ID: aiam4136

Dear Mr. Ogletree and Mr. Gaski: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1986, asking how our regulation would affect a product you intend to manufacture both as an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment and as an item of original equipment on some vehicles imported into this country. You described the product as a sun visor that clips onto a vehicle's regular visor. You further explained that the sun visor has an extension arm that allows the visor to be moved to filter out the sun coming in through the window to the left of the driver, or moved below the original equipment visor between the two original equipment visors. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations affect your proposed visor.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of your proposed sun visor in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.; We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazin Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the sun visors described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4212

Dear Mr. Vaidya: This responds to your April 30, 1986 letter concerning Safety Standar No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, and your planned built-in child seat. You asked for information concerning all safety standards that would be applicable to the seat and concerning a pending petition for amending Standard No. 213 to permit the installation of built-in child seats in new motor vehicles. I regret the delay in our response.; Standard No. 213 is the only standard which this agency has issue concerning child restraint systems. It was drafted at a time when add-on or portable systems were the only type of child restraint systems. Accordingly, the requirements of the standard are oriented toward that type of system. However, the agency has granted a petition to broaden the standard to permit the installation of built-in child restraint systems. We expect to issue a proposal regarding this matter later this year. Copies of the standard and the petition are enclosed.; As a new manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you should know tha a manufacturer has a variety of responsibilities in addition to certifying compliance with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects or noncompliances with standards in their products. If a child restraint system fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either (1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or (2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense for the remedy.; Installation of your product in a used vehicle would also be affecte by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from 'rendering inoperative' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Such a rendering inoperative could occur, for example, if the installer of a built-in child safety seat removed the original vehicle seat, installed a replacement vehicle seat containing the built-in child safety seat, but did not ensure that the seat belt anchorages for adult seating positions in the replacement rear seat continued to meet the location and strength requirements of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. A rendering inoperative could also occur if the installer did not ensure that a replacement vehicle seat continued to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on that seat as a result of vehicle impact.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on a individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any product they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's seats or seat belt assembly anchorages with the requirements of Standards Nos. 207 or 210. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install products which could lessen the occupant protection afforded by the original seats or safety belt assembly anchorages and thus adversely affect safety.; For further information concerning these responsibilities, pleas consult the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-6.26

DATE: May 29, 1992

FROM: Berkley C. Sweet -- Vice-President, School Bus Manufacturers Institute

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/92 from Paul J. Rice to Berkley C. Sweet (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Based on the requirements specified in the Standard No. 222 for Seat Performance Forward, Seat Performance Rearward and the Head Protection Zone, what was the minimum size of the passenger (eight and height) used to establish the design criteria of this standard?

Several school districts are now transporting new born and under school-age children with their parents to a school that provides a day-care service, while the parent attends classes.

The School Bus Manufacturers Institute has received inquiries as to limits, if any, on passenger size and age that can be safely transported on school bus seats.

ID: nht90-4.26

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 28, 1990

FROM: Takahiro Maeda -- Assistant to the Vice President, Engineering Divison, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.; Signature by Michael Schmitt

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-7-90 to T. Maeda from P.J. Rice (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The purpose of this correspondence is to obtain your interpretation of minimum "edge to edge" separation between the tail/stop lamp and turn signals pursuant to FMVSS 108 Table IV.

Tail/stop lamp design may feature a housing whereby the bulb reflector subassembly does not extend outward to the edge of the entire assembly. Can "edge to edge" be construed as the edge of the bulb reflector or is it necessarily the outer edge of the en tire tail/stop lamp assembly. Please refer to the attached illustration.

We thank you for your insight into this question.

Attached illustration. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht94-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: Martin M. Sackoff, Ph.D. -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TO: Office of Chief Counsil -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To Martin Sackoff (A42; Std. 109)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

The subject of this request is in reference with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 - New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars.

The specific question is with reference to S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength, which states "S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength. Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table 1 when tested in accordance with S5.3".

I shall very much appreciate receiving a reply concerning the definition or interpretation of the term "breaking" of the tire. Does this mean a blowout of the tire, or simply the breaking of the tire caused by forcing the steel plunger into the tread?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-7.14

DATE: October 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Esq., Mayer, Brown & Platt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/17/93 from Erika Jones to John Womack (OCC-9017)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems. S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard No. 213 specifies a minimum thickness for materials of a certain compression-deflection resistance. You ask whether more than one piece of material may be used to meet the thickness requirement.

The answer is yes. S5.2.3.2(b) does not require the material to be of a single piece, and the final rule that incorporated the requirement into Standard No. 213 did not address the issue. 44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979. Accordingly, more than one piece of material may be used.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact us.

ID: nht72-3.46

DATE: 03/17/72

FROM: J.E. LEYSATH FOR E.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA

TO: U.M. Electrical Distributers Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 6, 1972, concerning warning buzzers for the automobile industry.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued two safety standards which specify warning requirments. These requirements are given in Paragraph S4.4 of Standard 114 and Paragraph S7.3.1 of Standard 208. A copy of these two standards are enclosed for your review and further information.

You will note that these standards do not stipulate minimum requirements for the warning devices, and, at the present time, we have no plans to specify such requirements. The data sheet, however, which you enclosed will be useful to us should we specify such requirements in future amendments to these standards.

We appreciate your writing to us, and if we can be of any further service, please let us know.

ID: nht74-3.42

DATE: 05/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dave's Tire & Fuel Oil Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of March 21 and April 22, 1974, in which you ask whether a tire sold as a "blemish" must be guaranteed for workmanship, material, and road hazards.

There are no Federal requirements that manufacturers guarantee blemish (or non-blemish) tires. Such guarantees are within the discretion of each manufacturer. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) requires all new passenger car tires to meet minimum safety performance levels for high speed performance, endurance, strength, bead unseating, physical dimensions and tradewear indicators. These requirements apply similarly to both blemish and non-blemish tires.

We have enclosed for your information a copy of the Federal Trade Commission's Tire Advertising and Labeling Guides which contain in Guide 11 requirements for the labeling of blemish tires.

ENC.

ID: 11373JEG

B. Michael Korte, Esq.
Law Firm of John Schwabe II
St. Louis Office
The Locust Building--Suite 900
1015 Locust Street
St. Louis, MO 63101

Dear Mr. Korte:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal standards concerning the deployment of air bags. You asked whether AFederal regulations establish a minimum speed that vehicles must be traveling, below which an air bag will not deploy.@

The answer to your question is no. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, establishes a number of performance requirements for air bags and air-bag-equipped vehicles. However, neither that standard nor any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifies that air bags must not deploy in crashes below a specified vehicle speed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:208 d:1/29/96 NCC-20 Eglancy:mar:1/3/96:OCC 11373

ID: nht94-9.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: Adam A. Freund -- Manager, Testing Services, Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Table II Minimum Static; Breaking Energy (inch pounds) D.O.T. 119

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from John Womack to Adam A. Freund (A42; Std. 119)

TEXT:

Further to our telephone conversation of this date, please find enclosed a copy of subject matter for your perusal. As we had discussed I believe there is a typo in the highlighted columns marked respectively MOTORCYCLE and ALL 12 INCH OR SMALLER RIM SIZE. If I am correct the first column MOTORCYCLE should show a plunger diameter of 5/16" and the column marked ALL 12 INCH OR SMALLER RIM SIZE should show a plunger diameter of 3/4".

I would appreciate your qualifying my interpretation of above subject matter. If my interpretation is incorrect, please advise me how the respective columns should be marked.

Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. would greatly appreciate any expedited consideration you may allow us on this request.

ATTACHMENT

(Table omitted.)