ID: nht94-8.49

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc., Denver Branch

TO: Walt Myers -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Rulemaking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/31/94 From John Womack To Allan Garman (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(1)(A)

TEXT: Total number of pages INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE: 5

Mr. Myers:

As a followup to our telephone conversation this afternoon regarding the saleability of 287 baby car seats being transported inside a tractor-trailer which was involved in an accident, my 4-pg. "File Report" to the Insurance Adjuster follows for your review.

Although the "File Report" contains some information which will be of minimal interest to you, I felt it best if I provided you with all the information I have.

Please respond by answering the following questions:

1) Is there law in effect which would prohibit us from selling the involved car seats as salvage due to the fact that they were involved in a transit accident?

2) Assuming the subject car seats complied with all federal safety regulations and guidelines prior to being involved in this truck accident, are there any other laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, or recommended practices under the NHTSA's jurisdiction which we should consider before offering these car seats for eventual sale to the public?

3) Can we arrange to have an NHTSA representative from the local Denver office inspect these car seats at our warehouse and render an opinion as to whether they comply with all applicable federal safety standards?

My most sincere thanks to you for researching this matter for us. I look forward to your response.

Please find my address, telephone number, and fax number on the "File Report" letterhead.

(ATTACHMENT OMITTED)

ID: nht73-3.24

DATE: 02/14/73

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

TO: Orin D. Miner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Contact 6 of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has sent us a copy of your letter asking that we respond to your questions.

In your letter you inquire as to the distribution of fines collected from tire manufacturers as a result of their manufacturing tires that do not comply with the requirements of the Federal standard for passenger car tires (Standard No. 109).

Monies collected as settlement offers are transmitted to the general funds of the United States Treasury.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including the passenger car tire standard, are minimum standards vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers are required to meet. They are issued to give assurance that if the product in question meets the standards the public will have some protection against unreasonable risk of death or injury.

In addition to the question of civil penalties, manufacturers of non-conforming vehicles or tires are usually required to issue a defect notification and are urged to replace the defective equipment. Your complaint does not appear to be concerned with a safety related problem but rather with tires that you believe have not given you adequate treadwear. This is not an area covered by existing standards, however, this agency has under consideration a quality grading regulation which would include grading requirements for the treadwear life of each tire manufactured after a given date.

Concerning your recommendation that Federal inspectors be placed in tire manufacturers' plants, this has been considered at various times and the agency's present thinking is that the cost and manpower involved would not warrant this course of action.

Thank you for your interest in auto safety and your views in this area.

ID: nht95-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 3, 1995

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

TO: David T. Holland -- President, Europa International, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/24/95 LETTER FROM DAVID T. HOLLAND TO MARY VERSAILLES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holland:

This responds to your letter of February 24, 1995, regarding the passive restraint phase-in requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether an importer which "imports Canadian specificat ion MPV's (multipurpose passenger vehicles), such as the Chrysler Minivan, that meets (sic) the MPV passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 . . . . can count these vehicles toward the required percentage."

Section S4.2.5.6.1(a) states, "(a) vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer." Thus, to determine compliance with the passive restraint phase-in requirements, Europa International should (1) count all trucks, buses, and mpv's with a gr oss vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, (2) count all such vehicles which meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208, and (3) determine if that class of vehicles is a sufficient percentage of the first class of vehicles to satisfy the phase-in requirements. However, as Mary Versailles of my staff cautioned you on the phone, some manufacturers are installing European (face) air bags but are not certifying that vehicles with such air bags meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208. Therefore, you should verify that any vehicle with an air bag is in fact certified to FMVSS 208's passive restraint requirements.

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.

ID: nht94-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc., Denver Branch

TO: Walt Myers -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Rulemaking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/31/94 From John Womack To Allan Garman (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(1)(A)

TEXT: Total number of pages INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE: 5

Mr. Myers:

As a followup to our telephone conversation this afternoon regarding the saleability of 287 baby car seats being transported inside a tractor-trailer which was involved in an accident, my 4-pg. "File Report" to the Insurance Adjuster follows for your re view.

Although the "File Report" contains some information which will be of minimal interest to you, I felt it best if I provided you with all the information I have.

Please respond by answering the following questions:

1) Is there law in effect which would prohibit us from selling the involved car seats as salvage due to the fact that they were involved in a transit accident?

2) Assuming the subject car seats complied with all federal safety regulations and guidelines prior to being involved in this truck accident, are there any other laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, or recommended practices under the NHTSA's jurisdictio n which we should consider before offering these car seats for eventual sale to the public?

3) Can we arrange to have an NHTSA representative from the local Denver office inspect these car seats at our warehouse and render an opinion as to whether they comply with all applicable federal safety standards?

My most sincere thanks to you for researching this matter for us. I look forward to your response.

Please find my address, telephone number, and fax number on the "File Report" letterhead.

(ATTACHMENT OMITTED)

ID: nht94-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 17, 1994

FROM: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TO: Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from Barry Felrice to Karl-Heinz Ziwica (Part 543)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gray:

This letter is to inform the agency that beginning with the 1995 model year, BMW will be utilizing the 7-carline parts marking exemption granted by the NHTSA on October 9, 1986 (51 CFR 3633). As was explained to you by Mr. James C. Patterson of my staff on February 7, 1994, there have been three updates to the anti-theft device previously approved on the 7-carline. Accordingly, BMW requests that the NHTSA determine these updates constitute de minimus changes to the 7-carline's anti-theft device.

The following paragraphs describes the updates:

1. The remote device has become an integral component within the vehicle key and is the actuator for the alarm system. This change is identical to the change that BMW made on the 8-carline anti-theft device, which NHTSA has already determined to be de m inimus (NHTSA letter from Mr. Barry Felrice to K.-H. Ziwica dated 10/04/93).

2. The monitoring circuits for radio theft and glove box entry, now, monitor glass breakage to further ensure the security of the entire occupant compartment, rather than, the individual components. All other monitoring (e.g. doors, hood, trunk, etc.) h as remained as when the device was previously approved.

3. The anti-theft device's siren has been changed to a 112db siren.

If further information is needed or you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Patterson on (201) 573-2041.

ID: nht69-2.13

DATE: 07/17/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1969, in which you ask whether a form that you enclose satisfies the requirements of Consumer Information section S75.106, Acceleration and Pusint Ability.

Your placement of the words "not capable" in the figure conforms to the requirements of the section. It is not necessary to include the words in the diagram also. In reference to your question concerning line spacing: In presenting the information "in essentially the form illustrated in Figure 1" (section 375.106(c)), it is not necessary that the manufacturer's presentation be an exact copy of the figure in respect to type face, line spacing, and so forth. The presentation in your enclosure would be adequate in those respects.

In answer to your question about teduction of the figure. The regulation did not specify a type size, but the information is required to be exactly legible. The size in which the figure appeared in the Federal Register would appear to approximate the minimum in this regard.

Finally, I should note that the "Description of Vehicles to which this Table Applies" is required by section 375.106(c)(1) to be "in the(Illegible Word) by which they are described to the public by the manufacturer". This would normally be in terms of the model designation,(Illegible Word) equipment, or other common description, not the regulatory type of "motor-driven(Illegible Word) as you indicate (unless, of course, this is your company(Illegible Word) designation of this type).

I am pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht71-3.45

DATE: 07/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Rueck and Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1971, to the National Highway Safety Bureau (now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) concerning the requirements for sealed beam headlamp units.

The answers to your specific questions are as follows:

1. Sealed beam units must meet the photometric specifications in SAE J579 at the design voltage at or below the maximum amperes specified in SAE J573.

2. Tolerances are as follows:

Electrical power - the maximum electrical power is the product, in watts, of the design voltage multiplied by the maximum amperes at design volts. There is no specified minimum electrical power.

Maximum amperes - There is no tolerance. Maximum amperes is the maximum specified in SAE J573.

Design watts - There is no tolerance. There is, however, a tolerance on the actual watts or electrical power as described above.

3.4.4. The filament types and positions are illustrative of current practice only. Any type or position may be used to meet the specification of J579 and J573.

5. All glass sealed beam units are not mandatory. There are no restriction in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or the SAE Standards on the number of pieces or the materials which are used to complete the assembled sealed beam unit as long as the specifications, including those in SAE J571, are met. Caution should be used, however, to ensure that a good and durable seal is obtained between the metal back, if used, and the other parts to optimize the useful service life of the sealed beam unit.

ID: nht73-4.27

DATE: 06/14/73

FROM: AUTOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hayden; Smith; Ford & Hays

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1973, forwarding to us your second attempt to compose a letter that will conform to Part 577, Defect Notification, for a defect involving the lighting in boat trailers manufactured by V/M Custom Boat Trailers. We responded to an earlier letter from you on May 16, 1973.

Section 577.6 prohibits the making of any statement in the notification that either states or implies that the problem discussed is not a defect, or that it does not relate to motor vehicle safety. As we indicated to you in our letter of May 16, we considered your statement, "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 prohibited by section 577.6. The additional phrase, "This statement is one of fact only and is not intended to be a disclaimer which is prohibited by section 577.6 of the Act", which you have now inserted, does not remedy that deficiency. The regulation states that such a statement may not be made at all; it does not allow it to be made and denied.

Our objection to the statement is with your description of the defect as an "inefficiency" according to the Department of Transportation. This safety related defect results, rather, from violations of law which require your client's products to meet minimim safe levels of performance. We recommend that rather than attempt once again to rewrite your statement, and risk violation of the regulation, you delete it entirely, and send the notification to purchasers forthwith.

In other respects your notification appears to conform to Part 577.

ID: nht92-4.28

DATE: August 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R.J. Misorski -- Director, Maintenance & Repair, Maersk Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/6/92 from R.J. Misorski to NHTSA Legal Council (OCC 7638)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You write with reference to an amendment that became effective December 1, 1991, requiring a minimum of 12 square inches of lens area for rear stop or turn signals on vehicles over 80 inches wide, regardless of the separation between lamps. You request confirmation of your feeling that "equipment manufactured prior to December 1, 1991 would be exempt from this ruling", and that "it only applies to equipment that is manufactured after December 1, 1991." You have asked for this interpretation to "ensure compliance with our equipment fleet."

What the amendments require is that multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which are manufactured on and after December 1, 1991, be equipped with stop and turn signal lamps that meet the new requirements. Stop and turn signal lamps which were manufactured prior to that date that do not meet the new requirements are permissible to replace original equipment of the same type on vehicles manufactured before December 1, 1991, but they cannot be used as either original or replacement stop and turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured on and after December 1, 1991. Furthermore, Standard No. 108 continues to allow manufacture and sale on and after December 1, 1991, of the old type of stop and turn signal lamps for replacement of original equipment on vehicles manufactured prior to December 1, 1991.

I hope that this assists you with your compliance question. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: nht90-2.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel.,NHTSA

TO: Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-21-90 To Taylor Vinson and From Dipl.- H. Westermann; (OCC 4484); Also attached to letter dated 2- 7-90 To Richard van Iderstine and From Dipl.- H. Westermann.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety standard No. 108 with respect to whether two designs for center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) you enclosed are permissible. You wish to know whether tbe ECE definition of "lamp unity" can be applied, and whether the designs form a CHMSL unity in the sense of Standard NO. 108. The question, as we see it, is not whether the ECE definition can be applied, but whether the two designs you submitted would meet the clearly expressed requirements of standard No. 108. The standard requires that there be a single lamp, that it have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, that its signal be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and that it provide specified minimum photometric values at 13 specific test points. The design represented in Enclosure 1 appears to pass through the center of the lamp, at the H-V test point, thus affecting compliance of the lamp. Measurement at test points can only be determined by photometric testing. The design represented in Enclosure 2 would not comply with the standard. It is, in effect, two lamps mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. standard No. 108 requires a single lamp, to be mounted on the vertical centerline.