ID: nht94-6.30

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Rhein -- Fisher-Price, Inc. (East Aurora, NY)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/3/93 from John Rhein to John Womack (OCC 8639)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company.

You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squares" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement.

Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed June 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material."

The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address space is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or overall organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

ID: 77-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: E.D. Etnyre & Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 30, 1977, letter asking whether the rebuilding of a motor vehicle with all new running gear and an old body constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle requiring compliance with Federal regulations.

In the rebuilding operation you describe, you retain the old body tank structure while replacing the entire running gear assembly. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined by regulation in 49 CFR 571.7(f) that the rebuilding of a motor vehicle using old running gear with a new body does not constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The vehicle will be considered newly manufactured unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly is not new and was taken from an existing trailer whose identity is continued with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. In addition, the trailer must be owned or leased by the same party both before and after the remanufacture. Since the running gear with which you plan to equip your vehicle is new, your operation constitutes the new manufacture of a vehicle.

You ask secondly what portion of the running gear can be replaced as normal repairs without such replacement being considered the manufacture of a new vehicle. You may replace any part of the running gear assembly that breaks or malfunctions during operation of the motor vehicle. The NHTSA would consider this to be normal maintenance of the vehicle, not subject to the requirements applicable to vehicle manufacture.

SINCERELY,

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

March 30, 1977

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Legal Counsel

We are manufacturers of tank type truck bodies and trailers with running gear.

On a somewhat irregular basis, we receive requests from users of this equipment to perform certain repairs.

Our specific question at this time relates to repairs done to the running gear of trailers and whether an involvement with 49CFR 571.7(f) concerning new and used components is incurred.

1. If the present tank structure and upper fifth wheel coupler are reused in conjunction with a totally new running gear assembly, is the vehicle still a used vehicle for the purpose of the applicability ruling regarding conformance to federal regulations?

2. If the preceding answer is no, what portion of the running gear - wheels, axles, brakes and suspension - can be replaced as normal repairs without changing the status to "new"?

For the purpose of this inquiry the vehicle identification is continued and ownership is retained.

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

ID: nht74-2.48

DATE: 07/26/74

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

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

COPYEE: L. OWEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 11 in which you asked what standards will be applied to stop and turn signal lamps after September 1, 1974.

Parking, stop, and turn signal lamps are required by Section S4.1.1.11 and S4.1.1.12 to meet the grouped photometric minimum candlepower requirements specified in Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 108. Prior to September 1, 1974, multiple compartment or multiple lamps need only meet the group value total specified in Figure 1 for a single compartment or single lamp. After that date, however, the higher candlepower values for two and three compartments or lamps specified in Figure 1 are applicable.

Docket 69-19; Notice 3, published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1972, only proposed that SAE (Illegible Word) and (Illegible Word) be referenced in FMVSS No. 108. Until such time as Standard 108 is further amended, SAE J586b, June 1966, and J588d, June 1966, are applicable to stop lamps and turn signal lamps, respectively.

If the new revisions to the SAE standards are included as an amendment to Standard 108, sufficient lead time will be provided to allow the manufacturers to make any changes necessary to meet the new requirements.

Sincerely,

Not Controlled

ATTACH.

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

July 11, 1974

E.T. Driver -- Director Office of Operating Systems Motor Vehicle Programs,

U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: A lamp with two or three lighted compartments used in Stop Lamp and Turn Signal Lamp.

Dear Mr. Driver

According to S 4.1.1.12 in MVSS No. 108 a lamp with two or three lighted compartment is required to meet the minimum photometoric values at each test point specified in table 2 of SAE Standard J575d.

However, after September 1, 1974 a Stop Lamp has to be complied with SAE J586c by P.R. dated October 25, 1972 and SAE J508e for Turn Signal Lamp and further the standards of a lamp with two or three lighted compartments will be applied to a lamp with two or three lighted compartments and by F.R. dated April 9, 1974 the F.R. dated October 25, 1972 has been postponed.

Please let us know what standards will be applied to Stop, Turn Signal Lamp after September 1, 1974, the standards as they are now or the proposal as it is being planned will become effective.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Very truly yours, H. MIYAZAWA -- Director, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Dept.

ID: 86-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5335

This responds to your February 19, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards prohibit commercial businesses from using fiberglass on the exterior of school buses. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue minimum performance standards for school buses. Our safety standards do not specify the materials to be used for the exterior of school buses. However, the materials chosen by a manufacturer must be strong enough to enable the bus to meet the requirements of those standards. Among those requirements are the rollover protection ones of Standard No. 220, fuel system requirements of Standard No. 301, and strength requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, for body panel joints on school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. Manufacturers of new school buses using fiberglass for school bus exteriors must certify that their vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 19, 1986

Ms. Deadra Holm U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Holm,

We have discovered the presence of fiber glass in the outer skin of the Van Conversions manufactured by the Collins Industries Inc. of Hutchinson, Kansas. While, admittedly, we see little if any, safety hazard associated with the practice, we do forsee the possibility of legal actions "down the road" if children are seriously injured and the presence of this material is exposed.

Our school bus specifications require compliance with the National Minimum School Bus Standards as well as all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to the manufacture, sale and operation of pupil transportation equipment. My question is: Does the use of fiberglass in the manufacture of Type II school buses conflict with any known FMVSS?

An early response will be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation

ID: 9646

Martin M. Sackoff, Ph.D.
Executive Director of Laboratories
International Testing Laboratories
578-582 Market Street
Newark, NJ 07015-2913

Dear Dr. Sackoff:

This responds to your letter to this agency with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Your specific question addressed S4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: "Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S5.3." You asked for an interpretation of the term "breaking," whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard.

The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that test, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire is continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever- increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things will happen:

1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim; or

2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The "breaking" of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although, obviously, a blow-out would constitute a "breaking."

The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:109 d:5/12/94

ID: nht71-5.40

DATE: 10/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. Schmeltzer for L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1971, in which you request clarification of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, "Head Restraints". You state that you are of the opinion that "a head restraint system that can be retracted into the seat and thus made ineffective by virtue of being adjustable is in conflict with the prime object of the standard in reducing the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear end or other collisons."

Standard No. 202 does not prohibit head restraints from being adjustable in an up-and-down direction, as long as the top of the restraint, at its fully extended design adjustment position, is at least 27.5 inches above the seating reference point (S4(b)(1)). While some of these adjustable head restraints may not be completely effective in cases where they are placed at their lowest adjustment position and used by tall drivers, we have determined that this design, as long as it meets the requirements of the standard, is a minimum performance level that meets the need for motor vehicle safety. Consequently, use of these types of restraints does not conflict with the standard.

The standard establishes only a minimum performance level, however, and the NHTSA endorces efforts by manufacturers to exceed the

2 requirements is establishes. Many manufacturers have installed head restraints in their vehicles that meet the standard's requirements yet do not present the disadvantages you describe.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA LIMITED

September 8 1971

Douglas W. Toms, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, National Highway Traffic Administration,

As designers and manufacturers of the Aston Martin DBS V8 car, currently being marketed in U.S.A., we are concerned at what appears to be a very loose interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints - Passenger Cars, Section 5.4(b), adopted by certain American automobile manufacturers.

Aston Martin Lagonda have been concerned for many years with primary and secondary safety aspects of the car, and we hold the view that a head restraint system that can be retracted into the seat and thus made ineffective by virtue of being adjustable, is in conflict with the prime object of the Standard in reducing the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear end or other collisions.

We would appreciate clarification on this point, for our concern is to maintain the highest standard of interior safety as exemplified by our current production car.

H. Beach Director of Engineering

c.c. Mr. R. Layland, President, A.M.L. Inc. Mr. J. B. Walker, Vehicle Safety Engineer, A.M.L. Limited.

ID: 8639

Mr. John Rhein
Fisher-Price, Inc.
636 Girard Ave.
East Aurora, NY 14052

Dear Mr. Rhein:

This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company.

You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squares" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement.

Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed June 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material."

The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address space is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or overall organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:213 d:4/14/94

ID: 1985-01.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Dept., American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Gill Senior Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

This is in response to your letter of May 25, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table IV specifies that the minimum horizontal separation distance "(centerline to centerline of lamp)" for rear turn signal lamps on motorcycles is 9 inches. You have asked whether the "centerline" refers to the distance between the lens centers, between the centers of the effective projected luminous areas, or between the bulb centers.

You asked for confirmation of your belief that the proper interpretation is found in the referenced SAE Standard, J588e, which contains the language "Optical axes (filament centers)," implying that the correct distance is that between the "bulb centers" as you term it.

We find no direct correlation between the phrases "centerline to centerline of lamps" and "optical axis (filament center) ." The lamp is a device emitting light whereas "optical axis (filament center)" does not refer to the lamp but only to a portion of its light-producing component. As that phrase is used in SAE J588e, it defines the method of measuring distances between bulbs in multi-compartment lamps for the purpose of testing for photometric requirements (paragraph 3.1), or in measuring the separation of the turn signal from the headlamp (paragraph 4.2, where, incidentally, it is expressed as the distance between filament and a lamp component, the retaining ring).

Taken literally, "centerline to centerline of lamps" in our view means the distance between lens centers. In the response to petitions for reconsideration of the center high-mounted stoplamp amendment (May 17, 1984), the question was asked whether the "center" of the lamp was its geometric center, its optical center, or the center of the bulb filament. The agency replied that the center of the lamp is the geometric center. Since the purpose of the minimum separation requirement is to insure that the turn signal is perceived as such, we believe that the correct interpretation of "centerline to centerline" is a measurement from the geometric center of one lamp to the geometric center of the other lamp. The geometric center would be anonymous with the term "geometric centroid of lens" as used in SAE J1221 Headlamp-Turn Signal Spacing. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 27, 1989

FROM: LARRY S. SNOWHITE -- MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD, ESQ. -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED JANUARY 25, 1990 TO LARRY S. SNOWHITE, MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; REDBOOK A35; VSA 1397 (A)(2)(A); STD. 108

TEXT: On behalf of our clients, ATAT Technology Ltd. ("ATAT") and CTS Corporation, we respectfully request that you determine that the sale into the aftermarket as well as aftermarket installation of the Advanced Brake Light Device ("ABLD") manufactured by ATAT (or of any other device performing as does the ABLD) would not violate the statutes administered by, or regulations of, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Specifically, we are requesting this determination for a device, the ABLD or a similar device demonstrating comparable performance, that consists of a sensor attached to the accelerator pedal that senses the rate at which the foot releases the acceler ator pedal. This signal is transmitted to a processor unit, which determines whether the brake lights should be turned on, and the duration of the illumination until the brake is applied. The ABLD is set so that the brake light will go off unless the b rake is applied within one second of the ABLD's activation, which based on experimentation and observation provides sufficient time for the brake pedal activation of the stop lights while avoiding misleading signals (if NHTSA considers that a different i nterval is consistent with applicable law and regulations, ATAT is prepared to modify the interval to meet an alternative NHTSA performance standard.)

It is our belief that the ABLD, and any similar device, holds out the promise of avoiding significant numbers of rear-end accidents and of reducing the seriousness of rear-end accidents that do occur. As the ABLD does not compromise,

render inoperative, in whole or in part, or impair the effectiveness of the mandated brake light system, we believe that on neither legal nor public policy grounds should NHTSA object to aftermarket sales of the ABLD.

This question was previously considered in a Memorandum dated March 7, 1988 addressed by Erika Jones to the Associate Administrator for Research and Development. In our view, that Memorandum was based on inadequate information concerning the mandated brake and brake light systems, the ABLD's performance and ABLD's potential contribution to safety -- inadequacies for which ATAT was responsible and which it now seeks to correct. In the intervening months, additional studies have been conducted and AT AT has marshaled relevant research materials. This new information is presented in the enclosed submissions.

The March Memorandum expressed concern that installation of the ABLD could create a noncompliance with Standard 108 and thereby presumptively run afoul of the anti-tampering provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397. In this regard, w e understand that the threshold question is, does the ABLD render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device or element of design installed in compliance with Standard 108. A related determination is whether, under S4.1.3, it "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard 108.

This is a factual determination. And we believe that as a matter of fact the ABLD does not render the brake light system inoperative or impair its effectiveness.

First, the ABLD does not prevent the brake light system (the stoplamp and the CHMSL) from being activated and operating when the brake is applied. The ABLD is consistent with the operation of the brake light system, and arguably enhances it. The ABL D clearly and unambiguously indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." SAE Standard J586d,2.1. Stop Lamps. The brake light is illuminated if the driver releases the accelerator at a rate greater than a predetermined minimum -- a minimum which reflects a very high probability that the release will be followed by an "emergency" brake application. If the brake is applied within one second, the brake light remains illuminated. Certainly this is consisten t with the definition of a Stop Lamp and with the operation of the brake light system.

There will be circumstances in which the brake will not be engaged after the ABLD is activated. In this case, the brake light will remain illuminated only for one second. As the enclosed material documents, this is not a phenomenon unique to, or agg ravated by, the ABLD. Illuminations of the brake lights for one second or less occur frequently during

normal driving without the ABLD. As is described in the enclosed submissions, in everyday driving it is not uncommon for the brake lights to be illuminated briefly even though the service brakes are not activated. The performance of the ABLD adds margi nally to the total number of illuminations of the brake lights for less than one second. Thus, ABLD-caused short-duration illuminations do not convey an intent or signal that is inconsistent or contradictory of the signal sent by the standard brake ligh t system. And they do signal an at least momentary "intention of the operator to stop or diminish speed by braking"

Activation of the ABLD does illuminate the stoplamps by means other than the application of the service brakes. While S4.5.4 prohibits the CHMSL being activated by means other than the application of the service brake, there is no comparable prohibit ion on the stoplamps themselves being activated by means other than the application of the service brakes. The ABLD would activate the stoplamp and CHMSL simultaneously. And it is our understanding that the CHMSL provision is an inadvertent hold-over f rom a rule, S4.5.11(b), that allowed the CHMSL to be activated by the hazard warning system for passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984 until September 1, 1986. Accordingly, while the installation of the ABLD as OEM technically would be i nconsistent with a literal reading of S4.5.4, this should not be considered an "impairment" such as to bar aftermarket sales and installation of the ABLD.

As previously noted, both the trigger point for the activation of the ABLD and the interval during which the ABLD illuminates the brake lights are subject to adjustment. The trigger and interval chosen reflect ATAT's studied judgment as to what will succeed in order to send a signal in those cases in which a signal is appropriate and minimize the incidence of misleading signals. Part of the basis for this judgment is set out in the attached submissions.

ATAT would appreciate an opportunity to meet with appropriate NHTSA staff in order to discuss this request so as to assure that you are in a position to respond to the request based on the fullest available information. As you will immediately see, t he enclosed submissions are the result of considerable work and ATAT would also welcome the opportunity to respond to questions about them.

As you know, ATAT is an Israeli company. This creates special logistical difficulties in communicating with NHTSA. A representative of ATAT will be in the United States on

August 1-4. We believe that it would be in the mutual interest of ATAT and NHTSA to meet during these dates.

Thank you for your consideration.

Enclosure

ID: 09-000724 fortin.draft.dj.aug20