ID: nht80-2.23

DATE: 04/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Quester Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 29, 1980

NOA-30

J.P Koziatek, P.E. Director, Technical Services Questor Juvenile Products Company 771 N. Freedom Street Ravenna, Ohio 44266

Dear Mr. Koziatek:

This responds to your letter of January 25, 1980, requesting an interpretation of section S6.1.2.2.1(c) of Standards No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Section S6.1.2.2.1(c) specifies that in the 20 mph test of forward facing child restraints with fixed or movable surfaces designed to restrain the child, the restraint system's belts are not to be attached "unless they are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface." You asked whether the crotch strap used in your Kantwet "One Step" Model-400 child restraint would be considered an integral part of the movable shield used on that device. After reviewing the diagrams and description contained in your letter, I conclude that the crotch strap is not an integral part of the movable surface and thus must not be connected during the 20 mph test.

Amended Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. The principal misuse involves the failure to attach buckles and latches. To ensure that children using child restraints are afforded protection notwithstanding such misuse, the standard specifies that the belts are to be attached to restraining shields during testing only if they are integral parts of the shields. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines "integral" as meaning "formed as a unit with another part." Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they are intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and thus are not subject to the type of misuse described above.

The crotch strap used in the Kantwet "One Step" is not an integral part of the movable shield. The movable shield is a complete unit by itself. The crotch strap is a separate device that must be manually connected to the shield every time the unit is used. In contrast, the two upper torso restraints appear to be integral parts of the shield since they are designed to remain attached to an adjustment device and anchorage which are in turn permanently affixed to the shield. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the possibility that the upper torso restraint could be detached from the adjustment device. We urge that you and other manufacturers take the additional step of assuring that the belts permanently remain integral parts of the adjustment device.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 15, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Re: FMVSS 213-80 CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION KANTWET "ONE STEP" MODEL 400

This letter is written to provide NHTSA with the rationale leading to the design and development of the new Questor Juvenile Furniture Company (QJFC) child restraint system (Kantwet "One Step" Model 400) and to request NHTSA's confirmation of the manner in which this particular child restraint system is to be tested to determine its compliance with FMVSS 213-80, as published in the Federal Register on Thursday, December 13, 1979. Most important, we have set forth information substantiating the fact that the crotch strap incorporated in our new combined harness/restraint is "an integral part of the fixed or movable surface" under paragraph S6.1.2.3.1 (c) of FMVSS 213, thereby permitting the fastening of this integral strap during test configuration II.

Much has been written about the lack of use of child restraint systems, their cost, and their incorrect or incomplete installation/use. These concerns are well documented and have been expressed by the general public, concerned groups interested in promoting improved child passenger safety, and NHTSA. NHTSA has obviously deliberated long and with great effort in an attempt to develop rulemaking that would address those aspects of child restraint system design and usage that increase child passenger protection when properly designed child restraint systems are correctly installed in passenger vehicles. FMVSS 213-80, as published in the Federal Register on December 13, 1979, also attempts to protect the child passenger by requiring child restraint systems to meet certain minimum performance standards when they are improperly or incompletely installed in a passenger vehicle. While it is impossible to predict all potential incomplete or incorrect installations of child restraint systems in passenger vehicles, it has become apparent that certain omissions in child restraint system installations occur at a relatively high rate.

Tests have shown that child restraint systems installed with a top tether strap do reduce the occupant's relative head excursion, however these systems are often installed by the consumer without the top tether strap. The convenience armrest incorporated in some systems is also frequently misused in that it is placed in its lowered position with its restraining strap fastened, but the harness straps which are always part of such a system and which provide restraint for the system's occupant are often left unfastened. FMVSS 213-80 has considered these two improper installations of restraint systems and requires minimum occupant protection when the systems are tested under these improper conditions.

Devices for seating children in passenger vehicles were available to the consumer long before the advent of NHTSA and safety regulations for automobile occupants. Prior to NHTSA rulemaking in 1971, the majority of such child seating devices provided no protection for their occupants in the event of even low-speed vehicle accidents. However, since 1971, and particularly since 1974, there has been significant improvement in the crashworthiness of products available for seating children in passenger vehicles. The improvement has been such that child seats for automobile can now be truly classified as child restraints or, as some have suggested, "child protectors."

QJFC and its predecessor companies have been in the business of manufacturing and marketig child seating devices and restraint systems for more than 25 years. QJFC, perhaps more so than anyone else, has recognized the tremendous improvement in occupant protection now available to the consumer with crash-tested child restraints.

Likewise, QJFC has seen considerable shrinkage of the annual sales of child estraiit systems as their crashworthiness has improved and their cost has increased, as compared with the child seating devices formerly manufactured. QJFC has been concerned throughout this transition period that the consumer is not always interested in safety when he has a choice to make or that he is not fully cognizant of the possible consequences when a crash-tested child restraint system is, first, not purchased and, second, not used properly when purchased.

Since 1972, QJFC has designed and introduced five child restraint systems to the marketplace. Each of these systems was designed to meet crash testing criteria. As the state of the art improved and as more meaningful testing criteria were learned or published, the individual restraint systems were re-designed or discontinued, to be succeeded by designs which improved crashworthiness. Concurrently with efforts to improve the crashworthiness of restraint systems, QJFC recognized the sensitivity of the marketplace to the cost and the ease of use of child restraint systems. This led to the design of the Kantwet "Care Seat," the first restraint system marketed which provided crash protection for the occupant from birth through 43 pounds. The system was designed to (and did) meet the maximum relative head excursion of 18 inches forward of the forwardmost point of the car seat back without the use of a top tether anchor strap.

To provide a crash-tested restraint system for children from birth to 17 pounds, at the lowest possible cost. QJFC designed and marketed the Infanseat "Dyn-O-Mite" child restraint. This product, with its attractive pricing and broad distribution, has been well-received by the consumer and has served to re-emphasize the sensitivity of the marketplace to price and ease of use.

These comments are offered to indicate the awareness that QJFC has of the marketability and proper installation of child restraint systems. In addition to our own design and market experiences, we agree with the objectives NHTSA has established to improve the performance of the restraints, increase the use, and minimize their misuse.

To this end, QJFC has taken the sum total of its 25 years of marketing experience and combined this with NHTSA's objectives to design its sixth new crashworthy child restraint system since 1972. This system, the Kantwet "One Step" car seat, Model 400, is of a design that is a significant departure from previously available child restraint systems, thus incorporating features not necessarily familiar to NHTSA or the general public. Certain aspects of the design of the "One Step" will require interpretation in order to test the restraint properly against FMVSS 213-80.

The features of the Kantwet "One Step" design can best be understood by referring to various drawings in conjunction with the description that follows. The drawings are enclosed with this letter.

The system consists of three main parts: the tubular steel frame, a padded molded plastic shell, and a harness/shield restraint. These are shown in Figure 1. Combining these three main parts allows the assembly to be used as a rear-facing system for infants and as an upright forward-facing system for children who weigh more than 17 pounds but less than 43 pounds, with this mode also capable of being used in a forward-facing reclined position. Thus, a single purchase enables the consumer to provide protection for his child from birth through 42 pounds in weight.

Dynamic testing has been conducted on prototype and production mode is of the "One Step," and the tests have indicated excellent compliance with the performance requirements of FMVSS 213-80 in all three installation positions. These dynamic tests have been conducted at a simulated impact of 30 mph, and the average maximum relative head excursion achieved without the use of a top tether strap has been less than 32 inches. Head injury criteria and average chest accelerations have been well within requirements on those occasions when instrumented test dummies were used.

These favorable test results are attributable to the combination of a harness and an impact shield restraint system where in the most desirable features of a five-point harness and an impact shield have been combined. The single greatest criticism by the consumer of an impact shield-type of restraint has always been the difficulty of keeping the occupant within the system. The freedom of movement available to the occupant of an impact shield restraint allows the occupant not only to climb out of the system but also, if he remains in it, to be out of the ideal position to absorb effectively the forces imposed during an accident. A five-point harness restraint system distributes crash forces satisfactorily to the occupant; however, the webbing of such a system, with continued use, becomes entangled and crossed over itself, and it begins to "rope" or twist upon itself. This roping and twisting of the webbing thus imposes higher localized loading to the occupant in a crash; also, in many cases, the consumer fails to utilize the five-point harness when placing a child in such a system because he does not wish to take the time to untangle and straighten the webbing first.

The "One Step" restraint system integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and impact shield in a continuous connection. This arrangement provides some unique features and advantages not heretofore available with child restraint systems. These advantages are described below and shown in the appended drawings.

1. The security of a five-point harness system is provided, thus retaining the occupant, with the further guarantee that the occupant will be properly positioned in the system in the event of an accident.

2. A large padded surface is available with the impact shield located at the lower torso area, to distribute impact forces over as large an area as possible.

3. While the impact shield is designed to distribute impact forces to the lower torso area, it is also shaped in such a manner and positioned so that its lower surface rests against the occupant's upper thigh. This placement eliminates the need for a separate lap belt assembly for restraint of the lower torso. Thus, the possibility of a lap belt assembly's roping, twisting, and cutting into the pelvic area has been completely obviated. The intrusion of lap belts into the hip joint of test dummies has frequently been observed during crash testing in spite of the use of a crotch strap on a five-point harness restraint.

4. The impact shield, in addition to serving the aforementioned functions, also simulates the buckle of a five-point harness system in that it accepts the ends of the upper torso belts and provides a means of connecting the crotch strap to itself. Thus, the impact shield serves a multiplicity of purposes, as well as providing a means of "shielding" the occupant's torso and extremities against certain metal hardware items.

Reference to Figures 1 and 2 will highlight the similarities between a conventional five-point harness restraint system and integrated "One Step" combination harness/shield restraint system. The impact shield of the "One Step" essentially replaces both the retaining buckle and the lap belt of a typical five-point harness system, as shown in Figure 2. Both the impact shield and the buckle serve the same purpose of accumulating the belts and of fastening them together.

5. The belts of the upper torso restraint are routed from the back support surface of the system to and around the impact shield so that their "lie flat" position is guaranteed. Reference to Figures 1 and 3 clearly illustrates this. When the impact shield is raised or lowered for entrance or egress of the occupant, the shield maintains this "lie flat" condition of the upper torso belts, preventing any possibility of their roping, twisting, or becoming entangled with themselves or any other belting. Figure 4 shows the impact shield being raised, with the upper torso belts being lifted simultaneously from the occupant.

6. Since the upper torso belts and the crotch strap are sewed together to form a continuous loop about the restraint's occupant, adjustment of the upper torso belts automatically brings the crotch strap to its corrent length and the impact shield to its correct position for the size of the occupant. The restraint system can thus "grow" with the occupant or adjust to the amount of clothing worn by the child since the impact shield contacts its upper thighs.

7. Reference to Figure 3 shows the location of metal adjustment hardware on the underside of the impact shield. It can be seen that all hardware is away from the occupant and does not contact him. This feature eliminates the possibility of over-heated metal components burning the occupant on hot summer days, a situation that NHTSA has requested manufacturers to correct.

8. Further reference to Figure 3 shows the buckle which fastens the entire harness/shield restraint system together under the impact shield and therefore out of reach of the occupant. This feature prevents the child from purposely or inadvertently releasing the buckle and thus defeating the restraint. NHTSA has identified the release of buckles on five-point harness systems as being a significant problem and has tried to minimize the occurrence by requiring manufacturers to have a minimum release force for their buckles. The "One Step" restraint system has thus gone "one step" beyond NHTSA's requirements and eliminated accidental buckle release entirely.

9. Adjustment of the entire restraint system is accomplished simply by pulling on the ends of the upper torso restraint belts, as shown in Figure 3. As stated previously, this action adjusts the entire system to "fit" the occupant correctly and position him in the location and posture intended to absorb impact forces best. Further, once the adjustment is made, it cannot be loosened accidentally by the occupant, not only because the adjustment means is located out of reach but also because a separate and distinct secondary action is needed to pull the belts back from their adjusted length. To loosen the restraint's adjusted length of belting, it is necessary to lift one portion of the belt-adjusting mechanism, as shown in Figure 5, before the belting can be loosened.

Two important advantages result from this feature. First, the child cannot purposely or accidentally loosen the restraint through his movements or through playing with the strap slides that are the usual method of adjusting harness belting. Thus the child is always properly positioned to absorb impact forces during an accident. Second, the restraint system need not be adjusted each time it is occupied. Once the system has been adjusted to fit the child, the same "fit" will be available the next time the restraint is used since it will retain its length of webbing until the webbing length is purposely changed through the conscious actions shown in Figure 5.

10. Figure 6 is an enlarged view of the hardware as it is located under the impact shield. This view illustrates the routing of the upper torso belting through the adjustment hardware and also shows that the hardware itself is permanently fastened to the shield, thus preventing disengagement and possible loss of hardware from the system.

The combination of the above features makes the "One Step" child restraint the most convenient system to use. When the impact shield is raised, all belting is lifted clear of the seating surface, thus presenting an unobstructed area for the occupant. Once the child is seated, there is no need to search for belting or hardware under him. When the impact shield is lowered, the upper torso belts are brought into correct position over the child's shoulders and held in correct alignment to prevent their slipping from his shoulders since the belts are "fixed" in locations at either end of the upper torso portion of the belts. When not occupied, the belts are held in proper relationship to themselves and to the system itself, which precludes their roping, entanglement, and twisting. Once placed in a vehicle, the "One Step" can remain in the car, secured by the auto's lap belt, regardless of its position either forward-facing or rearward-facing, since the lap belt is routed under the restraint system's seating surface for all the restraint's positions. (Most other rearward-facing restraint systems are designed so that the vehicle belt used to retain the system in the vehicle passes over the occupant, which means the lap belt must be detached for the child's egress, with subsequent restraint usage requiring re-connection and adjustment of the vehicle belt.) Once the "One Step" is adjusted to "fit" the child, it need not be "re-fitted" each time it is used unless the child has increased in stature or wears bulky winter clothing since the adjustment mechanism retains the length of the adjusted belts until they are consciously altered.

**INSERT FIGURES**

QJFC believes the Kantwet "One Step" Model 400 child restraint system to be the most convenient crash-tested child restraint system available for use by children from birth through 42 pounds in weight. It is believed that this restraint incorporates the best knowledge and experience QJFC has gained in over 25 years of manufacturing and marketing juvenile products plus the knowledge NHTSA has provided to manufacturers of child restraint systems regarding the crashworthiness that such systems must provide.

It is QJFC's belief that when tested according to test configuration II, installation of the "One Step" system (as described in paragraph S6.1.2.3.1 (c) of FMVSS 213, published in the Federal Register of December 13, 1979) permits fastening of the integral crotch strap of the harness/shield restraint. NHTSA confirmation of this installation procedure for conducting test configuration II is requested.

I would be pleased to visit NHTSA personally to describe and discuss the "One Step" child restraint further, should that be desired.

Yours truly,

QUESTOR JUVENILE PRODUCTS COMPANY

J. P. Koziatek, P.E. Director, Technical Services

Attachments

JPK:MG

*Insert Figure 3, 4, 5, and 6 Here

ID: aiam3965

Dear Mr. Cooney: This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, askin several questions about the removal of the DOT numbers from the sidewall of tires. In a February 5, 1985 telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, you stated that the answers to all of your questions except number 7 should address the situation only for tire dealers and distributors. With that limitation, I have set forth below the answers to each of your questions in the order presented in your letter.; 1. *Under what circumstances, if any, may a DOT number be removed fro a passenger car tire?*; There are no circumstances in which a tire dealer or distributor ca legally remove a DOT number from a passenger car tire. It is unclear when you refer to a 'DOT number' whether you are referring to just the tire identification number required to be on every new and retreaded tire by 49 CFR Part 574, or that identification number together with the DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is required to appear on all new tires for highway use and retreaded passenger car tires as a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire fully complies with the applicable Federal safety standard.; In any case, Standard No. 109, *New pneumatic tires - passenger cars (49 CFR S571.109) applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 requires that the symbol DOT be on the tire, and section S4.3.1 requires that the tire identification number be on the tire. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) specifies 'No manufacturer, *distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in an...item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' By removing the DOT identification number, a dealer or distributor would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tire which is included on the tire in compliance with Standard No. 109. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108. This agency would consider each tire from which the DOT number had been removed to be a separate violation.; 2. *If the answer to question 1 is none, is there any situation in which a passenger car tire can b sold for farm or off- road use provided that the DOT number has been removed?*; There is no situation in which a passenger car tire with the DOT numbe removed can be sold for any purpose. Section S6 of Standard No. 109 reads as follows:; S6 *Nonconforming tires*. No tire that is designed for use on passenge cars and manufactured on or after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to all the requirements of this standard, shall be sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, for any purpose.; A passenger car tire without the DOT number does not conform to al requirements of the standard, so its sale for any purpose is expressly prohibited. A violation of this section would subject the seller to a potential penalty of up to $1000 for each nonconforming tire sold.; 3. *Under what circumstances can tires for use on motor vehicles othe than passenger cars have the DOT number removed and the tires sold for off-road or farm use only?*; This is really a two part question. Again, there are *no* circumstance in which a tire dealer or distributor can legally remove the DOT number from these tires. Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars* (49 CFR 571.119) applies to these tires. Section S6.5(a) requires the DOT symbol to be on those tires, while section S6.5(b) requires the tire identification number to be on the tires. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits tire dealers and distributors for removing those symbols from the tire, and the penalty for removing those symbols is up to $1000 for every tire from which the symbols are removed.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) also prohibits manufacturers from removing DO numbers from tires and then selling the tires to distributors as tires for off-road use. It is theoretically possible that a tire dealer or distributor could acquire a small quantity of tires from which the DOT number had been removed by a party other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Assuming that a tire dealer or distributor did acquire some of these tires from which the DOT number had been removed, the tires could be sold for off-road use only. This is because Standard No. 119 has no comparable provision to section S6 of Standard No. 109. However, these tires may never legally be sold for used on the public roads (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). A tire dealer or distributor who acquires tires from which the DOT number has been removed would be well advised to have some written statement to that effect on the sales slip. The purpose of such statement would be to prove that it was not the tire dealer or distributor who removed those numbers. When selling these tires for off-road use, the dealer or distributor should have some means of proving that he or she sold these tires with the caveat that they could only be used off-road. Either of your suggestions in question 4 (noting off-road use only on the sales slip or having the customer sign a document that the tires will only be used off-road) would be helpful for the dealer or distributor.; 4. *If a tire can be sold as described in Question 3, what must a tir distributer or dealer do to sell a tire?*; As noted above, either of your suggestions would be helpful for th dealer or distributor selling tires exclusively for off-road use. What the dealer must be able to do when selling these tires is show that he or she was not selling tires which do not comply with Standard No. 119 for use on the public roads.; 5. *If a tire in Question 4 is sold with no-highway use intended an the customer uses it on the highway, will the tire dealer or distributor be held in violation of the provision provided he met the requirements for noting that the tire was sold for non-highway use only?*; If a tire dealer or distributor can show that he or she did not remov the DOT numbers from the tires and that he or she sold the tires with the express understanding that the tires could not be used on the public roads, the dealer or distributor would not have violated any Federal requirements.; 6. *Is it possible that if the tire in Question 5 fails on the highwa and causes property or personal injury as a result that the tire dealer or distributor could be held liable for the damages or injuries? Even if he did not mount the tire on a rim for the customer?* This is a question of state law, which I cannot answer. However, I can say that it would be helpful for the dealer or distributor to have some proof that the customer was clearly told that these tires did not comply with the applicable Federal safety standard and could not be used on the public roads.; 7. *Who, if anyone, is allowed to remove DOT numbers?* a) A tire manufacturer may remove DOT numbers from its tires, as a wa of showing those tires do not satisfy the applicable standard Once a manufacturer does this, this tires may not legally be sold.; b) A retreader may remove the DOT numbers on the casing he or she i retreading. The retreader is generally required to mark its own identification number on each tire it retreads.; c) Once a tire has been sold for purposes other than resale, any perso or entity, *other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business,* may remove any or all markings from the tire.; 8. *If a retreader is allowed to remove DOT numbers, is he required t replace the removed number with his assigned DOT shop code number?*; Generally speaking, the retreader is required to permanently mark tire identification number on the sidewall of each tire it retreads. 49 CFR 574.5 specifies: 'Each tire retreader...shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall...a tire identification number...' There are two minor exceptions to this provision. A tire retreader who retreads tires for his own use is not required to mark a tire identification number on those tires. Also tires which are retreaded exclusively for mileage contract purchasers are not required to bear the retreader's tire identification number if the tire contains the phrase 'for mileage contract use only' molded into or onto the tire sidewall. In all other instances, a retreader must mark its tire identification number on each tire it retreads.; 9. *Tire definition: since many tire sizes and styles are use interchangeably from passenger cars to light trucks and vans, especially mini-vans, how will the DOT decide whether Standard No. 109 or 119 applies to a case of DOT number removal and subsequent sale for off-road use?*; In the process of certifying their tires, manufacturers indicat whether that tire size is designated primarily for use on passenger cars or primarily for use on light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (vans). This is occasionally done by an individual manufacturer for a particular tire size, but is most often done through the publications of standardization organizations. (A standardization organization is a voluntary association composed of representatives of each of the member tire companies. The purpose of these standardization organization is to establish and promulgate sound engineering standards for tires, rims, and their allied parts.) The agency uses these listings to determine whether a tire is certified for compliance with Standard No. 109 or No. 119. If you have any questions about particular tire sizes, you may wish to contact the American standardization organization, The Tire an Rim Association, at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313.; 10. *Since DOT requires certain information to appear on the sidewal of the tire, whether passenger car or other type, what, if anything can be removed from the sidewall?*; A tire dealer or distributor can never legally remove any of th required information from the sidewall of tires. In the case of passenger car tires, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: The size designation, maximum permissible inflation pressure, maximum load rating, the generic name of each cord material used in the plies of the tire, the actual number of plies in the sidewall and in the tread, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type', the word 'radial' if the tire is a radial tire, the DOT symbol, the name of the manufacturer or the brand name, and the identification number. In the case of tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: the DOT symbol, the tire identification number, the tire size designation, the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure, the speed restriction of the tire if 55 mph or less, the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material in the sidewall and in the tread, the word 'tubeless' or tube type', the word 'regroovable' if the tire is designed for regrooving, the word 'radial if the tire is a radial tire, and the letter designating the load range of the tire. Removal of any of these required items of information by a tire dealer or distributor would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained above in my answer to Question 1.; 11. a.*If a dealer is removing DOT numbers from tires then sellin those tires to a distributor who sells them to another dealer for resale to the customer, who is in violation of the Federal requirements?*; The answer to this question depends on whether the tires are for use o passenger cars or other motor vehicles. If the tires are passenger car tires, both dealers and the distributor have violated Federal requirements. The dealer removing the DOT numbers has violated Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 1 above. The distributor and dealer selling tires which do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 109 have violated section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 11.b below.; If the tires are for other motor vehicles, the dealer removing the DO numbers has violated section 108(a)(2)(A) of the safety Act. If the tire distributor and the dealer selling the tires to a customer can show that neither one removed the DOT numbers and that the tires were sold with the express understanding that they could not be used on the public roads, neither has violated any Federal requirement.; b. *If a customer buys tires with no DOT number and takes them t another dealer for mounting on his car, is that dealer in violation of Federal requirement because he mounted the tires, even though he did not sell them?*; Since this question deals with passenger car tires, a dealer mountin tires without DOT number would be in violation of Federal law. Section 1089a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies, ' No person shall manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the Unite States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard...' A tire is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and a passenger car tire without DOT numbers is not in compliance with Standard No. 109. We have stated in previous interpretations that the use of noncomplying tires on pubic roads is an introduction of those tires in interstate commerce, and therefore a violation of this provision of the law. A dealer mounting noncomplying tires on a passenger car would also be considered to be introducing those tires into interstate commerce, and, therefore, also in violation of this provision.; 12. *Please sum up the intent of Standards No. 109 and 119 and indicat if the tire dealer or distributor has an obligation to report to DOT any tire dealer who is removing DOT number and/or other required sidewall information and then selling these tires. Also indicate how this would be done and what steps would follow?*; Standards No. 109 and 119 are intended to provide the tires purchase with necessary information for the safe operation of those tires on the purchaser's vehicle. Tire dealers and distributors cannot remove this information from the sidewall of the tires.; A tire dealer or distributor does not have a legal obligation to repor violations of these requirements, although we would appreciate if they did so. NHTSA prefers reports of violation to be in writing and addressed to: NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. If for some reason the report cannot be made in writing, a person who suspects a violation of the requirements should telephone Mr. James Gilkey at (202) 426- 2834. When the agency learns of a violation, normal enforcement procedures are begun. First, the agency investigates to see if the allegations of violations are true. If the investigation concludes that there are violations, proceedings to collect the civil penalties are instituted against the violator. As noted above, a tire dealer or distributor removing DOT number from tires would face penalties of up to a maximum of $800,000 if the dealer or distributor had removed the DOT number for 800 or more tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject please contact Mr Kratzke a the above address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: 571.213--detachable base--crs3

Dear [                    ]:

This responds to a January 7, 2020, letter from [               ] that [      ] emailed to us on [   ]. We apologize that we were unaware of the January 7 letter prior to your contacting us. The letter asks about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213), “Child restraint systems,” as applied to a child restraint system (CRS) consisting of a “shell” 1 and a separate, detachable base. [  ] asks us to confirm that the shell and base “need only meet the requirements of FMVSS 213 when evaluated together as a system.” As explained below, we disagree with this view.

[      ] asks about a CRS design concept it calls the “Z Project.” The Z Project child restraint system has the following three components: (1) a rear-facing-only infant car seat shell (the “Z Infant Shell”); (2) a convertible2 shell that is used both rear-facing and forward-facing (the “Z Convertible Shell”); and (3) a detachable base with permanently attached components for securing it to the vehicle with either the lower anchors of the LATCH3 system or a vehicle’s Type 1 or 2 belt system (the “Z Base”).4

[      ] would like to offer the Z Project for sale in the United States in the following variations, which it calls “Sales Variations”: (1) a Z Infant Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; (2) a Z Base sold separately at retail; (3) a Z Convertible Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; and (4) the Z Convertible Shell purchased separately upon verification that the consumer is in possession of a Z Base.

[     ] asks about the permissibility of Sales Variations 3 and 4 where the “Shell” of the convertible child restraint is a separate component from the base. According to [    ], the Shell and Base are separate parts and may not even be sold together. As explained below, we believe Sales Variations 3 and 4 are not permitted by Standard 213.

Sales Variations 3 and 4
Standard 213 (section S4) defines a “child restraint system” as “any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 36 kilograms (kg) (80 lb) or less.” Standard 213 requires “child restraint systems” to meet performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury in a crash and ease-of- use requirements to increase the likelihood of consumers correctly using and installing CRSs.

Any device meeting the standard’s definition of a “child restraint system” must be certified to Standard 213’s requirements.

Because the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) consists of a molded frame structure that also has the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional convertible CRS, the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) is a device designed to “restrain, seat or position children who weigh 36 kg (80 lb) or less” in motor vehicles. Based on this information, we believe the Z Convertible Shell meets the definition of a “child restraint system” and is a child restraint system in and of itself, without the Z Base. As a CRS, the Z Convertible Shell must meet the applicable requirements of Standard 213 standing alone, without use of a separate part or accessory like the Z Base.

Apparent Non-Compliances
It does not appear that the Z Convertible Shell would meet all applicable requirements of Standard 213. We discuss two apparent non-compliances below.

a.    S5.3.2 of Standard 213 requires each convertible CRS to meet the requirements of the standard when installed solely by each of the following means: (1) a Type 1 seat belt assembly (lap belt);5 (2) a Type 1 seat belt assembly plus a tether anchorage, if needed; and (3) the child restraint anchorage system specified by FMVSS No. 225 (LATCH system).

As [       ] describes the Z Convertible Shell (p. 3 of your letter), “there is no belt path for vehicle belt installation and there are no lower anchor LATCH attachment mechanisms.” As such, it appears the Z Convertible Shell would not meet S5.3.2 as it has no means of attaching to a vehicle by a seat belt or by the child restraint anchorage system. The Z Convertible Shell depends on the Z Base for vehicle attachment, but the Z Base is wholly separate from the Z Convertible Shell. A CRS that cannot be installed solely by a belt and by a child restraint anchorage system will not meet S5.3.2.6

[    ] believes that Standard 213’s requirements apply to the “entire system” and not to the Z Convertible Shell alone. This view does not accord with the language of the standard. The Z Convertible Shell alone restrains, seats or positions children weighing 36 kg (80 lb) or less in motor vehicles and thus is a “child restraint system” in and of itself. It must meet S5.3.2 solely by the belt and LATCH system without having to depend on an added separate part.

[     ] view is also at odds with the purposes of S5.3.2, which is to standardize the means of vehicle attachment and increase the likelihood of a correct and safe installation. The standard requires CRSs to provide at least a minimum level of safety without use of additional parts, to ensure that the restraint will provide an adequate level of protection in the event the additional parts are not used.7 A CRS design whose minimal crash protection is dependent on a consumer’s using supplemental parts is contrary to this purpose and is not permitted unless explicitly provided for by the standard.

b.    S5.9(a) of Standard 213 requires each child restraint system to have permanently attached components that enable the CRS to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system.8 The Z Convertible Shell attaches to the Z Base and the Z base is equipped with said components, but the Z Base is not a permanent part of the Z Convertible Shell. S5.9(a) states: “The components must be attached by use of a tool, such as a screwdriver.” The Z Convertible Shell does not have the child restraint anchorage system components attached to it by use of a tool like a screwdriver and so does not meet the requirements of S5.9(a).

One of NHTSA’s goals in establishing a child restraint anchorage system is to increase correct CRS use by ensuring that child restraint systems are convenient to install and use and are accepted by consumers.9 NHTSA adopted the “permanently attached” requirement in S5.9(a) to better ensure that the components on a CRS that attach to the child restraint anchorage system will be present and available for use by consumers through the life of the CRS.10 This is especially important with regard to child restraints, as it is common for child restraint systems to be handed down to others or otherwise re-used.

This interpretation is consistent with an April 26, 2007, interpretation addressing whether a CRS could be designed so that it attached to the child restraint anchorage system using a part that was called an “ISOFIX platform.”11 The ISOFIX platform appears similar to the Z Base: it alone had the child restraint anchorage system attachment and the CRS would attach to the ISOFIX platform. NHTSA stated the CRS design would not meet the requirements of Standard 213 because, although the CRS was designed to attach to the ISOFIX platform, FMVSS 213 requires the components attaching to the child restraint anchorage system to be permanently attached to the CRS. The agency did not regard the CRS and the ISOFIX platform as together comprising the “child restraint system.” Accordingly, NHTSA determined that the sale or importation of the CRS into the U.S. would be prohibited.

[    ] believes that the aforementioned Mercedes-Benz (MB) letter (footnote 7, supra) supports its view that NHTSA should apply FMVSS No. 213 to the Z Convertible Shell and the Z Base “together as a system.” The letter related to MB’s built-in12 booster seat that had a separate, non- integral “impact shield” and whether NHTSA would test the booster seat together with the impact shield. NHTSA said no, the booster seat must meet Standard 213’s requirements without use of the shield, because the impact shield was not part of the built-in CRS. We believe this outcome is consistent with our view in this letter that the Z Convertible Shell is a CRS unto itself and must meet Standard 213 without use of a separate part like the Z Base.

In answering MB, NHTSA also analyzed the applicability of the standard to various components of the MB system. [    ] focuses on the part of the MB letter that discusses whether the impact shield would be subject to the standard as an “add-on” child restraint system but, in doing so, [ ] appears to have misunderstood the context of and reasons for the agency’s statements. NHTSA’s statements related to its determination that the impact shield was not an add-on CRS due to the shield design and MB’s intention to sell the shield as part of the vehicle’s built-in system. NHTSA’s statement that the MB shield is “merely a component of a child restraint system and is not intended to be used separately from the other parts of the restraint system” was among those explaining why we concluded that the shield was not an add-on CRS that had to meet FMVSS 213 in its own right. The statements you quoted pertained to our decision that the MB shield was not an add-on CRS, and do not relate to how NHTSA would test an add-on system that had a separate part.

There are circumstances in which Standard 213 permits a child restraint to meet a requirement by way of a detachable base, but those situations are explicitly recognized in the standard and do not apply to your situation. For example, Standard 213 recognizes that some installation information may be on a detachable base (see, S5.5.3, which refers to the installation diagrams that must be visible when the CRS is installed).13 Another provision, discussed in a section below and one you ask about, relates to the last sentence of S5.9(a).

Your Question about the Last Sentence of S5.9(a)
The last sentence of S5.9(a) states: “In the case of rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases, only the base is required to have the components [that are permanently attached to the CRS that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system].” You believe this provision would permit the Z Convertible Shell to have the anchorage system components attached only to the detachable base (the Z Base).

Your understanding is incorrect. The provision only applies to rear-facing child restraints and does not apply to a convertible child restraint system like the Z Convertible Shell, because a convertible CRS is also a forward-facing child restraint system. If a child restraint could also be used forward-facing, the provision does not apply. NHTSA drafted the last sentence of S5.9(a) envisioning the provision as applying to “infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”14 The provision was adopted out of a concern at the time about the cost impacts of the rule on infant carriers (i.e., CRSs that are used rear-facing only).

Sales Variation 1
Please note that it appears the Z Infant Shell described in Sales Variation 1 must have a belt path for a vehicle belt installation (S5.3.2). The Z Infant Shell is a “child restraint system” under FMVSS No. 213 and, unless excepted by the standard,15 must meet the requirements of the standard standing alone without use of a separate part like the Z base. We cannot tell from materials whether there is a belt path on the Z Infant Shell itself. Please ensure that the Z Infant Shell in Sales Variation 1 has the required means of attaching by way of a vehicle seat belt assembly without the detachable base (Z base), as required by FMVSS No. 213 S5.3.2.

If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Digitally signed by ANN ELIZABETH CARLSON

Date: 2022.05.31

11:46:31 -04'00'

Ann Carlson

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/22

Ref: FMVSS No. 213

1 Based on your letter and submissions, the shell consists of a molded plastic frame structure and the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional child restraint.

2 As defined on NHTSA’s website, a “convertible” CRS is a type of CRS that “converts from rear-facing for babies and smaller children to forward-facing for older and larger children.” https://www.nhtsa.gov/car-seats-and-booster- seats/car-seat-glossary. [Footnote added.]

3 “LATCH” refers to the child restraint anchorage system that FMVSS 225, “Child restraint anchorage systems,” requires to be installed in motor vehicles. Industry and advocates have developed the term “LATCH” to refer to Standard 225’s child restraint anchorage system.

4 According to [   ] letter: “The Z Infant Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 35 lbs. The Z Convertible Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 50 lbs. rear-facing and 22 to 65 lbs. forward-facing.”

5 NHTSA has proposed to amend Standard 213 to refer instead to a Type II belt (lap-shoulder belt). Notice of proposed rulemaking, 85 FR 69388, November 2, 2020. This proposal does not affect our determination here that the Z Convertible Shell must have a means to attach to the vehicle seat by way of the belt system.

6 The Z Convertible Shell would have to meet other performance requirements of FMVSS 213 without use of the Z Base. For instance, the Z Convertible Shell would have to meet the head and knee excursion requirements without the use of a tether strap.

7 Mercedes-Benz letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/17513mer.b-i.htm. “Add-on, nonpermanent components can be lost or misplaced and may not be accessible when the restraint has to be used.” This interpretation concerns an “impact shield” that was not “formed as a unit” with the built-in CRS.

8 FMVSS 213 S5.9(a) inadvertently refers to a child restraint “anchorage” system instead of a “child restraint

system.” As indicated by the context of S5.9(a) and by the final rule adopting S5.9(a) (64 FR 10786, 10816; March 5, 1999), reference to “anchorage” is incorrect. NHTSA plans to correct the word soon.

9 LATCH final rule, 64 FR at 10797, col. 2.

10 In the rulemaking establishing FMVSS 225, NHTSA considered the merits of allowing vehicle manufacturers the option of installing an anchorage system that some CRSs could use only through an adapter that interfaced between the CRS and the anchorage system. Commenters overwhelmingly opposed an adapter, believing that the adapter would likely be lost or misused by consumers. The agency agreed and decided to adopt an anchorage system that would be universal to all vehicles and all CRSs. The Z Convertible Shell is contrary to NHTSA’s purpose in developing FMVSS 225 and the related requirements of FMVSS 213 S5.3.2 and S5.9(a), as the Z Base acts as an adapter that must be used for the CRS to attach to the anchorage system.

11 Gazza letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/005431rls.htm.

12 FMVSS No. 213 (S4) defines a “built-in child restraint system” as “a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle.” An “add-on” system is a portable child restraint system (S4).

13 In a January 16, 2003, letter (Meyer letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/00070cmc.html), the agency addressed whether a CRS with a detachable base must have information labeled on the base if the seating portion of the CRS was already properly labeled. The agency said no, “a detachable base is part of a child restraint system” so “[a]s

long as the labeling requirements are met by the system as a whole, the base is not required to be labeled.” We do not give weight to this letter as it was narrowly focused on labeling, did not analyze S4’s CRS definition, S5.3.2, and S5.9(a), and was overtaken by the April 26, 2007 Gazza letter, supra, that found an ISOFIX platform not to be part of the child restraint. To the extent the Meyer letter is inconsistent with this and the Gazza letter, we consider the Meyer letter superseded.

14 Final rule preamble, 64 FR at 10806 (col.3). The discussion of the provision begins with: “Several commenters addressed the requirements that would apply to infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”

15 E.g., as noted above, the last sentence of S5.9(a) permits the rear-facing child restraint to use the Z Base to attach to the child restraint anchorage system, and S5.5.3 provides for some labeling to be on a detachable base.

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

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: aiam2886

Dear Mr. Nettles: This responds to REMCO's September 14, 1978, request to know th Federal braking requirements for an air-braked or pulpwood trailer.; In addition to the requirements of Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses* the only Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard regulating the braking of air-braked vehicles is Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. As you know, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Standards also apply to the use of air-braked vehicles in interstate commerce.; All of the requirements of Standard No. 121 apply to the manufacture o a logging or pulpwood trailer except for the 'no lockup' provision of S5.3.2. Specifically, S5.3.2.2 of the standard states:; >>>S5.3.2.2 When stopped in accordance with S5.3.2, any traile designed exclusively for harvesting logs or pulpwood and constructed with a skeletal frame and no means for attachment of a solid bed, body, or container, and with an arrangement of air control lines and reservoirs designed to minimize damage in off- road operations, need not meet the requirements relating to wheel lockup, but must nevertheless meet the requirements of staying within the 12-foot lane.<<<; There is no exclusion from the parking brake requirements of S5.6 Therefore, a parking brake capability using an energy source unaffected by loss of service brake air pressure is required. The standard specifies performance, not design, and does not require installation of a spring brake design. I have enclosed a copy of a recent proposal that would modify the requirements so that pulpwood trailers would not be required to provide parking brake capability. The reasons for this proposal are listed in the preamble to the notice. This proposal has not been made final.; For clarification, I would add that 'heavy hauler' trailers ar excluded from the entire standard until January 1, 1979. Heavy hauler trailers are defined to include the so-called 'pole trailers' used in logging that have air brake lines that adapt to fore-and-aft extension of the trailer.; I am also enclosing a *Federal Register* notice that explains th effect of a recent court decision on the 'no lockup' requirement for trailers.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3960

Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1985, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding requirements for the center high- mounted stop lamp.; You reference an agency letter of July 30, 1980, to Volkswagen o America in which the Chief Counsel concluded that placement of the stop lamps and taillamps on the deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance requiring notification and remedy. You have asked, in essence, how this relates to Standard No. 108's present allowance of a center high- mounted stop lamp mounted on a vehicle's decklid, hatch, or tailgate.; The assumption underlying the agency's 1980 letter was that a defec could exist if all a vehicle's stop lamps and taillamps were mounted on the decklid, where their signals could be unobserved or obscured if the lid were in any position other than closed. The center high-mount stop lamp, on the other hand, while an item of required equipment, is nevertheless a supplementary stop lamp. Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps remaining on the body.; You have asked that we also discuss the implications of a stop lamp an taillamp constructed so that a portion is fixed to the body of the vehicle adjacent to the decklid opening and the remaining portion is mounted on the outboard area of the decklid.; Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its norma driving position, that is to say, with the tailgate, hatch, or decklid closed. However, in order to obviate any possibility of the existence of a safety-related defect, we recommend that the portion of the lamp that is mounted on the body itself comply with the minimum requirements of Standard No. 108 for a single compartment stop lamp or taillamp.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, 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: aiam5346

"Dear Mr. Simons: This responds to your letter asking about brak requirements for trailers used in tractor trailer combinations. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether all such trailers are required to be equipped with 'maxi' brakes on one or both axles. You state that a 'maxi' brake is found on all road tractors and 'sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level.' Please note that the term 'maxi' brakes ordinarily refers to spring brakes used in parking and emergency brake applications. I further note that most, but not all, trailers are equipped with spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements. By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1392), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121, copy enclosed), specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicles under normal and emergency conditions. While Standard No. 121 does not require manufacturers to use spring brakes or any other particular type of brake system, many manufacturers use spring brakes to comply with the standard's requirements concerning parking brake performance (trucks, buses and trailers, see S5.6), emergency brake performance (trucks and buses only, see S5.7), and trailer pneumatic system failure performance (see S5.8). I note that while the requirements of S5.6 and S5.8 apply to most air-braked trailers, S3 of Standard No. 121 excludes some trailers from all of the standard's requirements. In addition, S5.6 and S5.8 specify alternative requirements for some trailers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";