; For your information I am enclosing a copy of the odometer regulatio which includes the odometer disclosure statement form.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0400

Dear Mr. Taft: This is in response to your letter of June 29, 1971, in which you as who would be the manufacturer of a retreaded tire, when the tire is manufactured by a process, known as 'cure out'. You explain this process as one in which one retread shop will process a casing to the point where it would be placed in a mold for curing. The tire is then sent to a second shop for curing and subsequently returned as a finished product to the first retread shop.; You indicate that one of your members is now involved in a legal case and the outcome apparently hinges on who is legally responsible for the performance of the tire.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C S1381 *et seq.*) and motor vehicle safety standards and regulation issued pursuant to the Act (49 CFR S551 *et seq.*) the manufacturer in the 'cure out' process as described above, would be the second retread shop, the one which produces the finished product. It is he who would be required to assume responsibility for the compliance of the tire with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, 'Retreaded Pneumatic Tires', and it is also he who would be assigned a code mark pursuant to the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574).; However, the person we consider the manufacturer for purposes of th Act and regulations issued pursuant to the Act, may not be responsible for the tire in a civil suit, and our opinion is not intended to speak to the issue if liability in a civil action.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2495

Dear Mr. Munafo: This responds to your letter of December 7, 1976, regarding the use o plastic glazing materials for side windows of school buses. You asked what materials are permitted by Federal regulations for school bus side windows and whether Federal laws concerning the materials that may be used preempt State laws on the same subject.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. S1381 *et*. *seq*.) provides in part:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.<<<; Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials* (49 CFR 571.205) currentl does not permit the use of plastic glazing in bus side windows. Therefore, State laws that permit plastic glazing are in direct conflict with Standard No. 205, and it is the agency's opinion that they would be preempted.; I would point out that the agency recently issued a proposal to amen Standard No. 205 that would permit the use of rigid plastic glazing in bus side windows (41 FR 56837, Dec. 30, 1976). I am enclosing a copy of this proposal for your information. I am also enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 and the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205. From these standards you can determine the various types of glazing materials that are permitted for side windows and the requirements that the glazing must meet.; Regarding your question about replacement glazing, Standard No. 205 i not a vehicle standard and is applicable to all glazing for use in motor vehicles, whether the glazing is to be installed in new vehicles or as replacement in used vehicles. Therefore, glazing manufacturers and fabricators cannot produce glazing to be used in a given location in a vehicle unless the standard permits that type of glazing to be used in that location, regardless of whether it is original or replacement glazing.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3811

Dear Mr. Mandell: This is in response to your further letter of December 15, 1983 regarding your lighting device, asking me to reconsider my views of November 22 that it offered the potential for impairment of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.; To recap, your device utilizes the body panel between the left an right rear lamps to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backup up. Roughly, it operates by lights (red? amber?) spreading from the center of the red translucent panel outward, in either or both directions. I concluded that the novelty of the device offered a great potential for confusion, in the stop mode, a following driver will see the steady red light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, and also the dynamic lights spreading out from the center of the red panel. You have indicated that modification of the flash rate will not be a problem, and were the light spread activation perceptually almost simultaneous with that of the stop lamp, the possibility of impairment would diminish.; I also commented that the same dynamic light spread is seen but mean to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously (your system's hazard warning mode). Since all lamps are flashing, we believe that the potential for impairment is much less in this instance.; We note that you have added two further functions since last writing u about your device: displays of words in the hazard mode indicating whether road service or police aid is needed. This is an interesting concept and we regard it as a supplement to the hazard signal which would not impair its effectiveness.; In the final analysis, aftermarket equipment such as you propose t offer, which is not itself incorporated into the Federal lighting standard, is subject to the 'approval' or 'disapproval' of the various jurisdictions in which motor vehicles equipped with it are being operated. It is a mistaken impression that the Federal Government 'approves' or 'disapproves' aftermarket equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act gives us no authority to 'approve' or 'disapprove.' We can and do, however, point out potential problems of a safety nature that may arise from use of a device that is not covered by a safety standard.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 2074y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is in reply to your letter of August 24, l989, with respect to an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. l08, as it applies to the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

The paragraph requires that no portion of the lens shall be lower than 3 inches below the rear window, if the lamp is mounted below the rear window. Your letter depicts two areas in which a lamp lens may be mounted, denoted "(A)" and "(B)". In both, the lower edge of the rear window is curved. In "(A)", the boundary of the allowable area is curved, and follows the curve of the lower edge of the rear window at a parallel distance of 3 inches. In "(B)", the boundary of the allowable area is a straight line which measures 3 inches from the end of the lower edge of the rear window, but which is greater than 3 inches at all other points because of the curve of the window.

The initial requirement of paragraph S5.3.1.8 is that the highmounted lamp be "mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the rear." This means that the 3-inch distance is measured from the lower edge of the rear window that is at the vertical centerline. Thus, your "(A)" is the correct location because the boundary line is 3 inches directly below the center point of the vertical centerline, and your "(B)" is not acceptable because its boundary line is more than 3 inches below that point.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:l0/6/89