ID: aiam0620

Dear Mr. Danker: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1972, in which you lis information you wish to label on child seats you will manufacture, and ask whether the information as presented will comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. You state that a label containing the model number, date of manufacture, and the company's name and place of business will be permanently affixed to the product, while a separate legend, containing other information, will be molded on the bottom of the seat in raised letters at least 3/32 inches high.; The labeling scheme you with to use would conform to paragraph S4. ('Labeling') of Standard No. 213, providing, of course, the blank spaces for model number and date of manufacture are appropriately filled in. We would suggest, however, that that part of the molded legend beginning '. . . and there is a minimum of 19 inches vertical clearance between this seating . . .', to the end of that provision be simplified to be more understandable to an ordinary consumer.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5438

"Dear Mr. Frink: This responds to your letter and telephone call askin several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206). Your letter stated that your company manufactures a door and frame system designed for installation on a 'recreational motor home,' which you described as a self-propelled, self-contained recreational vehicle seating six and with a gross vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds. The door system is installed on the right front side of the vehicle and is the primary means of ingress/egress. You stated that the door's latch/striker assembly is purchased from Tri-Mark Corporation, and that Tri-Mark assures you that the latch/striker assembly conforms to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. You ask what the classification of the vehicle would be and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply to the door in question. By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The statute establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency ensures compliance by purchasing vehicles and/or equipment in the retail market and testing them as set forth in the applicable standards. If the vehicle or equipment is found to meet the requirements of the standards, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or equipment fails to meet the standards, the manufacturer is responsible for correcting the noncompliance(s) at no cost to the purchaser. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the defect free of charge. For the purposes of the FMVSSs, NHTSA classifies motor vehicles as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers. From your description, the vehicle concerned would be classified as an MPV, which is defined in the definitions section of our FMVSSs (49 CFR 571.3, see enclosed) as a motor vehicle 'designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' You first ask about the classification of the vehicle and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply. FMVSS No. 206 (copy enclosed) applies to passenger cars, MPVs and trucks. Since the vehicle on which your door and frame system will be installed is an MPV, the standard would apply to the vehicle. The standard requires that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, components on any side door leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating accommodations must comply with the requirements of the standard (see S4 of FMVSS No. 206). The door in question meets this description of S4. According to your letter, there is a step area extending from the door opening into the coach and the passenger seat closest to the door is behind this step area. The presence of the step area does not negate the fact that the door in question leads directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Thus, the components of the door must comply with the requirements of FMVSS 206. To clarify your understanding of the applicability of FMVSS No. 206, the standard applies to new completed vehicles. Therefore, it would be the vehicle manufacturer who would 'certify' compliance with the standard, not the various manufacturers of the components of the door lock system. Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer will rely on the assurances of the suppliers, such as Avionic and Tri-Mark, that the components conform to the requirements of the applicable standards, in making the certification to FMVSS No. 206. However, the vehicle manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 206, and therefore must determine whether those assurances are bona fide. Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets issued by this agency entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment' and 'Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations,' respectively. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need any additional information or have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4382

Dear Mr. Shimamura: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standar No. 101, *Controls and Displays*. You described a proposed integrated steering column/dashboard display and asked whether controls mounted on such a unit must be illuminated. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states that '(e)xcept fo foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console, or steering column, or in the windshield area, the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control . . . shall be illuminated . . . .'; The primary issue raised by your letter is whether the controls mounte on your proposed steering column/dashboard display come within section S5.3.1's exception for controls mounted upon the steering column and therefore need not be illuminated. You described your proposed design as follows:; >>>'. . . In addition to the usual plastic trim molding that currentl enclosed the steering column between the instrument panel and the actual steering wheel, the new design adds an integrated upper section accommodating the vehicle's gauges and displays (such as speedometer and tachometer). The upper section is completely integrated into the lower, usual column trim molding and the unit is a single molded part.; 'Several controls are to be placed on the upper section. The tur signal and automatic speed control are to be mounted on the front face. The master lighting switch and wiping system controls will be positioned on either side of the upper section. The hazard warning control will be at the base on the upper section and on top of the lower column. . . .'<<<; A drawing enclosed with a subsequent letter indicates that the uppe section described above is mounted by brackets onto the energy absorbing shaft, below the steering wheel and above the pivot used to adjust the steering wheel. Thus, as the steering wheel is adjusted, the upper section is also adjusted, maintaining the same relative position to the steering wheel.; You suggest that the proposed integrated unit can be considered to be 'steering column,' citing the definition of that term used in Standard No. 204. We note that Standard No. 204's definition of 'steering column' does not apply to Standard No. 101. Moreover, the upper section itself need not be considered a steering column in order to come within Standard No. 101's exception. IN a Federal Register notice published on May 4, 1971, NHTSA stated the following about similar language in an earlier version of Standard No. 101:; >>>Ford has asked whether steering-wheel- mounted controls are exemp from illumination requirements. Since the steering wheel itself is mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls extends to those mounted on the steering wheel as well. 36 FR 8297, Mary 4, 1971.<<<; Since the upper section in your proposed design is, at the least mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls extends to those mounted on the upper section as well. Therefore, controls mounted on the upper section need not be illuminated. We note that it is unnecessary for us to reach a determination of whether the upper section can be considered to be a steering column for purposes of Standard No. 101.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-4.36

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Takata Kojyo's ctober 1, 1975, questions whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly with non-detachable shoulder belt (1) may be labeled in accordance with S4.1(k) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, in only one location on either the upper torso or pelvic portion (A-I), (2) must be submitted (with the labeling modification) to a test laboratory or other facility as the basis for continued certification to the standard (A-II), (3) must be retested after a change is made to webbing length as the basis for continued certification to the standard (B-I), and (4), if testing is not required, must be submitted to a test laboratory or other facility as the basis for continued certification to the standard (B-II).

One label on either portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly with non-detachable shoulder belt may be used to satisfy the requirement of S4.1(k) of Standard No. 209.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires manufacturers, to produce products covered by standards in compliance with those standards, as set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and to certify the products. It leaves the choice of testing methods up to the manufacturers. The NHTSA does not require retesting or submission to test laboratories as a basis for certification. A company like yours is free to choose any method that assures you that your products will conform if they are tested by the NHTSA as specified in the standard. This may take the form of tests, engineering calculations, or other means necessary to provide this assurance.

The answers given above pertain only to the Federal requirements for seat belts. It may be necessary to contact other regulatory authorities as to the effect of these changes under their regulations.

SINCERELY,

TAKATA KOJYO CO., LTD.

October 1, 1975

Frank A. Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

Re: Questions of alternation of labelling and webbing length on a safety seat belt assembly

We would like to appreciate sincerely for your previous kind and fine response to our questions of July 29, 1975.

We are very sorry to trouble you again but here are second times our questions underneath as follows referring the caption. So we shall be very pleased if you could let us have your instructions responsive to them.

(A) As you see and can realize a sketch in the figure attached here, in present system of a Type II seat belt assembly where both sections of webbing restraining upper torso and pelvic are sewed together with a tongue to result in no releasing of it from them, each of fabric labels indicating date of production, maker name, model expression and so on is stitched respectively on the torso section and pelvic section of webbing.

Our questions

(A-1) Can it be permitted that any one of above two fabric labels is deleted (for example; One for upper torso section will be expected)?

(A-2) In present usual case, we have been submitted from U.S.T.C. the test approval on a seat belt assembly attached with two labels. Even if above (A-1) is realized, are we required to submit new sample to the authorizer of U.S.T.C. and AAMVA (American Association of Moter Vehicle administrators in each State) in advance?

(B) In the case that in connection with the above seat belt assembly, we wish to alter the webbing length on it,

(B-1) Are we required to take a new approval test additionally for the assembly sample provided with altered length of webbing?

(B-2) If no new approval test be required at above (B-1), can we be permitted to do it only with submitting the new altered sample to the test authorizer of U.S.T.C., E.T.L. or so on?

ALTERATION we wish:

FROM:

TO:

upper torso restraint webbing, 1130+/- 5(Illegible) mm no change pelvic restraint webbing, 1100+/- 5(Illegible) mm 1130+/-5(Illegible) mm

We would be very happy to have your yes or no in so earlier time you could.

Mitsuru Masada

October 1, 1975 75-TD-424 attached to,

(Graphics ommitted)

ID: aiam3101

Dear Mr. Ogata: This responds to your recent letter concerning the labelin requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You ask whether the brand name of your vehicles, 'Mazda', may be dropped from the label on your seat belts.; The answer to your question is yes. Paragraph S4.1(k) of Safet Standard No. 209 requires the seat belt label to include year of manufacture of the assembly, model name or number of the assembly, and trade-mark of manufacturer or distributor. The name of the vehicle on which the assembly will be installed is not required to be on the seat belt assembly label.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MARCIA M. AVIS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/03/89 FROM MARCIA M. AVIS -- M. AVIS CO TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, OCC 3509

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this agency asking about Federal regulations that apply to "an accessory seat pad" for booster seats and child restraint systems. I regret the delay in responding.

Your letter describes your product as a fabric seat cushion which is intended to provide comfort and head support to a child when the child is sleeping in the restraint system. You state that the cushion would be "held in place" on the seat with "the st rap system inherent to the booster seat along with the weight of the child on the seat."

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for child restraint systems (Standard No. 213) applies only to new systems and not to aftermarket compo nents of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket seat-pad.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the seat-pad. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of m otor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes tho se responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your seat-pads contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If your product would be installed by commercial businesses instead of child seat owners, those businesses would have to do so in a manner consistent with section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The provision states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or m otor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . 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 , this provision prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers or

motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from installing your seat-pad if the addition of your product would neg atively affect the compliance of a child restraint with Standard 213 and if the installing business were aware of that effect.

There are elements of design incorporated in a child restraint system pursuant to Standard 213 that may be affected by installation of a seat-pad. For example, Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child rest raint system. (See paragraph S5.7 of Standard 213, referencing Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed).) Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with FMVSS No. 213. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

In addition, Standard 213 sets crash protection requirements for all new child restraint systems. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat-pad has provision for passing the belt systems of a child restraint around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would likely be regarded as having knowingly r endered inoperative a Federally required element of design in child restraint systems, in violation of @ 108 (a)(2)(A).

The prohibitions of @ 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Nevertheless, this agency urges you to voluntarily ensure that your seat-pad would not r ender inoperative the crash protection and flammability resistance of any child restraint.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Enclosure

ID: aiam5393

"Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your letter asking for ou concurrence that 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts a 'California flammability standard' as that standard applies to child restraint systems. The standard you enclosed is California Business and Professions Code, Division 8, Chapter 3, 19006 and 19161. I apologize for the delay in this response. Because it was not readily apparent from your letter that the California flammability standard applies to child restraint systems, Ms. Fujita of my staff contacted California state officials for more information about the standard. We were informed by Mr. Art Anderson, Chief of the California Highway Safety Office, that California does not have a flammability standard for child restraint systems. Mr. Anderson was aware that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302 applies to child restraints by way of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems.' As you point out, Federal preemption issues would arise if California had a flammability standard for child restraint systems that covered the same aspect of performance as FMVSSs 213 and 302. However, in view of Mr. Anderson's statement that California has no flammability standard for child restraint systems, we need not address those issues today. We hope this information is helpful. Mr. Anderson of the California Highway Safety Office (telephone (916) 445-0527) said he will be happy to answer any questions you might have about California's requirements. If you any further questions about 103(d), please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Art Anderson";

ID: nht68-1.18

DATE: 07/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Blaw-Knox Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your May 6, 1968, letter to the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau concerning lighting and certification requirements on your concrete mixers.

Providing the combination rear clearance and side narear lamps meet the requirements for both as specified in SAE Standard J992b, April 1964 the lamps and reflectors shown on your drawing C-8450-911 dated April 3, 1968, and Service Bulletin 533 dated April 10, 1968, appear to be in fonformance with the requirements of Standard No. 103. With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approval 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 Standard No. 103.

Bules regarding classic-cabs and certification requirements which have been published in the Federal Register are enclosed for your reference. Please note that in order to comply with the certification requirements, we need the following additional information from you:

1. The locating on the vehicle at which the certification label or tag will be placed.

2. An actual sample certification label or tag.

3. The means by which the certification label or tag will be attached, e.g., wole, rivet, serev, or achoaive.

This information should is sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Dureon, Washington, D.C. 23591 to the attention of Mr. Joseph R. O'Corman, Acting Director, Office of Performance Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service.

ID: nht72-3.4

DATE: 02/16/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Alabama Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: 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 have 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 that 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 asks whether exposure of cord that has 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 is 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, as 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.

ID: nht92-2.15

DATE: 11/20/92

FROM: O. SCHMIDT -- HELLA KG HUECK & CO.

TO: RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE -- VISIBILITY AND CONTROLS GROUP, NHTSA

TITLE: REPLACEABILITY OF LIGHT SOURCES OF CENTER HIGH MOUNTED STOP LAMPS (CHMSL)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-11-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO O. SCHMIDT (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: Since the introduction of CHMSL in 1985 it seems to be state-of-the-art in using non-replaceable light sources for CHMSL, so that in case of a failure the entire unit or the bulb carrier of devices with a number of light sources has to be replaced.

Could you please confirm that the wording of paragraph S 5.1.1.27 in subpara. (a)(5) and (b)(4) does not exclude the practice of using sealed lamps described in para. S 5.1.1.17, which is less expensive, especially in cases where long life light sources like long life bulbs, LED's and neon tubes are provided.

From our point of view the requirement in S 5.1.1.27(a)(5) and (b)(4) concerning the simple bulb replacement can be extended to the complete unit or bulb carrier, whatever the design of a CHMSL may be.

Many thanks for your interest.