ID: aiam1827

Dear Mr. Mollohan: This is in response to your letter of February 19, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Charles E. Allard, criticizing the recent proposal to reduce the performance requirements of the Federal bumper standard.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost-beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5-mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was issued on March 7, 1975 (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; I would like to point out that the bumper standard, as it currentl exists, has no direct effect on occupant safety in collisions. The safety benefits of the standard relate to the prevention of damage to safety-related components such as headlamps, fuel and cooling systems, and exhaust systems. It is the after-crash dangers that would exist if a vehicle were driven with any of the specified vehicle systems inoperative that the standard focuses on. Therefore, a reduction in the performance requirements would not expose occupants to greater hazards during a collision itself.; We appreciate your interest and that of Mr. Allard. Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr.

ID: aiam1863

Dear Ms. Apone: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, commenting on th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) January 2, 1975, proposal to reduce the performance requirements of the Federal bumper standard.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost-beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal brought to light additional data. The NHTSA carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency concluded that the existing 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975 (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6.)(sic); I would like to point out that the bumper standard, as it currentl exists, has no direct effect on occupant safety in collisions. The safety benefits of the standard relate to the prevention of damage to safety-related components such as headlmaps (sic), fuel and cooling systems and exhaust systems. It is the after-crash dangers that would exist if a vehicle were driven with any of the specified vehicle systems inoperative that the standard focuses on. Therefore, a reduction in the performance requirements would not expose occupants to greater hazards during a collision itself.; We appreciate your interest. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/88

FROM: DOUGLAS H. BOSCO -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 08/03/87 TO DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 TO JERRY K YOST FROM L.F ROLLIN; LETTER DATED 03/28/88 TO C-MORE-LITE JERRYS SERVICE FROM DON O. HORNING RE TEST REPORT NO 92606; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM JERRY'S SERVICE

TEXT: Dear Erika:

You may recall that I corresponded with you last August regarding a head light device invented by my constituent, Mr. Jerry Yost. Several developments have taken place since that time, which may affect the status of Mr. Yost's C-More-Light invention.

Could you please review your earlier letter, the findings of Industrial Testing Laboratories, and the letter from the California Highway Patrol (all enclosed), and let me know what, if any, steps Mr. Yoste needs to take to legally market this device? Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this request.

Cordially,

ID: aiam0468

Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in response to your recent telephone inquiry as to whether th recent amendment of Standard 215, Exterior Protection, requires that vehicles meet the photometric requirements of Standard 108 after being subjected to the Standard 215 impacts.; S5.3.1 of Standard 215 reads: >>>'Each lamp or reflective device, except license plate lamps, shal be free of cracks and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.'<<<; S4.3.1.1 of Standard 108 reads in relevant part: >>>'Each lamp and reflective device shall be located so that it meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice. *In addition, no part of the vehicle shall prevent the device from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified* in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice.'(Emphasis supplied.)<<<; Thus, although the actual photometric tests may be considered 'benc test', that is, tests whose procedures include removing the devices from the vehicle, the above provision of Standard 108 requires that the configuration of the vehicle external to the devices not prevent them from meeting the photometric requirements. The test procedures themselves require the devices to be placed in their actual orientation on the vehicle. Therefore, the provision in Standard 215 that the lamps and reflective devices shall meet all the requirements of Standard 108 after the impacts includes the photometric requirements.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam0469

Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in response to your recent telephone inquiry as to whether th recent amendment of Standard 215, Exterior Protection, requires that vehicles meet the photometric requirements of Standard 108 after being subjected to the Standard 215 impacts.; S5.3.1 of Standard 215 reads: >>>'Each lamp or reflective device, except license plate lamps, shal be free of cracks and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.'<<<; S4.3.1.1 of Standard 108 reads in relevant part: >>>'Each lamp and reflective device shall be located so that it meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice. *In addition, no part of the vehicle shall prevent the device from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified* in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice.'<<< (Emphasis supplied.); Thus, although the actual photometric tests may be considered 'benc tests', that is, tests whose procedures include removing the devices from the vehicle, the above provision of Standard 108 requires that the configuration of the vehicle external to the devices not prevent them from meeting the photometric requirements. The test procedures themselves require the devices to be placed in their actual orientation on the vehicle. Therefore, the provision in Standard 215 that the lamps and reflective devices shall meet all the requirements of Standard 108 after the impacts includes the photometric requirements.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam5098

Dear Mr. Malbon: This responds to your November 17, 1992 telephon conversation with Walter Myers of this office regarding a shipment of truck tire casings being imported into the United States but held up in customs because the casings do not have the DOT symbols molded onto the sidewalls. You asked for a letter from this office setting forth the requirements for the importation of truck tire casings which do not display the DOT symbol, saying that you would use such a letter to show the U. S. Customs Service (USCS)in order to secure the release of the casings. You will find enclosed a letter from this agency to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA, dated June 18, 1981, in which we explained at length the requirements for importation of truck tire casings and the rationale behind those requirements. The information contained in that letter is still fully applicable, except that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety referred to on page 2 is now the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration. Also, the reference on page 3 to Mr. Harrison Feese of the USCS is no longer valid. Point of contact in USCS is now Mr. Gary Manes, same address, (202) 927-1133, or Mr. Jeff Laxague, same address, (202) 927-0402. I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. Jeff Laxague U.S. Customs Service 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W. Room 4119 Washington, D. C. 20229;

ID: aiam0112

Dear Mr. Sornson: Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1968, to Mr. J. E. Leysat of this Bureau, concerning the Chrysler Super Lite which you intend to offer as an optional supplemental light on some of the Chrysler 1969 car lines.; You are correct in your understanding that a supplemental light of thi type is not required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Standard No. 108 does, however, specify, in Paragraph S3.1.2, that no additional lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment shall be installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment.; On the basis of our review of your technical literature on the Supe Lite and our observation of limited field demonstrations of the light, it does not appear that the Super Lite will impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. It should be noted, however, that, while the incorporation of this lamp in your 1969 automobiles would not be precluded by the Federal Standard, the various States may interpose restrictions as to this lamp.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.; Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Director

ID: aiam5608

Dear Dr. Mickalide: Thank you for your letter asking about the chil restraint registration form required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You ask whether a child restraint manufacturer could make certain modifications to the registration form to help SAFE KIDS obtain sociodemographic and other information about the families to whom SAFE KIDS will be distributing child seats. As explained below, Standard 213 does not permit the modifications, but does permit an alternative approach. You explain in your letter that SAFE KIDS and its partners will be providing approximately 38,000 child seats to needy families through distribution sites. You would like to collect information about the recipient families' sociodemographic profile and other factors, by having the restraint manufacturer add questions to the child seat registration form. Distribution site coordinators would mail the completed forms to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for SAFE KIDS' research purposes. The registration form you ask about is part of an owner registration program that NHTSA established to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer recall campaigns. The form, required by S5.8 of Standard 213, is standardized in appearance, and may not contain other material such as questions concerning the sociodemographic characteristics of the child restraint owners. A particular problem with such questions is that their presence on the registration form might cause some consumers to resist providing the information, or to conclude that the form was for warranty purposes rather than for safety recalls. As a result, they might not return the card. While we understand that you would like to modify the registration form only for the purposes of your distribution program, unfortunately we lack the authority to grant a special exemption for your situation. However, Standard 213 does permit an alternative that you suggested. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you said that you are considering asking the manufacturer to place the questions on a separate form and to attach that form to the child seat. That approach is fine. The registration form has to be attached to the child seat to ensure that owners will notice the form. While we want manufacturers to limit what additional materials they attach to child seats (to ensure that attachments do not distract from the form), your supplemental form should not cause a problem since your coordinators will be involved with registering the owners. Thus, there is no risk that the registration form will go unnoticed and uncompleted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Best wishes for success in your distribution program. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2294

Dear Mr. Setter: This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1976, concernin testing procedures pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*.; As you point out, S5.1.3 of the standard provides that thin, hea resistant wires are used to support a 'specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning.' One of your customers asserted that support wires should be used in testing his materials, and you have asked when the use of support wires is appropriate.; Your interpretation of the standard in this case is commendable, an your test practices are calculated to demonstrate clearly the exercise of due care that a particular product complies with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, an NHTSA July 19, 1971, interpretation of Standard No. 302 (copy enclosed) permits use of support wires when any bending of the tested material occurs. At the time of that interpretation, it was believed that the support wires would not influence the test results.; More recent testing by the agency demonstrates that the support wire do significantly affect burn rates, and the agency intends to issue an interpretative amendment of the standard that will limit use of support wires.; Thank you for your responsible approach to testing products that ar required to conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1476

Dear Mr. Heller: This is in reply to your letter of March 21, 1974, regarding Ope Road's defect notification letter in NHTSA campaign No. 73-0043. We indicated to you by letter of March 21, 1974, that notification letters in future campaigns must be modified to conform to S 577.4(e)(3) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577) if you continue to make repairs contingent upon the purchaser's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision found in Open Road's 'Authorization for Repair and Alteration' form. You state in your letter that the *sole* purpose of the indemnity and hold-harmless provision is to protect your company from claims from third parties for unauthorized repairs.; While it is true, as you point out, that the indemnity an hold-harmless provision is not part of the notification letter, that fact is not germane to our conclusion that your letter must conform to S 577.4(e)(3) if you continue only to make repairs contingent upon the owner's agreement to the provision in question. We are pleased to know that the provision's sole purpose is to protect the company against claims from unknown owners for unauthorized repairs, and we do not object to repairs being contingent upon the owner's agreement to such a provision. But if that is the case we would insist that the provision be more narrowly drafted so that its intent is clear. If that is done Open Road may continue to send notification letters that conform to S 577.4(e)(1). The responses we have had from owners of Open Road vehicles subject to defect notification and our own review of the provision are persuasive in our view that at present this limited intent is not clear.; Notwithstanding your reference to the meeting Open Road officials ha with Robert Carter and Andrew Detrick of NHTSA, at no time was approval given to Open Road's notification letter with knowledge that repair would be made only following the owner's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel