ID: aiam0699

Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 to various components of motor homes. You raise numerous questions in your letter which are restated (rephrased in some cases to facilitate our response) and answered below>; >>>1. (Page 1) 'When speaking of wheel housing and engine compartmen covers we assume this applies only to such coverings on the interior of the vehicle occupancy compartment.'; That is correct. 2. (Page 2, first paragraph) You list several components which yo assume are subject to the standard. We concur that each of these components are subject to the standard with the exception of 'gaucho and daveno' seat cushions, but only because we are not familiar with these terms.; You are also correct in your conclusion that the standard applies t the foam or other material used in seat cushions even though they may also be converted into beds.; 3. (Page 2) 'It would also appear that the standard is applicable t the mattress itself, i.e., the filling material . . . if the mattress cover is 'bonded, sewed, or mechanically attached' to the mattress itself . . .'; S4.2 of the standard lists mattress covers only, and does not apply t the filling of the mattress.; 4. (Page 2) You ask whether seat frames, constructed of plywood o similar materials, are subject to the standard. The standard is not intended to apply to seat frames, and these components need not meet its requirements.; 5. On the bottom of page 2 you refer to the language of the propose amendment to the standard (36 F.R. 9565, May 26, 1971), and ask whether mattress filling and seat frames would have to be tested under the proposal irrespective of whether they are attached to the surface material.; As stated above, neither seat frames nor mattress filling is subject t the standard and would not be required to meet the proposed requirements.; 6. (Page 3) You ask for an interpretation of the phrase 'compartmen shelves.' We consider this term to apply to open shelves, and to not include shelves which are found in cupboards or closets. However, if a shelf is a 'compartment shelf' under the standard, it must meet the requirements as it appears in the vehicle, either with or without coverings, whatever the case may be. Your statement that the standard applies 'only to such shelves if there is a shelf covering' is incorrect.; 7. (Page 3, second paragraph) We agree with your statement that th standard does not apply, with the exceptions noted, to storage cabinets or compartments. We disagree, however, with your statements regarding wall or other compartment panelling, lavatory tops, commodes or toilets, and your discussion of trim panels. We would consider walls to be side trim panels and subject to the standard. Similarly, lavatory tops may be compartment shelves under the standard, and toilets seats are included under the terms seat cushions and seat backs. Moreover, 'trim panels' include trim on walls as well as on instrument panels and doors, and they are subject to the standard.<<<; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3999

Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell: Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1985, concerning the automati restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. I regret the delay in our reply.; You asked about the requirement in S4.1.3 of the standard concernin the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated your assumption that the standard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the United States and asked how a manufacturer is to determine if a vehicle is a part of its annual production for the United States. You pointed out that there are a number of possible sales transactions, beginning with the sale of a vehicle by Porsche to the U.S. importer and ending with the first sale to a consumer in the U.S. that can be used in determining at which point a vehicle becomes part of Porsche's annual production for the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your question.; As discussed in the agency's April 12, 1985, (50 FR 14596) notice o Standard No. 208, your assumption that the term 'average annual production' refers only to cars manufactured for sale in the United States is correct. S4.1.3 specifies that percentages of production are to be based on the number of cars *manufactured* between discrete dates. In the case of foreign cars, as in the case of domestic ones, 'manufactured' means produced or assembled. Part 567 *Certification* (49 CFR Part 567) of the agency's regulation requires all vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to have a tag affixed to them certifying that they meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Therefore, in determining which vehicles are to be counted as the manufacturer s average annual production, the manufacturer should determine how many vehicles were produced and certified in accordance with our regulation during the applicable time period. Using production and certification provides the agency and manufacturers with an easily verifiable event to determine which cars are to be counted.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0927

Dear Mr. Hammond: This is in reply to your letter of November 3, 1972, in which you as whether a Certification label, a drawing (33-1-78) of which you enclose, will meet both the requirements of the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) and those of proposed Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, 'Tire and Rim Selection and Rim Performance' (36 F.R. 142730). In our conversation of November 28, 1972, you asked two additional questions--first, whether GAWR for trailers could be expressed as a single figure when the ratings for each axle are identical, and second, as followed up by your letter of November 30, what is the appropriate method for determine GVWR for a semitrailer having a 'sliding-bogie' axle.; The Certification label you have submitted would conform to th requirements of Part 567, and proposed Standard No. 120 if 'rim size' is moved from its location following GAWR and GVWR to the bottom of the label, in proximity to the 'maximum rim load rating.' The Certification regulation does not require rim size to be specified, and rim size would therefore have to appear after the information required by that regulation. The requirements of proposed Standard No. 120 are tentative only, as you must know, and manufacturers should not make permanent plans regarding them until a final rule is issued.; The NHTSA position with respect to GAWR being expressed as one figur when identical axles are involved is that such a method is not consistent with the Certification regulation. Each axle must be listed separately on the Certification label regardless of whether its rating is identical to that of other axles. We have no record of any oral statement to the contrary, and if one was made, as you seem to recall, we regret that it was in error. With respect to specifying GVWR for trailers having sliding-bogie axles, the NHTSA position is that a manufacturer is free to assume the axle to be in either position. If the manufacturer wishes to indicate at which position the rating is based, he may do so on the label, following all required information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 06-004327drn

ID: Tunick telltale 001515

ID: aiam5035

"FAX (49)7121-1792 Dear Herr Spingler: This responds to your FAX o July 9, 1992, asking for a 'quick answer' to your question regarding the aim of replaceable bulb headlamps. Specifically, you ask whether the requirement of 'a vertical aim range of +/-4 degrees and a horizontal aim range of +/- 2.5 degrees' means 'that a headlamp has to meet both ranges in addition, i.e. 2.5 degrees horizontal at a full range of 4 degrees vertical and vice-versa?' The requirements to which you refer are found in paragraphs S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S7.7.3 requires in pertinent part that 'When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its vertical aim shall be not less than +/- 4 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application.' Paragraph S7.7.4 requires that 'When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its horizontal aim shall be not less than 2.5 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application.' We call your attention to paragraph S7.7.2.2. With respect to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa, the paragraph requires conformance with respect to the applicable photometrics 'with the lens at any position relative to the reflector within the aim range limits of paragraph S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 or any combination.' This clearly indicates that when a replaceable bulb headlamp that is aimable as provided in S7.7.2.2 is adjusted to the extreme of its range, and at all positions in between, it must continue to meet all applicable photometrics. We interpret this requirement as also applying to headlamp systems of replaceable bulbs subject to S7.7.3 and S7.7.4, but aimable in a manner outside S7.7.2 (such as movement of the entire headlamp, rather than its lens or reflector). I hope that this answers your question. Please note that under recent amendments to Standard No. 108, paragraphs S7.7.2.2, S7.7.3, and S7.7.4 have been renumbered respectively S7.8.2.2, S7.8.3, and S7.8.4. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2652

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your June 29, 1977, letter asking whether states ar preempted from regulating minimum seat spacing in school buses by Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, which regulates maximum seat spacing.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in Sectio 103(d):; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Section 103(d) has the effect of preempting safety standards of th states and their political subdivisions unless they are identical to applicable Federal safety standards that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance. The second sentence of the section clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards.; The state regulations to which you refer in your letter would mandat minimum seat spacing in school buses. Although the requirement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates maximum seat spacing and the state requirements regulate minimum spacing, the regulated aspect of performance is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that state standards applicable to all school buses concerning minimum seat spacing regulate the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard and would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Section 103(d) would not prevent a state from requiring minimum seat spacing in buses procured for its own use as long as the maximum seat spacing of 20 inches is not violated.; The agency will try to disseminate this opinion to the states a broadly as possible. If you receive further state inquiries on this subject, you should refer them to this office.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-4.42

DATE: 05/14/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Massachusetts Department of Public Health

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your request of April 4, 1975, I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, several Federal Register notices which have modified the basic standard, and the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. Also enclosed is a circular explaining how all the safety standards and regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may be obtained.

Until October 29, 1974, section S4.1.2 of the standard required recognition interlock on 1974- and 1975-model passenger cars. As noted in the enclosed amendment (Docket 74-39, Notice 1), recent legislation mandated the deletion of this requirement, which was accomplished by NHTSA on October 29, 1974.

Manufacturers may now meet Standard No. 208 by providing (1) lap and shoulder belts at front outboard positions and lap belts at other positions, and (2) a continuous or flashing remainder light that operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated and a continuous or intermittent audible warning signal which operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated if the driver's lap belt is not in use. They may also provide certain types of "passive restraint" devices in place of the seat belt assemblies. Although the seat-belt interlock system is not prohibited, it is no longer a means of complying with the standard.

YOURS TRULY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Department of Public Health

April 4, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Please send to me a copy of your motor vehicle safety standard requiring ignition interlock for new cars. I would appreciate your sending, also, a copy of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974.

Thank you for your help.

Benjamin Sachs, M.D., M.P.H. Associate Director Division of Local Health Services

ID: nht79-1.28

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealer & Reatreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 22, 1979

Mr. Mark E. Grayson Executive Assistant for Government Affairs National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc. 1343 L Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Grayson:

This is in response to your letter of March 2, 1979, in which you request clarification of several points relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), and the record retention requirements applicable to tire retreaders.

You inquire first as to the obligations of tire dealers under the UTQG regulation. As explained more fully in our recent letter to Mr. Tony Hylton of your organization, the UTQG regulation places the responsibility for supplying tire grading information on vehicle and tire nanufacturers and tire brand name owners. These parties must make their own arrangements with tire distributors and dealers to assure that the required tire grading information reaches tire purchasers.

You ask whether bias-ply tires manufactured abroad prior to April 1, 1979, but imported into the United States after April 1, must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of the UTQG regulation (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). Paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B), which becomes effective on April 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires, applies to bias-ply tires manufactured after that date. The date of manufacture rather than the date of importation is controlling in determining whether tires fall within the tread labeling requirements of the UTQG regulation.

You also ask whether tires to which the UTQG labeling requirements apply can be imported into the United States without the required tread labels, provided adequate labels are attached at the tires' point of sale. The purpose of the UTQG labeling requirements is to provide information to assist consumers in tire purchasing decisions. Therefore, the tread labeling requirements of the regulation would be satisfied if labels are attached at the dealership prior to the time the tires are offered for sale. However, manufacturers and brand name owners should be cautioned that they will be held responsible should the dealer incorrectly label the tires or neglect to attach the required labels.

Finally, you inquire whether manufacturers of retreaded tires must retain tire registration records compiled pursuant to Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (49 CFR Part 574), in view of the recent exemption of retreaders from the registration requirements of that part. While the registration requirements of Part 574 no longer apply to the sale of retreaded tires, section 574.7(d) (49 CFR 574.7(d)) nonetheless requires that previously compiled records on retreaded tires be maintained for a period of not less than three years from the date the information was recorded by the tire manufacturer or his designee.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

March 2, 1979

Mr. Richard Hipolet Office of Chief Counsel National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolet:

As requested from our conversation on Thursday, I would like for NHTSA to clarify a few points dealing with the upcoming implementation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading System.

1. What is the regulatory responsibility, if any, of our members, tire dealers, under the current regulations?

2. Can tires manufactured in a foreign country before April 1, 1979 but received in port after April 1, 1979 be available for sale without labels?

3. If tires are manufactured in a foreign country after April 1, 1979 but before the tire quality information has to be molded on the tire are imported without labels, can labels be attached at point of sale?

On another front, would you please let us know what the requirements are for retreaders to retain previous records of retread registration now that the retreader no longer has to register the tires.

We appreciate your prompt attention to these matters. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Mark E. Grayson

Executive Assistant for Government Affairs

ID: aiam5254

Dear Mr. DeLapp: This responds to your letter of August 18, 1993 concerning a modification you wish to make on limousines manufactured by your company. You wish to modify the hinge assembly controlling forward and reclining movement of the front seat to provide access to the area between the front of the privacy panel and the back of the front seat. (The area contains auxiliary fuse panels and relays.) The modification would involve removal of a metal pin in the hinge assembly, allowing the seat to articulate forward to a greater degree. You asked whether Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, prohibits the removal of a limiting pin or limits forward movement of a seat back. Standard No. 207 specifies strength and other performance requirements for seats in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Section S4.3 of Standard No. 207 contains requirements for hinged or folding seat backs, except for passenger seats in buses or a seat adjustable only for its occupants. Section S4.3(a) requires a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat back. Section S4.3.2 contains performance requirements for this restraining device. Section S4.3 does not limit the degree of movement of a hinged or folding seat back. Thus, you may remove the limiting pin if removing it only increases the degree of movement of the seat. However, the seat must still meet the requirements of S4.3 with the pin removed. Accordingly, the seat must have a self-locking device that can withstand the force applications specified in S4.3.2.1 and acceleration specified in S4.3.2.2. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;