ID: aiam1314

Dear Mr. Schroeter: This is in reply to you letter of October 24, 1973, in which you as the following questions:; 1. Is it true that Standard Nos. 109 and 110 are not applicable to 1/2-ton pickup truck with camper because such vehicle is not a 'passenger car' as defined in Standards 109 and 110?; 2. Is it true that in Appendix A of Standard 110 no 'alternative rims are listed for the L70-15 tire simply because no one has requested (in the manner provided in Appendix A to Standard 110) inclusion of such additional or alternative rim widths.; With respect to question 1, a pickup truck is not a passenger car but 'truck' (as defined in 49 CFR S571.3) for purposes of all the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard Nos. 109 and 110. Standard No. 110 (49 CFR S571.110) applies only to passenger cars, not to pickup trucks.; In response to your second question, the answer is not an unequivoca 'yes', and I regret that you may have drawn that conclusion from your conversation with Michael Peskoe of this office. In order for alternative rims to be listed with a tire size designation in the Appendix of Standard No. 110, data showing that the tire and rim combination meets the requirements of both Standard No. 109 and 110 must first be submitted to the agency. Once that data has been provided, the NHTSA will publish the alternative rim size in Standard No. 110, and if no objections are received within a 30-day period, the tire/rim combination becomes part of the standard. Thus, there are not one but two possible reasons way a rim size is not listed in Standard No. 110:; >>>The tire/rim combination fails to meet either Standard No. 109 o 110, or; It does meet both standards, but no one has requested approval of th combination. This could occur simply if the combination was not intended to be used as original equipment on a passenger car.<<<; Sincerely, Lawrence, R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3329

Dear Mr. Rix: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1980, concerning a evaporative cooler you are considering manufacturing for use on motor vehicles. You explained that the unit would mount just outside the upper portion of the passenger window and would block approximately the upper 3 1/2 inches and protrude to the right of the drip rail approximately 10 inches. The following discussion answers your questions and outlines your responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*., a copy of which is enclosed).; You first asked whether your evaporative cooler would violate an Federal safety regulations. The agency has not issued and Federal motor vehicle safety standard directly establishing requirements for evaporative coolers. However, as explained below, installation of your cooler may be affected by the agency's proposed standard on direct fields of view. That proposal would prohibit certain obstructions in the driver's field of view. I have enclosed a copy of that notice of proposed rulemaking. (The agency does not plan to take final action on this proposal until early next year.); If the field of direct view standard is adopted, then installation o an evaporative cooler in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's sale to the first purchaser could be affected by section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, and the agency's certification regulation (49 CFR 567, a copy of which is enclosed). If a cooler is installed as an add-on item of motor vehicle equipment by a vehicle dealer prior to the vehicle's delivery to the first purchaser, then section 567.7 of the certification regulation would apply. That section provides that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle prior to its first purchase must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms to all applicable standards. Thus, a new vehicle would have to comply with the fields of view requirements with the cooler installed.; Whether or not your cooler is covered by a Federal safety standard, a a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you are required to comply with the provisions of the Act pertaining to safety-related defects (sections 151-159, 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). Thus, if your company learns of a defect relating to motor vehicle safety in its evaporative coolers, you would be required to notify this agency, as well as owners, purchasers or dealers of the equipment, concerning the defect and to remedy the defect without charge. Parts 573, 576, 577 and 579 of the agency's regulations (49 CFR 573, 576, 577 and 579) define in detail a manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to safety-related defects. I have enclosed copies of those regulations.; You also asked whether you must check each state code prior to sale o your evaporative cooler in that state, since some states may have regulations that are more restrictive than the Federal regulations. In the absence of a Federal standard directly affecting evaporative coolers, state regulations would govern the sale of your cooler. If there was a Federal standard affecting the installation of your cooler, then the Federal regulation may preempt conflicting State regulations. Section 103(d) of the Act provides that no State may have a standard 'applicable to the same aspect of performance' of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, unless the state standard is 'identical to the Federal standard.' The Act does authorize State (sic) to establish higher standards of performance than the applicable Federal standard for vehicles or equipment procured for its own use. A determination of whether a Federal standard on direct fields of view would preempt a state standard on the same subject can only be made on a case-by-case basis after final action is taken on the field of view proposal and after reviewing the particular State standard.; You also asked whether you could use certain statements on your coole advising people to check state regulations before installing the cooler. The validity of such statements would be regulated by state law. Finally, you asked how you could obtain copies of state vehicle codes and information about obtaining a wavier (sic) or amendment of such codes. A law library may have copies of such codes. Otherwise, you will probably have to write to each State agency regulating motor vehicles to obtain a copy of their codes. I hope this information is of help to you. Please contact Steve Oesch of my office if you have any further questions about Federal regulations affecting your product at (202-426- 2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4116

Dear Mr. Fish: We regret the delay in responding to your letter (14/1/9) date September 18, 1985, to Mr. Francis Armstrong requesting information in relation to our compliance test report number 213-CAL-83-011. Your letter was referred to my office.; In your letter you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 213 *Child Restraint Systems*, regarding the reason for the test laboratory marking two parts of the test procedure as not applicable to your child restraint. The two answers to your specific questions are as follows:; 1. Page 12--*Resistance to Microorganisms*. Polyester and nylon, whic comprise 100% of all vehicle seat belt and child seat harness webbing, are inherently resistant to microorganisms. Therefore, in an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the agency has thus far chosen not to conduct this test on nylon and polyester belts. If a child restraint harness or vehicle seat belt were found to be made of cotton or some other fibrous material, the resistance to microorganisms test would be conducted on those materials. In addition, the agency reserves the authority to test nylon and polyester belts as well, although it has no plans to do so.; 2. Page 26--S5.4.3.3. *Seating Systems*. The requirements of S5.4.3. apply to child restraints that are 'designed for use by a child in a seated position.' Infant restraints are designed to place the child in a rear-facing, semi-recumbent position instead of a seated position and therefore S5.4.3.3 is not applicable to them. Since infant restraints are rear-facing, the major forces acting on the child's body from vehicle deceleration are exerted by the foam liner/plastic shell instead of the belt system. In addition, all infant restraints on the market are equipped with a three-point harness (shoulder belt/crotch strap) to position the child and hold him or her in the restraint during rebound.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-6.32

DATE: 10/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Charter Arms Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 6, 1969, to the National Commission on Products Liability has been referred to the National Highway Safety Bureau for reply.

Vehicle skidding is a function of many parameters within the tire-pavement interface. The most adverse tire-pavement interactions occur when pavement is covered with water. Under certain wet pavement conditions, complete loss of traction or hydroplaning occurs. The two possible hydroplaning phenomena which may occur are viscous hydroplaning or dynamic hydroplaning. Both of these conditions of hydroplaning to a degree may be controlled by the proper selection of pavement texture and tread depth of tires.

The detection of hydroplaning as the causation of accidents is most difficult to establish and although we have many accident studies in progress, I would seriously doubt that hydroplaning can be successfully isolated from the common form of skidding.

The tire manufacturers recognize hydroplaning and they do provide adequate water escape passages as well as tread depth to cope with this problem. However, the tire is only a subsystem within the tire-pavement system of hydroplaning.

For further information on this subject, I suggest that you contact the National Aeronautics and Space Administration what research history on hydroplaning dates to 1958.

ID: nht75-6.33

DATE: 07/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cooney Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of June 17, 1969, to Mr. Donald Morrison of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, concerning switching arrangements for running lamps, has been transferred to this Office for consideration and reply.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on lighting requirements for motor vehicles. This standard is applicable to new vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of January 1, 1969. Special wiring requirements, such as lamp switching arrangements, are included in paragraphs S3.4 through S3.4.7 of the standard.

We do not completely understand your usage of the term "running lights." If you are referring only to tail lamps, your attention is invited specifically to paragraph S3.4.3 of the standard which is quoted as follows: "As a minimum the tail lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated except when the headlamps are being flashed." The switching arrangements for other "running lights," such as clearance lamps and identification lamps, are at the option of the vehicle manufacturer.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht75-6.34

DATE: 09/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bergman & Hicks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1970, to Mr. Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director for Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Safety Bureau concerning clearance lights on mobile homes.

A mobile home towed on its own wheels is a "motor vehicle" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and is categorized as a "trailer".

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 requires clearance lamps to be installed on trailers 80 or more inches in overall width. In transit a mobile home towed on its own wheels must therefore be equipped with clearance lamps; however, these lamps may be temporarily installed and removed when the mobile home has reached its destination.

We would appreciate your providing us, if possible, with the names of manufacturers of mobile homes whom you believe to be towing these vehicles without equipping them with lighting devices meeting Standard No. 108. This will assist us in our efforts to insure that all manufacturers meet their obligations under the Act.

ID: nht75-6.35

DATE: 09/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Zimmer Homes Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Robert Aubuchon of this agency has asked us to respond to your recent inquiry whether the Solex motor bicycle is a "motor vehicle" under our regulations, and, if so, how we would categorize it. You are also interested in knowing how our views affect South Carolina's proposed redefinition of bicycle.

Since the Solex is manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, it is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, specifically a "motorcycle". As such, it must meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "motorcycles", and be so certified by its manufacturer. The only such standard currently in effect is No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, but standards on controls (No. 122) and braking (No. 123) will become effective January 1, 1974 and September 1, 1974 respectively.

While the proposed South Carolina redefinition of "bicycle" appears to encompass the Solex, the State by so doing could neither relieve the manufacturer from the obligation of complying with Federal motorcycle safety standards, nor impose requirements different from Standards Nos. 108, 122, and 123 as to those aspects of performance covered by the Federal standards.

I hope this answers your questions.

ID: nht75-6.36

DATE: 10/15/75

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CITY AUTO SALES

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: It has come to the attention of this agency that you failed to complete an odometer disclosure statement in compliance with Federal law at the time you transferred ownership of a 1972 Chevrolet Camaro to Mrs. Connie Murphy on July 2, 1975.

Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) requires that a written disclosure of a vehicle's correct mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer.

Violation of either of the above requirements or a fraudulent completion of an odometer statement may subject the violator to civil liability. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever in greater. In addition to the private civil remedy, section 410 of the Act gives the U.S. Attorney General power to institute suits for injunctive enforcement of the odometer provisions.

If you are in violation of the Act, I strongly suggest that you take immediate steps to comply with its provisions. A copy of the relevant portions of the Act and the odometer disclosure requirements have been enclosed for your information.

ID: nht75-6.37

DATE: 09/05/75

FROM: BARBER B. CONABLE -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TO: HONORABLE WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECRETARY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED OCTOBER 10, 1975 FROM WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, TO HON. BARBER B. CONABLE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TEXT: This letter is written in the interest of Mr. F. J. Guppenberger of Batavia, New York, to express his concern about the traffic safety hazard posed by automobiles which have been modified for racing or other purposes.

I recently received a letter about this from Mr. Guppenberger, describing the increased dangers of a collision with a car having a raised rear bumper such as is sometimes done with racing cars. Mr. Guppenberger feels that either the modifying of cars in this way or the driving of them on highways should be made illegal.

A copy of Mr. Guppenberger's letter to me on this is enclosed for your information and consideration. I will greatly appreciate a careful evaluation of the issues raised by this enclosure, including whether there are existing federal authorities in this area.

ID: nht75-6.38

DATE: 10/10/75

FROM: WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

TO: HONORABLE BARBER B. CONABLE -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 1975 FROM BARBER CONABLE TO HON. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN; LETTER DATED AUGUST 7, 1975 FROM F. J. GUPPENBERGER TO REP. BARBER CONABLE

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 5, 1975, requesting information concerning an inquiry from one of your constituents, Mr. F. J. Guppenberger, relating to the permissibility of raising cars' rear bumpers.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, imposes performance requirements on automobile bumper systems. One of these requirements specifies impacts at certain heights, and has the effect of requiring bumpers to be manufactured at fairly uniform heights.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563), as recently amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (@ 108(a) (2) (A)). Therefore, if the bumper were raised by one of the above classes of persons causing it no longer to comply with the Standard No. 215 requirements, a violation of the Act would have occurred. That law does not, however, prohibit an individual from altering the bumper on his own car.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency that administers the Traffic Safety Act, is not authorized by that Act to prohibit vehicles with raised bumpers from operating on the highways. Except for certain limited areas such as motor carriers in interstate commerce, the regulation of vehicles operating on the highways is within the authority of the States.