ID: nht76-3.18

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, letter concerning your previous suggestion for an amendment to the definition of "permanently attached end fitting" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. Your July 18, 1975, letter suggested that brake hose end fittings attached by means of a dimensional interference fit be considered, along with those attached by heat shrinking, to be permanently attached for purposes of the standard. Please forgive our oversight regarding that letter. We have identified it as a petition for rulemaking and now find it to have merit. Accordingly, the petition is granted and a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. We do expect to issue a proposal in the near future.

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

January 26, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74

A reply to our letter dated July 18, 1975 concerning the above subject has not yet been received. A copy of this original request for standard amendment is enclosed for your review.

Response at your earliest convenience would be greatly appreciated.

HEINZ W. GERTH

ID: nht76-3.19

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: NVT America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1976, in which you pose several questions concerning which of three companies participating in the construction of a motor vehicle would be considered the manufacturer for purposes of 49 CFR Part 566 and which would be responsible, therefore, for meeting the safety standards described in 49 CFR Part 571.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." Therefore, the company that assembles a vehicle is considered the manufacturer regardless of the name under which the vehicle is marketed. This interpretation is not affected by which company owns the engineering rights or trademark to the vehicle. A controlling corporation, however, may assume responsibility for conformity with the standards and may substitute its name for the name of its assembling subsidiary.

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires the manufacturer, as defined above, to submit identifying information and a description of the items it produces. You should further note that 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, requires the same manufacturer to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards.

I trust this fully responds to your questions.

ID: nht89-1.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROBERT C. CRAIG -- QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER COSCO, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM ROBERT C. CRAIG TO GEORGE L. PARKER -- NHTSA, RE 49 CFR 571-213, STANDARD NO 213 CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS AT 5.5.1 LABELING, OCC 3119

TEXT: Dear Mr. Craig:

This responds to your February 3, 1989 letter to Mr. George Parker, our Associate Administrator for Enforcement, seeking an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213). Specifically, paragraph S5.5 of that standard require s each child restraint system to be permanently labeled with certain specified information. On of the items of information required to be permanently labeled on the child restraint is the manufacturer's recommendations for the maximum weight and height of children who can safely occupy the system, and those weight and height recommendations must be expressed in English units (pounds and inches). Your letter stated that your company would like to express its maximum weight and height recommendations in both English units and equivalent metric units (kilograms and meters), and asked whether this would be permitted by Standard 213. As long as the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to cause confusion, Standard 213 does not prohibit manufacturers from expressing required information in equivalent English and metric units.

For each of the labeling requirements set forth in NHTSA's regulations, this agency has consistently taken the position that manufacturers may present information in addition to the required information, provided that the additional information is presen ted in a manner that is not likely to confuse the user. Moreover, the agency has already concluded that passenger car tires may be labeled with required information expressed in equivalent English and metric units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. We would apply the same reasoning in interpreting the labeling requirements of Standard 213. That is, Standard 213 permits manufacturers to present the required information in

both English and metric units, provided that the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse persons using the child restraint system.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JAMES R. TOMAINO -- YOUNGSTOWN RUBBER PRODUCTS COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM JAMES R. TOMAINO TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 3073

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tomaino:

This responds to your January 30, 1989 letter asking whether a "permanently embossed raised dot" on your air brake hose assembly satisfies the requirement in Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for a manufacturer identification. As explained below, we believ e that use of the raised dot may be potentially confusing, since it isn't readily apparent whether the mark represents an intentional effort to identify the manufacturer of the assembly or is an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process.

By way of background, Standard No. 106 sets forth two methods of labeling air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. S7.2.3 states that these assemblies must be labeled by means of a band around the assembly or, at the option of the assembly manufacturer, by means of marking at least one end fitting as described in S7.2.3.1. You have asked us about the labeling requirements under the second option.

Since, for reasons of drafting convenience, the second option incorporates the portions of the first option relating to the nature of and filing of the designation, it is necessary to begin with a discussion of the first option. The first option (S7.2.3( b)) provides that the bank must be marked with informtion including:

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, D .C. 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol. (Emphasis added.)

The second option (S7.2.3.1) requires assemblies to be "etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b)." (Emphasis adde d.) The concluding language,

"in accordance with S7.2.3(b)," modifies both of the preceding clauses, i.e., both "identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly" and "is filed." Thus, the identification provided in compliance with the second option "may consist of block capital let ters, numerals or a symbol."

Since the raised dot is clearly neither a block capital letter or a numeral, the issue is whether it can be considered a symbol. The dictionary defines "symbol," for the purposes relevant to your inquiry, as follows: "something that stands for or sugges ts something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental but not intentional resemblance." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) The agency concludes that the dot is not a symbol because it is not readily apparent that the raised dot stands for or suggests anything. Instead, the dot appears to be only an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process.

Manufacturer identification is crucial for the enforcement of Standard No. 106's requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies. We urge you to use a more distinctive mark to identify your company as the manufacturer of the assembly. To assist you , and in response to your March 17 telephone request, we are enclosing examples of designations which manufacturers of brake hoses, fittings and assemblies have registered with NHTSA. These examples should be helpful in providing ideas for another desig nation.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT

ID: nht89-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEON E. PANETTA -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/04/89 FROM LEON E., PANETTA TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Panetta:

This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed hi s objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the fiel d of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification of a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were u sed to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and naus ea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and lig ht trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements.

The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are:

1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also

ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror.

2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive.

3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortio n.

4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object.

Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the area he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and oth er potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 18, 1989

FROM: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MGR., PRODUCT COMPLIANCE, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, OUR LETTER JULY 11,1988

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-16-90 TO WILLIAM SHAPIRO FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 210). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7-11-88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO.

TEXT:

Enclosed is a copy of our July 11, 1988 letter re: FMVSS 210.

We would appreciate your reply as soon as possible because our engineering department is awaiting an answer.

Thank you for your attention.

Enc.

ID: nht89-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/89

FROM: HENRY J. NOWAK -- CONGRESS

TO: JOHN STONER -- CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/27/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HENRY J. NOWAK -- CONGRESS; REDBOOK A33; PART 571; LETTER DATED 04/14/89 FROM EUGENIA M. PIERAKOS AND JAMES L. PIERAKOS -- SNOWFIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND CONSULTING OF BUFFALO INC; SPECIFICATIONS DATED 03/01/89 EST, FROM JAEGER INDUSTRIES INC, JAEGER PL SERIES, TYPICAL BODY SPECIFICATIONS; SPECIFICATIONS DATED 01/06/89 FROM JAEGER CANADA EQUIPMENT LIMITED; PURCHASE SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT PL SERIES POWER LOADING CURBSIDE AND DRAFT PIC KUP OF SOURCE SEPARATED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS; CHASSIS; CAB; BODY

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stoner:

Enclosed is a self-explanatory letter from a constituent concerning a Canadian firm's difficulties in obtaining the federal regulations which certain imported equipment must meet.

I would appreciate it if you reviewed the enclosed material and provided the needed technical information. Your timely consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.

With best wishes and kindest regards,

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/89

FROM: GAY M. ARTHUR

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO GAY M. ARTHUR; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

I am requesting clarification on the restrictions (if any) for the exterior roof on passenger cars. More specifically, I'd like to know if detachable, lighted novelty items are legally allowable on passenger cars.

In addition, if your office knows of specific restrictions by state, i.e., size or color, lighted or not, etc., I would also appreciate that information as well. If there is any cost for the photocopies, please let me know and I would be happy to send i t to you. Enclosed you will find a self-addressed stamped envelope for your use.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, and for your prompt reply.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/89

FROM: JIM BOWEN -- VICE-PRESIDENT OF QUALITY, SERVICE & PARTS, GULF STREAM COACH, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: N

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1989 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO JIM BOWEN, GULF STREAM COACH, INC.;[A34; STD. 101]

TEXT: I have a question on the N.H.T.S.A. ruling on the instal- lation of a T.V. in the view of the driver of a vehicle.

I would like to know if the T.V. has to be off, when the ignition switch is turned on.

Your response in writing would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/89

FROM: JAMES R. TOMAINO -- MARKETING MANAGER YOUNGSTOWN RUBBER PRODUCTS CO

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/27/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JAMES R. TOMAINO, REDBOOK A33(2); STANDARD 106

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I am submitting to you for review, one air brake hose assembly to determine if our symbol is sufficient for approval. The permanently embossed raised dot has been used on other assemblies by our company for over ten years. We seek now clearance to f abricate air brake assemblies for wholesale and retail sales.

Your most prompt attention would be appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE