ID: nht70-2.1

DATE: 04/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Baker Equipment Engineering Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter to the Director, U. S. Department of Transportation dated February 19, 1970, concerning the mounting of identification lamps on your reel type trailers has been referred to this office for reply. A thorough review of our correspondence files indicates no record of our receipt of your letter of January 12, 1968, on this matter.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that all trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), which are 80 or more inches in overall width, be equipped with rear identification lamps in accordance with Tables I and II of the standard. The standard contains no provision for exemption of specially designed trailers such as your reel type models and we have to authority to provide relief for individual manufacturers.

Identification lamps mounted on the axle of your trailer would appear to meet the mounting location requirements of Standard No. 108.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comment is for your information only and in no way relieves the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht90-3.87

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Loughran -- V.P. Engineering, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-13-90 from T.J. Loughran to J.R. Curry; Also attached to article entitled It's the Law - Rear Amber Reflector (Text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to the Administrator of August 13, 1990, in which you point out an error in an interpretation of Standard No. 108 furnished The Bargman Company on February 26, 1990.

The interpretation intended to refer to an amber turn signal lens, not an amber taillamp lens, as you surmise. We regret the confusion that we have inadvertently caused; the agency does not intend to allow an amber taillamp lens.

Nevertheless, tbe interpretation correctly stated that use of an amber reflex reflector with an amber lamp on the rear is permissible, providing that it does not impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting and marking equipment, but that it is nevertheless subject to State and local laws regarding vehicles in use. This is consistent with long-standing interpretations on the use of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment other than those that Standard No. 108 requires.

ID: aiam0762

Dear Mr. Sandbach: This is in response to your letter of June 28, 1972, forwarding to us report to be published in the August issue of *Consumer Reports*, which raises numerous issues concerning child restraints and the efficacy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Seating Systems.' You contend, based on testing you performed, that the static performance tests of the standard are meaningless, and that dynamic tests should be adopted.; We agree that a dynamic test should be included in the standard, and w discuss below our efforts and intentions in this regard. We also believe, however, that devices which conform to Standard No. 213 provide significant impact protection for children which is not available otherwise, and that the present standard has served a useful purpose in the development of effective child restraints and the removal from the marketplace of marginal products. We have pursued a vigorous enforcement policy with respect to the standard which has discovered and corrected numerous cases of noncompliance.; The 1,000-pound static test imposed by Standard No.213 was determine by the NHTSA to be an adequate first step in the development of standards for child seating systems. This determination was based, in part, on the state of the art of the development of these devices, and the financial resources of the affected industry. The limitations of the static test have been known for some time, and in the NHTSA *Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards*, published in October 1971, the NHTSA made clear its intention to develop a dynamic test to measure the performance of all child restraint devices.; We believe the most effective way to utilize a dynamic test is t couple it with realistic injury criteria that reflect the ability of children to withstand crash impacts. This is the approach taken for adults by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Although we have developed adult injury criteria as part of our work on that standard, further work must be done to correlate these criteria with the protection needed for children.; Rather than delay dynamic testing until this work is completed however, the NHTSA plans to propose interim dynamic tests using other performance criteria which are presently being developed through research at the University of Michigan. We are also sponsoring other research on the problem of the development of realistic child dummies. Another problem in the development of a dynamic test for child seating systems, or any other performance requirements for them, is that the performance of the child seat is in large measure dependent upon the design and construction of the vehicle in which it is placed. Because manufacturers can market these devices economically only if they are suitable for large numbers of vehicles, an endless number of variables occur, with a resultant difficulty in prescribing reasonable 'worst case' test conditions.; We are presently working to provide answers to these questions, and ar hopeful that the research projects presently under way will provide data in the near future on which we can proceed. You mention that you will be submitting to us a petition for rulemaking regarding the standard. We request that you also submit to us any data which might assist us in solving these problems.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator

ID: nht95-6.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1995

FROM: Karen Coffey -- Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KAREN COFFEY (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

At the suggestion of Mr. Ed Glancy in your office. I am writing to request guidance from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on a particular situation which has arisen in Texas. According to Mr. Glancy, since this type of question has not been addressed by NHTSA, a written request for an opinion is necessary.

Specifically, a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable.

The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor on the automatic seat belt in lieu of repairing the motor so that the vehicle's battery will not run down. The repair of the seat belt motor is estimated to cost approximately $ 500 and the repair is not covered by the manufacturer's warranty, as it is a 1990 model vehicle with over 64,000 miles on the odometer. The seat belt may still be connected manually if and when the automatic seat belt motor is disconnected.

As you are aware, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

It is my understanding that if an air bag is deployed on a motor vehicle, NHTSA does not require the motor vehicle repairman to replace the air bag because of the above "render inoperative" provision.

In this situation, the automatic seat belt is not functioning as it was originally manufactured nor in accordance with the safety standards; thus, to disconnect the motor cannot, arguably, render inoperative what is already malfunctioning.

If the dealership disconnects the motor on the automatic seat belt, according to NHTSA, will the dealership be in violation of the "render inoperative" provision, cited above, or of any other federal standard or regulation?

As you can well understand, this situation is one in which I would appreciate your opinion as soon as possible as the consumer is anxious and in need of his/her motor vehicle.

If you need additional information or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 512-476-2686.

ID: nht95-3.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1995

FROM: Karen Coffey -- Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KAREN COFFEY (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

At the suggestion of Mr. Ed Glancy in your office. I am writing to request guidance from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on a particular situation which has arisen in Texas. According to Mr. Glancy, since this type of ques tion has not been addressed by NHTSA, a written request for an opinion is necessary.

Specifically, a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run dow n, rendering the vehicle inoperable.

The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor on the automatic seat belt in lieu of repairing the motor so that the vehicle's battery will not run down. The repair of the seat belt motor is estimated to cost approximately $ 500 and the repair is not covered by the manufacturer's warranty, as it is a 1990 model vehicle with over 64,000 miles on the odometer. The seat belt may still be connected manually if and when the automatic seat belt motor is disconnected.

As you are aware, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an appli cable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

It is my understanding that if an air bag is deployed on a motor vehicle, NHTSA does not require the motor vehicle repairman to replace the air bag because of the above "render inoperative" provision.

In this situation, the automatic seat belt is not functioning as it was originally manufactured nor in accordance with the safety standards; thus, to disconnect the motor cannot, arguably, render inoperative what is already malfunctioning.

If the dealership disconnects the motor on the automatic seat belt, according to NHTSA, will the dealership be in violation of the "render inoperative" provision, cited above, or of any other federal standard or regulation?

As you can well understand, this situation is one in which I would appreciate your opinion as soon as possible as the consumer is anxious and in need of his/her motor vehicle.

If you need additional information or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 512-476-2686.

ID: nht81-3.23

DATE: 10/09/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jellybean Express

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 9, 1981, concerning the Federal flammability requirements applicable to seat covers for child restraints. As explained below, if the seat cover is sold as an item of original equipment on a child restraint system, it must meet the flammability requirements of Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. If the seat cover is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment, it is not covered by the standard. However, we would urge you to consider voluntarily complying with the standard.

Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), sets performance requirements for child restraints as pieces of motor vehicle equipment. Section 5.7 of the standard provides that, "Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of Safety Standard No. 302 (S571.302)." Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, provides that when tested under specified conditions, material may not have a burn rate of more than 4 inches per minute (copy enclosed). Thus, if your seat cover is sold as a component on a new child restraint, that child restraint must comply with the requirements of S5.7 of Standard No. 213. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392 et seq., copy enclosed), manufacturers have the responsibility of certifying that they comply with all applicable standards. The agency does not grant prior approval or conduct tests to support a manufacturer's certification. Therefore, I am returning the sample of your seat cover.

Although Standard No. 213 only covers the manufacture of items of original equipment in child restraints, sale of your seat cover as an item of aftermarket equipment is indirectly affected by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Thus, none of the persons mentioned could not knowingly install your seat cover on a used child restraint if it renders inoperative the restraint system's compliance with Standard No. 213. However, the prohibitions of the Act and the standard do not cover sale of your cover as an aftermarket device nor its installation solely by the vehicle or equipment owner.

Regardless of whether your seat cover must comply with Standard No. 213, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you have defect responsibilities under sections 151 et seq. of the Act. Those sections provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of safety-related defects in their products and remedy those defects free of charge. If your covers are highly flammable, this could be regarded as a safety-related defect.

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

ENCLS.

(Illegible Word) EXPRESS

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

Sept. 9, 1981

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writting per instructions of the Department of Transportation in San Francisco, CA, Mr. Joe Zemaitis.

We are a business in Sacramento California manufacturing childrens wear and accessories. One of the items we manufacture is a seat cover for childrens car seats. The Department of Consumer Affairs and Department of Transportation have determined that we do not need a special license to manufacture this item but we do need a determination as to the fire proofing requirements.

Mr. Zemaitis suggested that we write to you to request this determination. I have enclosed a sample of our product. Please tell us as soon as possible if we have to meet any fireproofing requirements and if we have to have it noted anywhere that this product meets Federal Fireproof standards.

Your expedious reply would be greatly appreciated as we have orders for our product and would not like to break any laws by putting something out on the market that is unsafe.

Fran Anderson Business Manager

ATTACHS.

ID: aiam5265

"Dear Mr. Hachiya: This responds to your letter of October 12, 1993 asking several questions concerning the labeling requirements of the recent final rule mandating the installation of air bags in passenger cars and light trucks (58 FR 46551, September 2, 1993). Your questions concern the labeling requirements in this final rule. As you may know, NHTSA has received two petitions for reconsideration of the September 2 final rule. The petitions raise issues concerning the labeling requirements. We will address your first, second, and fourth questions in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration. Your other questions and the response to each follow. The mandatory air bag rule establishes type size and format requirements for the air bag maintenance label (section 4.5.1(a)), but no similar requirements for the air bag warning label in section 4.5.1(b). Are we correct in understanding that the lettering of the warning label may be of any size or format, so long as the letters are legible? May different type size and formats be used if the two labels are combined? You are correct that there are not any size requirements for the air bag warning label. Therefore, so long as the information on the label is legible, the lettering may be of any size. It is unclear what you mean by format, but the warning label must contain the exact words, in the exact order, as specified in section 4.5.1(b). The issue of combining warning and maintenance labels will be addressed in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration. It is our understanding that warning labels that do not refer to air bags or seat belts may continue to be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite from the air bag warning label. Nissan currently places a label on the sun visor of a convertible model which provides instructions regarding the use of the convertible top. May this type of label continue to be placed on the sun visor, so long as it is on the side of the visor opposite from the air bag warning label? Section S4.5.1(b)(2) specifies (1) that no other information shall be on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that no other information concerning air bags or seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Therefore, you are correct that information concerning the operation of a convertible top could be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite the side with the air bag warning label. 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";

ID: nht76-5.51

DATE: 03/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - New York

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 20, 1976, question whether this agency considers Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, preemptive of New York State law or regulations mandating a 28-inch-high seat back and armrests for school bus passenger seating. Section 103(d) provides (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)):

@ 103

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this 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 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.

Standard No. 222 specifies a formula for minimum seat back height that necessitates a height of at least 20 inches. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 20 inches, is preempted under @ 103(d).

The second sentence of @ 103(d) 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. Thus, New York State or its political subdivisions could specify a seat back height higher than 20 inches in the case of public school buses. 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. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.

There are presently no requirements in Standard No. 222 dealing with armrests on school bus passenger seating. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standards on school bus seating performance were intended generally to cover this aspect of performance, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV 574-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F. 2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that the requirement for armrests by New York State does not conflict with or otherwise impair our present regulation of school bus passenger seating, and that armrests are not within the intended scope of the present Federal safety standards. Therefore, Standard No. 222 is not preemptive of the New York State regulation of armrests.

YOURS TRULY,

February 20, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In 1974 the New York State Legislature enacted a law that specified that all seats in school buses having a capacity of more than 11 passengers would have to be 28 inches high effective January 1, 1976. Recently the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced the adoption of a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222 identified as School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and identified it as Section 751.222 of Part 751 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to become effective October 26, 1976, which specifies under S5.1.2 that the seat back height must be 20 inches.

It has been called to our attention that under Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect no state or political subdivision shall have any authority, either to establish or 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. To date we have had differing opinions from representatives of the Federal Department of Transportation as to how we are to interpret this clause. So that we may set the records straight, we would like an official determination from your agency as to whether or not New York State can legally retain the requirement of 28 inch high back seats once the Federal standard dealing with seat back heights becomes effective on October 26, 1976.

Although not specifically addressed in the section dealing with school bus passenger seating and crash protection, we would also like to know whether or not an additional requirement in New York dealing with armrests on all seats in school buses having a seating capacity of more than 11 persons would be considered contrary to the standard. Since the standard does not include provision for armrests, it is possible to interpret it as meaning that armrests are not allowed.

Should you have any question as to what we are attempting to resolve, please feel free to call me on Phone # A.C. 518 - 457-1010, and we would hope to hear from you in the near future as to your reaction to our questions. You can address your reply to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, Traffic and Safety Division, Department of Transportation, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12232.

WILLIAM G. GALLOWAY, Director Traffic and Safety Division

By

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ID: nht93-7.49

DATE: November 3, 1993

FROM: Leo Chung -- Operational Services, Genstar Container Corporation

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Trailer Conspicuity Requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard no. 108: Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/29/93 from John Womack to Leo Chung (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are one of the worldwide container leasing companies and I am writing to request any further interpretations of the captioned requirement which concerns our U.S. container chassis equipment operation due to the information we received from various sources giving different interpretations on the application of the side horizontal strip of conspicuity marking over 50% of the trailer length.

In order to comply with the law, please kindly clarify the actual definition of the trailer length and how the 50% computation applies to our container chassis because there are chances that this equipment will be running around with NO container being carried on top. Therefore, shall the gooseneck be included in the 50% computation and the length be the OVERALL length? (ie. measure from the very end point of one end to another)

Look forward to hearing from you soonest.

ID: aiam1327

Dear Mr. Rich: Confirming our recent conversation: No Federal motor vehicle safet standard regulates the straightening and subsequent sale of motor vehicle wheels.; Our regulations are applicable to the manufacture and sale of new moto vehicle and motor vehicle equipment only up to the point of their first sale for purposes other than resale. I assume that straightened wheels are used equipment that has been reworked, and as such they would not be subject to any standard unless they were placed on new vehicles as original equipment. There is a standard, No. 110, that applies to passenger cars, requiring the wheel rims to meet the rim manufacturer's specified rim dimensions and to retain a tire which loses all pressure at 60 miles per hour.; A regulation applying directly to wheels is under consideration, but i would still apply only to new equipment and vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel