ID: nht95-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 18, 1995

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Samuel Dubbin -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: Request for interpretation

ATTACHMT: 1/29/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Tilman Spingler (A44; Std. 108)

TEXT: with todays optical and mechanical methods it will be possible to achieve both high- and lowbeam of a headlamp with only one single lightsource. Are there any reservations against on the basis of the requirements in FMVSS 108? If no, which photometric requirements are applicable? Such a headlamp will in any case meet the photometric requirements for lower beam in the lower beam mode and for upper beam in the upper beam mode. The position on the vehicle is the same as for a 2-headlamp-system (e.g. wi th HB1-, HB2-, HB5-bulbs).

ID: aiam4154

Dear Mr. Laurens: This is in response to your letter of October 8, 1985, concernin Federal odometer disclosure requirements. It appears that Georgia car dealers have been *routinely* certifying that, to the best of their knowledge, the odometer reading is not the actual mileage and should not be relied upon. You asked whether this is a violation of the odometer requirements, by constituting a false statement or on any other grounds.; Congress found that purchasers rely on mileage as an indicator of th value and condition of vehicles and enacted Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1981 *et seq*. Section 1988(a) of the Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules requiring any transferor to give a written disclosure (1) of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer or (2) that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is known to the transferor to be different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled. To carry out this mandate, Federal regulation 49 C.F.R. Part 580 was promulgated. Furthermore, Section 1988(a) states that no transferor shall violate any rule prescribed under the section or give a false statement to a transferee in making any disclosure required by such rule.; A Senate report interprets Section 1988 as placing a duty on aut dealers to alert purchasers of irregularities in odometers when, in the exercise of reasonable care, they would have reason to know the odometer reading is inaccurate. S. Rep. No. 92-413, (92nd Cong., 2nd Sess.), 1972 U.S. Code Cong. Ad. & News 3971-3972. If a purchaser receives an odometer statement in which his transferor certified that the odometer reading does not reflect the actual mileage and should not be relied upon, that purchaser, when selling the vehicle, should certify the same. However, if a purchaser receives an odometer statement in which his transferor certified that to the best of his knowledge the odometer reading reflects the actual mileage the vehicle has been driven, and he has no reasonable suspicion that the reading is inaccurate, when selling the vehicle, he should not certify that the reading is inaccurate. If a transferor certifies the readings as inaccurate in the latter situation, it is the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that they violate the regulations prescribed under Section 1988, 49 C.F.R. S 580.4.; The Federal regulations provide for the inclusion of two sets o certifications on odometer disclosure statements. If the dealers truly wish to insulate themselves from liability when they have a reasonable suspicion that the mileage on the odometer has been altered, they *should* certify that the reading is not accurate, and check the third statement in the first set of certifications. However, none of the three statements in the second set covers a situation where a transferor suspects that an odometer reading is inaccurate, but the odometer was not altered, set back or disconnected in his possession. The Agency allows a transferor to check the first statement and cross out the lines which read, 'and I have no knowledge of anyone else doing so' provided that though crossed out it can still be read. Alternatively, we have no objection to a transferor writing and checking a fourth statement which would read:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer of said vehicle was not altered set back, or disconnected while in my possession.; <<

ID: 10444

Ms. Jean Moffitt
17311 Equestrian Trail
Odessa, FL 33556

Dear Ms. Moffitt:

This responds to your letter to this office in which you stated that your son, a 9th grade student, rides a 65-passenger school bus in which he must sit on the edge of the seat such that only half his body is on the seat.

We recently addressed this issue in an October 26, 1994, letter to Ms. Debra Platt of Stuart, Florida, and have enclosed a copy of our response for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, a copy of a report prepared by this agency entitled School Bus Safety Report, and a copy of a Report Summary prepared by the Transportation Research Board in May, 1989. The latter two reports give a good overview of the issues connected with school bus safety, and they and Guideline 17 contain recommendations to the various states in developing their own pupil transportation safety programs.

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222 d:2/3/395

ID: nht72-1.21

DATE: 12/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 8, 1972, inquiring whether new casings, to which tread is later added, are considered to be "tires" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The NHTSA has taken the position that such casings are not tires until after the tread has been added, and the casings are not required to be certified as conforming to applicable standards until that occurs. Consequently, such casings may be imported without prior certification.

You also ask how best to inform Customs of our position, to avoid possible importation problems. We suggest you write to Mr. P. K. McCarthy, Chief, Restrictive Merchandise Branch, U. S. Bureau of Customs, Room 704C, 1145 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20226, advising him of our opinion, and ask him to acknowledge this interpretation. You might also take steps to ensure that this information is relayed to the local customs officials at those ports of entry where the casings will be imported. If you need further assistance in this matter, please let me know.

ID: nht92-9.8

DATE: February 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeff Ruff -- The Braun Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/30/91 from Jeff Ruff to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6631)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 30, 1991, regarding Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and vehicles designed to be operated by persons with disabilities. Your letter indicates that you must remove "the support brace between the 'B' pillars and forward" when you alter a vehicle for a person who must transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat. You also indicate that the original manufacturer of the vehicle will not allow you to pass through certification for Standard No. 208 if these alterations are made.

The safety requirements for new light trucks and vans were upgraded as of September 1, 1991. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters like your company and individuals, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, this agency granted that petition. You should understand that the granting of a petition for rulemaking signifies that the agency believes a further review of the issues raised in the petition appears to have merit, but it is not a determination that the light truck and van crash test requirement should be amended. Any determination to amend the crash test requirement would be made in the course of a rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. By addressing the issue comprehensively, in response to this petition for rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to each of the individual requests, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection.

However, we are aware that individuals seeking to purchase new vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities need more immediate relief than rulemaking can offer. To afford more immediate relief, this agency announced in a January 21, 1992 letter to Representative Porter Goss that NHTSA will not conduct any crash testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this

rulemaking is pending. This should allow your company to continue to produce such modified vehicles while this rulemaking is pending.

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

ID: nht94-9.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Opening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht94-1.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Openi ng" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside a nd outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use thi s sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: aiam0617

Dear Mr. Gardner: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to replacement bus seat covers.; Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket or replacemen materials. It applies only to new vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1972, as of the time of their manufacture, and does not apply to replacement materials used in those vehicles.; We trust this clarifies the situation for you. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0313

Dear Mr. Lewis: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1971, requesting ou interpretation of S4.5.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. You have asked whether the requirement of S4.5.2 that 'all electrical circuits' must be monitored would mean that a bridgewire circuit in an electroexplosive device would have to be monitored. Our answer is that such a circuit must be monitored, although it should be noted that monitoring need not be continuous, but may be designed to occur, for example, only when the ignition is in the 'start' position.; Your letter points out several potential problems with the inclusion o such a bridgewire circuit among the monitored systems. We are giving consideration to the self-monitoring requirement in the light of the comments we have received, with a view to possible amendments that may be found advisable.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2534

Dear Mr. Bertolini: This responds to your March 7, 1977, letter asking whether you proposed remanufacture of 573 trailer chassis would constitute the manufacture of new chassis which would be required to conform to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems,* or any other applicable regulation.; According to the remanufacture proposal you describe, Seatrain Line will be the user of the chassis both before and after the remanufacture, although it will no longer own any of them. Fruehauf Corporation will become the owner of all of the chassis, whereas it currently owns none.; The NHTSA regulations pertaining to the remanufacture of chassis ar found in 49 CFR Part 571.7. In that regulation the agency states that the chassis must be owned or leased by the same entity both before and after remanufacture. Since Seatrain is the current user of the vehicles (as owner and lessee) and will continue to be the user after remanufacture (as a lessee), it appears that the remanufactured vehicle will not be one that requires certification with motor vehicle safety standards.; It should be pointed out that if the transaction you describe fo achieving remanufacture becomes a large-scale practice in the trailer industry, the agency will be compelled to reconsider the meaning of 'manufacture' under its regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel