ID: aiam2574

Dear Mr. Terry: This responds to your November 29 and December 20, 1976, petitions fo rulemaking to amend the definition of 'unloaded vehicle weight.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grants your November 29 petition for rulemaking and denies your December 20 petition.; The NHTSA, in a letter of interpretation to the Jeep Corporation stated that 'unloaded vehicle weight' does not include the weight of accessories ordinarily removed when they are not in use. Your November 29 petition for rulemaking suggests that we formally incorporate this interpretation into the definition of 'unloaded vehicle weight' for purposes of clarity. The agency agrees that this change should be made. Accordingly, we intend to commence rulemaking in response to your petition.; Your December 20, 1976, petition amended your November 29, 1976 petition by suggesting that the agency permit barrier testing of specified vehicles at the lesser of the unloaded vehicle weight or 5,500 pounds. We have determined that this proposal would establish arbitrary weights for vehicles undergoing compliance testing which could result in vehicles being subjected to crash tests in a condition which is not representative of their actual on-road condition. Your suggested change in the definition could thus result in a reduction in the effectiveness of some motor vehicle safety standards. In Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, the Congress mandated that the agency not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard. Your proposal, if implemented, could violate that Congressional mandate since vehicles could be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight. Therefore, the recommendations advanced in your December 20 petition are denied to the extent that they differ from those originally proposed in your November 29 petition.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: nht75-6.41

DATE: MAY 09, 1975

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MR. SICKS -- FACHNORMENAUSSCHUSS KRAFTFAHRZEUGE - FAKRA

COPYEE: F. W. SCHWARTZ

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 4-16-75 TO NHTSA DOCKET SECTION FROM MR. PETZOLDT AND MR. SICKS, FACHNORMENAUSSCHUSS KRAFTFAHRZEUGE

TEXT: This is in response to your Petition for Reconsideration of the amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 promulgated in the Federal Register on March 31, 1975.

We shall advise you of our decision in this matter after reviewing your petition.

ID: aiam1832

Dear Mr. Banks: This is in reply to your letter dated January 29, 1975, asking whethe a product which you use to repair damaged windshields is prohibited by Federal law or regulation. Your letter was forwarded to our office by the NHTSA Regional Administrator in Fort Worth. You describe the repair process which you use as one in which the air in a damage spot or crack in the windshield is displaced by the product in a liquid form. As this product hardens it bonds itself to the glass, making the damaged area stronger than the other areas of the glass.; There are no Federal laws or regulations which prohibit the use of suc a material or process in the repair of windshields which have previously been installed in vehicles and damaged in use. Using such a material or process in a *new* (but damaged) windshield (such as in shipment) could cause the windshield to fail to meet the performance requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR S 571.205) and we would therefore discourage its use in new windshields.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4345

Dear Mr. Harris: This responds to your letter of February 17, 1987, concerning the us of a DOT code number on glazing material by someone other than the prime manufacturer. I regret the delay in our response. You indicate in your letter that a customer has requested that you, as the prime manufacturer of the glazing material, include in your trademark on each piece of glazing material the DOT code number issued to you. You refer to the particular glazing material in question as 'stock glass', since a customer purchases sheets for glazing material from you and then cuts the glazing into pieces for various unknown applications. You object to this request, because you have no control over the use to which the glazing material will be put. You request our opinion and we offer the following.; The marking and certification requirements for glazing materials ar continued in S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, and include different marking requirements for a prime manufacturer and other types of manufacturers. (A prime glazing material manufacturer is defined in S6.1 as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.) The only glazing material which *must* carry the DOT code mark is that produced by a prime manufacturer and designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper. Since you specifically indicate that you do not know the use of which the glazing material will be put, there is no *requirement* that this glazing material carry your manufacturer's code.; The purpose of the manufacturer's code is to help the agency identif the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. The difference in the marking requirements was designed to help the agency distinguish between glazing in a motor vehicle that had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation. In a July 13, 1976, letter to 'Lucite' Acrylic Sheet Products, we stated that the certification requirements had become widely understood and uniformly practiced throughout the glazing industry, which has aided the traceability of glazing for enforcement purposes. We went on to say that, for these reasons, we were no longer prohibiting the use of the prime glazing manufacturer's code number by the distributor or manufacturer who cuts the glazing, if the prime glazing manufacturer grants permission for such use of the code number to the distributor or manufacturer.; In summary, you may include, if you wish, your DOT code number o glazing material not designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, but sold by you to others. There is no obligation to do so, however. If you have further questions please feel free to contact us.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-1.8

DATE: 12/29/92

FROM: THOMAS L. WRIGHT -- COORDINATOR, TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNIT, MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

TO: PATRICK BOYD -- CRASH AVOIDANCE DIVISION, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS L. WRIGHT (A40; STD. 205)

TEXT: I am waiting to request an update on the status of the proposed rulemaking for window tinting standards as published in the Federal Register, Volume 57, Number 14, January 22, 1992.

The proposal states that a state may not establish a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance for equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Does this provision cause state laws which permit add-on window tinting material for medical or aesthetic reasons to be in violation of Federal law?

Additionally, I would like to request a copy of the referenced Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: 13946blt.adj

Ms. Christine S. Davik-Galbraith
Altheimer & Gray
10 South Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606-7482

Dear Ms. Davik-Galbraith:

This responds to your letter asking whether any of the regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) apply to children's safety belt adjusters. To answer your question, I have enclosed copies of two of the letters we have written on this subject. These two are our response to Angela Caron, dated March 16, 1994, and to Brett Higgins, April 26, 1993.

As explained in those letters, there is no safety standard that directly applies to safety belt adjusters. However, there are several provisions in NHTSA's statute that are relevant to those products, such as the responsibility borne by persons manufacturing safety belt adjusters to ensure that the products are free of safety-related defects.

I note also that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) petitioned this agency in January 1996 to amend Safety Standard No. 213 to regulate safety belt adjusters for children. Enclosed is a copy of the petition. NHTSA expects to respond to the AAP petition shortly.

I hope this answers your questions. If you need further assistance, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures (3)
ref:213
d:3/19/97

ID: aiam2234

Dear Mr. Fisher: This responds to your February 11, 1976, question whether two traile designs you describe would qualify as 'Heavy Hauler Trailer[s]' as defined in Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. A copy of that definition is enclosed for your information.; Both of your trailer designs include a primary cargo-carrying surfac that inclines from a height of 24 inches in the rear to a height of 47 inches in the front of the trailer. In one case, part of the inclined portion is removable, leaving a 6-foot length of the surface that is flat and 40 inches above the ground in the unloaded condition. In both cases somewhat more than one-half of the primary cargo-carrying surface is 40 inches or less in height.; The exclusion from Standard No. 121 for heavy hauler trailers applie (in relevant part) only to trailers 'whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition.' The trailer designs you describe would not qualify for the exclusion, because only a portion of the surface qualifies as 'not more than 40 inches above the ground.'; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1895

Dear Mr. Segraves: This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1975, requestin additional information on two aspects of the March 12, 1975, Federal Register notice (40 FR 11598) proposing to amend the Federal bumper standard.; Your first question relates to the proposed reduction in the number o required longitudinal pendulum impacts from 6 to 2, front and rear. According to a Transportation Systems Center report dated July 1974, an average car is involved in 4.7 low speed (5 mph or below) accidents in its 10-year or 100,000-mile lifetime. Of these, 1.25 are insurance reported, 33% of which are front or rear collisions, 1.25 are repaired but not insurance reported, 62% of which are front or rear collisions, and 2.20 are unrepaired, 38% of which are front or rear collisions. The conclusion reached in the report is that a vehicle is involved in 2.03 front or rear low-speed collisions in its lifetime.; The NHTSA has no specific information regarding reduction in weight an cost of vehicles due to the lowering of the number of pendulum impacts.; Responding to your second question, the NHTSA has not determined wha the cost-benefit trade-off would be in permitting damage to the bumper face bar components and associated fasteners. The decision to allow such damage until 1979 was based on a determination that some manufacturers needed that amount of lead time in order to produce vehicles capable of meeting the more stringent damage criteria. The proposed schedule for implementation of the surface damage criteria would not effect a lowering of the current level of bumper performance and would permit adequate time for the development of more durable bumper systems.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0780

Dear Mr. Eckhold:#This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1972, t Mr. Toms concerning general reference material in support of the proposals contained in Docket No. 70-27.*Hydrauli- c Brake Systems.* You ask that the NHTSA place in the file 'The supporting data upon which the test sequence is based as well as the data used to determine the performance values based on the sequence.'#The proposed test sequence is based primarily upon the test sequence of standard No. 105, which is that if SAE Recommended Practice J937 incorporated by reference. Parking brake, lightly loaded vehicle, inoperative brake power assist unit, and partial failure tests not included in J937, were placed in the sequence in order that appeared, in the judgment of agency personnel, most likely to provide realistic and undistorted results. The sequence, of course, is subject to revision on the same basis in the forthcoming final rule. General reference material in the Docket includes data from braking tests of eighteen 1970 automobiles, NBS Technical Note 557,'The Brake Pedal Forces Capability of Adult Females,' and SAE 7200032,'Eval- uation of the use of Automotive Braking Systems During a 7300 Mile Cross-County Trip.'#Sincerely,Lawrence R. Schneider,Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4325

Dear Mr. de Langen: This replies to your letter to Wayne Vance of this Department. You hav asked for advice 'on how the existing standards and legislation regarding the color of motor vehicle lights can be amended', as you have developed a new accident reduction device. I regret the delay in this response.; In the United States, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, establishes requirements for lighting devices that required as original equipment on motor vehicles, and for those that are intended to replace them. These are basic lighting equipment items such as headlamps, taillamps, and the new center high-mounted stop lamp, to name only a few. The standard does not cover certain types of lamps that are usually provided as optional equipment (e.g., fog lamps) because there is no demonstrated need for them on a universal basis in the United States. If you wish to have your device considered as a mandatory item of motor vehicle equipment, or if you which to change the color of a required lighting item, you may petition the agency for rulemaking to change Standard No. 108. I enclose(sic) a copy of our regulation on petition procedures, 49 CFR Part 552.; Since your letter does not describe your device in any detail, I canno say how the current standard would apply to it. If your particular device is not expressly covered by the standard and if you wish to offer your device as an optional item that a manufacturer could install as original equipment, then your device is subject only to the general requirement in paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard that the installation of the device on a new vehicle not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. Regardless of whether your device is subject to any specific requirements in the standard, its installation on a new or used vehicle must not render inoperative in whole or in part any lighting item installed as original equipment under the standard. S108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Further, if you wish to offer the device in the aftermarket and available for both new and used vehicles, it will be subject to the laws of the individual States in which it will be sold and used.; These are the general rule that apply to the situation you outlined i your letter. We would be pleased to answer any further specific questions you may have.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel