ID: nht92-2.18

DATE: 11/19/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PAUL GOULD -- SENIOR ENGINEER - FRICTION MATERIALS, LUCAS HEAVY DUTY BRAKING SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM PAUL GOULD TO PAUL RICE DATED 9-1-92 (EST.) (OCC 7792)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term "average deceleration rate" and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as "only a target" in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and 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 Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force -- relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

With respect to your question about the meaning of "average deceleration rate," that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows: For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration.

We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are "only a target" in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +/-0.5 ft/s/s.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure:

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht89-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SHUICHI WATANABE -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD. JAPAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3/27/89 FROM SHUICHI WATANABE OF STANLEY ELECTRIC CO OF JAPAN TO ERIKA JONES OF NHTSA RE: MEASUREMENT OF INCIDENT LIGHT ANGLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to measurement of the incident light angle prescribed by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You have submitted six Figures for our consideration and reply. I regret the delay in r esponding.

Paragraph 6.5 (not 5.3.3) of SAE Standard J587 OCT81 License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps) states:

"When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg. to the plane of the plate, this angle be ing measured from the edge of the light emitting surface of the device farthest from the surface of the plate (see Fig. 3)."

With respect to your Figure A, you comment that, in order to determine the farthest point on the light emitting surface, "only the distance '1' between license plate and a plane runs parallel to it should be considered and not by distance 'm' nor 'n'".

In examining Figure 3 of SAE J587, you will note that the incident angle is measured by a line that extends from the edge of the light emitting surface of the lamp that is the farthest from the most distant point on the plate that the light can be expect ed to reach, to that point. With respect to your Figure A, the line "n" that extends from the edge of the lamp "p" to the bottom of the plate replicates the line shown in Figure 3, and thus is the correct one, not the perpendicular line "1".

Similarly, with respect to Figure B, a round license plate lamp, a line must be drawn from the bottom of the plate (such as line "n" in Figure A) to the farthest light emitting surface surface of the lamp (as shown in Figure 3, not your Figure B) in orde r to illustrate the farthest point.

With respect to Figures C and D, you have asked: "But if the farthest point can exist so may on a line or a plane . . . how could it be determined? Should it be for instance, left end, right end or center of them?" Figure C appears to depict an elongate d lamp in which "p"s are depicted at the left end, right end, and center. In this instance, "P2" is the edge of the light farthest from the surface of the plate, as represented by corner "Q". Though "Po" represents an edge of the lamp, at no place on t he plate is it the point "farthest from the surface of the plate". Thus, the measurement from "Q" to the tangent of the light emitting surface near "P2" is the line to be used to measure the 8 degree minimum angle.

Figure D appears also to represent an elongated lamp but one in which the lens area is directed more towards the plate. In this Figure, "P" is the edge of the lamp that is farthest from the plate. But because of the configuration of the lamp, light fro m this point is interrupted by a part other than a lens and cannot shine directly upon the plate. Your points "P1", "P0", and "P2" appear to indicate the points on the lamp surface where such interruption ceases and light shines directly upon the plate. Therefore, it is our opinion that in this instance "P2" is the edge of the lamp farthest from the plate, as represented by corner "Q".

You have also asked the same question with respect to Figures E and F. These Figures represent lamp designs with two light sources. However, in Figure E, the two light sources appear incorporated in a single lamp, and the requirements of paragraph 6.5 still apply. Thus, a line from Q, tangent to the light emitting surface of the lens near the point "P3" (and not your line "Q-"P3"), is the correct reference for angle measurement. Figure F, however, depicts the light sources as compartmentalized, and thus may be regarded as a two-lamp device. Paragraph 6.6 of SAE J587 establishes the requirement for two or more license plate lamps. It states:

"When two or more lamps are used to illuminate the plate, the minimum 8 deg incident light angle shall apply only to that portion of the plate which the particular lamp is designed to illuminate. The incident light angle shall be measured in the same wa y as provided in paragraph 6.5."

Under these circumstances the light emitting edge of the lamp farthest from the surface of the plate is the furthest edge of the lamp illuminating that portion of the plate, here represented by "P2". Thus, the angle to be measured would be determined wi th reference to a tangent line to the light emitting surface near "P2", from corner "Q".

I hope that this has answered your questions.

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-5.18

DATE: August 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: H. George Johannessen, P.E. -- Chairman, Seat Belt Technical Committee, Automotive Occupant Restraints Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-22-91 from H. George Johannessen, P.E. to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5858)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). More specifically, you asked about the meaning of the requirement in S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 that "...the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this provision.

You explained that some have asserted that a safety belt fails to comply with S4.1(b) if it actually moves off an occupant's pelvis during a crash. To reach such a conclusion, one must ignore the words "be designed to" and treat the requirement as though it read "...the pelvic restraint shall remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." Such a reading is plainly incorrect, because it reads the phrase "be designed to" out of the regulation.

You explained that you believe S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory phrase that is essentially meaningless. According to your letter, this language first appeared in a standard developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and was subsequently adopted verbatim in the safety belt standard issued by the Department of Commerce and in Standard No. 209. You asserted that the SAE committee that developed this language included it as a design goal only, since the committee members "were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal," and "were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field."

We cannot agree with your suggestion that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory design goal. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires each safety standard to meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that the standard be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. When NHTSA adopted Standard No. 209 as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency concluded that Standard No. 209, including S4.1(b), met all applicable statutory criteria.

It is true that there is no compliance test procedure specifically for S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. However, the meaning of that provision becomes clear when it is viewed in the context of the occupant protection requirements in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No.

210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and the rest of Standard No. 209. Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that vehicles be equipped with safety belts and that the lap belt portions of those belts adjust to fit persons ranging in size from a 6-year-old child to a 95th percentile adult male (See S7.1.1). Standard No. 209 requires that safety belts meet specified strength, durability, and other performance requirements. Standard No. 210 requires that the anchorage holding the safety belt in the vehicle meet stringent strength requirements, so that the belt will remain attached to the vehicle in a crash, and lap belt location requirements (S4.3.1), including a minimum lap belt mounting angle, to reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining, i.e., having the lap belt move off the pelvis. See the detailed discussion of the minimum lap belt mounting angle at 55 FR 17970, at 17974; April 30, 1990.

Viewed in this context, we believe that the requirement of S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 means that safety belts must be designed to be capable of being properly adjusted and positioned on the pelvis of occupants ranging from 6-year-old children to 95th percentile adult males. The belts must also be capable of remaining on the pelvis of such occupant during collision or roll-over. A belt system that was not capable of being positioned on the pelvis and remaining there during crashes would not comply with S4.1(b).

Given this meaning and purpose, we offer the following observations. First, the fact that a lap belt moved off the occupant's pelvis during a collision would NOT of itself show that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. Compliance with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is determined by the design of the safety belt system, not the performance of individual safety belts while in service. Second, the actual performance of a safety belt in a vehicle (e.g., a lap belt moving off the occupant's pelvis during a crash) COULD indicate that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. If the agency had information indicating that a particular belt design was not capable of being properly positioned on the pelvis or not capable of remaining on the occupant's pelvis when installed in particular vehicles in particular crash modes, the agency might well investigate whether that safety belt design complied with S4.1(b). However, NHTSA has no such information about any safety belt systems at this time.

ID: nht71-2.14

DATE: 03/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The Bobby-Mac Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which you submitted for our review a draft of a label that you intend to use on your Bobby-Mac baby chair in accordance with paragraph S4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. We have restated the parts of your label whose compliance with the requirements of S4.1 is questionable, followed by our comments.

1. "In each position, reclining to upright, Bobby-Mac exceeds Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requirements for child seating systems."

We assume that you intend this statement to be your certification, pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the Bobby-Mac seat complies with Standard No. 213. While certification is not required to be placed on the label by S4.1, placing it there is not inconsistent with either Section 114 of the Act or Standard No. 213. However, we do not consider the statement you have used to be an adequate certification statement. This is because when read literally, the statement deals only with the static force requirements of the standard, as the other requirements, such as those for labeling (S4.1), providing instructions (S4.2), adjustments (S4.3), and others, are neither concerned with the "position " of the child seat nor can they be "exceeded." You must certify compliance with all the requirements of the standard, and your statement should be changed accordingly. Should you wish to use it, the following statement, for child seats manufactured on or after April 1, 1971, would be satisfactory: "This child seating system conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it on the date of manufacture shown below."

2. "Bobby-Mac can only be used in ears with standard auto seat belt which must be used to secure Bobby-Mac safely on front or rear auto seat. In vehicles with seats more elevated from floor than usual passenger auto, thereby not permitting sufficient length in auto seat belt to loop around Bobby-Mac, or if for any reasons auto seat belt is short, auto dealer or auto belt manufacturer can supply belt lengthener."

You have apparently placed this statement on the label to comply with paragraph S4.1(e) of the standard which requires a statement describing in general terms the types of vehicles and designated seating positions in those vehicles in which the system is recommended or not recommended for use. It is your responsibility under the requirement to make cortain that the types of vehicles you recommend have seat belts that are long enough to use the Bobby-Mac as recommended. You have stated that the Bobby-Mac can be used with a standard auto seat belt, but you have also indicated that there are types of vehicles or belt conditions with which the Bobby-Mac should not be used without some modification. We believe that your exceptions should be stated more objectively, such as prescribing the minimum belt loop length above the seat cushion that is required, so that a consumer can more accurately determine whether you are recommending the Bobby-Mac for use in his vehicle.

With reference to your recommendation concerning seat belt lengtheners if these lengtheners are not available by April 1, 1971, your label would not comply with the requirement. If they are available, your label should describe them in sufficient detail, such as by part number, so that consumer will know precisely what they must obtain in order to properly install the Bobby-Mac child seat. Your seat would be required to meet the force requirement of the standard when tested in the vehicles in which you recommend it for use and using any of the seat belt modifiers that you recommend for use with it.

3. "When Bobby-Mac is used for older, taller youngster, it must be used auto seat whose seat back or head restraint extends at least 6" above top of Bobby-Mac seat bucket."

In this case, you indicate that a child of a certain height must be placed at only certain seating positions. In order to provide consumers with some objective criteria by which they can determine whether Bobby-Mac is appropriate for their vehicles, the minimum height of the child that needs the additional head restraint protection should be provided, rather than describing him as merely "older" or "taller." In addition, it would be preferable if you specified the total seat back height above the seat cushion that is necessary for the children you have in mind, rather than indicating this measurement as the distance from the top of the child seat bucket. The information would be more useful to consumers, as it would allow them to determine the appropriateness of the Bobby-Mac without first obtaining one.

4. Finally, based upon the photographs submitted with your letter, the Bobby-Mac seat does not appear to be a rearward-facing child seat. If this is the case, the statement, "For use only on forward-facing vehicle seats," as required by S4.1(g), must be included on the label.

Please write if you have further questions.

ID: aiam4733

Dear Mr. Watanabe: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1990 asking whether a new combination rear lamp is permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The lamp consists of three compartments. In its normal operating mode, when the taillamp and/or stop lamp are activated, all three compartments show a red light. Your question arises with respect to three different operating modes. The first occurs when the turn signal is activated, the red light in one of the compartments is replaced by an amber flashing one. The second occurs when the backup lamp is activated, the red light in another of the compartments is replaced by a white steady-burning one. The third occurs when both the backup lamp and turn signal are activated, in this event, the combination lamp would present an amber flashing light, a red steady-burning one, and a white steady-burning one. You have informed us that 'the requirement of photometric and lighted area for each lamp function comply to FMVSS No. 108 and related SAE Standards.' Further, as for the stop and taillamp functions, they comply with requirements for one and three compartment lamps when operating with one or three compartments (we assume that they would also meet the requirements for two compartment lamps). The lamp appears to be intended to fulfill the requirements of Standard No. 108 for turn signal, stop, tail, and backup lamps. Thus, your question appears to be whether Standard No. 108 requires separate lamps or compartments dedicated to a specific purpose, or whether your multiple purpose lamp is acceptable. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a combination of the functions that any chamber of your lamp provides. When a specific function is activated, the lamp will perform that particular function in a manner that appears to meet the minimum standard established by Standard No. 108. Assuming that the CIE color definitions for white, amber, and red are met by the backup, turn, and stop/tail functions, the lamp appears to be permissible under Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1082

Dear Mr. Sakashita: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask tw questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacements parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; There are no requirements for the certification of replacement vehicl parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present Standard Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements tha manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that 'due care' was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.; It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or no subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the manufacturer of the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which he will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4920

Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your letter of October 14, 1991, t Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, based upon a meeting with Mr. Vinson on August 15, l990. You are developing a license plate frame that incorporates a 'flashing/steady burning stop lamp', for use on passenger cars and motorcycles, and 'an auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp' for use on vans, minivans, and pickup trucks. You cite a letter of this agency to Bettie Lou Simcox, dated October 24, 1986, as authority for your understanding that Standard No. 108 allows the use of a flashing, steady burning stop lamp. Standard No. 108 covers original motor vehicle lighting equipment, and lighting equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment. It does not cover supplementary or novelty lighting equipment offered in the aftermarket. Mrs. Simcox asked us about the acceptability of an aftermarket stop lamp which, when the brake is applied, pulses before going into a steady burning mode. We informed Mrs. Simcox that her lamp was unacceptable as replacement equipment because Standard No. 108 requires original equipment stop lamps, and lamps designed to replace that equipment, to be steady burning in use, but that it would be permissible under Standard No. 108 as a supplementary stop lamp. For the same reason, your invention would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 if it is offered in the aftermarket as a supplementary stop lamp, which we understand is your intent. You should be aware that Standard No. 108 specifically requires motor vehicles to be equipped with one or more license plate lamps. We are uncertain of the effect, if any, that the installation of your combination license plate frame/supplementary stop lamp would have upon conformance of a vehicle's license plate lamp(s) with the requirements of Standard No. 108. We therefore remind you of the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device such as the license plate lamp that has been installed in accordance with a safety standard such as Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2339

Dear Mr. Currie: #This is in response to your March 24, 1976, lette concerning the application of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to thermoplastic tubing of 1/8 inch nominal outside diameter that is used in 'auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself. #You have pointed out that it is difficult to label tubing of this diameter with letters that are 1/8 inch high, and requested an amendment of the standard to permit the labeling of such brake hoses with letters that are 1/16 inch high. #Because the tubing that you have described is not manufactured for use in the brake system itself, it is not 'brake hose' as that term is defined in Standard No. 106-74 and is therefore not subject to any of the standard's requirements. In fact, although the standard does not prohibit the manufacture of air brake hose of 1/8-inch outer diameter, we are unaware at this time of the existence of any hose or tubing of that diameter that meets the definition of 'brake hose'. Therefore, the conformity or nonconformity of the tubing in question is a matter of private contract between Parker Hannifin Corporation and those truck manufacturers that are requesting conformity. #In consideration of the possibility that 1/8-inch outer diameter tubing may in the future be used in brake systems, however, there NHTSA has decided to grant your petition to reduce to 1/16 inch the minimum required lettering height on brake hoses of such diameter. Accordingly, 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. #Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam1308

Dear Mr. Stolpestad: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, concerning th 1966 Chrysler you recently purchased from Central Motors in Minneapolis.; As Miss Porter correctly pointed out in her column, the Federal law o odometer fraud enables you to bring a civil action against Central. The amount of recovery in such an action can be substantial. If the court were to accept your estimate of damages of $1490.24, the damages assessable under Federal law would be three times that amount - $4470.72. In no case would damages be less than $1500, a minimum value established by law. In addition, if you are successful, Central must pay your attorney fees as well as all court costs.; I appreciate your concern for the costs of litigation. However, b providing for the payment of attorney fees the odometer law places you in a better position than a personal injury litigant, whose recovery is usually diminished by his attorney's contingency fee. Your best course at this point is therefore to retain counsel if Central persists in its refusal to reimburse you.; By way of advice to your attorney, I would point out that the 'out that Central claims to have taken -- checking the box on the disclosure form that indicates the true mileage is unknown -- was taken too late to be of benefit to them. The Federal regulation governing disclosure requires the disclosure statement to be made 'before executing any transfer of ownership form.' If they mailed the statement the next day, their disclosure was untimely. Moreover, the representations made in the newspaper advertisment (sic) are evidentiary of their representation of 33,000 miles as being the true mileage on the vehicle. Your success in finding the previous owner is also useful in establishing that the actual mileage was greater than shown.; We will be willing to give you or your attorney further advice i questions arise concerning the intent and effect of the Federal odometer law. The enclosed copies of the law and regulations are provided to assist him in representing you.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3765

Dear Ms. Hill: This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specifi questions relating to Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Your questions and their answers are listed below:; 1. Provide a definitive interpretation of 'erratic burning' as used i the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.; 'Erratic burning,' as that term is used in the standard, relates t incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.; 2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word 'anticipate' as use in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?; In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.; 3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendmen limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?; The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No 302.; 4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply t a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?; We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The materia would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.; 5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 197 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?; The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302- 02. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel