ID: 18265-a.wkm

Mr. Alan S. Greenberg
President
Worldwide Machinery
16-31 East Freeway
Channelview, TX 77530

Dear Mr. Greenberg:

Reference is made to your letter to this office in which you enclosed a picture of your Standing Water Tank and argured that it is exempt from the antilock brake system, or ABS, requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121). You stated that your trailer is exempt by virtue of "Exception (f)" of the standard.

We assume that you are referring to paragraph S3(f) of Standard No. 121, which excludes from application of the standard "[A]ny trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR." The term "gross vehicle weight rating," or GVWR, is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(a) as "[T]he value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle" (emphasis added). Therefore, the loaded weight of your tank/trailer assembly would presumably be its weight when filled with water to its nominal tank capacity.

Before we can determine whether your water tank/trailer assembly meets the exclusion of paragraph S3(f), we must know the GVWR that you have assigned to it as well as its empty weight. Is your water tank transported either partially or fully loaded with water, or is it transported empty? If transported empty, what feature in the tank or trailer design prevents a user from transporting the tank fully loaded with water? Is your standing water tank used for other purposes, such as to provide potable water in disaster areas? If so, is it transported to such sites either partially or fully loaded with water?

We have tried repeatedly to contact you by telephone to obtain this information, but have been unable to do so. If you will provide us the information requested above, we will expedite a response to you so that this matter can be resolved. My staff point of contact is Walter Myers, who can be reached at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.4/8/99

ID: nht74-1.26

DATE: 05/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mazda; Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 9, 1974, requesting an interpretation of the test procedure specified in Standard No. 301 (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2) concerning the operation of the vehicle's fuel pump during testing.

Paragraph S7.1.3 of the standard requires that electrically driven fuel pumps be in operation during the barrier crash tests if they normally operate with the activation of the vehicle's electrical system. If the pump is incapable of functioning with the independent activation of the electrical system and requires the operation of the vehicle's engine, then the pump should not be running during the barrier crash tests.

Based upon the description you provide in your letter, it appears that you should conduct your barrier crash testing without operating the fuel pump.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

May 9, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Re: MVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity

In section 7.1.3 of Docket 73-20; Notice 2, we can find, "If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump, that normally runs when the vehicles electrical system is activated, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash."

The underline was added to the Docket 73-20; Notice 1.

Although we feel NHTSA has granted our attached comments on February 8, 1974, hereby we confirm it again.

Our electrical fuel pump works only when the engine runs, and usually does not work when the ignition is in "on" position except that the engine works. In other words, our electrical fuel pump is connected to the engine and there's no relation directly from our electrical system in "on" position. Nevertheless, we will find that the vehicle's electrical system without fuel pump is activated, when the ignition is in "on" position and the engine is not in "running."

Our question is as follows: In the above system, we believe we may test the barrier crash without operating the electrical fuel pump. If its not so, we have to test it with another special connection between battery and fuel pump, "only on test."

Your opinion will be highly appreciated.

Always warmest,

Goro Utsanomiya -- Branch Manager, TOYO KOGYO U.S.A. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

cc: Mr. Williams; Mr. Makino

February 8, 1974

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Although the comment closing date is already over, we would like to submit the following comment, because we have a new problem by further review.

It would be appreciated if you consider this comment.

Sincerely yours,

Gorou Utsunomiya -- Branch Manager,

TOYO KOGYO U.S.A. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

cc: R. N. Williams

enc.

DOCKET 73-20, NOTICE NO. 1

COMMENTS OF TOYO KOGYO CO., LTD. ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY PASSENGER CARS, MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES TRUCKS AND BUSES (OF 10,000 GVWR OR LESS)

Comment

"S.7.1.4 - If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash test" should read as, "S.7.1.4 Ignition switch is at "On" position at the time of barrier crash tests."

Discussion

As you know, electrically driven fuel pumps are used on many cars. As far as we assume, this S 7.1.4 is established so as to minimize possibility of fire at the crash accident because electrical pump will keep working as long as ignition switch is at "On" position.

However, if we develop a system where the electrical fuel pump stops at the moment of impact in spite of ignition switch being in "On" position, this possibility will no longer exist.

As long as S 7.1.4 exists, we have to make the pump work by other means, such as direct connection between battery and pump, when we conduct a compliance test, and this S 7.1.4 will close the way of possibly developing a new safety device. We think that this situation is far apart from the actual one and this test is impractical.

Judging from the fact that there is no requirement, "Mechanical fuel pump is operating", we think S 7.1.4 can be changed. Needless to say, we recognize that we should minimize the possibility of a fire with electrical pumps. We would suggest S 7.1.4 should read, "Ignition switch is at "On" position.

ID: 18967.ogm

Daniel J. Selke, Manager
Safety Engineering
Mercedes Benz of North America
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Re: Extended Length Seat Belt Request

Dear Mr. Selke:

This is in response to your letter regarding your company's inquiry as to whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would exercise its enforcement discretion and not institute enforcement proceedings with respect to a special seat belt installation for an overly large customer who had a 300 millimeter seat belt extension installed on a 1998 model year ML 320. You correctly observe that a letter dated March 10, 1993, from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel of NHTSA, to Mr. Thomas Baloga of Mercedes-Benz of North America, indicated that in regard to the installation of extended seat belts for particularly large persons, NHTSA would consider certain violations of Safety Act provisions as purely technical ones justified by public need and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. You also note that the letter requested that NHTSA be notified of each such special seat belt installation.

We acknowledge receipt of your letter and that Mercedes-Benz of North America has provided the agency with notice of this extended seat belt installation. We note that the materials provided indicate that the standard belt provided with this vehicle was too short to allow the purchaser to fasten the belt. We would also like to reiterate our earlier statement contained in the March 10, 1993, letter that if Mercedes-Benz wanted to provide extra long seat belts on a routine basis, that the agency would expect it to provide a design that fully complies with Standard No. 209.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.4/30/99

ID: nht81-1.50

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Aston Martin Lagonda, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. R. Goldsmith Certification Engineer Safety and Emissions Department Aston Martin Lagonda, Ltd. Tickford Street, Newport Pagnell Buckinghamshire MK 16 9AN

Dear Mr. Goldsmith

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. F. Berndt, Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington D.C. 20590, U.S.A. 11th December, 1980

Dear Mr. Berndt, Vehicle Identification Numbers

Thank you for your letter of 18th November, in which you indicate that Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) deciphering information is made available to the public. I would like to point out that only the brake horse power (BHP) data is confidential, not all the engine type information.

However, as you suggest, I have reviewed the engine type information by deleting the BHP data, and adding the vehicle make, model and manufacturer's name.

None of the information in the VIN decipher is now confidential but complete vehicle identification is readily available. Thus please find enclosed herewith the Aston Martin Lagonda resubmission of the VIN constructed to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.

Yours sincerely,

R. Goldsmith Certification Engineer Safety and Emissions Department

RG/JL

copy Aston Martin Lagonda Inc., U.S.A.

ID: nht90-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/90

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

TO: TRACEY POWELL -- LEGISLATIVE COORDINATOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 14, 1989 TO STEPHEN WOOD, NHTSA, FROM TRACEY POWELL, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION, [OCC-4154] AND LETTER DATED AUGUST 3, 1989 TO TRACEY POWELL FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT, MARYLAND DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ATTACHED.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1989, with respect to existing prohibitions in some States against the use of modulating headlamps on motorcycles. The apparent basis of the prohibition is that flashing lamps are generally reserved for em ergency vehicles. You point out the distinction that Standard No. 108 makes between the two types of headlamps, and ask our "assistance in attaining uniform recognition of the legal use of modulating headlights through the United States . . . ."

As you note, there is a legal distinction in Standard No. 108 between a modulating headlamp (one that goes from a higher to a lower intensity within either the upper or lower beam) and a flashing one (one that goes from either the upper or lower beam to off). Further, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 108 provides that "A headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate." The authority of States to regulate this aspect of motorcycle lighting is constrained by section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Mo tor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). This section provides in pertinent part that:

[whenever] a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State . . . shall have any authority either to extablish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard."

The effect of this provision of the Safety Act with respect to lighting is to expressly prohibit a State from enacting a law that forbids a manufacturer from installing headlamp modulators on motorcycles.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

ID: 2810o

#

Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 18881 U.S. 31 North Westfield, IN 46074

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Specifically, you noted that a July 5, 1988 final rule (53 FR 25337) requires that the safety belt systems on heavy trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 must comply with S7.2 of Standard No. 208. S7.2(c) requires the latch mechanism on safety belts to "release at a single point by a pushbutton action."

Your company's comments on the proposal to adopt this requirement stated that you supported the proposal, but assumed that the requirement for a push button release would permit the continued use of slide button releases. In the preamble to the final rule, the agency responded to your comment as follows:

Some releases that comply with the requirements of S7.2(c) could be described as "slide-button releases." On the other hand, some designs that could be described as "slide-button releases' would not comply with S7.2(c), because they would not release by a "pushbutton action." If IMMI is uncertain whether the release machanism that it called a 'slide-button release" complies with the requirements of S7.2(c), it should request an interpretation of that section with respect to its release mechanism, and enclose pictures and diagrams of the release mechanism with the request for interpretation. 53 FR 25341.

In response to this invitation, you enclosed a photograph of several different safety belt buckles. You stated that the release button on these buckles moves parallel to the plane of the webbing and tongue, and that the buckle is mounted vertically and the button moves vertically when the occupant pushes it. Based on your description and the enclosed photograph, it appears that these buckle designs would comply with the requirement of S7.2(c) for release by a "pushbutton action."

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208

/NCC-20:SKratzke:mar:62992:8/25/88 OCC 2363, Wang # 2810o cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 SK, NRM-01, NEF-01 Interps: Std 208, Redbook (2)

ID: malone.ztv

Daniel P. Malone
Butzel Long
150 W. Jefferson Ave.
Suite 900
Detroit, MI 48226

Dear Mr. Malone:

This is in reply to your e-mail of June 20, 2003, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking about the early warning reporting (EWR) responsibilities of seat manufacturers that supply integrated child seat systems.

Your question arises from a statement in the preamble to the EWR final rule, which remarked:

"In the final rule, we have decided to reduce the burden upon light vehicle manufacturers by not requiring separate reports involving integrated child seat systems (which are now included in the definition of seats) . . . ."
(67 FR at 45858)

You have asked whether "this comment regarding integrated child seat systems eliminates any responsibility of seat manufacturers [under] EWR as a child restraint system manufacturer for those products." The answer is no. This comment relates to the reporting responsibilities of manufacturers of light vehicles. The proposed rule would have had these manufacturers reporting separately for integrated child restraint systems (Code 08) and for seats (Code 17) (see 66 FR at 66222). In the final rule, as the preamble indicated, reports of light vehicle manufacturers involving integrated child seat systems are to be included as a report for seats (Code 22). As a manufacturer of original equipment, a manufacturer of seats with integrated child seat systems remains subject to the reporting requirements of 49 CFR 579.27, which oblige it to report to NHTSA any claims or notices involving death that relate to its product.

Your second question was "for purposes of EWR, does that comment clarify that integrated child seat systems are to be considered as 'seats' and not child restraint systems."The answer is yes.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
7/2/03

ID: malone_new.ztv

Daniel P. Malone
Butzel Long
150 W. Jefferson Ave.
Suite 900
Detroit, MI 48226

Dear Mr. Malone:

This is in reply to your e-mail of June 20, 2003, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking about the early warning reporting (EWR) responsibilities of seat manufacturers that supply integrated child seat systems.

Your question arises from a statement in the preamble to the EWR final rule, which remarked:

"In the final rule, we have decided to reduce the burden upon light vehicle manufacturers by not requiring separate reports involving integrated child seat systems (which are now included in the definition of seats) . . . ."
(67 FR at 45858)

You have asked whether "this comment regarding integrated child seat systems eliminates any responsibility of seat manufacturers [under] EWR as a child restraint system manufacturer for those products." The answer is no. This comment relates to the reporting responsibilities of manufacturers of light vehicles. The proposed rule would have had these manufacturers reporting separately for integrated child restraint systems (Code 08) and for seats (Code 17) (see 66 FR at 66222). In the final rule, as the preamble indicated, reports of light vehicle manufacturers involving integrated child seat systems are to be included as a report for seats (Code 22). As a manufacturer of original equipment, a manufacturer of seats with integrated child seat systems remains subject to the reporting requirements of 49 CFR 579.27, which oblige it to report to NHTSA any claims or notices involving death that relate to its product.

Your second question was "for purposes of EWR, does that comment clarify that integrated child seat systems are to be considered as 'seats' and not child restraint systems."The answer is yes.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:579
d.7/2/03

ID: nht68-3.50

DATE: 08/05/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Kawasaki Motorcycle Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 21, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning the mounting of the front side reflex reflector on motorcycles.

Mounting the front side reflex reflectors just below or immediately ahead of the front of the fuel tank, as shown in the brochures on your models C2TR. and F3, appears to satisfactorily meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The front side reflex reflectors shown in the brochure on your model W2TT do not appear to be located as for forward as practicable. A location corresponding to that shown for models C2TR and F3 also appears practicable for the model W2TT.

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 comments are for your information only and in the way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

ID: 1982-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1982

FROM: LINDA ANDERSON

TO: STEVEN OESCH-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MARCH 18, 1983 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO ANDERSON

TEXT: We have had two telephone conversations reviewing the regulations regarding child restraint seats as it pertains to the construction and testing of a play tray.

I have shared information with my partner, Laura Warren, and we have, of course, more questions in pursuing our goal of designing a safe play table for children secured in automobile restraint seats:

1. You have helpfully shared information regarding the individual from Strolee who pursued the same goal. What we are now questioning is whether Strolee, Inc., or Mr. Halper, did in fact have their play tray tested? Or did your letter to Mr. Halper end communication between Strolee and N.H.T.S.A.?

2. Would you have any other details considered public domain which might help us locate a patent on the Strolee tray?

3. One of our plans for a play tray would involve using velcro fasteners to be secured around the restraint belts covering the child's torso. Therefore, the restraint belts would have to be properly in place on the child before the play table could be fastened to it. Do you see any problem with this design in terms of the regulations, i.e., testing of the play tray? (We are, of course, assuming your discretion in investigating any of the above, since we are protecting our visionary unpatented plans while aiming at designing a safe product.)

4. Do the regulations ever change and what is the process? In my last meeting with my partner, we were looking at several restraint seats and noticed the label specifications glued to the seat explaining proper use of the seat.

Let's assume that a play tray was designed and sold by a source, such as ourselves, obviously unconnected with the large manufacturers of automobile restraint seats. A consumer would recognize that this product purchased separately from the seat was not an "armrest" or "shield" item as those sold by the seat manufacturer for use with the seat. In addition a label properly bonded to the play table could specify that the car seat restraint belts must function as the directions on the car seat itself specify before and during use of the play tray. Wouldn't we then be supporting the aim and goal of the regulations i.e., the proper use of car restraint seats? And in that case the present Regulation S 5.2.2.2., concerning the testing of the play tray or "contractible surface", would be unduly restrictive.

If a suitable regulation or variation applied to our proposed play tray, and similiar non-restraint accessory items, we might then produce a product which would support and enhance the use of the child restraint seat.

I'll be looking forward to your reply and I am grateful for your help so far. I would appreciate having a copy of any written reply sent to Laura Warren at the following address: 17 Byington Place Norwalk, CT C6850

The standards we discussed in our last phone conversation just arrived. Thank you very much.