ID: aiam0945

Dear Mrs. Polin: This is in reply to your letter to our Region III office in which yo requested information on infant car seats and regulations affecting the manufacture of such seats.; Enclosure 1 is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 Child Seating Systems, along with a recent amendment to the standard. The effective date of this standard was April 1, 1971. All child car seats which both seat and restrain a child in a motor vehicle are now required by law to comply with the requirements of this standard. This regulation requires the date of manufacture to be placed on each seat along with recommendations for its use. Child seating systems are recommended for use by children from approximately eight to nine months to three to four years of age.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is presentl developing a proposed amendment to the existing standard which will require dynamic tests of all child restraints and will regulate infant restraints which are not presently covered by Standard No. 213. However, it is not anticipated that this amendment will become effective in the near future.; Enclosures 2 and 3 are copies of press releases notifying consumers o devices which have failed to pass Standard No. 213, and of the action the manufacturers are taking to correct the situation. Additionally, we are enclosing a copy of a consumer information booklet entitled, 'What To Buy In Child Restraint Systems.' We hope this information will assist you.; We do not endorse or advocate any specific product, but rather develop issue, and enforce minimum safety standards for consumer protection. In the final analysis, the consumer should select a restraint which best fits his particular needs. Many practical considerations may affect the usage of a device, for example, the activity level of the child, portability of the device, and ease of attachment. These are all factors which the buyer of a child restraint system should consider in making his selection.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam3458

Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to questions raised in your June 23, 1981 letter whic was referred to us by Mr. Zemaitis of our regional office. In your letter, you ask for exemption of your vehicles from several Highway Safety Program Standards relating to school buses.; As Mr. Zemaitis indicated, the Highway Safety Program Standards ar applied by the States. If the States deem it appropriate to provide exemptions in the limited type of circumstances described in General Shaffer's May 15, 1981 letter to the California Highway Patrol, they are permitted to do so. Accordingly, I suggest that the Marine Corps again contact the appropriate State officials for the exemption you desire.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has always exempte military vehicles from its Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This exemption is codified in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 571.7(c). You may want to point this out to California officials and ask them to adopt a similar exemption policy with respect to your vehicles.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1067

Dear Mr. Graham: This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 1973, requesting tha we refer you to either the source or the size of letters used in the Snellen ratio 20/40, which is incorporated into S5.2.2 of Standard No. 217, 'Bus Window Retention and Release.' You state in your letter that you cannot find a source for the letter size required to meet the standard.; Snellen charts are those charts used generally by optometrists or othe persons interested in measuring eyesight. They are universally available from medical supply businesses. I point out that the standard does not require a specific letter size, as your letter implies, but only that a person whose vision has been measured to the specified Snellen ratio be able to read the exit identification required by S5.5. This legibility will be based not only on lettering size, but also on its contrast with its background, its shape, its precise location, and the configuration of the bus interior.; Yours Truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3562

Dear: This is in reply to your letter of March 23, 1982, asking for 'confidential interpretation' of the applicability of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards to sidecars.; The agency does not provide 'confidential interpretations.' You questions are of public interest and a copy of this letter will be placed in the interpretations file that is available for public review. However, because it relates to 'specific future model product plans,' we are deleting your name and address from the copy of our response made available to the public.; You first ask for confirmation of your understanding that no Federa motor vehicle safety standard is applicable to a sidecar 'sold independently as an aftermarket item.' It is true that there are no 'sidecar' standards. But certain of its equipment items are themselves covered by Federal equipment standards and must independently comply. Specifically, brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires and glazing (if provided) would have to meet Standards Nos. 106, 108, 119, and 205 as they apply to motorcycle equipment. In addition, because a sidecar is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer of any sidecar sold in the aftermarket would be responsible for notification and remedy in the event his product was determined to contain a safety-related defect.; You have presented the hypothetical situation of a motorcycle supplie to a retail dealership with the sidecar attached by the manufacturer and asked whether it is considered to be a three-wheeled motorcycle or a two-wheeled motorcycle with an attachment of motor vehicle equipment. You point out that the former interpretation raises questions of practicability of compliance with the standards.; The definition of a motorcycle encompasses both two- and three-wheele vehicles, and we believe that the questions you have raised subsequently with respect to Standards Nos. 108, 119, 120, and 122 should be answered on a common sense basis. For lighting equipment on the front and rear of a motorcycle the vertical center line of a motorcycle with sidecar attached is the vertical center line of the two-wheeled motorcycle. However, the side reflex reflector should be placed on both the motorcycle and the sidecar. Standards Nos. 119 and 120 must be met by the motorcycle with the sidecar attached. In addition, a motorcycle whose original equipment includes a sidecar must meet Standard No. 122 with the sidecar attached. If a motorcycle with sidecar is capable of meeting Standard No. 122 without the sidecar being equipped with a brake, then the sidecar need not have a brake.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0422

Dear Mr. Shuman: This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1971, petitioning fo reconsideration of the 'Defect Reports' regulations (Docket No. 69-31, Notice 2). Your letter was received on March 22, 1971, which is more than 30 days after publication of the regulation. Accordingly, pursuant to NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR S 553.35), it has been treated as a petition for rulemaking.; You request that the requirements specified in A 573.4(b), that defec information reports be submitted not more than 5 working days after a defect in a vehicle has been determined to be safety related, be changed to require the report to be submitted not later than 15 days after the determination has been made. You state as the basis for this requested change that the information required pursuant to S 573.4(c)(3) and S 573.4(c)(7) cannot be provided by International Harvester within 5 days due to computer run-out times, but can be provided within 15 days. Section 573.4(b) of the regulation provides, as you point out, that information required pursuant to S 573.4 that is not available within 5 days may be submitted as it becomes available. This provision deals with the issue you raise, and no amendment to the regulation is called for.; With reference to your statement that the figures you intend to repor pursuant to S 573.5(c)(6) and (c)(7) will be identical, the regulation requires different kinds of information to be reported. Only if the information required by SS 573.5(c)(6) and (c)(7) is in fact identical may it be reported as such. The requirements are not intended necessarily to fit within the framework of manufacturers' presently existing data gathering procedures, and may require some manufacturers to change these procedures to provide the specific information.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam0587

Dear Mr. Jones: This is in response to your three letters, dated December 1, 1971 December 27, 1971, and January 11, 1972, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.; In your letter of December 1, 1971, you enclose a booklet that you hav recently made available which contains your interpretation of Standard No. 117, and ask us to review it. As your letter was written before the amendment of December 23, 1971 (36 F.R. 24814), and the suit in Chicago, it does not, and our reply will not, deal with the changes made by the amendment or the 'stay' ordered by the Court of Appeals. We believe your summary of the standard is correct,but we would recommend that you include in the requirements of paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 117 the treadwear indicator requirements found in S4.2.1(d) of Standard No. 109. This fact is apparently being overlooked by some retreaders, and you may wish to point it out more clearly.; Your letter of December 27 ask whether exposure of cord that ha occurred on casings because of 'chipping' would prevent the casing from being retreaded under S5.2.1. As presently written, S5.2.1 would preclude the retreading of such a casing if what is exposed if ply cord. However, if it is actually 'chafer' fabric, which is a special fabric placed only around the bead, then exposure is permitted.; Finally, with regard to your letter of January 11, I regret that, a you have been told, mike will not be able to attend the Missalaga Conference. He has told me that your organization has done a very responsible job with regard to not only Standard No. 117 but other areas of tire safety as well, and we appreciate your efforts.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 17, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Akihiko Muraoka, Manager Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Dear Mr. Muraoka:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard. Your letter indicated that Nissan is considering the installation of towing hooks on the bumpers of some future vehicles. You asked if Nissan would be permitted to remove the towing hook before conducting the test. Assuming that the towing hook is mounted on the bumper face bar, the answer to your question is that the towing hook must be removed if it is optional equipment but must not be removed if it is standard equipment. You also asked if a breakage or deformation of the towing hook as a result of the pendulum test would be regarded as a noncompliance with Part 581. The answer to that question is yes. These answers are discussed below at further length.

By way of background information, I would point out that this agency does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

I will first deal with your question of whether the towing hook may be removed before testing. One of the test conditions specified by the standard is that "(t)railer hitches, license plate brackets, running lights, fog lamps, other optional equipment mounted on the bumper face bar and headlamp washers are removed from the vehicle." Section 581.6(a)(5). We interpret this section to mean (1) that all trailer hitches, license plate brackets and headlamp washers be removed from the vehicle and (2) that running lights, fog lamps and other equipment mounted on the bumper face bar be removed if and only if they are optional equipment. Thus, a towing hook should be removed only if it is mounted on the bumper face bar and is optional equipment.

(The current language of section 581.6(a)(5) became effective on July 6, 1982. Prior to that time, the section simply specified that "(t)railer hitches and license plate brackets are removed from the vehicle." As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, published in the Federal Register (47 FR 21820, 21828) on May 20, 1982, the purpose behind the change was to expand the specified equipment that should be removed. The agency did not intend any change in the requirement that all trailer hitches and license plate brackets be removed. The agency plans to make that point clear in an interpretive amendment.)

Your second question concerned whether a breakage or deformation of the towing hook as a result of the pendulum test would be regarded as a noncompliance with Part 581. This question would be applicable, of course, only where the towing hook is not removed, i.e., where it is standard equipment. Section 581.5(c)(8) requires that:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contour 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact, except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame.

Based on your drawing, the towing hook protrudes through the bumper and is therefore an exterior surface. Also based on the drawing, it is our interpretation that the towing hook is not a part of the bumper face bar or the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. The bumper face bar is defined in section 581.4 as "any component of the bumper system that contacts the impact ridge of the pendulum test device." It is our conclusion that the towing hook is not a component of the bumper system. It is therefore irrelevant whether contacts the impact ridge of the pendulum test device. Our conclusion is based on the apparent fact that the towing hook does not perform a load bearing function for the bumper system and is not associated with the bumper system's functions. Therefore, the towing hook does not come within the exception provided by section 581.5(c)(8) for damage to exterior surfaces, and breakage or deformation of the towing hook under the specified tests is prohibited.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 9, 1982 Ref: 82-158-S

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We sincerely request information concerning the Bumper Requirement: Part 581 of the Code of Federal Regulations in response to the following questions.

We are considering installing a towing hook on the bumper of a future Nissan vehicle model, as shown in the following drawings.

" Insert Diagram

We'd like to know if the towing hook is considered a part of "the exterior surfaces" indicated by Section 581.5(8) of the standard, and if a breakage or deformation of the towing hook as a result of the pendulum impact test would be regarded as noncompliance to the bumper requirement.

In addition, we'd like to know if we can conduct the pendulum test by first allowing the towing hook to be removed.

Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to our inquiry.

We are looking forward to receiving your response in the immediate future.

Very truly yours,

Akihiko Muraoka Manager Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

ID: nht74-4.6

DATE: 06/27/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 29, 1974, concerning a problem with retreaded tires experienced by your constituent, Mr. Leon Mentzer of Lancaster. Mr. Mentzer was concerned that a pair of retreaded tires which he purchased and returned as the new tread came off after 15 miles were, according to the dealer, to be retreaded again and resold. He asks if there are Federal regulations regarding retreads.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR 371.117 (copy enclosed)) does specify certain requirements for passenger car retreaded tires, primarily in the areas of rasing selection and processing, treadwear indicators, and labeling. The standard at one time contained performance requirements as well, but these requirements were successfully challenged in an industry-sponsored lawsuit (H & H Tire Company v. Volpe, 471 F.2d 350 (7th Cir. 1572). The re-retreading of a tire in the situation described by Mr. Mentzer would not fail to conform to Standard No. 117 if the casing were not damaged in a manner described in the standard. A further retreading, if done properly, would not necessarily be unsafe.

ENCLS.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

May 29, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

My constituent, Mr. Leon Mentzer, R.D. 6, Box 951, Lancaster Pennsylvania 17604, has expressed concern to me in regard to two re-capped tires he recently purchased.

After driving on the tires for approximately fifteen miles, the re-tread came apart. After retaining an attorney he did succeed in getting a refund of his purchase price. What concerned him more was a remark made by the seller when the tires were returned to the effect that they would be re-capped and resold.

Mr. Mentzer wonders if there are Federal regulations regarding re-capping of tires. Any information you may be able to provide which I may send along to him would be much appreciated.

Edwin D. Eshleman

ID: nht95-4.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11123); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3/4/77 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO DENNIS G. MOORE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, on the subject of "optical combination" as that term is used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You enclosed a copy of a letter sent to you from this Office on March 4, 1977, and refer to a "Rider" in "a proposed change [around 1990] that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, 'NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING.' " You ask how "[using] the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976, and 1977, and the Re-Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support."

You are talking of events of 18 to 20 years ago that are no longer relevant today. The definition that NHTSA supports contains no reference to lamp housings. Standard No. 108 was amended four years ago, in 1991, to clarify that the term "optical combin ation" is to be interpreted as defined by SAE Information Report J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV87. Under the SAE definition, optical combination results when a lamp "has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that op erates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb)", and when "its optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions." It is immaterial to this definition whether the light sources are in the same or different h ousings. I enclose a copy of a rulemaking proposal and final rules dealing with this issue that were published on November 6 and 8, 1990, and June 7 and November 7, 1991.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office by FAX (202-366-3820).

ID: nht93-7.8

DATE: October 4, 1993

FROM: James E. Walker -- Manager, LSI Laboratories, Lighting Sciences Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to James E. Walker (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Richard Van Iderstein, NHTSA; recently, LSI Laboratories conducted a test on a customer's product - a tail light. At the conclusion of the test LSI Laboratories was unable to determine pass/fail criteria. Our discussion with Mr. Van Iderstein lead us to believe CFR 49, Ch. V Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has a discrepancy. The discrepancy exists in paragraph S5.1.1.11 referencing the tail lamp. S5.1.1.11 states:

A ..., tail lamp, ..., shall meet the minimum percentage specified in Figure 1a of the corresponding minimum allowable value specified in Figure 1b. The values specified in Figure 1a and Table 1 and Table 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps are substituted for those specified in Table 1 of the Following SAE Standards: ..., J585e Tail Lamps (maximum at H or above), ... .

The discrepancy is that para. S5.1.1 requires equipment to be designed to Tables I, II and S7, which references SAE J585e for the Tail Lamp. Para. S5.1.1.11 requires Table 1 of this specification to be substituted for the values achieved by Figures 1a and 1b, and in addition, to substitute Table 1 of SAE 585e by the values achieved by multiplying the percentages of Figure 1a by Tables 1 and 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps.

LSI Laboratories would assume that the photometric requirements are those of Figure 1a, 1b, and 1c of 49 CFR Ch. V Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

It is hoped your clarification would allow LSI Laboratories to compare performance to establish pass/fail criteria. This would allow our customer to begin production or re-design.